Breaking: Trump travel ban going to Supreme Court!

The President has the authority to limit immigration, we all know that.

Is this ban Constitutional? Of course it is, it's not banning a race, it's banning nations.

Is this a National Security issue? Yes; the vetting procedures in place are inadequate, the nations are war torn failed states with no stable government.

We will see redemption as the Supreme Court rules in the administrations favour.

"We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism," said Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.

Source

The choice for the Supreme Court is a pretty simple binary one.

1) campaign speech (and media misrepresentation and skewing of said speech), whether subsequently altered or walked back, directly determines the authority the President has after being elected.

2) it doesn't.

a reply to: UKTruth

I can't see the admin losing this case. It was a travesty it was blocked in the first place. Judge Robart overstepped his judicial authority and that guy from Hawaii just flat out decided to pull a fast one.

Like that Boston Judge said when he upheld the ban, "Where Does It Say Muslim Countries?"

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: UKTruth

I can't see the admin losing this case. It was a travesty it was blocked in the first place. Judge Robart overstepped his judicial authority and that guy from Hawaii just flat out decided to pull a fast one.

Like that Boston Judge said when he upheld the ban, "Where Does It Say Muslim Countries?"

That is the point - the rulings were not about what the EO said, they were about an interpretation of what Trump was aiming to do based on campaign speech - moreover not just campaign speech, but only those comments that supported such an interpretation.

The Supreme Court will have to decide whether ANY speech that can be interpreted by political opponents to mean discrimination against religion changes the actual authority the President has when he takes office. It would be a very dangerous precedent as ANY negative dealings with majority muslim countries, for example, could be blocked. This could extend to sanctions, even military operations.

a reply to: UKTruth

Surely even the liberal judges on SCOTUS won't decide in favour of stopping this EO?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: UKTruth

Surely even the liberal judges on SCOTUS won't decide in favour of stopping this EO?

Don't bet on it... I think this one is 50/50 on which side will win...

This ban is discriminatory to Iranians. Trump hates Iran so much he bans anyone from Iran from entering. There are thousands of Iranians students who study at American universities, paid by the Iranian state, to steal military technology from America to Iran. True, this is unethical, but Iranians never attacked the US, never attacked the west, all they do is self defense from Saudi Arabia and Israel. Banning Iranians from entering would endanger the world because if Iran is attacked and cannot defend itself then the whole world can plunge into chaos. Trump is playing with fire and his stupid ban on Iran should be banned by the Supreme Court.

So its this miraculous travel ban that will vanquish terrorism. And not ceasing the taxes being #ing money laundered into proxy wars or daft ass religious zealots who finally realise the irony of ACTUALLY reading said scriptures and think whoa, totally not the message. Or straight up pushing away from the dinner table feast of congetive #ery all together and sipping on some good ol critical #ing thinking skills. Nope. Another false savior to tuck you in safe and sound at night with the burial shroud of moronic isms that's literally the issue in the first #ing place. Because your special. And because NOT everyone has the right to be privy of your special ism. Dude. Chasing tails right off the train's platform smack into the speeding lights that's not stopping at the station. The very same ban lays the brick work to ban you. Then slowly chains us closer to the cell. Amputating your arm over a hangnail is #ing stupid. Yet putting a bandaid over a shotgun wound is equally short sighted.

originally posted by: D8Tee

Is this a National Security issue? Yes; the vetting procedures in place are inadequate, the nations are war torn failed states with no stable government.

The entire point of the traveling ban was that it was a temporary measure because people felt like you; that the vetting process was inadequate. It was supposed to last 120 days so that Trump & Co. could come up with and implement more extensive vetting procedures.

Trump has been president 132 days. Which means had the travel ban even been in effect, it would have expired 12 days ago.

Where are our better vetting procedures? Why hasn't Trump focused on that? He has access to everything he needed to do so, and yet nothing. While you're bitching about the failure of one branch of the government, you're ignoring the other branch entirely.

a reply to: D8Tee

So you know more than the judge about constitutional law?
That's pretty presumptuous of you.
Trump said he was going to ban Muslims. Those words came out of his mouth. We don't want "them" in "our" country!. He said that.
That's what he tried to do.
That's never going to be allowed.
The supreme court justices are not going to go against the constitution just because they are conservative and just because trump thinks they should.
You've already seen that having the majority in the house and Senate has not given his crazy ideas any platform. They didn't approve his tax plan and they basically threw a dying health care bill at the Senate who will not approve it.
Everybody thought it would be so easy because he had a support system but the support is not guaranteed when he puts crazy up for a vote.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Sadly we all know how full of crappola the liberal judges are and the agenda behind stopping the ban.

Still this will side with the constitution and the rights of the president to impose existing laws on immigration and national security.

I will wait and see.

a reply to: UKTruth

Every one of his comments regarding this issue supported that interpretation. He spit hate at every rally.
He told Rudy Giuliani to find a legal way to do it.
Those things are on video so he can't un-ring that bell.
It seems his ninety day ban time has expired and oh look. No disaster in the usa. No terrorist attacks.
Of course he's invited new plans with his visit to the middle east and Europe. But that's another thread.
Manchester, Kabul and Baghdad are all in response to trump.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
This ban is discriminatory to Iranians. Trump hates Iran so much he bans anyone from Iran from entering. There are thousands of Iranians students who study at American universities, paid by the Iranian state, to steal military technology from America to Iran. True, this is unethical, but Iranians never attacked the US, never attacked the west, all they do is self defense from Saudi Arabia and Israel. Banning Iranians from entering would endanger the world because if Iran is attacked and cannot defend itself then the whole world can plunge into chaos. Trump is playing with fire and his stupid ban on Iran should be banned by the Supreme Court.

Defensive only? BS! Iran is the world's largest exporter of terror. I don't normally quote Huff but in this case I'll make an exception.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

What do you know of these justices?
What do you know of their records and rulings?
Have you researched what they've done?
They are going to rule for constitutionality. They took an oath.
Not an oath to trump but to uphold and defend the constitution.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Words are free speech. He cannot be charged on words. EO ban is an action. Only action can be charged.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: UKTruth

Surely even the liberal judges on SCOTUS won't decide in favour of stopping this EO?

of course they will.

a reply to: whywhynot

Shia never killed anyone except to make them leave their land. Shia never did a suicide bomb attack in the west, ever.

a reply to: tebyen

What ? Actually work?
Unless it's grandstanding trump has no interest in working.
And it seems the vetting process in place is pretty adequate. Any terrorist attacks here since 911 have been performed by citizens born and raised here. Not from them entering the country from someplace else.
He really should have employed that superb vetting process in his hiring practices at the whitehouse no?

a reply to: allsee4eye

Charged?