Posted on 06/26/2017 8:24:30 AM PDT by Helicondelta
*FINGERS CROSSED*...that SANITY prevails!
*********
The USSC is unlikely to overturn the travel ban IMO. Doing so would severely weaken the president’s authority to control entry into the US and enforce immigration policies that protect our nation. The USSC doesn’t really want to be in the business of managing immigration or being responsible for any deadly consequences arising from allowing dangerous people to flood into the country. They will give Trump most of the authority he wants rather than put themselves in a position of accountability for future “problematic” immigration and terrorism incidents.
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
It’s either that or they’d have to admit that the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Wonder how DU is holding up, lol.
Very disappointing that it was not overruled. That’s the kind of gut punch the 9th circuit deserves.
He can retire any time. They haven't heard this case yet, they just granted cert. If Kennedy retires today then a new justice will hear and vote on it.
“...assuming they’re not psychotic....”
...which would be an incorrect assumption.
IMHO
No he did not. In fact his modified ban avoided all mention of Muslims. Instead of attacking the problem of Muslim immigration he tackled the potential of immigrants being terrorists. He strengthened the hand of Muslims.
BTTT!
Wouldn’t we have heard by now if he was going to retire today? I doubt he’s waiting until 5pm to announce it...and you know the sieve that is Washington.
NTOWY
I have no idea if or when Kennedy will retire. I was only addressing the issue of a delay in his retirement raised by the post to which I was responding.
I’ve read that Thomas, Alison and Gorsuch wanted the whole ban in place because they’re worried what the court has just decided will be unworkable:
Justice Thomas noted that the ruling was difficult to interpret.
“I fear that the court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” he wrote.
“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country.
“The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid’ the executive order.”
Source:
How do you figure that is going to happen. We are now about to go into July. Even if Kennedy resigned TODAY..Trump likely cant get a Justice sworn in by the hearing.
This is the schedule
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/2017_schedule.htm
the next one won’t be approved before this case is heard.
...so what was the decision..? 6-0? 5-1? 4-2?
*Alito, not Alison.
Thanks, autocorrect (it also wanted to change Gorsuch to Gorbachev but I caught that one!).
No idea. The decisions to hear the case and partly lift the injunction on the ban in the meantime were made in private conference, so no public acknowledgement of who voted which way. All we have if the stated decision of the court, and the partial dissent to that decision from Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.
Medias pretty quiet. Not what they expected. Awwwww
Just noticed the word ‘unanimous’ in a UK article...
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.