• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they get the Senate and the Presidency in 2020 they should just revive Roosevelt’s court packing plan. The packed courts solve the gerrymandering and campaign finance problems, without which republicans won’t be able to hold off demographic changes resulting in large democratic majorities. Once those are in place hold a constitutional convention to update our democracy for the 21st century and put in stronger protections capable of preventing an authoritarian like Trump, backed by a small minority of Americans, from taking over the country.
 
Middle American whites can sleep well at night now knowing that their kids will less likely be killed by a Muslim terrorist from Chad, but by a Judeo-Christian loser from their school with a vendetta and daddy's AR-15.


Nicely done, rednecks
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
And no, four justices were not "stupid enough" to agree that 1152 superseded 1182.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."
Click to expand...


Oops! Well if I'm mistaken then I guess that will be one less dick you all have to eat from the bag of dicks provided. It also means that if truly none of the other justices found that claim to have merit, then the legal eagles on this board were outvoted 9-0.
 
Oh dear. A blow against everybody making that sad song comparisons to Japanese Internment Camps, Hitler, etc...

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so,
Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of
race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral
policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority
and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an
otherwise valid Proclamation.
 
the guy has a real-life murder for an avatar. you surprised? He's one of the most frightened posters we have.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Oh dear. A blow against everybody making that sad song comparisons to Japanese Internment Camps, Hitler, etc...

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so,
Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of
race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral
policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority
and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an
otherwise valid Proclamation.
Click to expand...

This will not age well. Kudos to Roberts for identifying the issue and distinguishing it from the issue in Korematsu. Somehow I don’t think history is going to give him credit for that given that he went on to bungle the actual issue in front of him just as badly as the justices in Korematsu did.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Oops! Well if I'm mistaken then I guess that will be one less dick you all have to eat from the bag of dicks provided. It also means that if truly none of the other justices found that claim to have merit, then the legal eagles on this board were outvoted 9-0.
Click to expand...

Sotomayor actually didn't reach the statutory question and said that the rule of avoiding constitutional questions is "far from categorical" and that the constitutional question "proves far simpler than the statutory one."
 
This case also sends a dangerous message to all legislators that the right wing of the Supreme Court will tolerate any discrimination it does not personally find repugnant as long as you can put it into facially neutral language. That’s been the case for a while now with the caveat that at least they had to keep quiet about it.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Sotomayor actually didn't reach the statutory question and said that the rule of avoiding constitutional questions is "far from categorical" and that the constitutional question "proves far simpler than the statutory one."
Click to expand...

yeah that is the same thing Trump was saying in his comments on the matter this morning.


















nah
 
I actually think this decision is a close one and reasonable minds can differ on the constitutional question. The majority either ignores or doesn't credit statements Donald and his administration made that this was a travel ban targeting Muslims while the minority heavily scrutinizes this without getting into the other procedural steps the administration took.

It's close as to whether the blatant animus that Donald and the administration showed towards Muslims was the basis for suspending entry from these specific countries. It's not close at all as to whether Donald's statements constituted an animus towards Muslims.

But you could write those comments as puffery and campaigning. On the other hand he said he was going to ban Muslims from entering the country during his campaign and once he was elected (and even when talking about the reasoning for passing such a ban while talks were ongoing about it) and then the travel ban focused predominantly on majority Muslim nations. I don't find that coincidental.

Similarly though, I believe all of these countries have been previously identified as security issues/risks which provided a foothold for the administration to provide as the basis.

I think the minority gets it right by a nose. If someone runs for an office saying they will do X if elected, repeats it after elected, repeats it while discussing potential orders on that same topic, and then all of a sudden reverses course when it turns the order could constitute an impermissible animus on the basis of religion once that topic is before the Supreme Court, then I think it's safe to say we should take the individual at their word that they did X for the reasons they said they would. Here, that reason was to ban Muslims from entering the country.
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
This case also sends a dangerous message to all legislators that the right wing of the Supreme Court will tolerate any discrimination it does not personally find repugnant as long as you can put it into facially neutral language. That’s been the case for a while now with the caveat that at least they had to keep quiet about it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I agree that this has been the case for a while now, but the immigration/security context is a unique one given the almost unbridled deference the executive receives in the area.
 
Kennedy with a pointless concurrence...more concerned about his legacy at this point and it shows. Thomas touching on the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Breyer's dissent as pointless as Kennedy's concurrence. Just all wah wah what about the waivers? Ignoring all the different criteria for different countries that were outlined in the majority decision. Sotomayor looks like she just took comments from the briefs and didn't bother to look for anything beyond that. You know, like context or something exculpatory. Here's a good example:

On December 8, 2015, Trump justified his proposal during a television interview by noting that President Franklin D. Roosevelt “did the same thing” with respect to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

What he actually said was:

Mika: Let me ask you this, do you believe that we need members of the Muslim-American community, of the Muslim community around the world, to help fight war on terror and perhaps that this is incredibly counterproductive?

Trump: No, I think it's something that has to be done. I think it's a temporary move. I'm not looking at this long term; I'm looking at it temporary. We have to get our hands around a very serious problem.

...and then later in the interview...

Joe S: I want to just ask you a couple of questions. First of all, it seems to me that going after all Muslims, banning all Muslims from coming here, is as counterproductive as, you know, those pictures when you see the little 7-year-old kids being screened by the TSA. It seems to me, just in terms of policing we should focus, we should target, on the Muslims that we have a reason to believe need to have the most law enforcement focused on them. Isn't it counterproductive and unconstitutional to have this broad approach towards all Muslims?

Trump: Well, it's not unconstitutional keeping people out, frankly, until we get a hold of what's going on, Joe. And then you look at Franklin Roosevelt, a respected president, highly respected, take a look at presidential proclamations back a long time ago, 2525, 2526, and 2527, What he was doing with Germans, Italians and Japanese because he had to do it. Because, look, we are at war with radical Islam. We are at war, Joe, whether we like it or not.

Joe S: I agree with that, Donald.

Trump: Right.

Joe S: You certainly aren't proposing internment camps. I mean --

Trump: No I'm not at all. No, and this wasn't -- [Crosstalk] By the way, I am not proposing that and that's not what this -- you have to look at his presidential proclamations. It was tough stuff but it wasn't internment. We're not talking about Japanese internment camps. No, not at all. But we have to get a hand around a very serious problem.

So basically, not even close to how she summed it up.
 
She also pulled direct quotes from his campaign website which said that he wanted to ban Muslims until we figured out what was going on.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I actually think this decision is a close one and reasonable minds can differ on the constitutional question. The majority either ignores or doesn't credit statements Donald and his administration made that this was a travel ban targeting Muslims while the minority heavily scrutinizes this without getting into the other procedural steps the administration took.

It's close as to whether the blatant animus that Donald and the administration showed towards Muslims was the basis for suspending entry from these specific countries. It's not close at all as to whether Donald's statements constituted an animus towards Muslims.

But you could write those comments as puffery and campaigning. On the other hand he said he was going to ban Muslims from entering the country during his campaign and once he was elected (and even when talking about the reasoning for passing such a ban while talks were ongoing about it) and then the travel ban focused predominantly on majority Muslim nations. I don't find that coincidental.

Similarly though, I believe all of these countries have been previously identified as security issues/risks which provided a foothold for the administration to provide as the basis.

I think the minority gets it right by a nose. If someone runs for an office saying they will do X if elected, repeats it after elected, repeats it while discussing potential orders on that same topic, and then all of a sudden reverses course when it turns the order could constitute an impermissible animus on the basis of religion once that topic is before the Supreme Court, then I think it's safe to say we should take the individual at their word that they did X for the reasons they said they would. Here, that reason was to ban Muslims from entering the country.
Click to expand...

Well it's pointless to re-litigate it now, but Trump's verbal diarrhea often spews many sharticles, often contradictory, within the same turd. You can see that from the transcript above. "Hey, look what we did to the Japs during WW2, but I'm not proposing that!" The expectation that every candidate could or should speak through the filter of a lawyer is unrealistic, but SCOTUS is not going to address that issue. What is patently absurd about not judging the order on its face is that Trump could be impeached and removed tomorrow and Pence, who expressed no such supposed animus on the campaign trail, could then issue the same order and not be subjected to the same legal challenge. The challenge would then come down to the 1152/1182 issue. And even then, there would be the sticking point about how much of that applies to his authority to govern nonimmigrant visas, which are not restricted like immigrant visas.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
She also pulled direct quotes from his campaign website which said that he wanted to ban Muslims until we figured out what was going on.
Click to expand...

Yep, which actually reinforces the temporary nature of his policy and undermines her case.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I actually think this decision is a close one and reasonable minds can differ on the constitutional question. The majority either ignores or doesn't credit statements Donald and his administration made that this was a travel ban targeting Muslims while the minority heavily scrutinizes this without getting into the other procedural steps the administration took.

It's close as to whether the blatant animus that Donald and the administration showed towards Muslims was the basis for suspending entry from these specific countries. It's not close at all as to whether Donald's statements constituted an animus towards Muslims.

But you could write those comments as puffery and campaigning. On the other hand he said he was going to ban Muslims from entering the country during his campaign and once he was elected (and even when talking about the reasoning for passing such a ban while talks were ongoing about it) and then the travel ban focused predominantly on majority Muslim nations. I don't find that coincidental.

Similarly though, I believe all of these countries have been previously identified as security issues/risks which provided a foothold for the administration to provide as the basis.

I think the minority gets it right by a nose. If someone runs for an office saying they will do X if elected, repeats it after elected, repeats it while discussing potential orders on that same topic, and then all of a sudden reverses course when it turns the order could constitute an impermissible animus on the basis of religion once that topic is before the Supreme Court, then I think it's safe to say we should take the individual at their word that they did X for the reasons they said they would. Here, that reason was to ban Muslims from entering the country.
Click to expand...

You lost me here.
 
I don't think that's "patently absurd." If a president had gone through the process of gathering data and studying countries for a security risk and then made this Proclamation without ever bringing up banning Muslims then the "animus" constitutional issue would not be present at all. There would not be any question as to the basis of the ban of nationality. Donald himself brought the specter of religious animus upon himself. This is why we have a court system.

These determinations aren't solely legal inquiries, they also include facts surrounding the implementation of laws and rightfully so.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Yep, which actually reinforces the temporary nature of his policy and undermines her case.
Click to expand...

Is there some sort of caveat for use of unconstitutional animus if it's only for an indefinite allegedly "temporary" nature when compared with something permanent? I'm not familiar with one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top