SCOTUS to Issue Ruling on Trump Protect America Travel Ban

[Bush92]

Coming next week. Will be yet another Trump win.
Supreme Court could reveal action on travel ban at any time

 

[DGS49]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I didn't realize the SCOTUS had even announced they had accepted the case.

 

[Bush92]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?

It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?

It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.

I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?

 

[Bush92]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?

It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.

I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?

Court could say that now it is moot because of time constraints. But this ban was part of "extreme vetting " campaign.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?

It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.

I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?

Also, if the "extreme vetting" we're to disproportionally affect Muslims, the left would judge shop to find a judge to block it just as the temporary ban was blocked.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?

It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.

I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?

Court could say that now it is moot because of time constraints. But this ban was part of "extreme vetting " campaign.

Was the entire "extreme vetting" campaign put on hold due to not getting the temporary ban?

 

[Bush92]

The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.

I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?

It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.

I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?

Court could say that now it is moot because of time constraints. But this ban was part of "extreme vetting " campaign.

Was the entire "extreme vetting" campaign put on hold due to not getting the temporary ban?

Got to have a budget first. How can you provide $$$$ to do it if you don't have the cash because Democrats are being obstructionist.