Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules for Trump in Travel Ban Case
Fox Business ^ | June 26, 2018 | Staff

Posted on 06/26/2018 7:20:14 AM PDT by abb

This just in


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; bordersecurity; deportthemall; derrickwatson; enforcethelaw; hawaiianjudge; immigration; lawsuit; maga; moratorium; muslimban; scotus; travalbanupheld; travelban; trump; trumpscotus; trumpscotusruling; trumptravelban; trumpwinsagain; winning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: buckalfa

I disagree, The president was ruled the constitutional authority on immigration WITH OUT the congress. It is clear in the decision.


81 posted on 06/26/2018 8:09:40 AM PDT by raiderboy (Trump has assured us that he will shut down the government to get the WALL in Sept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

WINNING!


82 posted on 06/26/2018 8:13:49 AM PDT by MEG33 (Help Shorten FReepathons......DONATE MONTHLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Wow, no kidding.

Nice to see a victory, but if we’re going to parse something this obvious, then our nation is in serious trouble.

I am however beginning to feel like the next election turns into an absolute blood bath for Democrats. I’m thinking the average American has just about had enough of the psychotic Democrat party. Pure evil, dangerous, stupid, and ....ANTI AMERICAN!


83 posted on 06/26/2018 8:16:47 AM PDT by Professional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: fatima

I once heard Newt say POTUS has the authority to vacate a court if the judge is misbehaving. He said Jefferson did it. Suggested GWB do it to some renegade judges. Then reconvene the court with a different judge.


84 posted on 06/26/2018 8:17:43 AM PDT by Tucker39 ("It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

Thanks,Wonder if we are going to get any retirements before the week is out.


85 posted on 06/26/2018 8:20:46 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: abb

Time to remove four activists from this court and replace them with actual judges.


86 posted on 06/26/2018 8:23:28 AM PDT by chris37 ("I am everybody." -Mark Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

The biggest decision is yet to come. If SCOTUS rules against compulsory union dues for public employees, the Dems will lose a huge revenue stream and the unions will be weakened.


87 posted on 06/26/2018 8:24:01 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdnaMode

“9th circuit to overrule in 3...2....1...”

Given the 9th is a lower court, they can’t.

But, yes, they will attempt to circumvent.


88 posted on 06/26/2018 8:24:20 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Valin

“When the dog bites”

You’ve got to stop talking about Maxine Waters...


89 posted on 06/26/2018 8:26:57 AM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: kabar
The fact that this was a 5-4 vote shows how politicized SCOTUS has become. This should have been a slam dunk for Trump.

You're right. Those four would rule for or against anything that the anti American, unconstitutional left wants them to rule for or against. They simply make up their justifications from thin air.

90 posted on 06/26/2018 8:30:07 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: raiderboy

You disagree!
How unusual.../S


91 posted on 06/26/2018 8:55:50 AM PDT by MEG33 (Help Shorten FReepathons......DONATE MONTHLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: abb

MAGA!


92 posted on 06/26/2018 8:59:59 AM PDT by GonzoII ("If the new crime be, to believe in God, let us all be criminals" -Sheen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸
93 posted on 06/26/2018 9:01:57 AM PDT by GonzoII ("If the new crime be, to believe in God, let us all be criminals" -Sheen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
Can we all agree: "Trump’s order is NOT a 'TRAVEL BAN'? It is an INVASION BAN order.

This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.

The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.

Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.

94 posted on 06/26/2018 9:01:57 AM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

The best thing Mitch ever did was hold up the supreme court pick of Obama.


95 posted on 06/26/2018 9:02:17 AM PDT by pas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
Link to the actual Supreme Court Opinion
96 posted on 06/26/2018 9:03:21 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

5-4
Outrageous
The Rats don’t care about the rule of law not even at the SC. It could not be more clear and it should have been 9-0.
Remember
Rats never recuse
Rats never resign


97 posted on 06/26/2018 9:04:58 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: abb
From the opinion:

The upshot of our cases in this context is clear: “Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility” of the President “to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution,” and our inquiry into matters of entry and national security is highly constrained. Mathews, 426 U. S., at 81–82. We need not define the precise contours of that inquiry in this case. A conventional application of Mandel, asking only whether the policy is facially legitimate and bona fide, would put an end to our review. But the Government has suggested that it may be appropriate here for the inquiry to extend beyond the facial neutrality of the order. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16–17, 25–27 (describing Mandel as “the starting point” of the analysis). For our purposes today, we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review. That standard of review considers whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. See Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 179 (1980). As a result, we may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds..

And in a footnote to this section writes:

The dissent finds “perplexing” the application of rational basis review in this context. Post, at 15. But what is far more problematic is the dissent’s assumption that courts should review immigration policies, diplomatic sanctions, and military actions under the de novo “reasonable observer” inquiry applicable to cases involving holiday displays and graduation ceremonies. The dissent criticizes application of a more constrained standard of review as “throw[ing] the Establishment Clause out the window.” Post, at 16, n. 6. But as the numerous precedents cited in this section make clear, such a circumscribed inquiry applies to any constitutional claim concerning the entry of foreign nationals.

98 posted on 06/26/2018 9:08:29 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raiderboy
This means the president can stop Mexican illegals!!

That was my first thought! Under the umbrella of national security (which it is), he can restrict in-migration from any country, and can boot out any undocumented foreign persons he so chooses.

No more due process for ineligible illegal aliens. Deport on contact with law enforcement!

99 posted on 06/26/2018 9:09:18 AM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: abb
It's a WIN!
100 posted on 06/26/2018 9:10:42 AM PDT by GOPJ (David Ignatius sided with Germans against his own country - what a jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson