SCOTUS Strikes Down Hawaiian Judge On Travel Ruling

[AZGAL]

THERES A LOT OF CRYIN' right now over at the NYT...like pulling off toenails must have been to have to print this headline!

The New York Times

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban, Delivering Endorsement of Presidential Power
By Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear

• June 26, 2018
• • WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly-Muslim nations, delivering a robust endorsement of Mr. Trump’s power to control the flow of immigration into America at a time of political upheaval about the treatment of migrants at the Mexican border.
    
    In a 5-to-4 vote, the court’s conservatives said the president’s statutory power over immigration was not undermined by his history of incendiary statements about the dangers he said Muslims pose to Americans.
    
    Mr. Trump, who has battled court challenges to the travel ban since the first days of his administration, hailed the decision to uphold his third version of an executive order as a “tremendous victory” and promised to continue using his office to defend the country against terrorism and extremism.
    
    “This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country,” the president said in a statement issued by the White House soon after the ruling.

 

[protectionist]

The SCOTUS gave Trump another victory today also. They struck down the law that pro-life pregnancy centers were required to inform clients of abortion centers, and issues about abortion,. Now all that abortion stuff will be flushed out of those facilities.

Another HUUUUGE victory for Trump, and conservatives.

U.S. top court blocks California law on anti-abortion centers​

 

[Geaux4it]

We don't need their kind here in America. Glad Mr Trump took care of it

Winning!

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

LOL

Another temporary Trump butthurt 'policy' that will end the moment he's gone. But his followers think it is a galactic command that will last till the end of time.

You still got your motherfucking shit thrown back in your faces.
FUCK YOU, YOU HAWAIIAN FASCIST BITCH!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

Well all you Liberal Sociopaths lost big time. It is now the Law of the Land! Rant and rave all you want. It is not going to change a thing! A losing season over all!

Since it's been in effect for months, I'm not really feeling the need to cry again. Everyone knew the Pres would "win" on this, although it will probably be looked back on in 50 years as the work of a flamboyant bigot.

You knew because he was RIGHT, and you on the left were wrong.

Point being is all it amounted to was a massive WASTE OF TIME!!!

 

[AZGAL]

Say it Rachel, say it...

 

[mudwhistle]

The SCOTUS gave Trump another victory today also. They struck down the law that pro-life pregnancy centers were required to inform clients of abortion centers, and issues about abortion,. Now all that abortion stuff will be flushed out of those facilities.

Another HUUUUGE victory for Trump, and conservatives.

U.S. top court blocks California law on anti-abortion centers​

YUUUUUGE

 

[Wyatt earp]

Notice that the Dimocraps are staying away.

They're waiting for instructions from the mainstream state run media.

What's the matter, Mud? No one to troll? LOL

Because your shocked?

 

[Wyatt earp]

LOL

Another temporary Trump butthurt 'policy' that will end the moment he's gone. But his followers think it is a galactic command that will last till the end of time.

You still got your motherfucking shit thrown back in your faces.
FUCK YOU, YOU HAWAIIAN FASCIST BITCH!!!!

Why do you even post to him, he has like 95% of us on ignore

 

[danielpalos]

On what basis is there any need for any ban? Is it really really serious, right wingers.

wow, I guess you really don't think much, do you?
ETA: Sorry, for some reason I thought you were del. I do apologize for the insult.

Look at the strain that is on each and every system we have. Even our social safety net is stretched to the point of breaking. We need immigration right now like we need a plague outbreak.

let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, to pay for it. The right wing doesn't want to pay, war time Tax Rates, anyway.

 

[Darkwind]

On what basis is there any need for any ban? Is it really really serious, right wingers.

wow, I guess you really don't think much, do you?
ETA: Sorry, for some reason I thought you were del. I do apologize for the insult.

Look at the strain that is on each and every system we have. Even our social safety net is stretched to the point of breaking. We need immigration right now like we need a plague outbreak.

let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, to pay for it. The right wing doesn't want to pay, war time Tax Rates, anyway.

No such thing as 'war time taxes'.

However, I would agree to paying for it by cutting government by at least twice the amount of taxes the left wants to be reinstated.

 

[danielpalos]

On what basis is there any need for any ban? Is it really really serious, right wingers.

wow, I guess you really don't think much, do you?
ETA: Sorry, for some reason I thought you were del. I do apologize for the insult.

Look at the strain that is on each and every system we have. Even our social safety net is stretched to the point of breaking. We need immigration right now like we need a plague outbreak.

let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, to pay for it. The right wing doesn't want to pay, war time Tax Rates, anyway.

No such thing as 'war time taxes'.

However, I would agree to paying for it by cutting government by at least twice the amount of taxes the left wants to be reinstated.

Are your silly Wars, really really serious or not, right wingers. Don't waste our time, if you are not serious and just want tax cut economics.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

 

[JoeMoma]

Well all you Liberal Sociopaths lost big time. It is now the Law of the Land! Rant and rave all you want. It is not going to change a thing! A losing season over all!

Since it's been in effect for months, I'm not really feeling the need to cry again. Everyone knew the Pres would "win" on this, although it will probably be looked back on in 50 years as the work of a flamboyant bigot.

Only by people that don't understand math. Over 90% of the world's Muslims were not effected, so if the ban is a "Muslim Ban" then its not a very effective one.

 

[AZGAL]

The Corner
Law & the Courts
Trump’s Revised Travel Ban Survives
By Dan McLaughlin
June 26, 2018 1:36 PM

The Supreme Court this morning upheld the Trump “travel ban” (or, depending on your point of view, “Muslim ban”) in a 5-4 decision (Trump v. Hawaii) written by Chief Justice Roberts. Though the decision divided the Court along ideological lines, it is not actually that surprising, given the Court’s previous decisions in this area going back many years. As I have written previously (see here, here, here, and here), the travel ban was not a good idea or particularly well thought-out, but it is within the traditionally broad powers of the federal government to exclude foreigners from the country for just about any reason. Today’s decision is some vindication for Trump as well as for those of us who argued that the critics of the order’s legality were ignoring the Supreme Court’s precedents in this area. But it is not the sweeping ruling that some might think. It gave weight to the Trump’s Administration having backed down and revised the order twice after early legal challenges, suggesting that the Court might not have been quite so certain about the original order. And the Court very clearly focused the decision on the uniquely broad power to exclude foreigners – it does not give the president power to engage in religious or other discrimination involving citizens, or indeed anyone else present within the country.

As a reminder: the federal government can legally take an action if (1) it has been given the power and (2) that power isn’t restricted by someone’s rights. If the power is one that at least partly belongs to Congress, the president can exercise it only if Congress passes a law giving him the power to enforce it. And the courts can stop an action that exceeds either of these only if (3) someone has standing to challenge the action.

Taking the third point first: the law is very well-settled that foreigners have no Constitutional right whatsoever to enter the United States; they can use the courts to sue for entry only if a Congressional statute has given them that right. Nobody in Trump v. Hawaii argued otherwise, which is why the Court did not even ask whether people restricted from traveling to the U.S. had their rights violated: there are no legal rights to violate. That’s why there was nobody arguing that the case involved a violation of religious liberty, for example. Instead, family members of people excluded by the ban argued that the ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – that it was legally the equivalent of the government setting up a state church to bar entry by refugees and others seeking to travel here from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The Court agreed that the family members had standing to sue, and went on to find that Congress had long ago given the president broad authority under 8 U. S. C. §1182(f), which states:

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.

As the Court noted, past presidents such as Obama, Clinton and Reagan had exercised this authority on 43 different occasions, often without offering much explanation justifying these determinations. Congress could change that law, or Trump or a future president could revise the travel ban, but until then, this is legally the president’s decision to make.

 

[AZGAL]

EU BAN re: Venezuela officials
Today's decision brings to 18 the total number of individuals under sanctions in view of the situation in Venezuela. The Council listed for the first time 7 Venezuelan officials involved in the non-respect of democratic principles or the rule of law as well as in the violation of human rights on 22 January 2018. The restrictive measures aim to help foster democratic shared solutions that can bring political stability to the country and allow it to address the pressing needs of the population.
USA BAN re: Venezuela officials: The travel ban has already been in effect since late last year and targets Venezuelan government officials and their families.
As inflation in Venezuela soars out of control, embattled President Nicolas Maduro has deployed the army to markets to enforce government-set food prices.
Venezuelans are battling with hyperinflation that has made the local currency near-worthless while supermarkets and pharmacies suffer severe shortages.

Colombia’s president-elect will not appoint Ambassador to Venezuela
Colombia’s president-elect, Ivan Duque, says he will not appoint an Ambassador to Venezuela as long as Nicolás Maduro – whom he considers “illegitimate”- remains in office. He will maintain “consular relations”. More in Spanish: (Noticiero Venevisión,

 

[danielpalos]

A Corp of Agricultural Engineers can solve the problem!



Socializing Costs is what Socialism can Always be Good for!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Travel ban fight personal for Hawaii's 'scholarly gentleman'

 

[Darkwind]

On what basis is there any need for any ban? Is it really really serious, right wingers.

wow, I guess you really don't think much, do you?
ETA: Sorry, for some reason I thought you were del. I do apologize for the insult.

Look at the strain that is on each and every system we have. Even our social safety net is stretched to the point of breaking. We need immigration right now like we need a plague outbreak.

let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, to pay for it. The right wing doesn't want to pay, war time Tax Rates, anyway.

No such thing as 'war time taxes'.

However, I would agree to paying for it by cutting government by at least twice the amount of taxes the left wants to be reinstated.

Are your silly Wars, really really serious or not, right wingers. Don't waste our time, if you are not serious and just want tax cut economics.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Silly is a childs response.

Cut government is the solution. First, last, and always.

 

[fncceo]

On what basis is there any need for any ban? Is it really really serious, right wingers.

At this point, it's main value is in who it upsets the most.

 

[TheParser]

Great news for patriots who want to prevent the entrance of terrorists.

But, of course, it is only a battle won.

When the Republicans leave the White House in 2024 (or earlier, if the deep state gets its way), the Democrats -- aided by demographic changes -- will eventually win the war to change the face (literally) of this nation.