Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

Did the Supreme Court rule correctly?


  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
Trump's executive order clearly placed a ban on immigration from specific nations (an expressly stated right of the President in the Constitution) and not an entire religion. It really isn't relevant what Trump said a year prior. It matters what he actually did and stated in his order. It is concerning that the conservative justices and liberal justices are so far apart on this. It should have been a unanimous decision upholding Trump's order.
Expressly stated in the constitution, is it?

Here's article II.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

If you could quote the bit where it expressly states that the president has the "power to ban immigration from specific nations," I'd be obliged.
 
Am I the only left leaning person here that wasn't surprised by this?
Nope, I would have been very surprised if it had gone the other way. I'm a little surprised it went 5-4 with two Republican appointees criticizing Trump.
 
Nope, I would have been very surprised if it had gone the other way. I'm a little surprised it went 5-4 with two Republican appointees criticizing Trump.

"You're not wrong Trump, you're just an asshole!"

 
Expressly stated in the constitution, is it?

Here's article II.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

If you could quote the bit where it expressly states that the president has the "power to ban immigration from specific nations," I'd be obliged.
Civics is a dark and dead and deadly art. Hark! The constitutional witch approaches, bearing scrolls no doubt peeled as if parchment from the dead of the latest plague, ink'd in their black blood.
 
Expressly stated in the constitution, is it?

Here's article II.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

If you could quote the bit where it expressly states that the president has the "power to ban immigration from specific nations," I'd be obliged.

My mistake. It is stated in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants [when he thinks it] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

You certainly can't pick and choose when the President is entitled to his executive powers. You would think he is always entitled to what the law permits his powers to be. Unless you are an activist judge who "legislates from the bench." ;) In that case, the law just means nothing to you.
 
Meh. Trump watered down this bill 3 times in order to get it to SCOTUS approval. So we have an order that leaves the most prominent state sponsors of terrorism off the order. So yay, all the subtle racism in exchange for a directive that accomplishes nothing.

And yeah, his supporters will call this a victory.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they ruled correctly, but since the original proposed deadline for it to last expired over a year ago, it's all quite academic in the present.
 
Yes, they ruled correctly, but since the original proposed deadline for it to last expired over a year ago, it's all quite academic in the present.
....until he issues another travel ban.
 
....until he issues another travel ban.
Yes, that's the point. His "Travel Ban" was supposed to be a carefully crafted executive order to address a temporary national security issue.

This sets a healthy precedent, but it didn't address the issue, and that is now a footnote of history. There wasn't a repeat of the Cuban Diaspora, for example. Meanwhile, we kept bringing in all of those migrants in 2016 and 2017 because the man doesn't know how to measure his rhetoric and craft an executive order that fulfilled his promise.

He failed on inexperience and ignorance: as so many of us predicted. Fortunately, for me, since I support bans that don't explicitly target Muslims, I got to eat my cake, too.

Was a good day.
 
Meh. Trump watered down this bill 3 times in order to get it to SCOTUS approval. So we have an order that leaves the most prominent state sponsors of terrorism off the order. So yay, all the subtle racism in exchange for a directive that accomplishes nothing.

And yeah, his supporters will call this a victory.

Racist against who???
 
It's interesting that you only reference two of the four dissenters as "legislating from the bench" here, suggesting that their dissent - and correct me if I'm wrong - was not legitimate dissent, but some sort of abuse of judicial power/agenda driven. If that is what you're hinting at, what about the other two dissenters? Were their critiques legitimate, rather than "legislating from the bench"? And the five who supported the travel ban - no legislating from the bench going on there, I'm guessing, since you only drew attention to the dissenters?

As a general question, not just for you but rather everyone here, how often do you see things that you disagree with a court doing as "legislating from the bench" and how often do you see this being the case of things you agree with? It would be an interesting self-analysis to conduct, that. I wonder how many posters here, if they were to do this, would be able to draw some conclusions that could lead to significant self betterment?
I think you need to read Sotamayor’s dissent again. I think everyone who gets to call themselves a lawyer must be ashamed for her to sit on the highest court in America. Emotional, erroneous, irrelevant trash was what her dissent largely was.

CJ Roberts rightly smacked her down.
 
So the ruling is a ruling based on its constitutionality, but the legislation is still terrible and doesn't protect the U.S. This may have backlash on muslims already in the country. Homebred terrorists exist in large amounts.

The first thing I thought of when I heard of the ruling was this:



Blind man ask me forgiveness
I won't deny myself
Disrespect you have given
Your suffering's my wealth
I feed off pain, force fed to love it
And now I swallow whole
I'll never live in the past
Let freedom ring with a shotgun blast
Burn my fist to the concrete
My fear is my strength
Power, rage unbound strength
Been pounded by the streets
Cyanide blood burns down the skyline
Hatred is purity
The bullet connects at last
Let freedom ring with a shotgun blast
Scarred
Pour the salt in the wound

I haven't listened to that album in a dogs age. I think I may need to dig it out.
 
Your mom.

So then not racist at all is what you’re trying to say. Typical liberal scum you are. Cry racism when there is none, then insult me when asking for clarification.

Like I said, typical liberal.
 
Really? <LikeReally5>

THAT'S the rebuttal you have?

Well I could link to the countless times the trump administration has stated explicitly that this is clearly a Muslim ban, and then I could spend a bunch of time splitting hairs with right wing twats and trolls over whether or not we should refer to that as racism, religious bigotry, or just a genuine bias of the retarded sort.

But what would be the point?
 
Well I could link to the countless times the trump administration has stated explicitly that this is clearly a Muslim ban, and then I could spend a bunch of time splitting hairs with right wing twats and trolls over whether or not we should refer to that as racism, religious bigotry, or just a genuine bias of the retarded sort.

But what would be the point?


The "point" would be that it would make you seem intelligent instead of looking like you've just graduated from Grade School. <seedat>
 
Back
Top