Breaking: Trump travel ban going to Supreme Court!

While I agree with the courts that entry from countries that are not infected by Islamic terrorists should be allowed, I agree with Trump that entry from countries that are affected by Islamic terrorists should be banned until those groups are eradicated.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: queenofswords

The plan will be to have the ban upheld by SCOTUS and then announce that there is no way of properly vetting people from those countries. BOOM, EO making the ban permanent.

Such a ban is still temporary, because repealing it turns into an election issue, and a future EO can strip it. It just becomes a 3 year ban rather than a 100 day ban.

a reply to: Aazadan

At this point I personally feel the case is more important for the SCOTUS to strike down the judicial activists in the lower courts trying to limit the President's national security powers. A few months temporary ban, especially after all these delays, is not that big of a deal to me.

a reply to: face23785

I don't see how the Presidents powers were limited though. He was still free to come up with more stringent vetting procedures, which he campaigned on. His promise was better procedures within 100 days, and a temporary ban while they get those worked out. It's become a ban for the sake of a ban, to prove the President isn't weak, and the actual vetting procedures which should have already been implemented have been totally forgotten about.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well no, like I said, it's become a dangerous precedent set by the lower court that needs to be overturned.

I do agree they should've been done reviewing the vetting procedures by now though. But what if their new procedures piss off some liberal activist judge? This issue needs to be settled before you start working on that issue.

The ban on Iran is entirely politically motivated. Iran has never attacked westerners and being Shia it has no intention of doing so. Trump just plain hates Iran.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
The ban on Iran is entirely politically motivated. Iran has never attacked westerners and being Shia it has no intention of doing so. Trump just plain hates Iran.

Read this and come back when you are informed on the issue.

a reply to: face23785

Iran backed Shia militia attacked westerns and Israelis in Lebanon and Iraq because they were against foreign occupation. They never attack westerns in western countries and Israel.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Ok so you're just here to rationalize killing innocent people. Got it. Why didn't you just say so?

Iran's government support terrorism. Read it. Accept it. It's the real world. You should come into it.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
The ban on Iran is entirely politically motivated. Iran has never attacked westerners and being Shia it has no intention of doing so. Trump just plain hates Iran.

Iran furnishes IEDs to terrorist who did attack US troops with them. They attacked the West by provable Proxy.
not to mention that hostage taking incident.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: allsee4eye

Ok so you're just here to rationalize killing innocent people. Got it. Why didn't you just say so?

Iran's government support terrorism. Read it. Accept it. It's the real world. You should come into it.

Its funny how they will excuse Iran giving weapons to the US's and her allies enemies but then berate the US for the same thing isnt it?
Its also funny how as long as its not a direct attack by Iran they will exscuse it too.

a reply to: D8Tee

WASHINGTON — Parties who are challenging President Donald Trump’s travel ban have until June 12 to respond to a petition from the Justice Department asking the Supreme Court to allow the ban to go into effect, the court said Friday.

The Court set a deadline of June 12, which comes about two weeks before its term is scheduled to end.

Once the Supreme Court has heard from the challengers, it will decide whether it should allow the revised controversial executive order — that blocks entry from six Muslim-majority countries — to go into effect while the justices decide whether they should take up the government’s appeal.

To succeed, the Trump administration will need the votes of five justices. According to rules that govern the Supreme Court, the justices would take into consideration whether there is a “reasonable probability” that four of the justices would eventually agree to hear the case and a “fair prospect” that a majority of the court will hold that the lower court opinions were erroneous.

They’d also consider if “irreparable harm” would result from the denial of the request to lift the injunction.

There are two separate challenges before the court. One is brought by the International Refugee Assistance Project and other plaintiffs, who won a global injunction in March that was later upheld by a majority of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The injunction applies to Section 2 (c) of the order that suspends entry of foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The federal appeals court ruled that the ban “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.”

The other case was brought by the attorney general of Hawaii and other individuals who claimed the ban exceeds the President’s statutory authority and violates the Constitution. The plaintiffs are challenging not only Section 2 of the order — the restriction on travel — but another section of the order pertaining to refugees. On March 15, Judge Derrick K. Watson of the US District Court for the District of Hawaii issued an injunction blocking both sections. Watson, relying upon statements that the Trump made as a candidate for the presidency, held that the “stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is at the very least secondary to a religious objective of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims” in violation of the Constitution.

The case is currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel that heard arguments on May 15 and has yet to rule.

In asking the Supreme Court to allow the ban to go into effect, government lawyers accused the lower courts of undermining “the President’s constitutional and statutory power to protect national security.”

Iran is what is keeping Islamic State in the Middle East in check. Iran backed Shia groups never attacked the west. Trump's attack on Iran is purely political. It has nothing to do with terrorism.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Wrong. Iran's backing of terrorist groups is well-documented. Stop spreading propaganda.

a reply to: D8Tee

Executive Authority
Explains the powers delegated to POTUS and lists the 44 times in the past the presidents have used it.

We can make an internment camp for the Japanese during WW2, but we can't even ban travel from terrorist hotbeds during The War On Terror/WW3?

a reply to: 3n19m470

I'm thinking that will change after SCOTUS rules. These lower court judges that are nothing more than activists in robes need to be brought in line.

a reply to: D8Tee
Judge narrows injunction on Trump travel ban

A federal judge in Hawaii has reined in an injunction he issued three months ago blocking key parts of President Donald Trump's revised travel ban executive order.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson scaled back the injunction Monday, nullifying its impact on studies and policy reviews ordered under the directive Trump issued in March and billed as an anti-terrorism initiative.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce as soon as Thursday whether it will consider the legality of the Trump travel ban in the wake of two appeals court decisions upholding injunctions against the directive. The justices are also expected to rule on whether the Trump administration can implement the order while any Supreme Court challenge plays out or whether the measure will remain on hold.

Seems there was a method to their madness, delay the administration once again. Typical liberals, if they are not on the winning team, alls they will do is try to slow down the winning team, at the expense of the nation.

Some analysts believe the narrowing of Watson's order makes it less likely the justices will take immediate action to modify the injunctions while the litigation moves forward.

Politico

a reply to: EternalShadow

What is proper vetting in your opinion?
And can you show us that you know how the vetting is currently done?
How long does it take and what are the steps?

Can those of you that are for this ban show us that you understand americas current vetting process.
I feel like most of you don't.