Posted on 06/26/2017 8:03:45 AM PDT by bar sin·is·ter
This is no question a major win and foreshadows a bigger win in final ruling
It appears the decision to reinstate the ban except for those with a “bone fide relationship with the US” was unanimous, except for 3 justices who would have reinstated the ban fully without exception (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch).
They “stayed” the injunctions which means the ban is in place unless overturned by SCOTUS(Which it wont be).
Yes, 9-0, except 3 justices wanted to reinstate the ban fully and dissented as they called the “bona fide relationship” exception to be “unworkable”.
“I fear that the court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Justice Thomas 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, Justice Thomas wrote, quoting from the majority opinion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-case.html
Hey Merkel, pack sand bitch. This is how you run a western country, you sausage eating beer swilling globalist whore.
RTFA. The silly unconstitutional injunction was vacated!
IT’S SETTLED LAW!!!!!
this is very unusual from many standpoints. this is a huge win for our side.
>> Islam has been at war with civilization for 1395 years.
Exactly. Islam is a war plan.
Yup, that’s what they say.
That's because you were reading what passes for editorial content these days, which twists itself in pretzels trying to make everything Trump does sound impossible or illegal.
!. Trump issued, via an entirely proper Executive Order, a travel ban from terrorist nations, consistent with those of former Presidents Carter and Obama.
2. Activists sued; two judges in two separate federal districts issued injunctions preventing the Executive Order from taking effect.
3. The DOJ appealed to the SCOTUS.
4. The SCOTUS lifted the injunctions, and agreed to review the case. They are about to go on vacation, so an extensive review won't come until later; but it is unlikely to be found unconstitutional. As Trump said, the law is so clear-cut, a sixth-grader could understand it. Activists are claiming anti-muslim bias as their excuse, which is both unproven and unprovable.
Praise the good Lord!
The Left will absolutely go into nuclear meltdown. Still, I don’t trust the Supremes as far as I can sling a dead cat. I will wait until they uphold it for good or strike it down to get emotional.
This is one major reason why such a massive push of muslims to european countries. To be able to get here and avoid the ban.
The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claimof a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.
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 students from the designated countries who have been admitted 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 company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii.
In practical terms, this means that §2(c) 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. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.
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 students from the designated countries who have been admitted 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 company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.
Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply 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.
9-0 tells me even the liberals on the bench are saying to the 9th circus that they are clowns, and have no idea what is in the Constitution.
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.