The Travel Ban

Another interesting pull quote -- Looks like the SCOTUS is well aware of how liberal activists groups work

 

The silver lining...there's only 3 months and change until the case is heard.

Immigration officials can quietly apply the ban to and reject those foreigners who entered into said relationships with entities after this ruling.

Sure they'll get sued (what's new) but the litigation could be drawn out until SCOTUS rules on the full case.

 

Rough 7 days for Dems --

On top of this Order .....
+ Court also agreed to hear same-sex wedding cake case
+ the Russia story dying
+ seeming confirmation another SCOTUS pick is coming
+ the Georgia Congressional beat down
+ CNN admitted reporting fake news and had to re-organize their newsroom over it

 

With CNN and the others losing credibility, that will kill the democratic party. They depend on the MSM to give them bias reporting. Without the bias reporting, I know 17 candidates that would have blown Hillary away in a landslide in the general election. Heck, without the bias reporting Hillary wouldn't even been the Dems candidate.

 

Thomas Sowell --

“One of these days, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may declare the Constitution unconstitutional.”​

 

9-0 hollaback girl

 

BTW, Gorsuch is already providing exceptional bang for the buck.

He supported a full reinstatement of DT's travel ban (dissented against relationship exemptions) while voting to hear the full case.

On the two religious rights cases, he ruled in favor of Trinity Lutheran and also to hear the case for Christian bakers refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake.

Finally in a case SCOTUS refused, Gorsuch joined Thomas in dissent against denying the second amendment case of a San Diego resident refused a concealed carry permit.

 

9-0 to hear the case and allow parts of the ban to go into effect. Small wins are big for this White House I guess.

 

And what were Obama's wins?

 

What does the Travel Ban have to do with Obama?

 

NFIB v. Sebellius, for better or for worse.

 

Outside of Obamacare, his admin was like 0-13 in Supreme Court cases, losing many by 0-9.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeac...orst-record-supreme-court-modern-history/amp/

 

Read below. How is this even possible?


In the 2016 term, the Obama administration argued 10 cases that resulted in unanimous decisions against the government, meaning the president did not receive a vote from his own justices he appointed to the Court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Sorry, I'm still struggling to figure out what Obama has to do with the Travel Ban.

 

It's nice to have a president who isn't running down the constitution. In that context, a small win (which is what you called it) is a big win compared to the previous administration.

 

Man...you went 'round the world to tie that non-sequitur to this topic. My comment on "small wins" was a reference to claiming "vindication" and a 9-0 win when what Trump has so far is a 3-0 head and partial implementation head start. The premature celebration is becoming a hallmark of this administration.

You wouldn't know this from the various celebratory self pats on the back by Trump and his surrogates but his significant wins to date:
1. Gorsuch on the SC
2. Pulling out of Paris Accords (which was significantly unpopular by all but the Trumpsters)
and ....

Neither of those required any bipartisan participation or consensus building. That was the context of my calling this a "small win".

Early on I said this would likely be found legal based on my rudimentary understanding of the legal issues. Still, this pretty minor change won't have any measurable impact on our safety and was done, like most things Trump, to grandstand on an issue for his base. Why did he have to work so hard to achieve a pretty minor win? Because Trump doesn't take the easy way on anything. His mouth and fingers drove him into these challenges (muslim ban, berating the courts, etc) when he could have quietly achieved the win. He's not interested in the win if it doesn't come with the the stage and recognition. In the end, he'll marginally improve what the Obama administration already achieved when they put stricter vetting on these 6 countries without all the fanfare. Literally, Trump continues to pick minor battles and convince his supporters they are worthy of being called wars. I'd call much of the show "pathetic" but that gives Trump and his merry band of "alternative fact" truth tellers too much credit.

Whew...I need to get that off my chest.

Now, what does Obama have to do with the Travel Ban again?

 

Obama worked hard to create open boarders and to facilitate access to the world including rogue countries and radical Islam.

 

Welcome back theiioftx. I missed ya.

 

Warren & Waters make for quite the comedy duo
I love that they are considered the leaders of their political party

 

Waters is a leader of the Democratic party? Must be those "alternative facts" again. I'll give you Warren. Waters is just a crazy loon from a "safe" district.

 

Obama had a compliant press, Trump not so much.

 

In the name of security ... the magic carte blanche.

 

Stat, you're right, but the judiciary has generally been very deferential to the executive branch on matters of national security.

 

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson is at it again. Expanding the Supreme Court's definition of "close family members" to include; grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and brothers- and sisters-in-law in the U.S.

And, just to really stick it to Trump, he threw in that refugees who have “formal assurance” from U.S. resettlement agencies for relocation to the country — even if the refugees do not have relatives in the U.S. — cannot be prevented from entering.

I guess Judge Watson knows better than the U. S. Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hawaii-judge-travel-ban-07132017-story.html


.

 

Wont stand. He is directly contradicting SCOTUS. And he knows it

 

These absurdly anti-American activist judges are gonna make two more Gorsuch's joining SCOTUS so much sweeter.

 

Yep. Few things are more rewarding than seeing judicial tyrants who don't give a crap about the written law getting slapped down and humiliated.

 

It's not like the grown-ups on the court didn't warn exactly what would happen after the ruling reinstated only a partial ban...

"Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately to say they would have revived Mr Trump’s travel ban in full. The “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”, they wrote, and will invite “a flood of litigation”. And, Justice Thomas added, the very judges that blocked Mr Trump’s travel ban would probably be the ones considering whether a potential traveler has a “bona fide” reason for being excused from it."

And people think DT will nominate a centrist to appease the 'obstruct by any means necessary' left.

 

Jeff Sessions statement about Judge Watson's latest ruling:

"By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court".

Can Watson be impeached?