• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Travel ban upheld

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
The radical RW SC acts again to harm America.

Thanks Hillary for fucking the nation by being so lazy and arrogant.

This makes America more dangerous here and Americans more in danger while they travel.
 
If she had run a decent campaign, this wouldn't have happened.

The nation knew that Trump would enact this bigoted policy if he won.
 
Pretty sure I blame the dumbass rubes what voted for Trump. Or voted for anybody other than Clinton.



...and Putin may get a little blame.


And for the SC, the Republicans are entirely to blame.
 
Truly sad day when the Supreme Court upholds obvious racism and bigotry.
 
I mean the problem is the ever expanding power of the executive branch that needs to be reigned in. This goes for both sides where the powers that allowed this should be curbed by the branch that is suppose to make the fucking laws.
 
We'd all better get used to SC rulings like this. It's one of the primary reasons Evangelicals voted for Trump - so they could stack the SC with social and cultural reactionaries who would turn back the clock on decades of social and civil rights progress in this country. Most of their rulings in the past couple of weeks - on gerrymandering, denying workers the right to work together to challenge violations of labor laws, and now this upholding of the travel ban - clearly show where we're heading with this group. If one of the liberal justices dies or retires before the Dems can regain a Senate majority or the presidency, a great many things that liberals, moderates, and even some Republicans now take for granted, like a woman's right to choose on abortion, will be in serious jeopardy. They're just getting started.
 
If by some miracle the Dems win the Senate, the should block EVERY judicial nominee Trump puts up. They could use the McConnell Policy as precedent.
 
Yep

Obama picked a centrist (I think)—Republicans in Congress blocked him with some pretty horrid behavior.
 
I don't disagree with the concept that the executive has broad discretion under 1182(f), but SCOTUS really just accepts what Donald claims at face value and seemingly gives him the benefit of the doubt. "Well they had meetings about it and asked for some data so it's a legitimate exercise."
 
Kennedy's concurrence is very interesting (sorry for formatting issues - pulled directly from supremecourt.gov)

"There are numerous instances in which the
statements and actions of Government officials are not
subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not
mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution
and the rights it proclaims and protects. The oath that all
officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined
to those spheres in which the Judiciary can correct or even
comment upon what those officials say or do. Indeed, the
very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion
free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more
imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution
and to its meaning and its promise.

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of
religion and promises the free exercise of religion. From
these safeguards, and from the guarantee of freedom of
speech, it follows there is freedom of belief and expression.
It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these
constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions,
even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious
world must know that our Government remains committed
always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve
and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and
lasts"
 
Eat a dick, haters! The decision echoes what Justice ELC said when you phonies were all up-in-arms.

"Plaintiffs’ argument that the President’s entry suspension violates §1152(a)(1)(A) ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA.
Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once §1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility, §1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits
discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits. Had Congress intended in §1152(a)(1)(A) to constrain the President’s power to determine who may enter the country,
it could have chosen language directed to that end. Common sense and historical practice confirm that §1152(a)(1)(A) does not limit the President’s delegated authority under §1182(f). Presidents have
repeatedly exercised their authority to suspend entry on the basis of nationality. And on plaintiffs’ reading, the President would not be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response
to an epidemic, or even if the United States were on the brink of war."

Thinking that 1152 somehow superseded 1182 without, you know, actually expressly eliminating it, is a pipe dream that unfortunately 4 justices were stupid enough to agree with.
 
Sure, but one primary argument was that based on Donald's own words as well as statements by other members of the administration (rather than simply taking the administration's meetings/data gathering at face value) that Donald was not "suspend[ing] entry on the basis of nationality" but instead was using animus/religion as the basis (either of which would presumably be held unconstitutional - the former based on Romer and the latter based on establishment clause grounds). The Court agreed with your interpretation.
 
Last edited:
And no, four justices were not "stupid enough" to agree that 1152 superseded 1182. Section 1152 is literally not referenced a single time in either dissent.

Breyer dissented on the basis that "on balance, find the evidence of
antireligious bias, including statements on a website
taken down only after the President issued the two executive
orders preceding the Proclamation, along with the
other statements also set forth in JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s
opinion, a sufficient basis to set the Proclamation aside."

Sotomayor dissented on the basis that "[the majority's opinion] does little to cleanse Presidential
Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination
that the President’s words have created.
Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer
would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by
anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that
plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment
Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by
ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and
turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation
inflicts upon countless families and individuals,
many of whom are United States citizens."
 
Corey Booker getting out front and center in these protests outside the Supreme Court. Speaking now.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I love when ELC tries to play lawyer. Fucking dingus.
Click to expand...

Ooh, look, another argument that Justice ELC made. This one was one that everybody on this board (except me) overlooked. Granted, it took me a while to notice this otherwise obvious part to 1152:

As an initial matter, this argument challenges only the validity of the entry restrictions on immigrant travel.
Section 1152(a)(1)(A) is expressly limited to the issuance of “immigrant visa” while §1182(f) allows the Presi-
dent to suspend entry of “immigrants or nonimmigrants.” At a minimum, then, plaintiffs’ reading would not affect
any of the limitations on nonimmigrant travel in the Proclamation.
 
Right - this doesn't mean that any of the dissenting justices believe 1152 supersedes 1182 like you posted half an hour ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top