Althouse: "The justices, in effect, said that foreigners with ties or relationships in the United States would not be prohibited from entering the country."

June 26, 2017

"The justices, in effect, said that foreigners with ties or relationships in the United States would not be prohibited from entering the country."

"But, those applying for visas who had never been here, or had no family, business or other ties could be prohibited.... The justices said the distinction should be easy to administer. 'In practical terms, this means that' the executive order 'may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.'"

Trump's (modified) win in the Supreme Court this morning, explained by Adam Liptak in the NYT.

190 comments:

Gahrie said...: “In practical terms, this means that” the executive order “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.'"

Why? How do non-citizens not residing in the United States have any Constitutional rights at all?; 6/26/17, 11:06 AM
n.n said...: So, there will still be a delay ("ban") while people and relationships are vetted, which may be extended in areas affected by Obama/Clinton's elective wars and regime changes, and where governments cannot vouch for the principled alignment (e.g. terrorists organizations) of their citizens and residents.; 6/26/17, 11:07 AM
CJinPA said...: If it excludes foreigners with "family ties" here, isn't it pretty much worthless? How many Muslims seeking entry have no family members here? Seems like a small percentage.; 6/26/17, 11:09 AM
Yancey Ward said...: "He is my 3rd cousin, so he has a connection to the US."

Everyone in the world can make the argument above- everyone. It is likely nearly everyone in the world has a first cousin relation living legally in the US. It will be fascinating to watch how the administration makes these distinctions "easily" only to have them overturned with new blanket injunctions issued in the 4th and 9th Circuits.; 6/26/17, 11:10 AM
n.n said...: Gahrie:

There are precedents (e.g. Pro-Choice/abortion, Pro-Choice/diversity, congruence "=") established by judicial rulings, where lives, rights, and equal treatment of the People and our Posterity are [selectively] denied for political progress, cover-up of collateral damage from elective wars, Democratic gerrymandering, etc.; 6/26/17, 11:11 AM
Gahrie said...: So a baby living in its mother's womb in St. Louis has no Constitutional protection, but Achmed living in Saudi Arabia who has a cousin with a green card does?; 6/26/17, 11:14 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: The concurrence by Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito is excellent.

This should be a no-brainer. This is purely within the proper exercise of Executive Authority (in my opinion).

By the way, the Left isn't too gung ho on this either -- no guarantee of these immigrants voting Dem in meaningful numbers.; 6/26/17, 11:15 AM
bleh said...: I don't understand the rationale for making exceptions for "bona fide" claims of "ties" to the United States. Alito is correct: this sort of fact-specific inquiry, with little real guidance from the Court about the standards to apply, will result in a deluge of litigation in the lower courts until there is a decision on the merits.; 6/26/17, 11:19 AM
JayDee77 said...: 9-0

That's what happens when laws are followed and cases are not judge shopped to politically motivated ultra-leftists.; 6/26/17, 11:19 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Gharie, Achmed living in Saudi Arabia has not been banned.; 6/26/17, 11:21 AM
Gahrie said...: Gharie,(gahrie please) Achmed living in Saudi Arabia has not been banned.

...and apparently he can't be because he has rights under our Constitution.; 6/26/17, 11:24 AM
n.n said...: The Constitution was written for two parties: the People and our Posterity. This changed with the adoption of a living, progressive interpretation that places the People second and selectively denies/Plans our Posterity.; 6/26/17, 11:28 AM
eric said...: Like I said in another thread.

The administration will interpret it narrowly. The new York times and their ilk will interpret it broadly.

So, we will see this back in the courts.; 6/26/17, 11:28 AM
David Begley said...: Today SCOTUS said that a bunch of lower court federal judges were wrong. Exactly how wrong remains to be seen.; 6/26/17, 11:29 AM
Todd said...: Yancy, its "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" for terrorists...; 6/26/17, 11:34 AM
AlbertAnonymous said...: This Per Curiam decision should have been a summary reversal. Rip off the band aid quickly. The 9th and 4th Circuit decisions were political and inconsistent with the law.

They did that with the gay adoption/birth certificate case.; 6/26/17, 11:37 AM
Earnest Prole said...: The case will likely be moot come Fall, since the Trump Administration is requesting a 120-day immigration pause and not an indefinite ban.; 6/26/17, 11:38 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Earnest,

A pause can be placed after a pause.; 6/26/17, 11:41 AM
Chuck said...: It's really funny, to see Trump declaring victory with this minor preliminary order. It is not what I'd have done, if I were a White House lawyer. (Gives me a headache, thinking about being a Trump Administration lawyer...)

Trump's previous gambit on these orders was the smart, Trumpian (that is to say unprincipled and self-interested) play.

What Trump previously said was that the federal courts would be held to blame if any refugees entering the U.S. caused any terrorism incidents. Now, if this order is such a great victory for American security, who is to blame in the event of an alien-initiated terror attack?

Not that I accept anything coming out of Trump's yaphole. But this is TrumpWorld. Different rules.; 6/26/17, 11:44 AM
MikeR said...: 9-0. Seems to me that a 9-0 decision (to stay the injunction) is a black mark on the court(s) they overruled. Or anyone who cheered for it.
Or at least an indication that maybe they-all ought to take a moment and see how they got it so wrong.; 6/26/17, 11:45 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: What was amazing to me was that these supposedly erudite and sober and responsible Article 3 judges -- with life tenure -- would factor into their opinions campaign statements made by Trump. What a joke! How on earth do campaign statements relate to any law or later Executive Order?

From the opinion:

"In addition, the Fourth Circuit erred by focusing on the President’s campaign-trail comments to conclude that §2(c)—religiously neutral on its face—nonetheless has a principally religious purpose."

These 4th Circuit judges are bush-league.; 6/26/17, 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: So basically the SC upheld the hold on the Ban until they argue the case. Makes one think that perhaps they'll see the Travel Ban as unConstitutional, as did the appeals courts.; 6/26/17, 11:52 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: This case is going to come down not to a right of foreigners to travel to the U.S., but a right of U.S. persons to host travelers.

It seems to me that one part of the Court's decision will be difficult to challenge. Trump promised extreme vetting so how can he now object to vetting the asserted U.S. connection.; 6/26/17, 11:53 AM
Jersey Fled said...: So...

If a terrorist is here legally on a student visa - say to attend flight school - he gets to bring his seven terrorist cousins here too?; 6/26/17, 11:56 AM
Yancey Ward said...: There are a number of things you can't import into the US as a result of EOs. If the rights violated by Trump's immigration/travel EO belong to US residents, then how many other US residents have their rights violated by EOs that ban inanimate things? If one has a civil right to have a mother-in-law allowed to travel to the US, how does one ban the import of ivory or rhino horns that a resident in the US might claim a right to have?

I don't think this case is likely to be moot come October. The 9-0 part of the decision tells me that a compromise was made by at least Roberts and Kennedy with the liberal wing to get their support for that part of today's order. With the present court, it would not surprise to see a 5-4 decision come out on the part that today got 9-0 support.; 6/26/17, 11:57 AM
eric said...: Blogger Inga said...
So basically the SC upheld the hold on the Ban until they argue the case.

Wut.; 6/26/17, 11:59 AM
CJinPA said...: Now, if this order is such a great victory for American security, who is to blame in the event of an alien-initiated terror attack?

"in the event..." Heh.; 6/26/17, 11:59 AM
Bob Loblaw said...: This kind of decision has me wondering why we bothered getting rid of the king.; 6/26/17, 12:03 PM
Darcy said...: No, Inga. They stayed the injunctions. Meaning the travel ban is operational.

The injunctions were overreach - says the whole Supreme Court. OUCH.; 6/26/17, 12:03 PM
Anonymous said...: 'In practical terms, this means that' the executive order 'may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.'"; 6/26/17, 12:06 PM
Humperdink said...: Blogger LLR said: "It's really funny, to see Trump declaring victory with this minor preliminary order."

Blogger Inga said: "So basically the SC upheld the hold on the Ban until they argue the case."

Legal Insurrection headline: "SCOTUS reinstates substantially all of Trump Travel Ban"

Inga, you and LLR need to set up a coffee date.; 6/26/17, 12:06 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Charles,

The Trump Administration will define that narrowly, and the burden will be on the traveler and his "host". This will get challenged almost instantly and another injunction will be issued- I predict it won't even take 10 days for that to happen.

I think the case will be decided by the end of the year, and it is likely to be a 5-4 decision upholding the second EO Trump issued in its entirety. Put another way, they will decide that the rights of US residents are not violated by travel bans on people who are not US residents, regardless of the connection to the US. I think what you saw today was a compromise to get that 9-0 part of the ruling, but that compromise can't hold forever. It was probably designed to kick the can in the hopes that they won't have to do anything in October. At that point, it is possible they will declare the issue moot regardless of what happens in the meantime, but I wouldn't expect that as the most likely outcome.; 6/26/17, 12:07 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "The justices said the distinction should be easy to administer."

-- The justices are... optimistic.; 6/26/17, 12:07 PM
Fen said...: Inga performs without the Talking Points net, crashes to the ground.; 6/26/17, 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-take-up-trumps-travel-ban-let-parts-of-it-take-effect-239956

"Supreme Court allows Trump's travel ban to take partial effect
Foreigners with 'credible' ties to U.S. will be immune from visa and refugee bans, for now.

However, travel ban opponents noted that many visa applicants have U.S. ties, and State Department officials will have to process and grant requests for visas for those travelers just as they do now, after lower court injunctions hindered Trump's order."; 6/26/17, 12:10 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "I don't understand the rationale for making exceptions for "bona fide" claims of "ties" to the United States."

The problem is that the original ban, in particular, was too broad. Some of those banned, or at least their families, might have had some Constitutional rights. The lower court and appeals courts judges, being mostly Dem operatives in robes, instead of tailoring their injunctions to those who clearly didn't have any Constitutional rights, instead essentially said that there was at least one person who would be denied entry without Due Process, etc, and, so the ban was completely enjoined, even for those who obviously outside our Constitutional protections. The Supreme Court is essentially saying that such injunctions were too broad, applying them to those obviously without Constitutional protections, as well as those who have, or families have, colorable claims to such.

Will they moot the case, and not hear it? Scary prospect, of essentially reading campaign rhetoric into statutory construction. Which essentially would say that the same rule that is rejected for a Republican President, would be acceptable if promulgated by a Democratic one. Horrible precedent. Which is why I would bet, right now, on the case being heard, and not rejected as moot.; 6/26/17, 12:11 PM
M Jordan said...: Trump wins again. He wins in congressional races. He wins in foreign policy. He wins with the economy. He wins with climate. He wins and wins and wins ... all the while racing a completely opposition media and obstructionist Congress.

We are witnessing Teddy Roosevelt Part 2.; 6/26/17, 12:13 PM
Hagar said...: Quibbling about who can and cannot be prevented from enntering the United States is trivial compared to the question of who is in charge of foreign policy; the Administration or 700-odd U.S. district judges.; 6/26/17, 12:13 PM
Bill Owens said...: With Gahrie on this. How can a non-citizen be granted rights reserved exclusively for citizens? This is half-a-loaf nonsense. Either constitutional rights are reserved for citizens or they're not 'rights' at all. And the executive either has the statutory power and, just as importantly, the responsibility to ensure that entry is granted only to those the executive deems unthreatening or the executive has effectively no immigration authority under statute. The noxious notion that campaign speech uttered by a candidate can effectively curtail constitutionally authorized power should have been bitch-slapped back to the Stone Age by the court.; 6/26/17, 12:15 PM
PackerBronco said...: Lower courts will allow everyone in, citing the lyrics to "We Are One" from the musical "The Lion King" as a legal precedence.; 6/26/17, 12:15 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "I think what you saw today was a compromise to get that 9-0 part of the ruling, but that compromise can't hold forever. "

-- Given how... odd the restriction is, probably.; 6/26/17, 12:16 PM
PackerBronco said...: Blogger Inga said...
So basically the SC upheld the hold on the Ban until they argue the case. Makes one think that perhaps they'll see the Travel Ban as unConstitutional, as did the appeals courts

And you think they should issue a final ruling before they argue the case?; 6/26/17, 12:17 PM
JackWayne said...: SCOTUS closes a loophole.; 6/26/17, 12:17 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "However, travel ban opponents noted that many visa applicants have U.S. ties, and State Department officials will have to process and grant requests for visas for those travelers just as they do now, after lower court injunctions hindered Trump's order."

-- Having ties and having bona fide, close ties are two very, very different things, and Politico erred in not making that clear, if that's where the quote comes from.; 6/26/17, 12:18 PM
Achilles said...: Another victory over the people who are trying to destroy this country any way they can.; 6/26/17, 12:20 PM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "It's really funny, to see Trump declaring victory with this minor preliminary order."

LOL

It is a victory.

The final victory will come this fall.

And, naturally, every BS and specious argument made by leftists and their "lifelong republican" allies related to campaign and prior comments and utterly ignoring the actual law and SC precedent, has been and will continue to be shot down by the SC.

It's understandable that the crazy voice-actuated leftists like Inga and their "lifelong republican" allies would try to salvage some rhetorical credibility by claiming that this isn't what it is.

We'll just file this next to "Trump can't win" and Trump/Russian collusion charges those buffoons keep sticking to.; 6/26/17, 12:20 PM
Hagar said...: Not to mention national security in time of war!; 6/26/17, 12:21 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The distinction may not be that hard to implement. The asserted problem is inability to properly vet prospective immigrants and visitors from these six countries, because their infrastructures are such a mess. Proving a relationship with someone in the US is likely a big step in vetting. And I have little doubt that the Trump Administration will put at least the initial burden of showing sufficient ties to the US on the applicants and their sponsors. Sure, there may be some who get to come in, but shouldn't, but mostly I see this sort of splitting the baby allowing the Administration to reject those with few, if any, ties to the US - which are a big chunk of those most in need of vetting.; 6/26/17, 12:22 PM
Drago said...: M Jordan: "Trump wins again. He wins in congressional races. He wins in foreign policy. He wins with the economy. He wins with climate. He wins and wins and wins ... all the while racing a completely opposition media and obstructionist Congress"

Don't forget the Deep State and their "lifelong republican" allies who are more than happy to throw out our constitution in order to "save it".; 6/26/17, 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: The majority of those seeking to travel here from the 6 countries have ties To people living here in the States.The partial reinstatement of the Travel Ban is a weak victory if the Ban doesn't actually ban the majority of the applicants seeking entry into the US.; 6/26/17, 12:23 PM
Earnest Prole said...: A pause can be placed after a pause.

It can indeed, at which point it would be relitigated as a permanent ban (the Court has a low tolerance for lawyerly semantics) -- though I wouldn't be surprised if the Court crafts its opinion in a way that telegraphs how it would rule on a permanent ban.; 6/26/17, 12:24 PM
Drago said...: The Supreme Court has delivered its ruling.

Trump will act on it.

Inga offers a differing interpretation based on something or other that she just read about 5 minutes ago.

I wonder which will prevail?; 6/26/17, 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: "And you think they should issue a final ruling before they argue the case?"

No. What a silly question.; 6/26/17, 12:26 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Having ties isn't enough. They need to have a legal relationship, a provable tie, and it must be close.

If you have no paper record that someone is a first- or second-cousin, that may not be enough. It's a victory, and calling it a partial reinstatement is just trying to insist the grapes would be sour.; 6/26/17, 12:26 PM
Matt Sablan said...: [As a point, I think the travel ban is clunky, and this just makes it even more so.]; 6/26/17, 12:27 PM
Drago said...: Earnest Prole: "It can indeed, at which point it would be relitigated as a permanent ban (the Court has a low tolerance for lawyerly semantics) ...."

LOL

Yes, someone just wrote that after we have experienced the tax that was a penalty that was a tax that was a penalty that was a tax..ad infinitum under the obamacare case.; 6/26/17, 12:27 PM
johns said...: Hillary Clinton broke many laws but Comey decided not to charge her because she didn't mean any harm.
Donald Trump didn't break any laws but the appeals court judges decided to charge him with violating the constitution because he had bad thoughts.
Would it help me to understand these things by studying constitutional law? maybe if the course was taught by Professor Obama?; 6/26/17, 12:29 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "The majority of those seeking to travel here from the 6 countries have ties To people living here in the States."

But the problem was never denying entry to those who could prove who they were, but rather, denying entry to those who could not. That is the vetting that the Trump Administration wanted to do. And in order to prove ties, they have to essentially prove who they are.; 6/26/17, 12:29 PM
Yancey Ward said...: If the liberal wing had not joined the 9-0 portion of the order, it is very likely that the entire injunction gets lifted with a date set for arguments in October. Roberts gave the four liberal justices some cover, but he won't be able to do that in the actual case decision.

For those who claim the EO is essentially on hold, you are wrong and you should read the actual order issued today. However, I do expect a lower court to again issue a blanket injunction, but it may be set aside immediately by SCOTUS if it violates any part of today's order.; 6/26/17, 12:29 PM
Earnest Prole said...: Unlike the dopey lower courts, the Supreme Court understands it must craft an opinion that applies not only to this President but to future Presidents and future national security emergencies.; 6/26/17, 12:31 PM
deepelemblues said...: So are we really supposed to believe that the majority or some large minority of people from these countries - or any country for that matter - trying to enter the United States have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States as defined by the court?

Please.

This is a barely mitigated victory for the president. And, unfortunately, another example of the Roberts court rewriting a law or EO like it did with Obamacare. The court has no constitional authority to lift the stay but alter the EO the stay affected.; 6/26/17, 12:31 PM
Darcy said...: Yeah, the SC saw the liberal loopholes coming and narrowed what it meant by close ties. This is not rocket science, but it will be tested.

Yes, there will be more lawsuits filed, but the ENTIRE SC indicated they did not buy the arguments for the injunction. This is a very big win for Trump, and will be a win in the end when the SC finally rules.; 6/26/17, 12:32 PM
Seeing Red said...: Ties or credible ties?

Now they all can be investigated.

Winning!; 6/26/17, 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: "But today the Supreme Court partially lifted those injunctions, allowing the executive order to go into effect in certain limited circumstances. Specifically, in an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Court lifted the injunctions "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." That is a small victory for the Trump administration.

However, the Court left the injunctions in place with respect to foreign nationals "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." The Court explained, "a foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member...clearly has such a relationship.... So too would a worker who has accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience." That is a sizable loss for the Trump administration."

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/26/trumps-travel-ban-is-headed-to-the-supre; 6/26/17, 12:32 PM
Mark Caplan said...: Tremendous relief on my part that the religious extremist Neil Gorsuch did not give Islam a free pass because of its (minor) religious component.; 6/26/17, 12:33 PM
The Godfather said...: The implication of the stay is that 9 Justices agree that there is a substantial likelihood that foreigners with no significant ties to the US do not have a Constitutional or statutory right to enter our country. Such foreigners have no standing to argue that the "travel ban" impairs their rights.

Another implication is that any challenge to a decision excluding a particular would-be entrant on the ground that he/she doesn't have sufficient ties to the US to escape the ban could not give rise to a nationwide injunction, such as the courts below issued; only case-by-case adjudication could be used.; 6/26/17, 12:33 PM
Drago said...: Inga believes strongly that by cutting and pasting as much as she can as quickly as she can she can change reality.

That's why Hillary is President and Trump colluded with the Russians.; 6/26/17, 12:35 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "That is a sizable loss for the Trump administration.""

-- No, it isn't. That is *exactly what they wanted,* which is for people coming here prove who they are.; 6/26/17, 12:35 PM
Drago said...: Darcy: "Yes, there will be more lawsuits filed, but the ENTIRE SC indicated they did not buy the arguments for the injunction. This is a very big win for Trump, and will be a win in the end when the SC finally rules"

Careful.

Observations such as yours might cause certain "lifelong republicans" and lefties to soil themselves.

And not in a good "Russian Hookers On Beds In Hotels" sort of way.; 6/26/17, 12:37 PM
Matt Sablan said...: ... I think that maybe, Reason and others don't recognize that simply saying, "He's my brother!" is not going to be enough. You're going to have to prove it. If you come from one of those countries on the travel ban, you may simply *not have the proof* of a close relationship.

Which will be tested, I'm sure, when someone claims someone is a family member, has no proof, and the administration says no dice, and then it goes back to a lower court to re-injunct all over again.; 6/26/17, 12:37 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Bruce is right- having ties isn't enough, you have to be able to prove those ties, and the burden of this proof is on the applicant, not the government.

I think the Trump Administration will narrow the family ties to those you can prove with birth certificates- you have parents, children, or siblings that live in the US. People with business reasons to come to the US will have to be able to prove their identities. This is going to require passports that can be verified through official channels. In addition, they and their sponsors will have to prove that the relationship/invitation isn't designed specifically to evade the EO.

All in all, this is clear win for Trump's EO. The order can be mostly enforced now, though I do expect a lower court somewhere will ignore SCOTUS and reissue another blanket injunction. Of course, Trump may just ignore such an injunction after today as it being illegitimate.; 6/26/17, 12:39 PM
Drago said...: Mathew: "Which will be tested, I'm sure, when someone claims someone is a family member, has no proof, and the administration says no dice, and then it goes back to a lower court to re-injunct all over again."

It appears so.

But as The Godfather has pointed out above, these will be on a case-by-case basis and the lower court leftist moron judges will not be in a position to create nationwide injunctions.

I'm sure Inga will cut and paste at least 3 things about that to make herself feel better.; 6/26/17, 12:39 PM
Drago said...: Yancey Ward: "The order can be mostly enforced now, though I do expect a lower court somewhere will ignore SCOTUS and reissue another blanket injunction. Of course, Trump may just ignore such an injunction after today as it being illegitimate."

That is guaranteed to occur. How could it not, given the mental state of the left and the "lifelong republicans", some of whom also claim to be lawyers interested in the Constitution.

Stop snickering.; 6/26/17, 12:41 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: "All in all, this is clear win for Trump's EO"

No, no, this is a big loss for Trump! Inga and Politico say so!; 6/26/17, 12:41 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Let's not lose sight of the issue of immigration.

When I was a kid, the phrase was the "American Melting Pot."

The thought was, our immigration policy was based on:

1. High quality immigrants
2. Coming over LEGALLY
3. Assimilating into American culture, society and the economy.

This basically worked, and I don't recall any political advantage taken by either the right or the left.

The Dems blew this up in the late 80s and early 90s, by opening the flood gates on the Southern border, to allow thousands of hispanics to enter, who didn't come legally, didn't assimilate, obtained welfare benefits, and voted illegally, almost always for Dems - at least in California.

If you add this to the genuine fear of Islamic radical immigrants coming to our country, overstaying their visas, and blowing up buildings, it makes perfect, normal, ordinary, sense to strengthen our border and try to prevent these bad things from happening.

Why is this hard to understand?; 6/26/17, 12:42 PM
Seeing Red said...: How does the fed know if the ties are credible?

Oh, I'm visiting my BIL.

Do we just say Ok come on in?

Or do we spot check?

Or dig a little deeper

What is the process?; 6/26/17, 12:47 PM
Quaestor said...: That is a sizable loss for the Trump administration.

Yes, quite sizable. About 0.002 microns.

...those who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

Apparently reading comprehension is not one of Inga's strong suits. Establishing a credible claim will reveal much that we wish to know about would-be immigrants and asylum-seekers that Obama et al. sought so strenuously to conceal from the American people. I predict many of these credible and bona fide relations will have difficulty finding a means to get here.; 6/26/17, 12:47 PM
TWW said...: Supreme Court micromanages....; 6/26/17, 12:48 PM
wwww said...: This is getting really silly.

The ban was for a 3 month period until a new system could be figured out. Permanent immigration laws are decided by the legislature. The Pres should propose a new law to the legislature for a permanent change.

Multi-national corporations need predictability. If visas are going to be rejected and things are going to change, make it clear with a law.; 6/26/17, 12:48 PM
Earnest Prole said...: It's victory for Trump in that the Supreme Court considered his executive actions like any other President and not like some unique evil. On the other hand, that's a pretty low bar.; 6/26/17, 12:49 PM
Seeing Red said...: And as bay guy suggests what if the credible guy is on a visa? Or an expired visa?

How do we find out, what is the process?

Winning!; 6/26/17, 12:49 PM
wwww said...: And if the "temporary" ban was just politics, this is short-sighted.

The post-world war II Pax Americana made the rules clear for corporations and multi-national trade. Make the rules clear or things get gummed up and confused.

Short sighted in that confusion is not something that corporations like. General Electric moved jobs to Canada because of the import-export bank confusion. Make it clear and make it permanent. Don't be unpredictable.; 6/26/17, 12:52 PM
Quaestor said...: The justices used the term bona fide. That has a rather strict meaning, which doesn't include mere assertions of relationship. Documents will have to be produced and scrutinized for authenticity. The Administration will be no doubt interpret the ruling very narrowly and will institute procedures to vet those relationship claims zealously.; 6/26/17, 12:53 PM
Drago said...: TWW: "Supreme Court micromanages..."

Hardly.

The Supremes basically said the Executive could move forward, as the Legislative branch has already explicitly legislated, without interference from lower level judicial leftists and/or "lifelong republicans" who ARE the ones attempting to micromanage because "Trump" and "Lots Of Other Really Valid Reasons H8ters!".; 6/26/17, 12:55 PM
Achilles said...: Kennedy Is going to retire soon.

Then we will be up to 5 SC justices that give a shit about the country and the coward Roberts.

There is a 99.99999% chance Trump will be making his 3rd appointment during his 7.5 years remaining in office.

There is a decent chance this ends with the traitors defeated peacefully.; 6/26/17, 12:55 PM
Quaestor said...: The ban was for a 3 month period until a new system could be figured out.

Trump should expand the travel ban to 9 months or a year, just to run their noses in it.; 6/26/17, 12:56 PM
FIDO said...: All nine justices told the 4th and the 9th that they have a reading comprehension problem.

HOWEVER, to protect their prerogatives, they will take charge of the issue and tell Trump that 90% of the people he wants out, stay out. For the moment, a touch of empathy is in order.

IF they sided with the Ninth and Fourth, they would have let the total ban on his EO stand.

It is a repudiation of the 'the law means whatever I want it to mean' that they do in California. But then again, the court most beloved by Progressives and Inga has been overturned more than any other court in the land.

For a reason.; 6/26/17, 12:57 PM
I Callahan said...: That is a sizable loss for the Trump administration

Ohh!!! Reason said it. It MUST be true.

That sanctimonious pothead rag is as anti Trump as you and LLR are. They have no basis for that being a true statement whatsoever.; 6/26/17, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/26/trumps-big-travel-ban-win-lets-not-get-carried-away/?utm_term=.2ecb4ced22ef

"This is what you might call the soft bigotry of low expectations. Yes, the Supreme Court allowed for part of the White House's travel ban to go into effect after some judges had put the whole thing on hold. But if this is what passes for a big Trump win, it's going to be a long four years for him.

For a few reasons:

1) This wouldn't really be seen as a “win” unless other judges hadn't halted the ban in the first place. If the lower courts had upheld the ban and this had been appealed to the Supreme Court by the other side, the narrative today would be that the Supreme Court just put part of Trump's travel ban on hold. It's also not altogether surprising that the more left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would go further in halting the ban than the Supreme Court would. And the sum total is still that part of Trump's ban remains blocked, with no ruling on the overall constitutionality and the possibility that it gets partially struck down for good.

2) We are simply talking about whether Trump overstepped his constitutional bounds with the travel ban executive order — a very low bar — and not whether the broader policy is successful or popular. And in fact, a recent poll showed Americans oppose the ban 52-43.

3) The degree to which the ban is being reinstated is in the eye of the beholder. Basically, the court says the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This is who actually sued over the ban in the first place, and they remain exempt from it, for now."; 6/26/17, 12:59 PM
Craig said...: I'm hoping to see some analysis of the personalities interacting in these opinions. In particular, is there alignment of Kennedy with the more right-leaning wing of the court sufficient to think that Kennedy is comfortable giving them additional and durable power? Per curiam decisions on politically controversial issues might be reassuring to him, though I'm not a close court watcher.; 6/26/17, 1:00 PM
Achilles said...: NYT's says mass deportations are the only hope to save the country

"Bottom line: So-called real Americans are screwing up America. Maybe they should leave, so that we can replace them with new and better ones: newcomers who are more appreciative of what the United States has to offer, more ambitious for themselves and their children, and more willing to sacrifice for the future."

The left are traitorous fucks. The masters want to import a more pliable electorate. One less deplorable. The tools like Inga are dangerous in their stupidity.

Never forget who it is we are fighting against.; 6/26/17, 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: 4) This is the revised, scaled-back version of Trump's initial travel ban, which was also halted by the courts. And just a few weeks ago, Trump didn't seem to be a big fan of Version 2.0, tweeting, “The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.” We are now to believe that a ban Trump suggested was inadequate and “watered down” is some big victory for his agenda?

5) As The Fix's Amber Phillips notes, the whole purpose of the ban is now in doubt. The White House initially pitched this as temporary travel ban needed to address an urgent national security concern while it developed more foolproof vetting procedures. It said it needed 90 days to do that (120 days for refugees); it's now been 150 days since the first attempt at a travel ban and 102 since the second (with no attacks by immigrants or refugees), but apparently the ban is still necessary? Even in their ruling, the judges seemed to allude to the idea that their input might be moot because that window had passed. Here's what the justices wrote:

In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following question: “Whether the challenges to §2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.”

Monday's ruling is a win for Trump only insofar as it wasn't another big setback — something he's become accustomed to both legislatively and in the courts. But this is a temporary ruling that is still blocking part of a signature executive order that Trump apparently isn't a huge fan of in the first place."

LOL. Huge "victory".; 6/26/17, 1:01 PM
n.n said...: This could provide an incentive for emigration reform. The anti-native policies of proponents for immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises forced by elective wars and social justice adventures) and Planned Parenthood are unsustainable and human rights violations, respectively.; 6/26/17, 1:02 PM
Drago said...: We won't really know what to think about this Travel Restriction Ruling by the SC until the "experts" on CNN chime in.

After all, supposedly those guys at CNN are accurate to within "one story in 100,000", according to some on this blog.

LOL; 6/26/17, 1:03 PM
Drago said...: I think Inga is only about 17 more cut and pastes away from reaching full zen calmness after this latest "setback".

I'll bet she is almost ready to throw out her "Work Your Ossoff!" T-shirt out as well.

Baby steps people. Baby steps.; 6/26/17, 1:04 PM
Quaestor said...: Abby Someone wrote (or more precisely copied without attribution): And in fact, a recent poll showed Americans oppose the ban 52-43.

From that same polling firm that predicted Ossoff over Handel nae doot.; 6/26/17, 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: "I think Inga is only about 17 more cut and pastes away from reaching full zen calmness after this latest "setback""

Perhaps if you weren't so cognitively constipated Drago, you'd actually learn something new from all my cut and pastes. I do, however understand that you Trumpists need to find those little "victories" where you can.; 6/26/17, 1:09 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "It said it needed 90 days to do that (120 days for refugees); it's now been 150 days since the first attempt at a travel ban and 102 since the second (with no attacks by immigrants or refugees), but apparently the ban is still necessary?"

-- Well, they haven't been able to see the effects of the ban. It seems unfair to interfere with someone, and then complain they didn't finish in the time they thought they would because you kept getting in the way.; 6/26/17, 1:09 PM
Seeing Red said...: You can post all day long, Inga, but what is the process? What are the criteria? How do we vet and decide who is credible?

The devil is in the details. What are the details?

Otherwise it's blather we go around in circles.

Neither of us will change each other's mind, so I'm going with winning.

Is Pence president yet?; 6/26/17, 1:10 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "If the lower courts had upheld the ban and this had been appealed to the Supreme Court by the other side, the narrative today would be that the Supreme Court just put part of Trump's travel ban on hold."

-- Yes, if one team is ahead, and then the other team gets ahead, but the score were the other way, the narrative would be different. Beautiful insight.; 6/26/17, 1:11 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "2) We are simply talking about whether Trump overstepped his constitutional bounds with the travel ban executive order — a very low bar — and not whether the broader policy is successful or popular. And in fact, a recent poll showed Americans oppose the ban 52-43."

-- If we're not talking about popularity, just constitutional bounds, why do we add in that people (like, oh, me, who thinks it isn't going to be effective) oppose the ban? Why not focus on the fact the SC shut down the entire argument via statements made at rallies, which shows the injunctions were, clearly, not argued based on constitutional premises?; 6/26/17, 1:12 PM
pdug said...: There is a roman catholic church in america. There is a priest in syria. Can the RC church in syria get the priest to come to america? is "being a priest of the same church" bonafide?

There is a mosque in america. There is a Muslim in qatar. Can a mosque in america get the muslim to come to america because the muslim is a bonafide member of the umma?; 6/26/17, 1:12 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Basically, the court says the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This is who actually sued over the ban in the first place, and they remain exempt from it, for now.""

-- So, point 3 STILL misses the point of the ban.; 6/26/17, 1:13 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Perhaps if you weren't so cognitively constipated Drago, you'd actually learn something new from all my cut and pastes."

Hey, I have learned from your cut and pastes.

But then, after I "learn" from them, a short time passes and then I "learn" that I have to "unlearn" from them, given their inaccuracy.

It's bad enough that you rely so heavily on mind-reading and insider knowledge that you do not possess, however, once we toss in all the cut and pastes from you that turn out to be wrong,...well. That's just a bit too much.

Carry on!; 6/26/17, 1:14 PM
MikeR said...: While the Trump administration will probably win their case, the really important part of the case to me is the government's request to examine national injunctions by regional courts. This is a brand of lawfare that ought to be cut back, and quickly.; 6/26/17, 1:14 PM
Drago said...: Perhaps Jeffrey Toobin of "Historic and Record Setting Reporting Accuracy" CNN can get together with Congressman-elect Ossoff to clue us all in as to what the reality is here?; 6/26/17, 1:16 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: "I do, however understand that you Trumpists need to find those little "victories" where you can."

Unlike you leftists, who lately have had no victories, whether big, little or medium-sized, to celebrate.; 6/26/17, 1:18 PM
FIDO said...: pdug

I think a large part of this bone fide thing is having someone to be responsible for you. So if a SYRIAN mosque wanted to bring in a SYRIAN national as a teacher, they would need to fill out the paperwork and be put on the metaphorical hook for his behavior. Same with the family members. As in 'If he goes off the deep end, you are ALL getting in the paddy wagon' kind of thing.

This puts a...reflective demeanor on those wanting to bring someone in.; 6/26/17, 1:18 PM
Francisco D said...: Inga is trying to show us that she is more intellectual than our initial impressions. Therefore, she has moved from bumper sticker thinking to cutting and pasting from lefty rags like WaPo.

It's not working kiddo. Try thinking through your opposition to Trump's position and come up with a cogent argument.; 6/26/17, 1:23 PM
Quaestor said...: Perhaps if you weren't so cognitively constipated Drago, you'd actually learn something new from all my cut and pastes.

Among the things we have learned is that jejune remarks like cognitively constipated is apparently the extent of your originality, Inga.; 6/26/17, 1:23 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: More important than the decision, if that makes any sense, just hear me out. The Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. The 9th resistance was delt a big blow.; 6/26/17, 1:25 PM
bagoh20 said...: This is what Trump does - Art of the Deal stuff, and I can't believe the left hasn't caught on yet.

You go in demanding the world, so your final compromise ends up most of what you want. Maybe someone on the left or in the media has brought that up, but I never hear it. It seems to be his primary M.O.

Instead they spend all their time ranting about his opening bid, becuase everything he says just makes them crazy.; 6/26/17, 1:25 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: My advice to democrats is to keep suing Trump.; 6/26/17, 1:27 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
"I think Inga is only about 17 more cut and pastes away from reaching full zen calmness after this latest "setback""

Perhaps if you weren't so cognitively constipated Drago, you'd actually learn something new from all my cut and pastes. I do, however understand that you Trumpists need to find those little "victories" where you can.

You must be getting paid. Nobody would humiliate themselves like this for free.

It is hilarious that you think most of us hadn't already read several "news" stories just like that and heard "news" reports over the radio and TV already. It is crystal fucking clear what your masters want us to think about this 9-0 decision unanimously humiliating you traitorous tools.

We don't live in a bubble like you. We see every move you people make because the media is so transparent.; 6/26/17, 1:29 PM
Jim at said...: "I do, however understand that you Trumpists need to find those little "victories" where you can."

You lost, you dumb bint.
Why can't you see that?; 6/26/17, 1:32 PM
bagoh20 said...: This E.O. will still increase the transparency of immigration from these 6 failed, dangerous states. That was Trump's main point all along. Nobody is gonna vouch for a terrorist and survive it, and they know it. Any terrorist sympathizers would be nuts bring the public eye on themselves by helping one.; 6/26/17, 1:33 PM
Earnest Prole said...: What Trump wanted: A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. What Trump got: A 90-day immigration hiatus for those from six Muslim-majority countries who lack a bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.

Compromise, the genius of the American political system.; 6/26/17, 1:37 PM
Seeing Red said...: What is the process?

That determines the win.

It is that simple.

And somehow I think that will end up in front of the Supremes.; 6/26/17, 1:38 PM
Seeing Red said...: I'm visiting my BIL.

Feds find out BIL's visa has lapsed.

Credible entry for visitor or not?; 6/26/17, 1:40 PM
Seeing Red said...: Since the standard is 1, if there's 1 lapsed visa....WINNING! Then we gotta find the guy or female and toss em out!; 6/26/17, 1:41 PM
eric said...: You must be getting paid. Nobody would humiliate themselves like this for free.

Don't underestimate the things she will do for free.

And remember, in the era of Trump, this is what winning looks like to Inga and her team. This is the best they can do.; 6/26/17, 1:42 PM
Robert Cook said...: "This E.O. will still increase the transparency of immigration from these 6 failed, dangerous states."

They are failed and dangerous in no small part due to our illegal military aggression in the region, which has wrought destabilization and acted as a match lighting the fire of extremism.

Iran, by the way, is not a failed state and is not demonstrably a threat to the U.S.; 6/26/17, 1:43 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I had some thoughts after finally reading the decision.

One was that they mentioned the Establishment claim and the reliance upon campaign rhetoric to support it. But then, essentially ignored it in their balancing of equities. Which could arguably mean that they gave it no weight. Definitely not overriding or compelling weight. On the flip side, they emphasized the President's duty to essentially defend this country, and was given significant weight - enough weight to balance in the govt's favor.

Secondly, they made the point I did above - the injunctions were much too broad, applying to those with minimal or no ties to the US, as well as those who had sufficient ties to provide Constitutional protections to those applying for entry, their families, or their associations. They found fault in the lower courts applying deference owed to those with sufficient contacts, to those who did not, esp given the national security ramifications of the EOs.; 6/26/17, 1:46 PM
Drago said...: Cookie arrives with the standard issue Zinn/Chomsky Marxist talking points.

The Middle East could have been an Eden if not for the US.

Alas, we will have to settle for leftist utopian perfection in Venezuela instead.; 6/26/17, 1:47 PM
Dave from Minnesota said...: If I can do an off topic item.....secular (more or less) gay Jews in Chicago were banned from the gay pride parade. At least if they wanted to keep their flags.; 6/26/17, 1:51 PM
Etienne said...: "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship"

Whatever the [expletive] that means...

Isn't a bona fide credible?; 6/26/17, 1:52 PM
Todd said...: exiledonmainstreet said... [hush][hide comment]
"I do, however understand that you Trumpists need to find those little "victories" where you can."

Unlike you leftists, who lately have had no victories, whether big, little or medium-sized, to celebrate.

6/26/17, 1:18 PM

I know I shouldn't but...

What do you mean NO victories? There have been victories aplenty! These last three "special elections" were not-won by the Democrats by a much smaller margin than expected! WINNING! The court injunction against the EO travel ban was in place for many weeks! WINNING! Not all the professors that have recently been on TV saying stupid liberal stuff have been fired! WINNING!

You just have to adopt a "glass half full" outlook!; 6/26/17, 1:54 PM
bagoh20 said...: On another SCOTUS ruling today, 7-2 for Trinity Lutheran who wanted to share in the government's largess on equal footing with a nonreligious school, and not be discriminated against simply for being religious, Sotoamayor and Ginsburg dissented with:

"Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg wrote a lengthy dissent, summarized mostly in its conclusion, arguing that this ruling actually damages religious liberty:

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment contain a promise from our government and a backstop that disables our government from breaking it. The Free Exercise Clause extends the promise. We each retain our inalienable right to “the free exercise” of religion, to choose for ourselves whether to believe and how to worship. And the Establishment Clause erects the backstop. Government cannot, through the enactment of a “law respecting an establishment of religion,” start us down the path to the past, when this right was routinely abridged.

The Court today dismantles a core protection for religious freedom provided in these Clauses. It holds not just that a government may support houses of worship with taxpayer funds, but that—at least in this case and perhaps in others, see ante at 14, n. 3—it must do so whenever it decides to create a funding program. History shows that the Religion Clauses separate the public treasury from religious coffers as one measure to secure the kind of freedom of conscience that benefits both religion and government. If this separation means anything, it means that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship. The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment. I dissent."

To me, that's just dumb reaching with very lame logic which these highly educated women only allow themselves because of their leftist bias, which they must feed everyday, to prevent it's slow dying on the vine.; 6/26/17, 1:54 PM
Quaestor said...: You lost, you dumb bint.
Why can't you see that?

I think you answered your own question.; 6/26/17, 1:55 PM
Robert Cook said...: "The Middle East could have been an Eden if not for the US."

No, but I think those who believe it actually existed point out that the Garden of Eden was in the middle east.

In any case, the ME would not be in its current state without our having crashed in there stupidly and criminally a decade and a half ago, following up on a century of Western interference and plunder in the region.; 6/26/17, 2:00 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: "They are failed and dangerous in no small part due to our illegal military aggression in the region, which has wrought destabilization and acted as a match lighting the fire of extremism."

Even if this was true, which it is not (the ME has been a dangerous failure for a long time now), it does not give people from those states an automatic right to come here.; 6/26/17, 2:01 PM
khesanh0802 said...: @ bagoh20 I agree with you on Sotomayer's dissent. Quickly affix the BS tag!; 6/26/17, 2:02 PM
Seeing Red said...: So then, they're against mandatory forcing of nuns to pay for birth control?

If only Cookie could commune with Charles the Hammer.

We didn't start the fire, it was always burning.; 6/26/17, 2:05 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Even if this was true, which it is not (the ME has been a dangerous failure for a long time now)**, it does not give people from those states an automatic right to come here."

Yes, because our criminal invasion was merely a follow up, as I noted in my last comment, to a century of Western military and political interference in the region.

I don't say people from those states have "an automatic right" to come here. However, neither should they be burdened with extra impediments to coming here that tourists or seekers of residency from other countries do not face. After all, many of these people are fleeing their homelands to escape the violent catastrophes that we have helped bring about.; 6/26/17, 2:06 PM
Drago said...: Cookie: "Yes, because our criminal invasion...."

Lol

Just keep repeating that. Over and over and over. Krishna-like.; 6/26/17, 2:12 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Whatever the [expletive] that means...

Isn't a bona fide credible?"

-- No. Credible is modifying claim, bona fide is modifying relationship.

It is saying it isn't enough to simply claim you have a bona fide relationship, the claim itself must ALSO be credible.; 6/26/17, 2:12 PM
khesanh0802 said...: @Matthew Sablan 1218 Yes, “who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” That tightens things up considerably. Who's going to check the credibility and bona fides? The Trump administration. 9-0. How many 9-0 Scotus decisions are there? Looking forward to having this heard before the full court to get some elucidation on the power of the executive re national security.; 6/26/17, 2:14 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Just keep repeating that."

Of course. Why wouldn't I? The truth can't be repeated often enough in a world of lies.; 6/26/17, 2:14 PM
Seeing Red said...: Charles the Hammer.

What was the reason then?; 6/26/17, 2:18 PM
buwaya said...: If the Europeans and the Americans had not meddled in the ME, the whole place would be at about the economic level of Niger or Chad.

The development of petroleum and its associated technologies made these places matter to a degree above that of raising sheep or growing pistachios (the former major export of Iran btw).

And as for Egypt, even more so. No Suez canal, no vast irrigation in the delta, no export earnings of any sort without the 19th century explosion of agribusiness (Egyptian cotton), and, probably, no population explosion. 90%+ of all modern Egyptians exist because Europeans made it possible for them to exist.

The bit in "Life of Brian" - "what have the Romans ever done for us?" - is nowhere clearer than in the ME.; 6/26/17, 2:18 PM
Rabel said...: 1. They elaborated, however indefinitely, on "bona fide."

"The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has
such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must
be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,
rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The stu-
dents from the designated countries who have been admit-
ted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship
with an American entity. So too would a worker who
accepted an offer of employment from an American com-
pany or a lecturer invited to address an American audi-
ence. Not so someone who enters into a relationship sim-
ply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to
immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from
the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then
secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

2. "How do non-citizens not residing in the United States have any Constitutional rights at all?"

The ruling referenced a possible undue constitutional burden on the relatives living in the US, not the immigrants.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded."; 6/26/17, 2:20 PM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...

Of course. Why wouldn't I? The truth can't be repeated often enough in a world of lies.

You mean like the "No WMD lie" you keep repeating? Shipping them off to Syria didn't make your lies true.; 6/26/17, 2:20 PM
buwaya said...: And as for violent catastrophes, that was the regular condition of those parts even when most of it was under the kindly rule of the Ottoman empire.; 6/26/17, 2:20 PM
Robert Cook said...: Who's to say the nations of the ME couldn't have brought about their own modernization and economic growth, given, after all, the oil fields and wealth located under their land? Much of the military and political violence we visit on the region is in response to signs or outbreaks of regional independence from U.S. prerogatives that occur every so often.; 6/26/17, 2:24 PM
Drago said...: Cookie: "The truth can't be repeated often enough in a world of lies"

Perhaps you should start comrade.....but then again, we see where speaking truth has gotten folks in leftist "paradises", haven't we?; 6/26/17, 2:24 PM
Sebastian said...: Haven't read the decision yet, but I take it that it says that in the interest of security the Executive may apply a stronger "ban" to people without than to people with a "credible" claim to a "bona fide" relationship in or with the U.S.

Do they cite any portion of, you know, the Constitution, legislation, or precedent for the distinction?; 6/26/17, 2:25 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Who's to say the nations of the ME couldn't have brought about their own modernization and economic growth,..."

History and reality.

You know, the things the left rewrites every single day.; 6/26/17, 2:25 PM
The Godfather said...: @Robert Cook: History shows that the peoples of the Middle East are capable of creating violent catastrophes without help from the United States.; 6/26/17, 2:28 PM
Robert Cook said...: "You mean like the 'No WMD lie' you keep repeating?"

"Shipping them off to Syria didn't make your lies true."

The bolded portion of your statement is one of the oft-told lies that only die-hards still hold onto.

As for me, I tell no lies.; 6/26/17, 2:30 PM
DanTheMan said...: >>And in fact, a recent poll showed Americans oppose the ban 52-43.

An election last November showed a clear majority of Americans not in California supported it.; 6/26/17, 2:31 PM
buwaya said...: "Who's to say the nations of the ME couldn't have brought about their own modernization and economic growth,"

No, that is not possible. There is a basic cultural incapacity. They cannot maintain a high technological level without millions of more-capable foreign guest workers even today. If they could keep the oil and the dollars flowing with their own people they would, and many of them have tried to, desperately and expensively, and have always failed.

In contrast, Mexico and pre-Chavez Venezuela managed to run their own oil industries with native labor and even their own well-regarded management and technical experts.; 6/26/17, 2:34 PM
Robert Cook said...: "An election last November showed a clear majority of Americans not in California supported it."

Strictly speaking, more voters voted for Clinton than Trump in the November election. So what "clear majority" are you speaking of?

(I'm not among the majority who voted for Clinton. I couldn't bring myself to cast a ballot for either of the imbecilic moral monsters being run by the major parties.); 6/26/17, 2:35 PM
Drago said...: Cookie: "The bolded portion of your statement is one of the oft-told lies that only die-hards still hold onto."

LOL

It is oft told truth best told by those who actually watched in real-time as the trucks bearing the chemical "gifts" from Iraq to Syria rolled over the border.; 6/26/17, 2:36 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Strictly speaking, more voters voted for Clinton than Trump in the November election. So what "clear majority" are you speaking of?"

The clear majority of voters who delivered the necessary majority votes needed to elect a President under our actual, as opposed to "not actual", system.

I'm sorry you are not aware of this. It was in all the papers.; 6/26/17, 2:37 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Robert Cook said...
Who's to say the nations of the ME couldn't have brought about their own modernization and economic growth, given, after all, the oil fields and wealth located under their land?"

They didn't have the technology to do it. The British and Americans did.; 6/26/17, 2:38 PM
Robert Cook said...: Drago, that's a very complicated way of avoiding stating the reality: more Americans who voted for President in November voted for Clinton than for Trump. Trump's election is legitimate, as per our constitutionally created Electoral College, but to claim "a majority" of voters are happy Trump's actions--based on his having been elected--is simply not true. (Given Trump's low approval ratings, it's also ludicrous and futile.)

Just live with that and be happy that the founders' undemocratic impulses put your preferred candidate in office.; 6/26/17, 2:43 PM
khesanh0802 said...: Thank you , Rabel. Pretty clear that what is now in place is pretty restrictive.; 6/26/17, 2:45 PM
Earnest Prole said...: Just live with that and be happy that the founders' undemocratic impulses put your preferred candidate in office.

As I say to my children, you don't have to like it, you just have to eat it.; 6/26/17, 2:56 PM
James K said...: more Americans who voted for President in November voted for Clinton than for Trump.

In those dozen or so states in which the election was actually contested, according to the way elections get decided in the U.S., Trump won a decisive majority of the votes. The rest of the states went through the motions of having meaningless vote counts with the outcomes pre-determined, and yeah, Hillary won a majority of those meaningless votes.; 6/26/17, 3:04 PM
Quaestor said...: Robert Cook wrote: Just live with that and be happy that the founders' undemocratic impulses put your preferred candidate in office.

Just be thankful the Wisdom of the Founders kept the obviously criminal Hillary Clinton away from the levers of power. I know you're not thankful, but I also know you are not especially wise in these weighty matters.

BTW, the College is an expression of the sovereignty of the several states. Funny how Democrats don't understand fundamentals, is it not?; 6/26/17, 3:07 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Drago, that's a very complicated way of avoiding stating the reality: more Americans who voted for President in November voted for Clinton than for Trump."

I'm sorry that you cannot grasp that had an outright majority of voters been required to win the Presidency EVERYTHING would change. But only everything. The nominating processes, where candidates spent all their time/dollars, etc.

Typical leftist: Static analysis all the way.; 6/26/17, 3:13 PM
Dave from Minnesota said...: It would be interesting to see how the November voting would have changed if we did decide by popular vote.

For example, Trump may have ignored Wisconsin and gotten maybe 30,000 less votes there. But what if he then would have campaigned heavily in Calif, NY and other big population states.; 6/26/17, 3:15 PM
Achilles said...: "Just live with that and be happy that the founders' undemocratic impulses put your preferred candidate in office."

The founders didn't want giant corrupt states like California opening up voting booths in Mexico to take over national elections.; 6/26/17, 3:18 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Loretta Lynch is in big trouble. Media on ignore.; 6/26/17, 3:20 PM
Dave from Minnesota said...: Advantages of electoral college:

- The states decide who they want to be president. Wisconsin decided it wanted Trump

- Recounts. Do you want a national recount in the next close election? Every voting precinct seeing fights and lawsuits for weeks if not months after the election.

- Fraud. How do you steal an election when you don't know which state would be the best one to target? Democrats can create all the fake votes in California that they want. Republicans in Texas the same, but it doesn't matter. You'd have to know ahead of time that Michigan would be within a few thousand votes. With a popular vote, a California can let anyone who wants to vote and maybe throw the race.; 6/26/17, 3:24 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: I realize you want to say your piece, but three times is not impressive in a good way.

6/26/17, 3:27 PM

Just making more of a mess for Althouse to clean up.

If someone didn't want me in their home, I'd stay away. I wouldn't barge in repeatedly and take a dump in the living room.; 6/26/17, 3:30 PM
Browndog said...: A carve out for one becomes a carve out for all....eventually.

Remind me of the last a Court ruling settled anything once and for all, that didn't keep lawyers gainfully employed.

To me, the Court re-wrote the Statute, and both sides see it as a win.

ugh.; 6/26/17, 3:39 PM
themightypuck said...: Bottom line here is that 3 Justices are for deference to executive here while 6 are willing to take up the argument that it is possible people who have a bona fide relationship with existing citizens may have some rights that are abrogated by the order. What is also true is that the logic of the 4th and 9th circuits is unlikely to be supported by any final ruling. I'd say it is a win for Trump and probably the best he could have expected. The Supreme Court has for years liked balancing acts (much to the chagrin of old school textualists/originalists). Given that, it seems conceivable that the final ruling will instantiate some balancing test that talks about various levels of "scrutiny."; 6/26/17, 3:50 PM
James K said...: To me, the Court re-wrote the Statute, and both sides see it as a win.

Only temporarily, until they take up the case. It remains to be seen whether they would do this baby-splitting when they actually rule on the order. I suspect they'll have to decide all or nothing, and they'll give Trump a full victory.; 6/26/17, 3:55 PM
Browndog said...: As I said before, the Courts need to issue and Edict stating Immigration policy. Then, inform Congress what laws they need to pass to be in compliance.

The "co-equal" Executive will do what he's/she's/ xhe's/zho's told. They can raise their hand if they have a question.; 6/26/17, 3:58 PM
Drago said...: Rene Saunce: "Loretta Lynch is in big trouble. Media on ignore."

Bernie was interviewed on CNN and CNN "overlooked" or "forgot" to ask him about the investigation into he and his wife.; 6/26/17, 3:58 PM
Browndog said...: James K said...

I suspect they'll have to decide all or nothing

I suspect, as history as a guide, they'll do everything but-; 6/26/17, 4:02 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Drago

"Bernie was interviewed on CNN and CNN "overlooked" or "forgot" to ask him about the investigation into he and his wife."

No criminals on the. They are all above the law.

Remember when it was discovered that John Edwards had a child with a woman not his wife ? - media desperately wanted to skip that story. Media try so hard to fight for their party.; 6/26/17, 4:13 PM
Drago said...: MSNBC is reporting that the ruling would have gone in the leftist direction but there was heavy rainfall in Washington DC which kept the leftist judges from reaching the Court.; 6/26/17, 4:14 PM
Drago said...: Rene: "Media try so hard to fight for their party"

Well, the media, the dems and their allies on the "lifelong republican" "right". (wink wink); 6/26/17, 4:15 PM
Browndog said...: Drago said...

MSNBC is reporting that the ruling would have gone in the leftist direction but there was heavy rainfall in Washington DC which kept the leftist judges from reaching the Court.

Funny, sad, and possibly true, all in one snarky sentence.; 6/26/17, 4:34 PM
Sebastian said...: OK, have read the opinions now. They make the distinction based on "balancing the equities" BS. As if national security, and the responsibilities assigned to the president in the Constitution and federal law, are a mere "equity."; 6/26/17, 5:36 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: @sebastein - they have to go through the equity discussion because injunctions are equitable remedies. The lower courts did the same thing - they just put their thumb on the other side of the scales. Notably, the Supreme Court essentially didn't really look at the weight of depriving potential immigrants and refugees who have no real ties to the US any Due Process rights. And didn't either really consider the respondents' Establishment claims, both which were weighed heavier by the lower courts than the govt's need to provide national security.; 6/26/17, 6:33 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "Bottom line here is that 3 Justices are for deference to executive here while 6 are willing to take up the argument that it is possible people who have a bona fide relationship with existing citizens may have some rights that are abrogated by the order."

I don't really think that the Supreme Court was that deferential to the Respondents. Rather, I see the majority acknowledging that some categories of immigrants, refugees, and their families and supporters might have some Due Process rights, but put the burden on them to prove that they are in that class. Those without a provable boba fide relationship clearly do not.; 6/26/17, 6:41 PM
khesanh0802 said...: Since Ann has not put her two cents worth in on this I am going to add Josh Blackman's comments:
"Today, all nine Justices agreed that President Trump’s travel ban should be allowed to go into effect, in part. Three Justices–Thomas, Alito, and Gorusch–would have allowed the entire travel ban to go into effect. The Supreme Court did what the lower court judges would not–treat President Trump like any other President with the “presumption of regularity.” The Justices did not delve into the President’s twitter account, nor did they parse his campaign statements. Instead, they stressed the “Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” As it stands now, President Trump can implement his travel ban with respect to aliens that do not have a sufficient connection to the United States. This will likely create some confusion–who does and does not have such a relationship–but at a minimum, the Court reaffirmed the President’s statutory and constitutionality authority to protect national security. Further, I agree with Justice Thomas that the Court, without dissent, strongly suggested that the government “is likely to succeed” when the case is argued in October. On remand, the lower courts should take the hint: afford the President the “presumption of regularity” in this case, and others."

Looks like the Ninth Circuit and others will be awarded the "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate" once again during the next SCOTUS session.; 6/26/17, 7:08 PM
khesanh0802 said...: To reinforce Rene Saunce: Loretta Lynch getting closer to hot seat!; 6/26/17, 7:14 PM
khesanh0802 said...: More on Dems being investigated.; 6/26/17, 7:17 PM
MaxedOutMama said...: To me it seems like a big fail for Trump. Because if applying to come as a student or to work in the US is a "tie", then in effect there are no rules. And the rationale for the ban was that certain countries were so effed up that there were difficulties in vetting applicants.

So I look at this as a very big win for the opposition. I do not like to think that the Establishment Clause is being extended in this way, and especially not to a religion that defines itself as a political entity.; 6/26/17, 7:20 PM
Browndog said...: I don't really think that the Supreme Court was that deferential to the Respondents. Rather, I see the majority acknowledging that some categories of immigrants, refugees, and their families and supporters might have some Due Process rights

It seems unknown categories of immigrants, refugees, et.al. jumped from "might" to "do", without due process, via an Edict.; 6/26/17, 7:25 PM
DanTheMan said...: I'll repeat my solution from months ago: set up a process to allow anybody from any of these countries into the US. Make it so cumbersome and so paper-bound, that it takes YEARS to get in.
In other words, hire retired DMV workers, put post office employees in supervisory positions, and let the IRS run the computer network.

Nobody gets through before 2030, at least...; 6/26/17, 8:11 PM
heyboom said...: Robert Cook said:

In any case, the ME would not be in its current state without our having crashed in there stupidly and criminally a decade and a half ago, following up on a century of Western interference and plunder in the region.

When I was in the military 30 years ago we knew the Middle East was more of a threat than any other region in the world. And growing.; 6/26/17, 8:20 PM
FIDO said...: Ms. Althouse,

Having read the decision, exactly how much of a smack down did the Supremes lay on the 9th and the 4th for overreach?; 6/26/17, 10:16 PM
Birkel said...: FIDO,
Complete and total. The SCOTUS rejected the lower courts' reasoning entirely. The lower courts' decisions are set aside. The TROs are no more.

But other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?; 6/26/17, 10:28 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: @Fido - I think that it was a pretty major smackdown:
- Supreme Court essentially ignored the Establishment argument, which is where the lower courts imported what they believed to be animus towards Islam based on campaign rhetoric. They did this by not mentioning it in the preliminary injunction weighting of equities.
- On the other side, they did find the President's duty to protect the country to be compelling, and that he was acting at the height of his power. This was the factor that the lower courts pointedly ignored. Instead of ignoring the factor, which they did for the Establishment claim, they concentrated on this factor.
-,While there was a 3 Justice partial dissent, this was a per curium decision, which means unanimous, including the 4 liberals who often vote the Dem party line. These are some of the strongest sort of decisions.

@Birkel - Preliminary Injunction (PI), not Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). TROs are only to maintain the status quo ante until a PI hearing can be had. We are often talking only a few days, and in some cases, TROs can be ex parte. Then, there is a PI hearing, and if the movant wins, a PI is issued, until trial on the merits, at which the court can issue a permanent injunction. All of these are considered to sound in equity, not law (English used to have separate courts for the two, but we combined them). One of the equitable requirements for a PI is showing likelihood of success on the merits (at the actual trial). It was in this calculation that the Suprem Court looked to the President's power to keep the country safe, while the lower courts looked to, among other things, the reverse Establishment Clause claim based on animus imputed from Trump's campaign rhetoric. The high court mentioned it in passing (arguably to show that they hadn't missed it), but then pointedly ignored it when looking at likelihood of success on the merits, implying that it was a meritless claim.; 6/27/17, 3:12 AM
Kevin said...: Having read the decision, exactly how much of a smack down did the Supremes lay on the 9th and the 4th for overreach?

How about this? For starters, the whole "he said this during the campaign" idea was just smacked down. The idea that it was religiously motivated, or a muslim ban, was just smacked down. The idea that the president can't target specific countries and treat them differently was just smacked down.

The only question left seems to be whether the restrictions can apply to people with some connection to US citizens. Whether the rights of US citizens are violated without due process by banning non-citizens from coming.

And frankly, I think that's going to be a very difficult case for them to win. But they have preserved it for another day. They didn't say Trump was totally right you ignorant bastards in the 9th and the 4th. And I think it would have been politically difficult for them to do so without weakening the Judicial Branch, which was clearly playing politics here.

So to save face, they left in place the idea that maybe there was something to look at. Maybe the courts weren't politicized.

Self-preservation applies to organizations as much as it applies to people.; 6/27/17, 7:32 AM