Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Getting ready for SCOTUS ruling on the not-Travel Ban, not-Muslim Ban, Travel Order No. 3

Getting ready for SCOTUS ruling on the not-Travel Ban, not-Muslim Ban, Travel Order No. 3

Hopefully the Supreme Court will rein in the Resistance Judges.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Figures.

The Supreme Court ruling on Trump Travel Order No. 3 has been saved for the last 2 or 3 decision days of the term this week, mornings when I’m almost certainly not available as the decision is handed down.

So consider this a pre-ruling preview.

The Third Travel Order, unveiled as a presidential proclamation in September 2017, prohibits entry of nationals—to varying degrees—from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela.

The Travel Order is not a “travel ban,” it’s an order regulating who can come into the United States. It’s no more a “travel ban” than the U.S. immigration laws. But “travel ban” is how the media and even many Trump supporters refer to it — at one point Trump himself capitulated to this media characterization as to earlier versions of the travel order.

It’s not only not a “travel ban,” it’s not a “Muslim ban,” which is the rallying cry against it. Any legal analyst who refers to it as a Muslim ban should not be taken seriously, regardless of the outcome of the case. It does apply to several majority Muslim countries, which were on an Obama-era list of countries that posed the greatest risk of foreign fighters sneaking into the U.S. under visas. It also applies to North Korea and Syria. But it doesn’t apply to most Muslim-majority countries or most Muslims in the world.

Before Travel Order No. 3 went into effect, however, district judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked enforcement.

For background on the past history of the Hawaii case, which was the case accepted first by SCOTUS, see our prior posts:

The arguments at the Supreme Court oral argument strongly indicated that the Travel Order would survive, but sometimes Justices’ reactions at oral argument can be deceiving.

Yet few analysts are expecting SCOTUS to uphold the lower court injunctions. (Jinx)

The fact that SCOTUS on multiple occasions has stayed lower court injunctions as to Travel Order No. 2 and No. 3 demonstrates that the Justices are uncomfortable with (a) the judiciary usurping Executive Branch power over immigration and national security, and (b) single district court judges issuing national injunctions to do so.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will rein in the Resistance Judges.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Subotai Bahadur | June 25, 2018 at 9:26 pm

The one thing we have learned to rely on, is that the Supreme Court rules frequently as the UniParty wants, regardless of the law or Constitution. It depends on whose turn it is to defend the Left.

Rein in? Heck, I’d like to see some profanity in there.

The president’s travel restrictions are hereby upheld, and any (censored) idiot judge who tries to put another hold on them shall report to the chambers here first. Bring a willow switch and don’t wear thick pants.

    MarkS in reply to georgfelis. | June 26, 2018 at 7:33 am

    Judges need the three strike rule: Get reversed three times and away you go!

    JohnSmith100 in reply to georgfelis. | June 26, 2018 at 12:29 pm

    At this point, the administration should take a stand that these injunctions are not legitimate, and refuse to comply until SCOTUS tells them to do so. This crap of chain injunction needs to be stopped.

The fact that SCOTUS on multiple occasions has stayed lower court injunctions as to Travel Order No. 2 and No. 3 demonstrates that the Justices are uncomfortable with (a) the judiciary usurping Executive Branch power over immigration and national security, and (b) single district court judges issuing national injunctions to do so.

I certainly hope you are right. I kinda like that whole separate but equal concept. It would be nice to keep it.

I often use the anti-Trump judicial rulings to point out to the hysterical crowd that we have 3 co-equal branches of government and Trump couldn’t be a Hitler or Mussolini if he wanted to.

The rulin needs to include language that no, these pissant district judges do not have the power to implement nation wide stays.

    smalltownoklahoman in reply to rdm. | June 26, 2018 at 10:15 am

    Logged in just to give you a thumbs up! Yes that issue needs to be addressed as well although that will probably have to come about either another court case or perhaps legislation by Congress.

i fear we are past the time that court rulings are binding on the populace.

fortunately, i am pretty much prepared for that, other than the part where i & my wife die in a Rourke’s Drift gone bad.

Be interesting reading how the justices who rule against the travel bans contort themselves to justify their judgements.

Mailman

While I am not a lawyer (thank the Lord), to my relatively uneducated viewpoint any ruling against Trump and his travel ban is a ruling against the Constitution and for the idea that thought crimes. Both ideas are frightening, but they now appear as something both real and something to be fought against. Both are absurd and any justice who votes against the Constitution and in favor of thought crimes has no business being there. Even worse is how these new standards are being pushed by the Left and, according to them, can only be applied against Republicans.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend