Since the language has been found to be ‘constitutional’ with exceptions, they can simply issue a new order, same language, new time frame, precedent would prevent a review by lower courts.
[quote=“yskov, post:19, topic:58079, full:true”]
Real people are affected by this, and even if it were turned around next year a great amount of damage will have been done and the damage will be ongoing for years. [/quote]
That’s all very true! And yet so many millions of Americans thought that Hillary wasn’t worth voting for, or thought that trump was better. This is a direct consequence.
I think the most important question these days is, can America be saved from itself? Maybe this is just the beginning of the end. Nothing lasts forever.
1 Like
September? The order was signed in early March which would make the 90 days up in early June. Probably last week. September would be 180 days, right? What am I missing?
Of course they said they would have a plan in place now but have nothing.
The actual plan was to simply extend the executive order 90 to 120 days at a time in perpetuity.
3 Likes
I take it you heard this directly from SCOTUS, so no actual deliberation by the Court is necessary.
As long as you’re consulting your Magic-8-Ball, how about giving us the next winning Powerball numbers?
It takes 4 votes from SCOTUS to grant cert to an appeal.
That doesn’t mean that the justices will decide in favor of the appellants.
2 Likes
Jill Stein and her pal Vlad are fine with this decision. As she is with taking away access to healthcare from millions of Americans. As she is with gutting environmental regulations.
Federal disclosures show that Jill Stein and her husband, physician Richard Rohrer, are together worth at least $3.9 million. Among the stock holdings of Jill Stein and her husband: at least $100,000 worth of Disney, at least $100,000 worth of Home Depot and at least $50,000 worth of Merck.
The Steins live in Lexington, MA. In 2013, the mean home price in Lexington for detached houses was $852,953, and the median price of a house or condo was $718,300.
3.8% of Lexington’s residents are black or Hispanic.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/08/06/19882/9-things-know-about-jill-stein
Because of her wealth, social and economic connections, and place of residence, neither Jill Stein or her husband will feel any of the brunt of the Republican governance that her arrogance and hubris has helped enable. They will still have access to health care; in their leafy neighborhood they will see no diminution in the quality of their water or air; no fracking chemicals will leach into their municipal water supply; few if any of her neighbors will be financially ruined by Medicaid cuts, and their access to the best schools for their children and grandchildren will be uninterrupted. The travel ban will have no impact on her or her family.
The Republican Party and its various sociopaths and savages could not have had more strategically placed allies than Nader and Stein. Upon such small, preening people a gigantic fulcrum has been built, and the Republican Party will use that fulcrum to undo the entirety of the Progressive Era and the New Deal.
She is the essence of white privilege, but the few minorities who voted for her will enjoy no such protection where they live and work. To Stein and her white Green supporters, they’re acceptable collateral damage in service to their collective self-image of ideological purity and moral superiority.
18 Likes
Unbelievable. The shits.
I might have to turn the news off for a few days…the blustering, preening and posturing will be sickening.
6 Likes
Alito, Thomas and G (ift that keeps on giving)orsuch wanted to lift the stay entirely.
8 Likes
Of course. Gorsuch is earning his keep, BIGLY.
9 Likes
“In chaos they can steal.” – Randi Rhodes
5 Likes
IANAL, and I am just pondering this as something I read. I think some of the court stays also applied to planning new vetting procedures. If so, this meant that time “isn’t up” but is just starting now. I didn’t think that the Trump admin really planned a temporary ban. I think it was planned to be permanent. By the time the Supreme Court hears this, the new temporary ban period will be almost over, and new vetting procedures should be ready. It will be interesting to see what happens next and whether or not the Supreme Court looks at the temporary aspect of the ban.
Take a deep breath, people. (And you should probably read the decision not just take the media’s word for it.)
The court did NOT reinstate the travel ban, period. What they did is refine the injunction against it in pretty much a reasonable fashion since the 4th and 9th Circuit courts dealt with a clumsily-drafted EO which itself was overly broad. What SCOTUS said is that the travel ban could not be applied to individuals with a “bona fide” connection to a US person or entity. They gave a couple of examples, too. I’d add that if someone in Yemen wanted to take a family vacation to Disney World, that, too, would qualify and “bona fide” as they have a relationship with the hotel where they will stay and Disney World itself where they will enter into a contract via purchasing tickets.
I don’t think ANYONE felt that all foreign nationals from any country that need a visa to travel here was just allowed in at any time. That was not the case before Trump was president and was true all along. So SCOTUS ruled that to the extent the injunction might be viewed as a block to the state department doing normal due diligence on visa applicants (probably an argument the Trump administration made), SCOTUS clarified a reasonable standard that the vast majority of people would agree makes sense for state department professionals to follow.
Lest you think I’m being too lenient, consider that Alito, Thomas and Gorsach, the most conservative justices, dissented so this can’t possibly be considered a win for Trump and the Right. Also, since it takes 5 justices to grant a stay, having the four “liberal” justices agree to the modification of the injunction tells us that they are OK with the rest of the injunction and, likely, that will hold on the merits for the six justices who agreed to the ruling.
As to SCOTUS agreeing to hear the case rather than just denying cert, this is probably something of a compromise since it only takes four justices to grant cert, and I suspect more than that thought the issue important enough to address rather then just let the cases languish in the Circuits.
Bottom line, upon further review, Trump got a first down but is still losing by two touchdowns with the clock ticking. SCOTUS wants briefing on whether the entire order is moot (or will be by October), which indicates that Trump’s argument that they need the ban as submitted to do their job is not gaining much traction.
34 Likes
My magic 8 ball is telling me that in 2021 the scotus will be enlarged to 11 members. Since there is no law against it and the Senate has already made appointments filibuster proof all it would take is a Dem potus and a simple Dem majority in the Senate to make it happen.
4 Likes
I would really like to know if Trump made Gorsuch pledge loyalty to him.
1 Like
People once were welcome here.
Shhh. Don’t give the Rs any ideas.
3 Likes
Agreed. Obama & Dems in Congress had to expend a lot of energy in 2009 to undoing the damage left behind by GW Bush. When will this country ever learn.
6 Likes
At various times in this country’s history, yes they were.
But, in the 2016 elections, a large group of Americans who either wanted to get rid of/prevent foreigners from coming into this country and voted for White supremacy and another group that just didn’t give a sh*t one way or the other and didn’t bother to vote at all.
And here we are now in a country that’s being rapidly hollowed out.
PS, the media can stop interviewing the feral trumpers to see if their support for him is eroding. Because this will make them even MORE supportive of him. Why?
THIS is what he promised and he kept his promise. That is what they were looking for.
5 Likes
America is a one-party country. The America that was promised by the Statue of Liberty is no more.
IAAL. Not an expert on EOs, but have a pretty good understanding of appellate procedure. The EO had a start date and an expiration date. If I remember correctly, the start date was 5 or 7 days from signing.
A stay of enforcement would not extend the order so it would still expire in 90 days. But maybe the order says that if enforcement is stayed, the 90 days will begin to run upon the lifting of the stay?
2 Likes
The new Far Right (read: Christian Sharia) Faction.
4 Likes