President Trump is nudging the SCOTUS to Make America Great Again.
2
POTUS has no idea that Muslims are all over the world, and have large populations in S.E Asia. The argument that he isn't banning "Muslims" is specious. If he knew that they lived somewhere else beside the Middle East, he would probably ban all of them, for fear of contamination by the terrorists. Imagine if Americans were banned in Europe because we have mass-killers here, and one might sneak through!
1
In the past two days, two “New York Times” columnists—Linda Greenhouse and Nicholas Kristof—have made direct and indirect references to US government policies that resemble The Nuremberg Laws enacted and ruled constitutional in Germany in the Thirties.
Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear report that the Supreme Court seems to be “leaning” in favor of Trump’s “Muslim travel ban;” a ruling which also seems to carry the fascist scent.
The Times seems to be in the area of “a little bit pregnant.” If the editors screening columns, are not absolutely clear that what your writers are seeing resembles European behavior in the Thirties, then don’t mention it at all. But if it’s there, have the courage to explore it.
2
The President has discretion regarding National Security matters. He has to. The Supreme Court will allow this. The Courts should not put themselves in a position to overrule matters of National Security. There is a reason the Executive branch is charged with this. They are the only branch that has immediate access to confidential national security information. To second guess and delay matters of National Security for years during Court reviews. Imagine if during this lifting of the ban we let the next 9/11/2001 terrorists into the country and a cell is building. We will not know if that happened, because we could not adequately screen from those countries because they will not cooperate. The fact that liberals want a court to block matters of National Security based on election rhetoric is the height of insanity. Obama signed 5 such bans during his 8 years and the liberals never flinched, from these same countries. The last president not to use bans was Clinton, and it led directly to the 9/11 disaster.
6
"The chief justice then asked whether Mr. Trump could immunize his order from constitutional challenge simply by disclaiming his earlier statements. “If tomorrow he issues a proclamation saying he’s disavowing all those statements,” the chief justice asked, “then the next day he can re-enter this proclamation?”
Mr. Katyal said yes."
With this answer, Katyal lost the game. He is claiming that a President is unable to carry out his constitutional duties because of statements he made as a private citizen (even if it was during an election).
This should be 9-0.
7
"Neal K. Katyal, a lawyer for the challengers, rejected that analysis. “If I’m an employer and I have 10 African-Americans working for me and I only fire two of them” but retain the other eight, he said, “I don’t think anyone can say that’s not discrimination.”
Huh? If all I have is African-American workers, firing two is not discrimination. If I have 30 workers, 20 white and 10 African-Americans, and I fire two African-American workers, that's not discrimination.
Of course, any firing could be discrimination per se. But it's not discrimination judging solely on the numbers.
Somebody, please explain Katyal's logic.
3
"Somebody, please explain Katyal's logic."
The Times's quote is out of context. You can read the full transcript here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/17...
(The quote is on page 65.)
In Supreme Court, the prior court decision takes precedence over everything else including justices especially in the case of immigration and it is no surprise they will agree with the Dotard.
Since the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from passing any law that "respects the establishment of religion," should the Executive Branch be prohibited from enacting any Policy that respects the establishment of religion?
Isn't that a valid question? And isn't the answer quite obvious? Attempting to disguise the issue by including a couple of non-Muslim majority countries is signature Trump fakery. Even justice with Her blindfold can see through that.
1
I shouldn't bee too confident, Messrs. Liptak and Shear. It's true that Donald's legal team has had three chances to get this right -- if that's the word -- and it's true that conservatives don't much want to invade executive authority, but neither do these justices intend to expand the reach of the president to make law, especially when his motives are questionable.
In any event, the next Congress can correct any misgivings.
I listened to this morning's The Daily and I understand the leaning of the majority of the Justice's that this is less about blatant racism of the ban but rather Presidential ability to issue it regardless of his views...
but I know what will happen is if the Supreme Court votes in the majority in favor of the ban to continue, the Trump carry this as a victory banner for his poor views.
Hence its less about the legality of the issue but the consequences of letting these short-sighted views in the future... we must remember Citizens United...
1
I believe nothing this white house occupier says or, God help us, tweets because he changes it whim by whim, sometimes second by second. His words are meaningless one minute and dangerous the next. That the Supreme Court would support this ban after everything we have witnessed from this intolerant egomaniac is just one more huuuuuuuuge step toward normalizing the worst, most corrupt, anti-Constitutional, anti-American chief executive, administration and party in our country's history. What the Court ruled in December was bad enough. If the SCOTUS upholds this ban, why bother even having a Constitution, or for that matter, a SCOTUS?
If we were opening our doors a bit wider for the terrible plight of those suffering in war-torn places, I might feel differently, but we are not. We have become a cruel, heartless nation that literally rips children from their parents' arms when they legally migrate (see the article in today's paper), refuses to admit people suffering horrendous displacement (Syrians), refuses to take care of its own (Puerto Rico), and exists solely to explode the overflowing coffers of the superrich. A ruling for the ban will add another shameful stain to the underbelly of America via this ugly, conservative-ruled court.
1
Chad - Iran - Iraq - North Korea - Libya - Sudan -Venezuela - Somalia - Syria - Yemen
Spend some time in any of these countries to understand that "proper venting " is totally impossible.
4
"The justices appeared ready to discount Mr. Trump’s campaign promises to impose what he repeatedly described as a “Muslim ban,".....And when it is upheld he will brag that he fulfilled his campaign promise to ban Muslims. You can look the other way. You can pretend that is not what the ban is about. But everyone knows what was really intended....except maybe 5 Supreme Court Justices.
1
So sad and predictable. Evil is abroad in the land, and Trump with his travel ban is its servant.
Trump and this line are recruitment posters for terr'ists. We go abroad and ruin people's neighborhoods, and don't help people in desperation and despair, we should not be surprised that this makes enemies of people who have nothing to lose, and enables our enemies.
2
For those who doubt, the SCOTUS conservatives are partisan Republicans. They'll trust themselves into pretzels to follow the Republican line. Who says the Supreme Court conservatives aren't biased?
1
Just look at France and England and ask yourself as a citizen if you want what they have here?
Have the guts to look at the reality of the world today. It's not like it was when people from all over the world came to the USA and made it the great country it is today.
8
sans a few White guys with AR15's. it's all good as long as mericans are doing the shooting, eh? NRA has no blood on their hands right? we have more domestic terrorism pal...look at facts much?
1
"Just look at France and England and ask yourself as a citizen if you want what they have here?"
We already have Voltaire and Shakespeare, so what is your point?
Why won't the court address the elephant in the room: Does the First Amendment apply to foreign nationals residing outside the country? If so, why?
4
"Why won't the court address the elephant in the room: Does the First Amendment apply to foreign nationals residing outside the country?"
The Supreme Court hears *appeals* from lower courts, so you need to cite a specific case that has been heard by a lower court.
1
TRW:
1. No. The Constitution only applies to citizens and/or persons under US jurisdiction. Otherwise people in Finland could claim they have US first amendment rights, even though they are not in the US, they reside in Finland, and are Finnish citizens. I think the Finnish government would agree.
2. This is not a first amendment issue. These countries are not on the list because they are Muslim. They are on the list because they appear to the Administration to be a security risk, and it is the Administration that decides, not the Courts and not Congress. Why? Because the Administration is in the best position to know the facts, not the Courts and not Congress.
3. The reason that this is not a Muslim list is that the vast majority of Muslim people and Muslim countries are excluded, and non-Muslims living in the list countries are included. There is no analysis that can construe this logically as a Muslim ban.
3
I hope the Justices read the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on sanctuary cities before deciding this. The three judge panel, all GOP appointees, assailed DOJ and the administration for its violations of separation of powers in threatening to remove funding from cities that refuse to participate in the reporting requirements of the ICE when suspected immigrants are stopped or arrested. The opinion by Judge Rover says poignantly that the "separation of powers among the branches of government is a "bulwark against tyranny." This fundamental issue of democracy also is before the Supreme Court in the travel ban case. Sustaining a travel ban would be a political ruling, and one that offends the constitution.
3
Conservatives are vandalizing our democracy.
2
It's ludicrous to think that an administration that is so obviously enamored of a regime that attacked our elections process is truly concerned about "national security." An administration that cared about national security would be doing everything in its power to secure our elections and our citizens' personal data, and this administration has not. If anything, this administration by its actions has endangered our national security. It has leaked classified intel to a hostile nation, and the "president" has discussed classified information in public spaces. The "president" uses a personal cell phone to tweet policy.
This ban, in my opinion, should be reviewed in light of its actual effectiveness in countering terrorism. The fact that a country whose residents were largely responsible for 9/11 is absent from the list of banned countries invalidates the entire ban, as does the singular focus of the "president" on "Muslim Terrorists" when this country has seen more attacks by American white supremacists since his installation than it has seen attacks by foreign terrorists.
Further, the administration's entire "immigration policy" is suspect when it knowingly separates families--particularly in cases where young children are separated from their parents. So yes, this "ban" should be reviewed in context of the total "immigration policy" of this administration, and it should NOT be upheld.
4
The Court appears willing to give the president the 'benefit of the doubt?' By his campaign promises shall you know him. The only certainty here is Trump's very apparent biases against people of color. What we have here is a Republican majority on the Court that is willing to discount the racist comments of candidate Trump. Each time the president opens his mouth, it leaves little doubt about his intentions.
3
The entire system has been sullied and corrupted - even the Supreme Court! America has become the land of the lawless. Maybe we will find the Constitution in a time-capsule discovered by a generation eons into the future i.e if America exists then!
4
On this particular issue, SCOTUS' apparent willingness to turn a blind eye to sheer prejudice, unadulterated fear-mongering, and blatant demagoguery should be sounding alarm bells across this country. We may have reached a tipping point in our country's history. When a government inherently designed to function as a self-regulating system of checks and balances no longer does so, what's left?
2
If you don’t have legal training then you are not competent to have an opinion about the proper outcome of this case. People are screaming that the ban must be unconstitutional without ever reading the Constitution, not to mention the myriad immigration statutes and interpretations of those statutes. Just because a decision does not go the way you want does not mean it is legally wrong. That’s a very common leftist way of thinking, but that makes it so we live in a nation of men, not a nation of laws. Let the 9 distinguished experts on the Court tell us what the law us. That’s their job. I would never tell a doctor how to perform surgery. Don’t pretend you know how to interpret laws.
8
Perhaps you should read that constitution. Most of us have. (Try Khizr Khan, whose son died in the service of his country, and who has come in for much Trumpian hatred, for example.)
2
"People are screaming that the ban must be unconstitutional without ever reading the Constitution,".....Have you read the Declaration of Independence? What do you think about the statement ..."we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal"...? Do you believe that? Are you an American?
1
I’m in law school. I have read the Constitution. And I know enough to know that I have no idea how this case should turn out.
3
This is getting more than surreal. That the SCOTUS is even entertaining a ban on travel for a group of nations whose nationals by and large haven't done anything violent in our country is absurd for a Democracy to consider, it's like unfurling the old Iron Curtain of cold war Eastern Europe. This all seems like grotesque theater, when the real threat to Americans post Korean War has been home grown violence perpetrated by armed Americans on the unarmed.
This is smelling more and more like idealogical lackeys, good old boys, supporting wannabe strongmen like seen in fascist Europe in the 1930s, in support of extreme nativism bordering on cultural eugenics.
Americans live under a gun tyranny to the tune of 30000-40000 dead at the hands of fellow Americans year in year out it's why the Parkland teens are marching for peace and rationality. If the SCOTUS supports the POTUS on this it will be in contempt of the true violent scourge that terrorizes Americans and be in support of the ongoing gun tyranny that threatens Americans and their children everywhere in our country.
This vote is about rights and freedoms for all versus prejudice and unforgiving injustice toward some, most whom are innocent. The POTUS is no innocent here he's playing with human rights and freedoms for his own personal gain, he's no altar boy or enlightened renaissance man. He's in contempt of enlightened democracy if it results in less rights and freedoms for nonviolent unarmed travelers globally.
1
Using National security for religious discrimination is a slippery slope. Our history is filled with catholic, Jewish, Japanese,and other minoritys being discriminated against on National security grounds. In Germany in the Nazi regime the legal discrimination led to the death of over six million Jews.
Supreme Court Justices especially catholic justices need study history more than rationalizing putting lipstick on this pig.
1
I think it's important to remember that the legality of the issue is separate from the wisdom and/or efficacy of the issue.
It's not the job of the SCOTUS to judge policy. Their sole responsibility is to determine the legality of the order.
Is there an asterisk of some sort on the relevant immigration law that states no travel can be restricted if the President is "an uninformed racist sociopath"?
3
Ruth Ginsburg dissented, I can't imagine the treatment Mrs Ginsburg would receive in most of those countries, I would hazard a guess and say the red carpet would not be rolled out.
So why would she think she would be treated better here by those same folks ?
3
The strict constructionists claim that they know what the founding fathers were thinking over 200 years ago, but then go to discount anything Trump said about his motivation for the ban. Can we now collectively admit that the emperor has no clothes and that strict constructionism is just a way to justify right wing reactionary thinking?
1
Why am I not surprised. We discriminated against Chinese immigrants who helped build our railways. We discriminated against Irish immigrants. We discriminated against European Jews fleeing the holocaust. We discriminated against Japanese citizens interned in WWII. And now we're discriminating against Muslims and Latinos. Have we no shame?
2
The intention by this President was and is a Muslim ban, whether it is sanctioned by the Supreme Court or not. A justification of the ban by the Supreme Court will be based on deception. Just as the new tariffs on steel and aluminum became a "national security" justification, we are being conned in another direction.
When will we become aware of the fact we are being ruled by three branches of Government sanctioned on lies, manipulations and all manner of pure deception? Where are the Statesmen whose conscience guided how they governed the Country, the rule of law and the welfare of the people? We have lost what moored us to justice and equality for all.
1
Totalitarianism is as American as propaganda and the masses who swallow it.
American dropped nuclear bombs, America jailed thousands of innocent Japanese. America propped up and supported brutal dictatorships globally.
Not shining beacon on the hill would do those things.
1
So who will Trump ban next, will it be Africans, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists. Don't these justices know about freedom of religion which of course when the Constitution was drafted only meant freedom of religion for those the founders agreed with, not much different today. This is a travesty if they uphold Trumps ban.
Focus appears to be upon whether this is a “Muslim ban”, with the view that if it were, then a tighter ban would have been proposed.
That is a “half a loaf is better than no bread” approach by the White House.
It seems odd that a defense against prejudice against group X amounts to saying a few of your best friends are X’s.
There is the added claim that group X is a threat to security. But it would seem the President all by himself, known to have no ideas he hasn’t gleaned from Fox & Friends, is the only and final judge of security claims.
It appears that Trump has made the point for making Consitutional amendments that make impeachment mandatory, not a discretion of Congress, in the case the President is unfit or a nincompoop.
It is a pity how politicized the highest court in the nation is. It is so predictable to count the votes for and against a case based on its level of conservative or liberal or middle of the road origin. This really limits the true assessment of the case on its constitutional merits and holds the citizens hostage to laws that may or not be constitutionally legal.
A country built on the merits of law is subjected to puppetry of the politicians and the judges they put on the bench to serve their own agendas.
Justice Roberts, why don't you be the instrument of change and uphold the constitution by putting an end to political rigging of decisions just to please the executive and legislative branches of the government.
Do something Noble for the majority of the citizens of this great nation.
1
Has the highest court in our land lost its collective mind? This same body that ruled against racism in Brown v the Topeka Board of Education is considering allowing this ban? It is racist and discriminates against Islam. The ban once again displays Trump's inhumanity and baseness.
What happened to religious tolerance -- the creed on which our country was founded? Every religion has its extremists. Would our grotesque President have banned the Puritans? They in their time were considered radical in their beliefs. Lord knows they were extremists.
I found it appalling that Trump's initial ban specified only Muslim countries in which he did NOT do business. That right there indicates where is Trump's values have always lain. I am appalled to have to consider that the Supreme Court is contemplating upholding the actions of this vile man. Trump's every word and deed drips venom and he is poisoning our country.
5
A Muslim ban that bans only 10% of the world’s Muslims isn’t a very effective Muslim ban
4
clayb, get over yourself. SCOTUS hasn't lost its collective mind, people like you have. What you show in this comment is your deep emotional hate for President Trump. That is your right to feel that way but you shouldn't let it destroy rationality this way.
This is not a Muslim ban. As Justice Alito pointed out it involves less that 8-10% of the world's Muslim population whether you look at it as a % of population or as a % of Muslim predominant countries. How effective can a Muslim ban be if you are allowing 90% of the world's Muslim population to continue to travel here freely. Every day since Trump took office thousands of Muslims enter and exit our borders even with the ban in place.
And maybe he doesn't do business in these countries for the same reasons most other Americans don't... these countries have significant populations of uncontrolled violent fundamentalist Muslims who have waged Jihad against the West. And these countries don't have trustworthy mechanisms of records and monitoring that we usually rely on in vetting potential immigrants.
BTW, was President Obama "poisoning our country" when he signed a law in 2015 designating these same countries as "countries of concern" placing increased restrictions on persons attempting to enter the country from them? During his presidency Obama visited 58 countries but he never visited a single one on the banned list. How come? Does that show his travel values are the same as Trump's business values?
3
@Tom
I don't care if it *is* only 10%.
It is STILL illegal and, more importantly, Immoral.
1
The part which seems to have been forgotten was this was supposed to be a 90 day travel ban while a policy was created. It's been 16 months now and they are still trying to get their "90 day" travel ban and there has been no policy put forth. I think that makes it pretty clear that their original "travel ban" was not what they claimed, but just a means to implement an agenda.
4
Statistics show that most of the "terrorism" attacks in the US were done by Americans. So, by that thinking ,it would be appropriate for all other countries to ban All Americans from entering.
7
That depends on which dictionary you use.
If you use mine then you are wrong.
1
The SC didn’t consider Obama’s big and much repeated campaign lie, “if you like your plan...,” when they ruled on the constitutionality of Obama are.
6
What? I am unsure about your statement and its clarity. What are you saying? And once you make clear what you are saying, what does this have to do with the Travel Ban?
Once upon a time, probably in the years when bigots think America was Great, we did this to Chinese immigrants. It was a shameful episode in our shameful history, and now we've returned to repeat it. The Republican Party is now the party of institutional hatred and fear, devoted to the Libertarian creed that greed is good and murder is justified. Shame shame shame on us all.
2
When was this done to he Chinese immigrants.
Do you mean the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
2
SCOTUS is usually deferential to the prerogatives of the president as commander in chief, but I hope they consider that prior national security officials say Trump's travel ban will harm national security and that Trump is an uninformed racist sociopath.
Politics rule the Supreme Court now.
Just politics.
2
Hypothetically assume as correct the Supreme Court justices that suggest the Court should ignore DJT campaign staements but should defer to the administration claims of national security. Presumably by Chief Justice Roberts hypothetical scenario “We have 100 percent solid information...” the chief justice posited. “... could the president ban the entry of Syrian nationals on that one day?” circumstances surrounding a ban for security purposes do matter.
Am I to understand the response to CJ Roberts hypothetical did not include the observable fact that terrorist attacks have not been committed by citizens from banned countries but have been committed by citizens from non banned countries?
1
Thanks, Congress, for stonewalling and blocking President Obama's nominee for our highest court, enabling the evisceration of SCOTUS' ability to guard us against swamp monster totalitarianism.
7
And the U.S. Dems and obama for not taking gop misbehavior to we the people. Paring knives at the gunfight at the ok corral lead to failure.
3
The only way that the Court can reach such a hideous ruling is either a total disregard for what Trump said during his campaign or a total disregard for what the Solicitor General is saying in court now. One of them is lying. This is a disgrace. This is a stench from the Court that will last for a long time.
1
I’ve always found it interesting that no one ever questions the rigid liberal orthodoxy of the four liberals on the SC. Their vote is as close to a sure bet as can be.
It’s always up to one or more of the conservatives to “break rank.”
11
I dont like where this is going.
The ban was proposed because the vetting processes from theses countries was not equal or satisfactory. They have had plenty of time to resolve this and this should be part and parcel of the ban....your country will be allowed once these rules are followed....like everyone else.
However the Supreme Court is trying to decide what Trump means when he says no Muslims? Not good.
In my view the questions are, does the president have this unchecked power and does the ban do what was proposed? And does it allow travel reinstatement with equal compliance? Those are the better tests for whether the ban is about religion, terrorism, or just politically securing an unjustifiably scared base?
3
The vetting process is far from being a effective method to screen out undesirables.
You need a ban of some kind even if it isn't a completer ban.
1
Our President attorney's in cases involving Mr. Trump had previously asked for a female, an African American and a Judge of Mexican decent to recuse themselves from law suits involving Mr. Trump because they couldn't be fair based on nothing more than race, national heritage and sex.
The President is a bigot. This isn't an emergency. This is the President keeping a campaign promise to his base. His base is made up of a large number of Neo Nazi's who would undermine the very fabric of our Country. This is a Muslim ban.
The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott was in part responsible for the worst war in this countries history. The Court should think long and hard before siding with this President and his base.
3
It is always a mistake to assume that the questioning reflects how a justice will vote. Often the questioning represents the "other side" to see how well it holds up. Its not done until its done.
1
This is the political court America gave to McConnell and Republicans to pervert.
Too bad all those American voters who smile and walk among us today - who pretend to be nice people - were so easily deluded in 2016. When it mattered, when alone with their choice, they did the selfish thing on 11/9/2016.
Now we have selfish country. Don't blame the despot. We wanted it.
3
The point of origin for this so called travel ban was the presidential election campaign. There were many anti Muslim statements made by candidate Trump. This was all done to please and appease Mr. Trump's audience. The statements carried a religious and nationality animus. How can this be influenced to develop a policy on travel ban?
In what way have the countries on the travel ban posed a threat or committed any criminal activity on US soil? Why is it that countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not on the list? There were citizens of those countries that harmed our country.
The Justices should not come to a conclusion with a day's deliberations. There is more work to be done, which require further scrutiny of the exact intent and purpose of the travel ban. Not to do so, would create a precedent, going against the Constitution, Rule of Law and the values our country stands for. And, a precedent that would allow additional regulations to come up in the future.
The Court very commonly refers to Congressional debate about legislation to gain an understanding of the law's intent, so as to judge whether the purpose is consistent with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Why not apply the same method to the President? Trump has made it abundantly clear what his true intention is.
But I suppose in an era where Presidents can grab people up and stash them in secret prisons forever, or can drop bombs on them for whatever pretext, it's consistent to say that Presidents can just keep whoever they want from traveling here for whatever reason.
We've pretty much destroyed this nation's credibility as a defender of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Putin treats us with total contempt - because he thinks we're just like him, and he can see right through our feeble posturing and claims to some sort of noble motives. How is poisoning a political enemy in England any worse or better than "rendition"? We dress it up with a Supreme Court charade ... but it's not so different when the tread hits the dirt.
1
Oral arguments are theater. Supreme Court discussions and decisions are made behind closed doors. That’s why Justice Clarence Thomas never asks a question - by his own words.
3
Listening to the snippets from the Supreme Court I was horrified to think these are supposed to be the smartest legal arbiters in the country. When asked what would prevent another president, an Anti-Semite who wants to bar Jews from coming to the US from imposing a ban on travel from Israel, the Solicitor General said, “but that is ridiculous. Israel is an ally.” It sounded exactly like the Solicitor General who told the Supreme Court, “but our president would never torture.” And the argument that Trump anti-Muslim travel ban isn’t really against Muslims because it only impacts 5 of the 50 Muslim-Majority countries (with Venezuela and North Korea thrown in), also misses the point: it establishes a precedent. There is nothing that would prevent Trump or any president from adding to the list down the line, once the Supreme Court gives its blessing. And Trump will send around a fund-raising letter to his base that he notched another campaign promise win of a travel ban.
It’s interesting that the Supreme Court only seems to yield to the Unitary Executive concept (expounded by Alioto and the Federalist Society) when there is a Republican in the White House, but sees a narrow leash when there is a Democrat in office.
The US (Trump) policy turning our backs against asylum-seekers, refugees fleeing for their lives, the policy of tearing children away from parents (a punishment meant to deter), in violation of American and international law and responsibility.
4
Not sure why Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch even show up for hearings. Its always certain how they will vote on most any issue.
3
But not Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor, right? They are listening with open minds? The naivete on the left never ceases to amaze.
14
The reactionary Supreme Court Justices defer to Trump's "judgement." Have they no obligation to analyze his reasoning to see if it makes sense? Or, are they simply political hacks?
2
Had Mitch McConnell not STOLEN the Supreme Court nomination from President Obama, then there wouldn't be a conservative majority to even be considering this. Why is no one screaming about what the GOP Senate did? They literally violated the Constitution and no one did anything about it. We let them ruin our democracy by delegitimizing the Supreme Court - a full one-third of our federal government!
5
Tell us again which part of the Constitution you think was violated. If the violation was, as you say, "literal," then you shouldn't have trouble finding and quoting it.
9
The President is authorized to nominate candidates to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. The Senate is supposed to have hearings and approve (or not) the candidate. The process of filling Supreme Court vacancies is not "left up to the voters". When you vote for President every four years, you effectively select the person to choose Supreme Court justices. Senator McConnell did not have the legal standing to unilaterally decide to not have any hearings during President Obama's tenure - this is literally a miscarriage of Constitutional process as dictated by Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.” It doesn't say here, that this is contingent on the approval of the Senate Majority Leader: McConnell overstepped his congressional mandate and denied President Obama (and thus, the American people whom he represented) his rightful duty to choose Supreme Court justices.
GMooG......."he shall nominate , and by and with The Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court". You will note that the word shall (a legal command ) is stated twice. Once for the President and once for the Senate. The President carried out his obligation (shall) but the Senate, by not bringing the nomination of Garland to the floor of the Senate for a vote (shall), violated their Constitutional obligation. Now of course they may well have voted no, and that is their right, but by refusing to have a vote, Mitch McConnell was in clear violation of the Constitution.
Liberals like the Courts when they side with their progressive agenda, but call them biased when they don’t. Just like spoiled rotten little children.
10
If it is indeed the case that the Justices are to support Trump's racists tendency, and disregard American traditions and principles, than this is truly a sad day in America.
3
This case highlights the most significant failure of the nation's founders to create an effective balance of power among the branches of government. If the Court was comprised of one more liberal and one less conservative Justice the decision would be different. We should not be surprised. This is as it always was.
2
There's something wrong with this whole thing in that the powers that President Trump is relying on to do the travel ban are emergency powers and he has not shown an emergency in the first place.
2
Could it be that several of the Judges have deep religious prejudices of their own at are influencing their probable decision. Does this potential prejudice require recusal?
4
Poor Donny, he got a job he really didn’t want, and now they are telling him he can’t get done all of the things he wants to do because he has to work with other people, like the courts and the congress, and he is miserable. Take the so called Muslim Travel Ban 3.0 for instance, the courts are saying it has very little to do with foreign policy and national security, and everything to do with countries that can’t afford to host a luxury Trump tower, otherwise, Saudi Arabia, the proud home to most, if not all, of the 911 hijackers will be on the list. Or even Pakistan, the sanctuary home of the Saudi financier of 911, Osama, will be on the list. But neither of those countries are on the list....
2
Donny boasts he's the boss of the playground. But he knows he can't take on the really tough guys, so he beats up on the little kids instead. That'll show 'em. Francisco was right when he called it "the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine" -- but wrong in saying it's not a "Muslim ban." It makes no sense, as policy. It's theater.
1
I am speechless with most things connected to sTRUMPY. In a way, I am becoming numb to it all, and my therapist tells me he thinks that is becoming true for a lot of people. I don't know. I read the paper, and maybe I shouldn't. I often look at people and wonder "did they vote for Donald Trump?" kind of like the way I used to sit at the airport waiting for people to come through customs and wonder if they had a bomb hidden on them. Of course, I feel sorry for them, terribly sorry in fact, that they feel he will save them from whatever it is they fear. By my count, it's 191 days until we get to vote. AmeriKA will have had two years of being great and we have failed miserably at that so perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel.
2
Kagan's analogy was a joke and only shows how childish the thinking on the left is. The idea that an anti-Semite would be elected president in the United States and allowed to persecute Jews is laughable. The idea that Trump is anti-Muslim is laughable.
The entire case is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
12
Trump had less than a 1 in 3 chance of getting elected and he managed to. He was found to have discriminated against blacks in housing, has said racially, sexually, and ethnically prejudiced things repeatedly, and has over a dozen credible sexual assault charges leveled against him, and still he was elected. Sorry, but most of the country is no longer laughing as you are.
1
How's about we ban American white guys who own assault rifles? That way we don't have to deal with amendment hysteria -- ban the guy, not the rifle.
All of 'em. The legal angle can be anti-terrorism national security.
6
You cannot ban US citizens. By definition, travelers from other nations are not citizens (if they were, they'd have US PASSPORTS).
3
Why shouldn't there be a plan of not allowing Muslims in to this country?
8
Because this is America and it's unconstitutional, re: the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
2
"At one point in the oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Mr. Trump will forever be unable to address immigration in light of his campaign statements. 'Is there a statute of limitations on that?' the chief justice asked."
This was a silly question. The Court was being called upon to consider the discriminatory effects of the travel ban on Muslims, in light of the totality of circumstances leading up to and surrounding those effects. The Travel Ban before the Court was in its third iteration, the first of which almost exclusively banned Muslims and expressed a preference for Christians.
It is not illogical to consider this third iteration of the ban as a studied progression by the Executive of "watering down" the first ban so that it still impacts mostly Muslims while providing the appearance of legitimacy as a national-security measure.
It is sad to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court making light of the legitimate First Amendment concerns of the ban's challengers.
To answer your question Mr. Chief Justice, "No, there is no statute of limitations which bars considering a president's campaign statements. If there is, please point it out to us . . . "
Maurice F. Baggiano, Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
1
I didn't interpret the Chief Justice's question the way you did. I thought it was a serious question that deserved a serious answer.
If the Court were to say that the President permanently forfeits all traditional discretion after having made a statement indicating intent to violate law, that would be a potentially-dangerous change to our system of government.
If the Court were to say that the President's discretion is unalterable and unreviewable, that would open a new and dangerous change to our system of government.
I really hope they will find the sweet spot between those extremes -- one that encourages presidents to be mindful of both their rhetoric and the Constitution.
2
RE: By the end of the argument, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed ready to defer to President Trump’s national security judgments and discount his campaign promises to impose a “Muslim ban.”
Not surprisingly so many NYT readers and Justice Kagan don't want to look at what the law actually says but want to pull emotional arguments out of thin air. Trump's campaign promises are not relevant and have no bearing on the what the law says.
15
I realize that the give and take of debate energizes our inhabitation in our Constitution. However, in recent decades that debate has become petty, self-serving and vindictive to others. Our great gift is our humanity. The Constitution, I believe, was never meant to serve as a vehicle through which we could harm, diminish or jeopardize the existence of others on this planet. We United States citizens are not "King of the Hill," as the children's game is called. Let us have mercy. Let us deal with others in justice "for all." Let us prove that equity exists here and can work to bring refreshing new breath to the living, breathing Constitution.
3
When Obama was in office we were told that a President's power over immigration was near absolute, what are the limits of that power?
Also, can campaign rhetoric, the declarations of a used car seller, drumming up support by promising this, and that, to this group and that group, ever be considered reliable and probative evidence of the salesperson actual intent or belief?
5
Justice Kagan misstates the issue. The president is elected to make decisions. Never before has a presidential action been subject to judicial review based on a justice's interpretation of what is "reasonable." The notion that the Court should apply a "reasonable" standard because she deems the president "out of the box" mocks the tradition of equality under the law. Such a standard invites lawlessness for future administrations and cannot stand.
12
Even if this ban saves one American life its worth it.
11
Considering that since 9/11 no fatal terrorist attacks has been attributed to nationals from those countries on Trump's travel ban, how about we start doing something that would actually save American lives, like gun control.
3
More Liberal easy answers, gun control is not going to solve the problem, most gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens, why should their rights be infringed upon, your answer is just glib CNN stuff, the fact is that around the world, which group caused more deaths, the Islamic extremists, they are easier to control, not banning 300 million guns in the U.S.
1
The left has shown so much contempt for President Trump that they block attempts to enforce authority clearly within the powers of the office, even at the expense of the safety and welfare of citizens, and common sense.
16
Neal K. Katyal, a lawyer for the challengers, rejected that analysis. “If I’m an employer and I have 10 African-Americans working for me and I only fire two of them” but retain the other eight, he said, “I don’t think anyone can say that’s not discrimination.”
Really? So, Mr. Katyal, those two could not have been fired for cause?
12
Trump's travel ban is another way to make America more white. It is racist and against what America stands for. Shameful when an ignorant, racist president puts his own agenda above the law. Unfortunately, his racist supporters love it.
1
We have no supream Court only Trump sycophants.Democracys being killed in front of your eyes.
2
Slouching toward the lazy, quick solution are we?
4
Islam is one of my favorite countries. Right up there with Nambia, Wakanda, and Sokovia.
4
Let's face facts, people: this is about a racist president projecting his racism through a federal agency.
If the Supreme Court grants this, the next thing he'll do is require Scandinavians to submit birth certificates upon entry.
3
Trump and his supporters consistently overreact and quite deliberately demagogue, mislead and lie when it comes to crimes committed by non-Whites or non-White Christians, but will under-react, justify, ignore and even attack Justice Department, FBI, law enforcement when the crimes are committed by Whites or White Christians. For Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks it’s always guilt by association, the actions of the worst members of those groups are used to judge all members of those groups. For Trump and his supporters, all Muslims are potential terrorists, all Hispanics are potential rapists/drug dealers, Blacks are potential thugs/violent.
Now, the facts:
Since 9/11, 43 of the 260,000 murders committed in US were by foreign-born Muslim terrorists - that’s 0.002% https://lawfareblog.com/counting-terrorists-urgen-need-comprehensive-data
The total number of Americans killed in US by terrorists from all the countries combined on Travel Ban, all 3 versions: Zero
15 of 19 of 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. As was Bin Laden. Lead 9/11 terrorist was Egyptian; others from Lebanon and UAE.
Orlando terrorist was US-born with parents from Afghanistan.
San Bernardino terrorists were US-born husband and Pakistan-born
wife.
Boston bombers were born in Chechnya, part of Russia.
None of those countries are on Travel Ban list.
The principal ideological source of global jihadi terrorism - foundation for Al Qaeda and ISIS is Saudi Wahhabism. Trump is the biggest supporter of Saudi Arabia.
5
I am disgusted by THIS administration, Trump, the Republican party and their double standards. History will not remember Trump or the Republican party kindly when the time comes to tell the story of how racisicm, national white supremecy and bigotry destroyed our great nation during this administration's time in office.
3
Wouldn't a victory in this case give Trump the power to ban travel from Mexico, wall or no wall?
3
Face facts, the so-called "supreme" court is a political animal. Right now it is a Republican animal of conservative bent. This is not about justice and well-thought-out arguments and reasoning. It is about politics of power and money. When one speaks of the elite, this is the elite of America where the wealthy get more so and the not wealthy are allowed to get more poor. This is just as the wealthy property owners who wrote the US Constitution intended it to be.
1
This is the payoff for Mitch McConnell's intransigence at approving Obama's court appointees,including Merrick Garland. The GOP now has the court it wants, and the lower courts are falling in line nicely as well. The Reichstag is next....
5
This smells badly of an ideological "litmus test", which has no place in this debate. If it did, the so-called "Muslim ban" would have been exposed for the ideological bias it represents. It's Trump's critics who want it both ways. They can inject their own biases but reject his.
3
White guys. AR-15’s. Dozens killed sometimes all at once. That is terror and terrorism. Regulate that.
2
So you have ten black employees and fire two but keep the other eight. And that supposed to be obvious discrimination? What kind of analogy is that? How is that obvious discrimination? And what a stupid analogy by Kagan. That isn’t the situation we have here. The conservative justices made good points. In this article all we have is a out of the box hypothetical from Kagan. The liberal justices don’t have a good point to make. That is because there isn’t any solid basis why the courts should be involved in this.
9
Decades of conservative effort have brought us a Supreme Court with a right-wing majority. The Court is supposed to uphold the rule of law. Instead, they are just as partisan as the Executive and the Congress. And at this moment in our history, both the Executive and the Congress favor the power of force over the power of law. The Court seems ready to agree. This is deeply disturbing.
2
Why in the world should the judges NOT “pay attention” aka “ignore” Trumps twitter and “campaign” statements?
Isn’t HE the ONE and the only ONE who proposed the Travel Ban? Why should the judges disconnect the person who does the EO from the “EO itself?”
As Judge Kagan said “Let's just say this is an "out-of-the-box president."
Ya think?
2
We all know that the Trump administration completed exactly zero analysis before instituting this ban. We all know this ban has nothing to do with national security. We all know that Trump is a racist who thinks Muslims are bad for America. We all know that assault rifles legally sold in America are a far greater threat to all of us then Muslim's. All nine justices on the Supreme Court know these things, implicitly. Then why would 5 of them vote to uphold Trump's racist ban? Because they can hide behind the pretext of national security to avoid stripping power from a president. Even when he's overstepping his power. In other words, they're rubber-stamping a patently fascist ban.
2
The statistics-deaths from radical jihadists pale in comparison to massacres by white European ethnicity males. No one from the 8 banned countries has committed any atrocity for a long time, but 15 Saudis out of 19 hijackers on 9-11. The radical religion that has caused such misery in the world was invented in, and is exported by Saudi Arabia. 19th century-Ottomans ordered their Egyptian satrap to wipe out the very 1st Isis-like group, slaughtering innocents the same way then.
What Trump hates is Saudi created, Saudi exported. Look at the numbers of homicides in this country compared to how few are committed by radical Muslim nuts.
This is delusion, there is no massive security threat. Muslims born here can go nuts and kill. No one gets in without years of vetting by the US. All immigrant groups have some evil people. Ask the Native Americans about bloodthirsty immigrants-Christians!
The US has had many phases of fear about "new" immigrants. The Cosa Nostra and KKK have caused far more misery here than Muslims-Christians all.
3000 or so deaths was a terrible event on one day in 2001. It is still unhinging this nation. The reaction to that horror has not been rational. In sheer numbers, the US has killed millions of foreigners. Where's the banning of Americans in foreign lands?
Judges claiming the ban is not religious hate are blind. The "5" claimed racism was gone, then repealed Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act. Not honest men then, same now.
1
Given the political nature of SCOTUS perhaps it's time move from indirect elections to direct election of justices using the presidential election model without the Electoral College. SCTOUS appointees. It would avoid one person ,like Mitch McConnell ( or any senate majority leader) from making the decision. The electorate seems to thrive on the current chaos, why not really muck it up.
To define or confine Islam as strictly a religion is not an accurate description. It is very much a political and social document as well. The core principles of the U.S. and the West place us in the category of infidels, freedom of expression, speech, female equality, church/state separation. It is the view of Islam our kind should be murdered or subjugated. PBS last night showed a 13 year old girl being married off to an older man she hadn't met in the name of Islam.
6
"...state laws typically do not call for anyone to investigate whether a child is marrying willingly. Even in the case of a girl’s sobbing openly while her parents sign the application and force her into marriage, the clerk usually has no authority to intervene. In fact, in most states there are no laws that specifically forbid forced marriage."
This is from an article in the New York Times, dated 2015, addressing the problem of child marriage in the United States. I would hope that your objections to the practice will also extend to vocally and vehemently objecting to it, regardless of who is practicing it. I hope that you are ready to openly criticize fellow male Christians for their predatory behavior toward young girls. If you google "christian marriage young girls," you will run into a slew of writings from male "Christian" adults advocating that young girls be groomed for marriage at young ages to older men. Obsessing about young girls is a sickness among men in general, regardless of whether they are Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or what-have-you. If you are truly interested in protecting children, you will make your objections known in all religious circles, regardless.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-pr...
“At one point in the oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Mr. Trump will forever be unable to address immigration in light of his campaign statements. “Is there a statute of limitations on that?” the chief justice asked.”
What a stupid statement.
If upon taking office Trump had said, “I want to see every federal judge put in jail, especially if they are on the Supreme Court,” would Roberts be asking that same question 18 months later, when he was facing prosecution by the Trump Administration?
Imagine a lawyer for Trump responding to Roberts in such a scenario: “Mr. Roberts, sir. There is a 12-month statute of limitations on statements evincing a deep-seated bias or prejudice. Since Mr. Trump expressed his prejudice against you 18 months ago, the statute of limitations prohibits us from considering it as evidence of Mr. Trump’s intent. You will therefore be tried by Mr. Trump because there is no evidence that he is biased against you, or against any federal judge.”
It genuinely saddens and angers me to see such craven intellectual dishonesty by the Chief Justice. It’s as if we are overrun with cowards and frauds at every level of government.
2
If the Court is going to buy Trump's "national security" argument, shouldn't they require some proof of the danger posed by Muslims? Muslims do not shoot up our schools, and malls and churches, and banning them will not make us any safer, or protect our children in their schools. Why are we worried about Muslims when what we really need protection from is our fellow Americans?
2
When do the relocation camps come?
Will they be located next to the dissident reeducation camps?
Next to the uranium mines. Prisoners don't deserve no stinking EPA protections.
We already have summary execution for being black, and being insufficiently patriotic will be added to that list.
Vote November 6 as if your life depends on it.
1
So, again we see the cost of a Stolen Seat on the high court. Mitch McConnell and his cowardly sycophants who refused to give advice and consent on President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland (gosh, Obama ONLY had 1/4 of his Presidency left!).
To those who consider yourselves to be "Law and Order Republicans" let me say this:
You are *not* about Law, you pervert Order for your own desire for power.
2018 will be your reckoning.
2
After the San Bernadino shooting in December 2015, Trump explicitly called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
If Trump taught us anything, wiping out your predecessor's body of executive decree can be accomplished in about a week. All of this nonsense will be nothing but a regrettable stain on American history once Trumpism works it's way through We the People's lower intestines. The courts? Not so much. Due to the Babe Ruth of political treachery, Mitch McConnell, Democratic presidents & congresses will face a wall of right wing courts hand picked by the Heritage Foundation, Kochs and Mercers (I guarantee you Trump never heard of Neil Gorsuch until he was instructed to choose him) that will make the obstructionism Obama had to deal with look like a birthday present. It cracks me up - the GOP base wants to string McConnell up when they should be lobbying to put his horrifying mug on Mount Rushmore. He's single handedly feathered the 1%ers nest for a generation.
2
Mr. Katyal said that presidents have the power to address emergencies but not to create sustained discrimination.
The genuine emergency, of course, is Trump's presidency.
2
The job of the court is not really to decide if the ban is wrong; only if it is unconstitutional. The president is actually supposed to have some power. The court is trying to make sure that it does not take that power away from future presidents who might actually use the power wisely.
4
Can we get a travel ban on AR-15's instead?
1
That’s funny coming from NH. One of the largest gun manufacturering states in the union. Big gun companies like Sig Sauer call the state home.
2
Right!
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, lacks imagination. Restricting travel from Vatican City only, as one example, would be a less effective Muslim ban. It's Trumpian hyperbole to say this is "the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine.”
Whatever happened to “intent is 9/10 of the law?” If the intention is to ban Muslims, then the law is intended to be a “Muslim ban”; therefore, the action is a Muslim ban.
lamlevon,
It never existed. The saying is "Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
2
Jimbo,
Wellllllll, not exactly...whereby possession implies intent (in some cases: “motive,” a generally necessary component in convicting someone) — an example: possession with an intent to harm someone is far different from possession of a weapon with a license to carry and no intent to harm; ergo intent is 9/10 of the law.
Intent: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent
Because there are 50-some Muslim nations on earth and the ban only affects a handful -- 7, I believe. And it does not restrict travel if (say) a Canadian Muslim is traveling to the US -- not at all. So it is not a Muslim ban.
3
This is difficult. We have never had such a president before. His campaign statements about banning Muslims cannot be examined in isolation. Our president is a habitual liar. This can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His comments and policies on and in other issues/areas display a similar pattern of discrimination and animus against minorities. He mocks people with disabilities. He promises better and cheaper health care for everyone. Then supports bills which deny tens of millions any health care at all. He refuses to read his daily briefings because he has a "very good brain."
The justices concerns are legitimate under the circumstances the US had up until Trump took office. But, they do need to look at the totality of the things this president does and does not do/say when it comes to the insane world of Trump. How did we get here again? Oh, I remember. Putin.
1
Trump has shown us that there is too much power in the presidency. It worked mostly OK, until we got a demagogue as a president. That SCOTUS will choose the arguments and lies of the demagogue, saying he has the power, shows us that the checks and balances that the founders conceived is seriously flawed.
“... this was the first time the justices heard arguments on any of the challenges”
It’s about time the adults spoke up and seemingly chastised the lesser courts for their juvenile assertions and usurpation of presidential authority.
7
We watch the destruction of our constitution unfold more and more as each day passes. If the voters do not vote and remove these evil greedy men and women in the next election they will have aided and abetted the destruction of our country.
2
So, if this ban is allowed, without presenting some sort of argument how it will improve security, then we can expect this Trump to go forward with many more hairbrained plans which he has dreamed up to satisfy his narcissistic tendencies? I have not heard in the arguments before the court that indicate such an analysis has been done.
Perhaps you missed this salient point: The countries involved have no systems to vet anyone within their borders. Why would anyone allow entrants from countries that are, essentially, open conduits for ANYONE, good or bad, to flow through them?
6
This Court has moved, thanks to Mitch McConnell and gerymandering damage to elections, so far right that they no longer recognize that Constitutional values support individuals first and foremost and NOT government. The highest irony, of course, is that “Conservative” talk is all about the rights of the individual. Too bad these guys can’t see the obvious difference between a fear and biased based travel ban and a decision that would increase the need to scrutinize all people coming to this country — not just the ones from”certain” countries. Yeah, even the white men on the Court with all their vaunted education in the law, may still refuse to see that our President is no different from any other tin pot authoritarian.
1
Chief Justice Roberts: If we had 100 percent solid information that on a particular day, nationals from Norway were going to enter the United States with chemical and biological weapons, the president should ban them on the basis of their weapons, not their (likely Lutheran) religion.
Thank you,
A non-lawyer
2
You do know the ban only mentions national origin -- no language within the ban says anything about RELIGION.
2
Mens rea: a guilty mind... as in any other court case, the judges should examine intent. To ignore the xenophobic exclamations of the president on the campaign trail (and in office) would be negligent. However, mens rea implies that a crime has been committed. There is a justifiable debate to be had over the constitutional nuances of executive power over immigration. What makes my skin crawl is that DJT’s policy does not deserve that level of debate. The travel ban is transparently a Muslim ban. It’s hard to imagine the highest court in the land agonizing over whether or not it’s discriminatory.
In practice, besides the fact that the ban embodies the most problematic aspects of consequentialism, there seems to be very little evidence that it would make our country safer.
I don’t understand why the last quote was cut short by the writer! “He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country and he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world.” Islam as one of the greatest countries of the world...ha!
1
I find it hard to believe that a president’s immigration decisions do not require compliance with current law or the Constitition. The US has historically pretended to honor the Constitition and we now see the results. African Americans were systematically subjected to white supremacy through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching. And we have created a permanent underclass. Our police are still operating in a lynching mentality when it comes to African Americans. Allowing Trump to keep out Muslims because they are Muslims is a continuation of the injustice perpetuated by those in power, White so called Christian men. No other conclusion can be reached.
2
The Constitution clearly empowers the President to make such decisions about immigration. It has nothing to do with US citizens of any race. The ban will not affect US citizens.
3
The court cannot ignore the public statements of the racist poseur in the Oval Office. The rallying shouts of blatant bias against Muslim People during his campaign are evidence of his beliefs.
What remains ironic is how he selectively omitted Saudis and some others where coincidentally, he owns, or has plans to build resorts or golf facilities.
2
If the argument is to keep Terrorists out of the country why doesn’t the ban include Russia? The Boston Bombers came from Russia. One of the most dangerous terrorist groups are the Chechens, again from Russia. The reason we don’t ban Russians is because the basic underlying premise for the ban is a lie. It is all about Muslims always was. Surely someone has pointed out this glaring omission to the Supreme Court.
1
Yes, but exactly what does "polarized" mean?
"The fact is we're very screwed up country right now -- not just polarized but polarized to the point of close-minded."
Is a country only "polarized" when the President wants to do things you don't like? I don't seem to recall that "neutral" meaning of "polarized."
2
No terrorist events against the United States have been carried out by people coming here from these countries.
So, what is the compelling need for this ban?
It can only be to fulfill his uninformed and racist campaign pledges made to the xenophobic and racist in his audience.
1
Trump may have the power to impose a specific ban if he sees a threat to national security but he must first prove the threat is real and imminent before taking such a drastic step.
Exactly why are the choices on Trump's list a threat to national security?
The perpetrators of the 9/11 attack were immigrants from Saudi Arabia and could pose a serious threat based upon past history but I don't see Saudi Arabia on the list. Are Trump's choices arbitrary and capricious?
The choices on Trump's list are not based upon evidence and logic but based upon xenophobia and personal animus. From the beginning Trump has demonstrated by his own words his animus for Muslims. In order to ban a specific group or groups from immigrating to the United States Trump would have to prove those specific groups are in fact a definite security threat. I have heard no such proof. Trump has failed to meet the burden of proof. Trump's choices are not based upon well thought out arguments but are based upon Trump's desire for political advantage and promoting his brand not national security. Trump's travel ban benefits Trump more than it benefits America.
A sad attempt by Trump at personal glorification and political opportunism.
SCOTUS should not enable the President's blatant demagoguery by allowing an ill conceived and clearly Islamaphobic travel ban to continue. SCOTUS should strike down Trump's travel ban once and for all.
3
Justice Tawney's ghost is obviously in the chamber, possessing the activist GOP judges. Their reasoning is just as flawed and ridiculous as his was and further proves our so called government and Constitution belongs in the circular file.
This is not about security; it's about prejudice. Where is the ban on white men with or AR-15's? And the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat.
1
In their heart of hearts everyone knows the motivations and animus for the immigration bans. Sadly we have a president and administration too coarse and ignorant to define all our fears in a rational way. So we get immigration bans and policies that lack prudence, justice, decency, and wisdom. And some 40% of the nation's citizens, including a large percentage of alleged Christians, go along with it as well.
1
This ain't rocket surgery, folks. You (and the judges in the Aloha and Granola States) may disagree with the President's judgement on this. But he clearly has the constitutional and legal authority to do it.
Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
"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."
Whether the entry into the US of people from these countries is detrimental is not something for the judges to decide. Under the law, that is a finding to be made soley by the President.
The only question properly before the judges is whether the President did, in fact, make such a judgement which, in this case, he clearly did.
If you disagree with the President's judgement in this matter, the Constitution provides you with several opportunities to change or overrule his decision...petition the President to change his mind, petition Congress to change the law, elect a new Congress that will change the law, and/or elect a new President.
7
"Under the law, that is a finding to be made soley by the President."
Unfortunately, there is now a cohort who will stop at nothing to curtail this president's executive rights. They are still in denial about his presidency, trying to eliminate him from their ideological landscape.
4
DACA was temporary and unlawful. President Trump brought the issue to the forefront wanting to give the DACA folks a permanent solution and said just that. It was congress that let down the DACA kids not the president. Obama just kicked the can down the road like he did with North Korea.
7
The biggest terrorist attack this country has ever been subjected to in its history occurred on September 11, 2001. Seventeen of the 19 terrorists that carried out the attack were Saudi nationals. If national security is the raison de etre for the president's travel ban, Saudi Arabia should be uppermost on the list.
Is promise of a few Trump Towers in the Saudi Kingdom the actual reason behind its being exempted? The Supreme Court justices who are now thinking of giving the president the benefit of the doubt on the basis of their reimagined national security rationale may want to ponder over this question.
The suggestion that any decision made by the Trump administration is the “product of careful study” is utterly laughable.
The individual as the core entity to be protected determines a conundrum the individual is created by the Biology/Culture ideology within which the individual exists, which imbues the individual with ethic-morals-beliefs-bias-motivation and social/political method inclusive of what categorises an individual as in-group or out-group and how the out-groups will be dealt with. Yes I said dealt with. So if the following is true:
"The use of force and violence is more commonplace and prevalent in some families, communities, religions, cultural/ethnic groups and societies based on the views and values about adult prerogatives with children espoused. They may also be based upon the sociopathy of the perpetrators."
Treatment of Complex Trauma Courtois/Ford 2016
Then is it not rational to exclude from your space "religions, cultural/ethnic groups" who will not may inform terror-genocide against you as they have done since the seventh century and are doing so at this very moment across the globe. Should we not be "honest with ourselves and indeed each other." banning a Muslim Biology/Culture ideology from your society given any rational appraisal of what such a Muslim Biology/Culture ideology will deliver broken and bloodied in your streets is already occurring as it continues elsewhere.
"The time has come for us to be honest with ourselves and indeed each other." Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya's president, 2015
In the 460 days since Trump was inaugurated, no Americans were killed by Muslim immigrants.
In the same time, over 20,000 Americans were killed by guns.
Why doesn't he address this real and present danger?
In light of the president's initial declaration of intention to discriminate on the basis of religion (in violation of statute), the precedent of allowing the POTUS discretion should be balanced against the obvious need to ascertain that there exists a rational basis for the revised policy.
If the revised list of countries affected by this ban does not parallel the list of countries who are sending terrorists to the USA, then there is no rational basis for the policy, even if ordinary deference to the president would have allowed it to stand.
The court cannot give traditional deference to a president who announces that he intends to break the law. On the other hand, it cannot take away the president's authority under the Constitution. The Court requires supreme judiciousness in this case.
19
I guess you haven’t travelled much but other countries already do. How quickly you’ve forgotten the devastation from 911, the Boston Marathon, or the attacks in Paris. The attack on the Trade Centers touched us all, but non more so than native New Yorkers who lost friends and loved ones.
1
The obvious problem in the Supreme Court's deferring to the President's presumed greater information about national security issues, quite apart from Trump's well advertised and demagogic animus against Muslims, is that Trump himself notoriously ignores security briefings and repeatedly rejects and mocks the advice of the US intelligence community on issue after issue. The intelligence community played no more a role in shaping Trump's thinking on the Muslim ban than it has in warning against his embrace of Putin.
Nor does inclusion of two non-Islamic rogue states--one of them, ruled by a dictator Trump now says is "honorable" make a difference. This alteration is clear cover for previous judicial set backs. Even then, the ban was still found by three courts to be driven by unconstitutional religious discrimination. The Court's conservatives are disingenuous and partisan in pretending otherwise.
This ban reflects nothing more than Trump's own prejudice and tactical understanding that anti-Muslim demagogy plays well with his political base.
1
So why, if "This proclamation is about what it says it’s about: foreign policy and national security” isn't there a blanket travel ban placed on Russia?
Francisco and the Trump administration are lying and five members of the Court are buying it without a thought or a concern for the principles that once defined this great country.
1
The case against the ban seems purely political. It doesn't matter how obnoxious or poorly spoken or provocative a president is. He still has certain powers. The powers at issue here are statutory. The idea that b/c some groups despise him, that handpicked judges can shut down the federal gov't in legitimate activities, like controlling the border, can't stand. It's not that presidential powers are without limitations, as there are many important ones, but there actually has to be either a lack of constitutional power to for a pres. to do something or more power in another branch. Though there are times when a lower court justice, for a valid reason, should be able to issue a stay (staying the death penalty or blatant discrimination of citizens comes to mind), the partisan warfare here raises a good question as to when this should be permitted.
Despite the desperate attempts to "resist" in any way possible, and even to destroy him and his family, as repulsive now as it was against Bill Clinton, and despite his character flaws, he is doing a better job than his recent predecessors in many areas. Especially after the 2016 election, polls shouldn't hypnotize us. If the left nominates one of the usual suspects, many people will vote for him, including those who are sometimes appalled by him - because the "resistance" is worse.
9
How will America recover if the Justices allow the ban in light of Trumps tweets and campaigning? Hate speech with no brakes will be allowed and normalised. Woe!
1
It shouldn't matter what Trump has said in the past even if they prove he is a racist if the ban can be justified for reasons reasons of national security.
I believe the facts tells us that there are security issues that do justify the ban
and therefore the fact the ban is also discriminatory is irrelevant.
This is why the question about Israel are not relevant as there are no national security problems with the people coming from there.
I do not like the President but that dislike doesn't tell me I have to challenge everything Trump has don
I feel there are a lot of liberals who do challenge everything Trump has done purely because they hate Trump.
Trump is our President and and has certain powers to make decisions that were given to him by the Constitution .
The court can therefore not stop Trump based on what he has said in the past
because in the present he is the President and has the Constitution on his side.
5
The travel ban is clearly anti Muslim.
As candidate and as President Mr. Trump has voiced his opinions about Muslims quite clearly.
Anyone trying to explain it away as a security issue has not been listening to his words.
It is another of his attempts at doing away with our Democracy and concentrating all power unto himself.
2
Of course they'll find a twisted argument to dismiss Trump's explicitly communicated intentions. This SCOTUS had already lost all of its credibility after Citizens United. The majority are sophists who use their analytical talent to support the causes of the GOP, always. Trump can't help himself, but Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito really have no excuse. History will not judge them kindly.
1
The more broad issue is not just banning people from several countries, but ho can we make sure those who want to travel to the United Stats have no dangerous intent. A much better vetting process is what we should have - not a blanket ban from a few countries. There are some who live in those countries who very much need to get out.
Adding Korea and Venezuela was just ab effort to hide the "Muslim" part of the ban. If we had a president and Congress who could work together to design a reasonable vetting process, we might be able to look at this issue without the ranting of a president and the inability of Congressional leadership to do anything positive.
Meanwhile, the swamp gets more dangerous from its denizens who want nothing but their own enrichment. How about that threat to our security?
This court should simply be asked’Apples for Apples why Saudi Arabia does not make the list’? That will show the ban is arbitrary just to fulfill the frustration of his base.
It has no basis. It’s like banning people from Chicago to go to other states because Chicago is known for high crime rate.
1
The attorneys general of Hawaii and California wake up each morning looking for a reason to sue this administration. The ability of our federal government to govern even minimally has been destroyed by the rabid partisanship of extremists in both political parties.
6
The extreme leftwing requires that they constantly perform.
1
"For Thousands of ‘Dreamers,’ It Has Been a Wild Ride. And It’s Not Over Yet."
As only the blind do not know, Trump offered a deal which protects the dreamers but the Democrats turned it down.
The Democrats want the dreamers to be the thin end of the wedge.
Wonder why he is unwilling to accept a deal where the Democrats say, "Right now we want you to protect the million or so whom everyone feels sympathy for. And as soon as you agree to protect THEM, , we have ten million or more waiting in line."
The Democrats have pretended that Trump is being unreasonable but it is they who are playing politics.
6
This travel ban is supposedly to protect Americans. I would ask the justices if they consider that a laudable goal, and if so to justify their DC vs Heller decision.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been polarized to the point where political ideology seems to outweigh legal considerations.
2
One could easily take issue with the critical thinking skills of the conservative bench. Where are the great legal opinions from this group, those which will be looked upon with awe decades from now? Citizens United? Some seemed to allude to personal opinion rather than logic in their comments. More needs to be written about this form of conservative logic. After all, could there be no worse reasoning than Citizens United? That poor case had had a terrible effect on our democracy, easing the job for foreign adversaries. Something to be proud of? For what reason other than to reward the wealthy? And now, another decision which may reshape our society in ways that we cannot anticipate.
Wait a minute to those commenting below on the POTUS and his campaign comments or promises.
Read accompanying excellent NYT annotated Q&A at the Court.
Even the opposing lawyer - no less a former Solicitor General - conceded that his campaign statements are just his opinions which have no relevance in the legal sense.
I am no lawyer. But as I understand from that NYT story, our constitution has a "opinion" clause on how a POTUS is supposed to execute his office.
This clause requires or suggests a POTUS seek opinions of others in formulating a policy. He is not required to listen, but the general theory is that a policy be based on a collective wisdom.
Something ditto here.
Sure, his first "ban" was indeed irresponsible as he had hardly formed a government. And my suspicion is that it was work of grim the Reaper aka Bannon.
But by his third iteration, the "opinion" clause was followed and a public policy formed.
Finally, our constitution has separation of powers between the Congress (first branch) and the Executive (second branch). The third branch - judiciary - it's job is to ensure this separation remains.
I do not think the Framers ever considered - and our history shows - this third branch to start forming public policies.
All these judicial decisions at inferior courts are contrary to what the constitution stipulates about judiciary.
And I think why the Supreme Court will defer to the Executive.
2
Perhaps the real issue is US presidents have acquired too much power. Isn't it time we re-evaluate this power and limit what any president can do on his/her own? It seems that too much power is exactly what dictators love most. Is the US presidency becoming an easy path to dictatorship?
As a scientist, the question that seems yet to be asked and needs to be answered is: What are the data that immigrants from these seven countries pose a risk to our national security? We have an large Persian (aka Iranian) community in California for example, what risk, if any, have they posed? Ditto, for a similarly large community of Somalis in Minneapolis? It seems that there are data available as to whether or not immigrants from these countries pose a "national security risk" and so far it needs to be answered by facts rather than clever hypothetical queries like those of Chief Justice Roberts. There is some rather sparse data to answer the basic question. What we do know is that only 4.6 percent of prisoners are immigrants compared to 13.4 percent of the population. But, if the Trump administration does not have the answer, then how do they know that these particular seven countries pose the greatest risk? Why are Afghanistan and Pakistan not on the list, for example? Justice may be blind, but it should not be blind to the facts.
2
Sadly a vote for Trump also meant years of a conservative Supreme Court. Everyone's vote matters for many reasons. We've been taking a crash course in the nuances of the Constitution and the separation of powers these last 15 months. The questions is, will we learn from it and will our nation, as the founding father's envisioned, survive?
So the decision may come down to standing with "national security" over justice. Presidential privilege will always allow the commander in chief to have information to make decisions that seem "best in the defense of national security." But we must still consider if those decisions are fair and just and that is the role of the Supreme Court. I hope they do not shirk their responsibility here for fear of impeding "national security."
2
This article omits the core argument of Mr. Katyal: Congress considered the problem the Presidential proclamation is intended to address and chose a different solution. As a result, he argued, this proclamation usurps the authority of Congress, which violates the separation of powers.
3
As I ( a non-expert)understand it, the Supreme Court has usually deferred to the Executive Branch's arguments about the primacy of National Security. The rare exception being when it is pitted against freedom of speech.
4
Alito's point seems wrong. What matters is not how successful the policy is at banning all Muslims, but what the intent of the policy is and how well tailored it is at advancing a discriminatory intentions. Suppose Trump said that won't have a travel ban from any country, but immigration would randomly select 8% of travellers who they suspect of being Muslim (perhaps because they come from Muslim-majority countries) and barred them from entry. That would be prima facie discriminatory even though it would ban the same percentage of Muslims as the travel ban might. The travel ban is like that case if the intention is to bar Muslims, and not to pursue some non-discriminatory end.
It's also not clear that we should automatically take the administration's word for what their intentions were. This administration doesn't have a great deal of credibility. Roberts' scenario where they explicitly disavow Trump's past statements involves flipping on an issue apparently just to win a legal case, which doesn't do much to add to that credibility. What the administration says its intentions were is one of many pieces of evidence as to whether or not the policy was discriminatory.
The national security argument does strike me as a decent one for upholding the ban, though. It would be a bad rule if a president who, in the past, has said racist things, but still happens to be president, were unable to have any normal authority over border policy because of the taint of campaign rhetoric.
2
All of the people, some of the time and some of Trump's voters, all of the time
3
What a debacle that Grouch is on the court. It is an ill-gotten seat and will cost our democracy dearly--likely for many more decades.
16
In the immortal words of Duke Nukem, “What a messssss.”
2
Whatever decision is finally handed down I am of a strong opinion that the Judicial Branch should have term limits, the notion they are impartial is laughable. Maybe it would take another amendment but I hope some legal scholars and thinkers promote this idea.
Mr. Trump has clearly showed publicly that he does not want Muslims, except from countries that actually mattered, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Or maybe from countries where he has friends in high places, properties and/or licensees.
He is also slavishly responding to his political base who, from recent reading, are uncomfortable with the "rise of minorities. A times article from yesterday supports this point: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/politics/trump-economic-anxiety.html?
So how will the Supreme Court ignore all this and pretend that the President and his administration are doing the right thing? The answer is clear to everyone else but the perceived majority of Justices in the Court.
6
The purpose of having a lifetime appointment is to preclude The Executive Branch from influencing the rulings of the court by changing the jurist. Merely because you would prefer a liberal court does not change the validity of lifetime appointments. There are circuit courts in this country that are extremely liberal. Many do not agree with their decisions.
5
The actual idea that by banning Muslims from certain countries from coming to the US is discrimination on the basis of religion and therefore illegal is not at all clear. And this is because the idea is to prevent radical islamists, who believe based on their interpretation of islam that the loftiest thing a soul can accomplish here on earth is to murder infidels.
Therefore the people that we must prevent from entering our country at all costs are Muslims who have a certain perverted interpretation of their religion. So even if the overwhelming majority of muslims do not believe in that interpretation, the fact remains that the only way for us to be certain that a person does not maintain that perverted view is for him to be very thoroughly vetted.
However the US does not owe any foreigner to invest the resources required to do a thorough vetting of them so that they can enter the US. And that is if it were actually possible to so thoroughly vet a foreigner that we know nothing about so that we can be certain they do not pose a threat to us. And since visiting the US is not a right, the US is under no obligation to invest resources to look into a potential visitor's life from top to bottom so that we can ensure they pose no threat.
17
If the SCOTUS supports the POTUS on this one they will be remembered historically and globally for their discrimanatory intolerance and supporting less human rights and freedoms not more, for dubious nativist reasons. This is bound to backfire on Americans who travel outside the USA. Maybe that's what they also want to do, limit the freedom of movement of Americans abroad. Do the POTUS and SCOTUS also want to limit your right to travel freely outside our borders, if a global tit for tat ensues? Show us your papers and records Yanks!
5
I have no problem with being banned from Islamic countries in the event Christians begin perpetrating acts of terrorism there. I doubt that you would either. It does work both ways. Ultimately this is not about the issue at hand but about hatred for this particular POTUS having become all consuming.
4
Why would the Roberts Majority stand up for democracy and human rights? They never have in the past.
3
They needed to do a vote recount in Florida to assess hanging chads.
To let the brother of the candidate stop the recount was corrupt. Gore won.
Why do I bring up ancient history? Because 8 years of George W Bush appointments has distorted the SCOTUS to the point where ultra-rich are allowed by law to sway elections, and lobbyists and donors are the only thing that Congress seems to care about. Then the Congress CHEATED and ignored Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for 10 months. This SCOTUS is extreme and does not reflect the will of the people. How can a citizen follow the decisions of a court full of nominees from CHEATERS. Not my Supreme Court!
10
I believe you overlook the fact that Trump’s election may have been the direct result of an overwhelming fear that continued liberal presidents would eventually dismantle our judicial system. Many
Trump supporters have told me this was the primary reason they voted for him. We may be getting to the core of why Hillary Clinton was not elected.
4
Mr. Hogan: after the 2000 election...several parties including news organizations did recounts of the actual Florida ballots. You can look this up. It turned out that Bush won anyhow --- a narrow but definite victory.
2
Hawaii and Muslim groups threw North Koreans and Venezuelans under the bus when they didn’t oppose banning that group from entering the country. Isn’t that just another form of discrimination? Either everybody is allowed to enter without reservation or the executive branch is allowed to decide which country’s citizens do not oppose a threat to the US. Can’t be piecemeal immigration policy based on the most vocal interest groups.
11
A bit off the main topic but still somewhat related, when the Dems retake the House and Senate, we ought to be demanding they impeach Gorsuch, who sits on the high bench as essentially an accessory to a crime against the Constitution committed by Senator McCONnell.
13
What crime did Neil Gorsuch commit? is accepting an appointment to SCOTUS a crime?
1
I totally agree with you. The facts of this case clearly lie with the administration regardless of the anti-Trump narrative being pushed by the left. Whether Trump is motivated by racism is irrelevant. This executive order is clearly not a Muslim ban, rather a security-driven ban from countries that do not share vetting info with the US.
14
The five Muslim countries from which Trump bans immigration are Iran, Somalia, Syria, Lybia and Yemen. Even before Trump took office the State Department advisory on travel to these 5 countries basically stated "what, are you crazy?" These countries are plagued by terrorism and the U.S. is a major target for each. I'm pretty sure that's a relevant consideration. If we're crazy to go there. isn't it a little crazy to invite them here?
19
I do admire common sense and concise statements - and you provide both:
"Of course it's crazy to go there, and it's crazy to invite them here."
3
You make a perfect point. Let’s hear from those who post on this site concerning how many will be going to Yemen for their next vacation.
3
Not according to Liberals !
2
Why did Katyal say that all Trump had to do was disavow his statements?! 1) Trump contradicts himself daily 2) The problem is not his campaign statements...His campaign statements indicate *religious discrimination*, which is the real problem. The travel ban would be troubling even under a more "normal" president.
Miscarriage of justice and subversion of the balance of power between the three branches of government. Yep. 45 is really making US great again.
Nobody does, but ...
"Really, who wants to come to a country run by an out of control racist dictator?"
The question is, and always has been: WHO gets to decide whether a country is run by an out of control racist dictator? And a follow-up question: If whoever-gets-to-decide decides that the country in question "is run by an out of control racist dictator," who gets to pick his replacement? Should the majority political party of that "out of control racist dictator" get to choose his successor -- since, after all, that party will have received more votes, or should the minority party get to decide -- even though most voters will have expressed their preference for the winning party?
2
No one with any sense pays attention to wild claims about "racists", "dictators", etc. These accusations are routinely dismissed as hyper partisan ignorance.
1
This is terrifyingly predictable. We are supposed to have 3 branches of government and we appear to have only one. We have a dictator in the White House, a spineless Congress that has been bought by the wealthiest top few %, and courts that have been stacked by the Republican’s refusal to hold the deserved confirmation hearings of judges who should have been appointed 2-9 years ago. They are working in sync. This is very dangerous. PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE before even THAT process becomes tainted!
4
Voting already tainted by Citizens United and by the Russians. Nice wish, JS, but too late.
The Republican appointees on this Supreme Court, and the political party that manipulated their majority through years of racist treatment of our last president, are tainted forever, and history will not treat them well. There are no judicial points to be analyzed here, only bullying by those who have seized power.
2
Nothing new here. These are the same arguments that have appeared in this NYT section over the past 6 months.
Justice Alioto is right- how can it be a “Muslim ban” if only one of the ten most populated Muslim countries (Iran) is included, and Iran is a country notorious for not cooperating with the US in information-sharing?
Courts do not have access to national security intelligence and should not make national security decisions, especially the activist 9th Circuit.
15
You're doing a fine job Supreme Court.
I believe Steve Jobs' biological father was Syrian.
Trump would have had a little my “credibility” if the ban had been extended to Saudi Arabia & Pakistan. We can only look with total cynicism at this “Muslim” ban.
3
If statements made by candidates are going to tilt SCOTUS decisions, a gigantic share of the United States Code is subject to coming under judivcial review. We're going to need dozens more justices for such a busy time.
7
Although I generally deplore Trump, on immigration he has been valiant and resolute. I am exhilerated by Trump's stand on immigration and the Supreme Court's sensitivity to our concerns.
The situation regarding Muslim immigrants is very similar to the parable of the King's New Clothes.
Everyone knows that the proportion of Muslims who are sympathetic to terrorism exceeds the proportion of people, supportive of terrorism, in all other groups. But because of political correctness, we are not allowed to "Tell It like it is." (That slogan was used by black radicals at the end of the sixties and should now be used by white conservatives to make it clear that we are tired of the obfuscations and evasions of the PC)
And let's get something straight: Not only The White West has had problems with Muslims.
Hindus in India have had problems with Muslims
The Chinese have had problems with Muslims
In Darfur, the poor masses starved and slaughtered by the notorious "Janjaweed," or devils on horseback, are well aware of what "diversity" can mean.
And yes, our consitution does denounce discrimination on the basis of race, religion or national origin. But that does not mean that our nation must surrender its identity, must part with the customs and ceremonies which it holds dear and must lacerate its cultural heart.
As one Justice of the Supreme Court once said, "The constitution is not a suicide pact."
12
Essentially the ban says if you live in a country torn apart that you need to come here then don't come here but if you live in a country where there isn't a problem you can come here.
America has always been a place where people came looking for better life now it is a place to come for people already living in a better life.
To uphold the band is essentially to put a knife in the soul of what America has always stood for. This time it won't be a deranged bigoted president doing it but a supreme court controlled by deranged bigots.
1
I still don't understand why the countries that provided the 9/11 gang are not on the list. Nor are countries from which other "terrorists" have come. What "national security threat" does the President see from Iran - or, indeed, any of the countries listed on the ban.
2
I do not understand why you do not understand.
You as well as the other liberals do not understand how this list was created.
It isn't based sole on the past.
It is based on the present as well.
The present tell us the nations Trump wants to ban people from coming here do not vet at this time the people coming here.
Therefore the countries that terrorist have come from should not be on this list automatically based on that criteria if that criteria no longer applies.
2
Because you are living in a time warp. Saudi Arabia has been quietly purging its countries of extremists for years. They have removed over 1,000 clerics for their extremism.
The risks posed by countries with no systems to monitor who enters, resides in or exits them pose problems today.
1
I believe the president's ban on Muslims from America is completely unfair as it only targets a specific religion. I hope the court acknowledge the fact that this violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.
1
If it's targeting a specific religion it's doing a very poor job of it. The countries on the list account for only 8% of the world's Muslim population.
3
Maybe the SCOTUS should worry less the benefit of doubt to the executive branch and more to the benefit of the doubt to the Constitution.
1
Americans should take note that since President Trump issued the travel ban, despite opposition to it, America has not experienced terrorism. That means it is working! Trump has triumphed! Thank you.
4
The president comments that there are many great American Muslims. But I recall an incident concerning the Muslim parents of a slain American soldier. Be that as it may, one commentator has put it this way: "This executive order is clearly not a Muslim ban, rather a security-driven ban from countries that do not share vetting info with the US." No doubt. The commentator continues: "Whether Trump is motivated by racism is irrelevant...The fact that liberal idealists such as Sotomayer and Ginsberg are willing to bend the interpretations of the Constitution to how THEY would like to see it...is far more troubling and damaging that Trump's bluster to rile up his base." In the meantime, the American terrorists with AK-15 assault rifles who continue to threaten social stability are but a blip on the radar screen. Personally, I'll take the liberal idealists. At least they see the necessity of an updated Constitution. The conservatives are the ones who try to mold the Constitution to a world that never existed to the founding fathers.
3
I am reluctant to guess where the justices are headed based solely on the questions asked. It seems to me they were trying to get a fuller view of both sides and get answers to their own questions.
In response to Justice Alito's assertion that the banned countries made up only 8% of the worldwide Muslim population , Neal Katyal, lawyer for the challengers said. "If I'm an employer and I have ten African-Americans working for me and I only fire two of them, but retain the other eight, I don't think anyone can say that's not discrimination."
Mr Katyal makes absolutely no sense here. He should work on his hypotheticals.
10
It’s possible that what he said got a little mangled in the reporting. I agree with you that it makes no sense - as written. I deeply admire the press. But it is surprisingly difficult to get anything reported completely accurately.
1
No, it's exactly what he said...you can hear him say it in the recording of the oral arguments.
Wasn't that travel ban supposed to last six months, thereby giving Mr. Trump enough time to get those vetting procedures strengthened? It's been way longer than six month. So where are those new vetting procedures, and why is this ban still necessary?
11
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I seriously doubt it.
Trump wins this one.
I strongly disagreed with his original travel ban, which indeed seemed to draw distinctions based on religion -- for example, it said that members of "minority religions" from the named countries should be favored in immigration applications. That, to my mind, set up a flat contradiction between the indisputable authority of the executive branch over immigration matters and the sacred "anti-establishment" clause in the First Amendment: I felt the latter should prevail there, though I'll concede that Trump probably had the stronger Constitutional argument.
The second travel ban was a closer case, but it really didn't matter since it was quickly supplanted with this third travel ban. This one, it seems to me, is utterly unassailable, unless the Court (unlikely) rules that the executive branch is obliged to disclose the results of its fact-finding. Short of that -- i.e. if the Court does NOT require the US government to disclose the results of it factual inquiry into the "cooperation" level and other practices of various foreign governments (guess what?) -- there is close to zero chance that the Court will rule against Trump here. Very close to zero. Time for a Plan B.
6
How did you feel about President Obama's, Pres. Cinton's, and Pres. Carter's travel bans?
4
With all due respect ...
Hasn't the decision in this case been a foregone conclusion for a very, very, very long time? Whether you think it ought to be that way or not, is there any doubt -- has there ever been any doubt, really -- that Trump would win?
Of course Trump will win. Opponents should assume that entirely predictable outcome and come up with a Plan B.
9
By the end of the argument, though, it was hard to identify five justices ready to vote to strike down the ban.
[ Knowing the composition of this court, that is my sense as well. I am saddened, for we are coarsening as a country. ]
3
You should not allow your Supreme Court Justices to be politically appointed, nor appointed for life.
1
Really, who wants to come to a country run by an out of control racist dictator?
8
You are referring to Iran and the other countries on the banned list?
3
Woodrow Wilson's term of office ended in 1921.
But many Europeans wanted to come here during that time.
1
Perhaps those who actually know what a "dictator" looks like?
2
The fact is we're very screwed up country right now -- not just polarized but polarized to the point of close-minded. The Supreme Court is just as polarized as most of the rest of us are.
Frankly, I don't put much stock in this country's ability to engage in this or any other issue, except in a starkly partisan, win-or-lose, black-or-white way. Even though the US economy may be humming along, America's dying -- and the Supreme Court is no exception.
11
I don't have a crystal ball, but I can predict with certainty the three who will support Trump:
Uncle Tom aka Clarence Thomas
The Catholic sycophant aka Samuel Alito
The neo-fascist aka Neil Gorsuch
5
I don't doubt that you're serious, and intelligent. But your prediction is highly unlikely. This could be a unanimous decision, though I doubt that. It probably will be 5-4, with Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas voting for Trump, and Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor voting against him. But even if that happens, the minority Justices will be hard-pressed to come up with a rationale -- at least without doing what seems to have become de rigeur these days -- at least among lower-court judges: elevating campaign rhetoric to the level of an irreversible position. Granted, Trump made this easier by continuing to say the same things AFTER the election that he'd said during the campaign -- for example, "no Muslims," whereas Clinton would have said different things after the election had she won (as any good lawyer would know one should do). Nonetheless, it's hard not to notice that most (all?) of the lower-court rulings against Trump on the travel ban have cited, as support for the court's decision, statements made by Trump during the campaign. Ever before, in the history of the Republic, have campaign promises been treated as irreversible statements of policy? Answer: No. Frankly, I think they should be, since, after all, that is what the voters based their votes on. But it's never happened. Can you imagine some court citing a campaign statement made by HRC -- but not repeated by her after the election -- aa the factual basis for an anti-HRC decision?
3
The three individuals I mentioned have a history of belligerence toward the poor and minorities. They see themselves are guardians of White Man Privilege.
Clearance Thomas is beneficiary of affirmative action programs all his life, yet he now advocates Blacks and any minority should lift themselves up by their own bootstraps and is now virulently anti-affirmative action.
Alito is knowing to out Scalia as the rudest, most hostile member.Go read his speeches to far-right conservatives groups. He is proud of effectively killing the Voting Rights Ac.
Gorsuch is McConnell choice. Hope you can infer what I mean by that.
They don't belong on the supreme court or any court for that matter.
1
As I recall, there was a claim made by the administration that not imposing the ban for the first six months would endanger the US. No threat has materialized to justify this conceit.
Questions of presidential authority are legitimate and the supreme court is right to acknowledge that. However it is also blatantly obvious that this ban was motivated by bigotry and politics, not concerns for our best interests. As such, it would be appropriate for the supreme court to strike down the travel ban alongside a note saying "we are willing to review this decision given a better crafted Executive Order."
4
I think we would all feel more secure if we could "deport" Trump in ankle
bracelets for an indefinite stay at Mar-a-Lago....don't you ???
10
Not surprised this Court would defer to a racist.
5
The ban is NOT against Muslims. It it were, the ban would include Indonesia. It doesn't.
On the other hand, the ban doesn't seem to ban terrorists either. If it did, the ban would include Saudi Arabia. It doesn't.
8
What will Trump say on the campaign trial in the next year or two? Will he brag about keeping his campaign promise of "stopping all Muslims" from entering the United States "until we can figure out what the hell is going on"?
And if he brags about keeping his promise, what will the Supreme Court do?
1
Campaign trial... We can only hope.
1
How can this be about national security when all of the 9/11 terrorists' countries are exempt? As for judge Roberts' hypothetical: if the government knew of a specific threat on a specific day, wouldn't it be much more efficient to step up security and arrest the would-be perpetrators rather than shut down travel from a whole country?
Trump's motives are naked: he used hatred of Islam to get elected and he's trying to make good on his pledge. Ignoring his past words would be no different than ignoring the internet rantings of any number of domestic terrorists when trying to decipher their motive.
If this ban is enforced, it will give our enemies yet more ammunition to use for recruitment. It will most certainly make the world a more dangerous place.
9
The Takeover of America by the Trumpians (really just him) is complete. First, he overpowered the House. The Senate, despite it pretending to be an August body, fell to its knees and kissed Trump's rings. The Executive Branch is well into its way to becoming a bureaucracy in the Trumpian mold. And now, the highest court in the land is about to, as much as I hope to the contrary. fall on its knees as well. The entire Poker table has folded. Except for Trump. And he is holding and four and a six.
2
Can someone please explain to me and the rest of the world - why these countries are being 'banned' from entering America because of a so called 'terrorist threat' when the worst problem you seem to have is home grown terrorism? You've got mass killings, out of control gun violence, black people killed (or arrested in Star Bucks) just for being black. No one is 'vetted' in your country for having a AR15 assault rifle or any guns for that matter! All of your mass shooters are white!!!
My partner and I travel a lot. We have New Zealand, Australian, Canadian and English friends and relatives and I can only guess at what the decline in tourism is in your country because most the people I talk with don't want to go near America with a ten foot barge pole - not just because of Trump but because of your gun violence - and now, blatant racism and xenophobia toward Muslims.
Shame, shame, shame. I would not visit your country.
13
When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when neither is on your side, bang the table.
This administration does a lot of table banging; heck it had major help prior even before coming in by the unjust delay of seating a qualified, moderate potential Justice. But now? I look for Humpty Dumpty logic -- "A word means whatever I choose it to mean."
4
THINGS TO DO
May
Golf.
June
Send Thank You card to Supreme Court Justices.
July
Announce permanent ban on all immigration to United States of America.
Send Thank You card to Supreme Court Justices.
Send Thank You card to Steve.
August - September
Golf.
November
Resign after election results.
December
Host Don's News Network Reality Show premiere party.
4
Trump is not up for election in November. Did OBAMA resign after the midterms, when he lost his Congrssional majority?
1
Discretion means discretion.
2
It seems there might in fact be a world out there that reaches beyond the opinion of the New York Times and a plethora of its readers. What an interesting revelation!
9
Yes. They all voted for Trump.
Immigration law is for the Congress to pass. The Democrats should have fixed this problem when they were in power. Obama and the Democrats were far to deferential to consensus building in Obama's first year in power. DACA and Obamacare? Pathetic.
5
This ban is a blank indictment against Muslims.
North Korea and Venezuela are flourishes to squeeze the ban through court challenges.
Blank indictments are wrong whether institutionalized or in one person's mind.
Institutionalized indictment is worse.
It happened before. Respectfully, for a moment, let's set aside the entire history of racism.
Closest example to this ban is the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.
It was "approved" by the Supreme Court of that time. Let them not repeat the same mistake.
1
I love reading all the racist comments from the reactionary republicans on this page. They must live in absolute fear, poor souls. The world has passed them by long ago. Most of them live in rural areas where they will never even see a non-whitey. And us city folk, where multi-culturalism is not even debated because it’s just everyday reality, don’t give a hoot what nationality, ethnicity, race or religion you are. There are more important things to worry about. I view this moment in american history as a parent who must endure their child kicking and screaming on the department store floor when they discover they are not going to get the toy they wanted. They’ll get over it.
6
Trump is a clown and sadly, it looks like a majority of the SCOTUS, is part of the circus.
Oh well, we've lived through trying times before. I used to think there's this, there's that about the US that helps us ride through the storms. There's something, but it's not always the SCOTUS, in toto.
RBG, hoorah, though. An inspiration. Too bad about the guys; they're kind of a poor excuse.
3
President Trump "praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world"? Was that a typo or did the Solicitor General call Islam a country?
3
I'll bet the remnants of the American Indian tribes wish they had refused admission to the early settlers.
4
Why is that Americans are so simple minded? Why is it that when they talk about the immigration ban, all you hear is ‘Muslim majority countries’? Is North Korea a Muslim country? Is Venezuela? Please!
8
Only whites in ! Protestants preferably. (The ruling ideas are the ideas of the rulers)
2
Whatever, the Republican racists can fight and bluster and whine all they want, but they are soon going to be a minority and I hope when they are, they get treated the same EXACT way they treat the current minorities. You won't be so flippant about police killings when only white people are killed. And good, reap it.
By ignoring the Trump Administration's obvious religious animus, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court will be endorsing that religious animus, thereby lawlessly trashing the First Amendment.
The United States no longer will be a nation governed by constitutional rule of law. America will be a Russian-Republican tyranny.
2
And I suppose these same justices would have supported the Japanese internment camps of the 1940s as well.
3
All Donald Trump wants is to win. By appealing to the basest instincts in human nature, he won the Presidency. One of those appeals was to ban Muslims which, when he first proposed it, lifted his poll numbers among his fear-filled acolytes.
Trump cared not a wit about the safety of the American public when he implemented this ban, as any increased safety is likely completely insignificant in comparison with how this ban stokes fear and hate of those "others." All Trump cared about, once again, was to prove his strength, that he's a winner. That he will be seen as a winner by so many proves, sadly, how so many of us are losers.
3
It’s unfortunately not surprising that the Republican justices would back Trump on this issue. The myth of an independent judiciary has long been proven false and these extreme right-wing justices are true to form, driven only by hate and greed.
2
How is a policy that allows 90% of the world's muslims to travel to the United States a "Muslim ban?" It seems to mean the justices are using their common sense, and not following the political agenda of the lower courts.
13
The Supreme Court once allowed a President to intern American citizens as part of protecting "National Security." Congress later apologized for the order. In this case, the President is acting alone- all that discussion about consultations with his cabinet is so much persiflage. There are almost no experts left in the State Department to advise on the ban; he fired the National Security Advisor and replaced him with an avowed anti-Muslim proponent. His AG is an acknowledged racist who would like to "hang" homosexuals. There is no one rational who actually supports this ban, Whom is the President seeking to protect? He can't get his wall so he is trying to placate his base with a ban. There are no national security concerns here - not one of the attacks and mass shootings have been committed by refugees or visitors from the banned countries. This ban is politics pure and simple. SCOTUS should defer to the President on national security if he can prove a threat. It should not defer to the political needs of ;presidents of any party.
3
Wow it’s almost like this is a well-established executive power that’s been used by a variety of Presidents, ranging from Carter up through the most recent, President Obama.
7
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual.
State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808
3
The conservative justices would have to totally ignore Trump's repeated proclamations that he's trying to keep Muslims out of the country which is discriminatory against a protected class.
1
The idea of using prior speeches as proof of intent, and using that to negate executive actions, is a very slippery slope.
Barack Obama spoke of people clinging to their guns and religion. Was that proof of bias that should have negated any actions regarding guns or religion?
Hillary Clinton spoke of her intent to put the coal industry out of business. Had she become president, could that have been used to prove bias against coal miners and prevent her from any coal-related environmental action?
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have had some very negative and disparaging words about Wall Street. Perhaps they should be prevented from taking any actions against the financial industry if either becomes president.
The consideration by several judges to divine Trump’s intent and block actions based on that sets a very bad precedent. It will open up a new and effective angle of attack for conservatives to thwart future Democratic presidents.
11
This is a strange, interesting angle.
First, the court can look at the stated intent of the policy. The justices can listen to what the attorney says the intent is. They can also consider what the proponent said it was in public. Courts do this now, have done so for years, and will likely do so in the future. No new precedent needed. Ask yourself how else people prove intent to discriminate when advocates avoid writing policy that is unconstitutional on its face.
Second, if they want to look behind the curtain, why not request an ex parte hearing where the judges can review the classified national security information to see if it supports the rationale? Courts do that too, for example, if the government would rather not disclose records and claims a blanket exemption. Maybe the court should hazard a peak to see what cards the lawyers are actually holding. Again, no new precedent needed.
So we’re left with, why ignore the public comments and choose not to look at the national security rationale in detail? Is it out of respect?
The judges must know that “Muslim Ban” is at least part of the story. Maybe it’s out of respect for the office, in case a respectable president gets in sometime in the future. Their questions suggest that’s their escape hatch.
If the court did that in Korematsu, maybe it would have ruled WWII internment unconstitutional. It’s hard to assess threats, but if they don’t look, maybe we let discrimination stand, again, based on fraud. It’s shameful.
Time flies when you are busy living life. What tangled webs people weave, and what short memories they have. The only purpose for the ban by the Trump Admin. was to control the number of possible terrorists entering the US, because we had had a number of terrorist attacks committed by the people whose nationalities were banned. Simple.
Since then, we have lesrned a whole lot. The attacks by mostly people of countries banned have stopped, and we know more about the ban repercussions suffered by legal residents from countries on the list.
What Now? Maintain a limited ban, and if you don't understand why... then you have not been paying attention.
TRUMPS SCARE TACTICS HAVE DIMINISHED THIS COUNTRY, ITS PEOPLE, AND ITS ABILITY TO GOVERN ITSELF.
1
Wondering why the court didn't ask questions related to the length of time and the need to establish extreme vetting. It's been over a year since Trump took office. Have they not had enough time to develop the vetting rules? How long do they need? my understanding is previous administrations were continuously improving/modifying travel rules. Can't Trump and his people not do that without a ban? Targeting specific countries and religions fosters more hate.
2
The President can clearly take measures to protect the country against terrorism. But Trump keeps talking about immigration instead. Does that bar him from restricting immigration from terrorist strongholds like Libya? Does his anti-media talk bar him from bringing a libel lawsuit. Do his anti-environment positions bar him from taking action against environmental terrorists? And the same consideration is relevant to Democrat Presidents. Could the Democrats abolish the Border Patrol to cease enforcement against illegal aliens ? How far can they go in barring anti-abortion activism?
For the Court to bar an otherwise legal presidential action based on the President's presumed illegal motives is pretty much unprecedented and legally questionable. I disagree with those who view this as a simple matter. I think it is one of the thorniest legal issues that has ever come before the court.
4
To insist that trump's tweets and campaign rhetoric have nothing to do with this EO is nonsense. The "Muslim Ban" was decreed by trump to satisfy the xenophobia of his base. Orlando, San Bernadino, Denver et al were all the handiwork of "homegrown" terrorists. Given the concerns with the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks, it is reasonable to assume that they are not included in the ban because of trump's business interests there. Should the ban be upheld by the Court now, it will certainly be overturned when the trump nightmare ends.
3
For the benefit and security of the United States think we should give the President the ability to make quick decisions about pressing issues. That's why we elected him President.
To hold him hostage seems overkill.
Let's prevent an event from happening not tolerate it.
7
"let's prevent an event from happening not tolerate it."
I expect Trump and GOP supporters would agree with this statement in the context of travel ban discussion. Does it also resonate when we are talking gun control?
Does with me.
1
It's extremely disappointing that our supreme court is turning a blind eye to Trump's real intent as he has continuously stated during the campaigns and thereafter.
But remember the days when slavery and segregation were upheld by the supreme court, turning a blind eye to the real intent. We overcame those dark chapters in our history by fighting for justice.
We will overcome again if that's what it takes.
1
You learn a great deal about where various affiliations stand when it comes down to an unelected group of lawyers versus a freely elected government hashing out who has the right to make policy.
Liberals always want a 'strongman' who can tell hoi polloi what is really good for them despite their democratic decisions.
Nietzsche amusingly predicted this over a century ago: "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."
7
All the complaining is essentially useless. The only way to avoid executive orders that we dislike is by electing Congressional Representatives and Senators who agree with us, and just as important, are willing to go on record and pass legislation that we support. Immigration laws should be passed by Congress, not by the President. And in 2020 we had better elect a more acceptable President.
1
The very idea that our Supreme Court should be making decisions about national security is preposterous. We have a way around the problem if in fact a “problem” ever occurred. It is called impeachment.
3
What’s the point of putting nine kids on a teeter-totter when all it takes is one wise one who can sit in the middle to realize that by simply rocking back and forth sideways it works perfectly, without any fighting. There’s your world peace.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/terrorist-attacks-entry-restriction/
but of course conservative Supreme Court justices do not consider themselves beholden to the truth any more than many common-garden variety Republicans or, dare I say it, the current resident of the White House.
Religious nationalism is the relationship of nationalism to a particular religious belief, dogma, or affiliation. This relationship can be broken down into two aspects: the politicization of religion and the influence of religion on politics.
The Evangelicals are not associated with the guides of Christianity but instead the governance of our nation in the guise of religion.
3
An imperfect analogy is Korematsu v. U.S., where Supreme Court upheld the US government's rounding up of all the Japanese people on the west coast and putting them in camps after Pearl Harbor and through the duration of the war. Korematsu is now recognized as one of the Supreme Court's most poorly decided cases.
But I can sympathize with the government's issue. The government issued the travel ban and the Japanese internment, at least in part, because is does not have the resources (money and knowledge) to adequately investigate all of the many tens or hundreds of thousands of people who want to come here to determine which are a security risk or not. So it's easier from a bureaucratic point of view to just impose an outright ban on everyone.
3
If I feel a mosquito bite I swat the first one I see. I’m sorry.
1
So, the 5 republicans are only originalists when it suits them. Here is a case where we have the presiden's own words but the court decides he didn't really mean them. The supreme court has become a travesty of jurisprudence. Five hacks sitting there for their lifetimes. There need to be term limits for the supreme court.
15
"So, the 5 republicans are only originalists when it suits them."
1. Supreme Court justices are non-partisan, although journalists often confuse readers by classifying them as "conservative" or "liberal". Unfortunately, this article is no exception:
* "its five-member conservative majority"
* "the court’s four-member liberal wing"
2. The article says nothing about "originalists".
"Here is a case where we have the presiden's own words but the court decides he didn't really mean them."
No. The "presiden's own words" are *irrelevant*. What *is* relevant is the *text* of the proclamation, which doesn't say anything about religion.
"Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats"
Proclamation 9645 of September 24, 2017
federalregister.gov
6
So, all those Jim Crow laws really were for the public interest and not meant to discriminate. As long as the order doesn’t say “Muslim Ban” it isn’t one.
“A law to build a wall to keep America safe” never mentions who it aims to keep out and avoids discriminating on national origin, even if everyone understands that it will only lie on the Mexican border... I mean, it can’t be discriminatory since some people from that region enter from Canada and some people who live south of the wall are not Hispanic...
Courts have faced laws that are facially discriminatory (e.g. a law banning blacks from white’s only institutions and businesses) but there have also been laws that don’t say anything racist but mainly cause a disparate, discriminatory impact. Examples are a law to close a public swimming pool (that is the only one blacks can use), and laws preventing large black populations from gaining a majority and voting in a representative in any local district.
This comment suggests the courts can only address unconstitutional policies when the drafters are simple enough to be explicitly racist. I know it’s easier, but I hope that’s not true.
1
Finally some sanity in the Supreme Court, why it took so long to get to this point is beyond reason, but at least we finally got there.
17
Evidently it is happening as forecasted by many. The Trump Supreme Court is as crooked as the Republican Party. Someday this and many other decisions in this administration will be held up in history as the most un - American period in our country. Sad days endured and sadder yet to come.
15
If we wanted to get rid of a composite of terrorists who have killed Americans (including in our schools), we would have to ban white American men, starting at age 18.
On 9/11, most of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. were from Saudi Arabia. The rest were from United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. None of these countries is on the list as banned.
This travel ban is nothing but fear-mongering against innocent people, and does nothing to make us more secure - only more prejudiced.
Why are fascists taking over our country??
26
The leftist federal district judges that first enjoined the travel ban should be impeached and removed from office.
And I predict the Supreme Court will give them a thorough rebuke for overreach and a huge waste of time when the "ban" is upheld in June.
16
Why impeached, they only professed their point of view—a proclivity towards justice for the people and by the people.
Leftist appointees of the Bushes and Reagan, I guess they didn't teach that in Russia- er Sweden.
1
It's a sad, sad day in America when even the Highest Court in the nation plays the political partisan game, instead of serving justice. The one last resort we thought would prevent harm to America, is now a court of bias partisan politics. They now make decisions not based on justice, merit, and the higher moral ground, but on what party put them on the bench or who serves their own political favor. We all know this is a ban that targets Muslims as the President himself said so when he announced the ban. When challenged, he then tries to clean it up by targeting people from seven countries which are predominantly Muslim. For the court to even debate what is just plain obvious to see is in itself, disingenuous, dishonest, and a disgrace to what this court is suppose to stand for. They have themselves thrown their own integrity and character under the bus for this sad excuse for a President. What has happened to our dear America when now evil and dishonesty is entertained, defended, and cheered. Sad time in our history, sad indeed.
10
Forget law, common sense should dictate what needs to be done. Multi-culturalisim is not working in Europe, Paris has become a scary destination.
What does it even mean to be a European ? Certain areas of England and Germany are no-go zones. Imagine, no-go, that means anyone who is European in their own country.
Care to have that here ?
19
Oh Tom, please. That's a pack of conspiracy theories.
2
I have yet to find a 'No go zone ' in the UK but from things I read I would strongly consider most of the US a ' No Go zone '
How many people get shot in the good old US of A? 33000 and you're telling me Europe and the UK are dangerous places. Take your rose tinted glasses off and look around.
If Donald Trump wants to do something about national security, he should start by doing something about gun control in this country. Most refugees are just looking to build a better life somewhere where there aren't bombs falling on their heads. Americans are killing Americans and he is in bed with the NRA to the point that he won't admit that we have a national security right under his nose.
8
You are witnessing an American President who is protecting America. You are also witnessing left wing extremists who are trying to fling open America's doors to whomever wants to come in.
19
Yes, so protected. Grandmas from Iran, out. Sovereign Citizens with mental issues naked in Waffle House, give them AR-15s.
3
Then why do I have to take off my shoes and walk through a metal detector at the airport? Just because some terrorist put explosives in his underwear?
A factor that is being omitted in the discussion is that the citizens of the banned countries are not currently resident in the banned countries. Most of them have fled to a safe country and are seeking refugee status in the US. We are better off if they stay where they are, since there is no reliable way to evaluate their intentions. If we have some particular reason to admit them, exceptions have been made by the State Department.
6
The mere act of isolating this as a "Muslim ban" shows how low the left will stoop to redefine anything our President does in order to flare tempers and divide our society.
Will will the sore losing end? How much more of this do we have to endure?
17
“When will the sore losing end?” Why don’t you ask “when will the winning begin?” It’s not the “left” that is losing, its all of America.
The very fact that Trump’s own attorneys and advisers in this case asked the Court to disregard his tweets and comments should raise a red flag. If the president’s* own words can’t be trusted, how can we trust his “policy?” We can’t because he has no coherent policy.
And why does his list exclude the country that has sourced more terrorists during and since 9/11, other than his personal interests there?
It appears to be willful ignorance to keep yammering about “sore losers” on the left. If the guy had a semblance if a clue, he’d engage experts to assist in the development of a consistent and defensible approach to immigration across the board. Yes, the US rightfully has concerns about national security from certain countries, as well as from some of our own citizens of white descent.
Reconsider your misplaced political disgruntlement and figure out how your president* can start uniting Americans, in some way, shape, or form, to address our security, economic, and social challenges.
3
Trump's ban has nothing to do with Muslims or keeping the US safe.
Trump's ban is again Trump pandering to bigotry and hatred and throwing red meat to his base.
Those who were responsible for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia [which is NOT in the ban] and not from countries in the ban.
The conservative justices on the Court largely agree with Trump's domestic economic agenda.
They will then want to award Trump a "win" in this case to bolster Trump's status at home.
They know Trump's ban will no effect on US security because refugees and immigrants from these and other countries are fully and extensively vetted.
But security is not the issue.
The conservatives want to support Trump's domestic agenda so they will give him a 'win" on this case.
15
5-4. But which way?
Much more likely 6-3 in favor of upholding the ban, and possibly even 7-2. If you listen to the oral arguments, it's clear the 5 conservatives will vote to uphold, and Breyer's questioning indicates he's likely to join them. Kagan's questioning makes her a possible 7th vote.
2
Until Bush -v- Gore in 2000, I tried to give the Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt. Since then not so much. The law and logic are irrelevant to these people. Their decisions are dressed up in complex and pretty language, but really it’s their personal beliefs that guides them; most certainly not logic.
When the late Justice Scalia spoke of his sincere belief that the devil tried to sway his opinions that forever ruined it for me. If religion is guiding a judge’s interpretation of the law then sadly that judge has not learned the basic principle that the law is about facts and logic, but religion is about faith. The two are mutually exclusive.
16
Trump's (repugnant) campaign bluster is irrelevant when weighing the constitutionality of his actual government acts. Holding "animus" is not unconstitutional.
Question is, can Pres Trump lawfully ban from entry into the U.S. the entire population of a country just because a handful of that population likely wants to kill Americans? It doesn't sound fair, or constitutional, but what are the alternatives? The individuals who suddenly "crack" and kill as many innocent's as possible cannot be identified before the killing begins.
This is hard, but protecting the lives and security of Americans must take precedence over deference to religious belief, whether in a foreign country or in a crazy cult here at home.
True, our government holds equal tolerance for all religious belief and practice, UNLESS such practice violates the civil and human rights of others. There is no doubt the religious practice of some Muslims violates the civil/human rights of others .. it's even a tenet of some Muslims to kill "infidels" who don't convert to Islam.
9
The animus speaks to Trump's motives.
It is unlawful to deny immigration to people because of their religion, ethnicity, or sex.
It takes little more than a review of events over the past year and a half to understand that the travel ban has no effect on national security and is solely to feed Trump's ego and the xenophobia and racism of his base.
His animus is very much relevant to that conclusion.
6
Motive does not matter. What matters is what the law or statute says. Not Kagan making up motives.
1
The Travel Ban not only violates Section 1182 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, because its effect exceeds its authorization, it also violates the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.
In order to suspend the entry of “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States," under the law, their entry must "be detrimental to the interests of the United States." It is difficult to conceive of a situation in which all aliens from specific nations or all aliens who practice a specific religion from these nations would be detrimental to U.S. interests, necessitating an order barring all of them from admission to the United States. The government did not introduce sufficient proof that the ban was necessary. Findings are not proof.
Constitutionally, the Establishment Clause does not state that Congress is prohibited from establishing a national religion. It prohibits Congress from "making" any "law" "respecting an [not “the”] establishment of religion." Most persons banned from entering the U.S. are Muslim. Discriminating against some but not all Muslims worldwide does not change the fact of the ban's invidious, targeted discrimination.
If Trump’s Travel Ban is allowed to stand, Congress will have, in effect, authorized a law – by Presidential Proclamation -- respecting an establishment of religion. Congress cannot delegate authority to the President that is prohibited to it under the Constitution.
Maurice F. Baggiano, Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
14
A bit of selective quoting there, eh Mr. Baggiano? How does someone so clueless, or deceitful, get admitted to practice before the Supreme Court?
The law doesn't say that the entry of the aliens or class of aliens must, in fact, be detrimental to the US. It says that the President must find that their entry would be detrimental.
Here's the complete quote: "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."
1
“The president’s lawyers urged the courts to ignore Mr. Trump’s statements and Twitter posts, and to focus solely on the text of the proclamation and the process that produced it.”
Patently absurd. No one else proposed a ban, and no one else ranted about the “need” more than the president*.
I’m certainly not arguing that there aren’t legitimate security concerns about some foreign nations; however, it’s ironic that the country sourcing so many terrorists from 9/11 onward, Saudi Arabia, is excluded from the list.
If the president’s* words should be discounted, then so should his actions. Have we reached a point where we don’t actually need a president?
6
So, if the decision is 5-4 in favor of the travel ban, the Supreme Court will be a racist, bigoted Trump enabler. On the other hand, if the travel ban is knocked down, any and all Presidential actions will be tied up in court, making our foreign policy based on kangaroo courts?
4
I don't see why you would characterize US district courts as "kangaroo courts."
6
Because it seems like most of these “overturning” results are transparent fishing expeditions for polite snaps at the next dinner party.
1
The biggest threat comes from Russia today. Why aren't they on the list?
10
Motivation matters. It would be very understandable if the Supreme Court sustained trump’s travel ban if the only evidence before them was this carefully composed third ban.
But that’s not the case. To willfully ignore important evidence is willful bigotry.
8
When I was interviewed by American embassy officials for immigration to America, one question asked was whether I were ever a member of communist party and support communism. I guess if I were, a visa would have been denied to me. If that question was proper and being a member of communist party was a disqualifying factor to come to America, why we have to bring Muslims, who support oppression of non-Muslims in their countries, to America to kill Americans and who harbor the feelings that others are infidels. We used to bring only dissidents from communist countries. So we should bring only Muslims who support equal treatment of all people in their countries, not the one who supports Muslim dominance and oppression of infidels.
8
The vetting process for refugees takes two years.
I doubt that refugee status is given to anyone who openly advocates the killing of Americans.
5
In 4 decades there have been 20 out of 3.25 million refugees convicted of attempting to or committing acts of terrorism on US soil. The majority of terrorism deaths have been from Saudi Arabia or Egypt. So whatever "security" assessment they have done should have included these two countries. The only reason the Trump administration wants this passed is so Trump can have a campaign style rally to tell his followers how great he is for getting it passed. For the Trump administration it is about the same thing every time....Donald Trump, it is not about the safety of America.
11
By all means, let's let in large numbers of Shia from Iran, encourage them to form on our territory into discrete communities adjacent to Sunnis from other Muslim lands. Perhaps in ten years, we can watch as they seek to exterminate one another in a holy war on our soil, instead of merely watching from afar as they seek to do the same in the Middle East.
We don't already have enough domestic crazies: let's import some MORE.
12
That's not worthy of you, Richard.
A great many Muslims have been living in the US for many years.
Those trying to enter are refugees from the carnage at home.
They're the victims of Islamist fanaticism, not its advocates.
1
Jerry:
Those trying to enter from the banned countries represent markedly greater risk to us than those trying to enter from the vast majority of mostly-Muslim countries, that the ban does NOT seek to keep out.
Why is a Yemeni or an Iranian now somehow to be acknowledged but a Saudi is not?
2
Clearly, Trumpistas are not committed "to ban Muslims from America", as Muslims from very important states, such as Saudi Arabia, are not included in the ban -- in part because they are allies, in large part because the security protocols they enforce at their airports adequately guard against the possibility that a religious-berserker-mass-murderer might use those airports as a transit point to enter the U.S. from areas harboring extremists bent on committing atrocities against our people. The same certainly cannot be said of those Muslim states that ARE included in the ban.
This issue has become a convenient one for those who are committed to demonizing Trump on any pretext, in the hope of blocking ALL his policies with which they disagree, and over which they lost during the last election.
Elena Kagan must be kidding. On the left, I’ve always had respect for her, but her line of questioning was absurd. For her scenario to have merit, Israel would need to produce religious extremists in numbers who sought to commit mass atrocities on our people and proceed to commit them, while radicalizing our youth here. That’s simply absurd; yet if it happened, of COURSE some future president would be justified in protecting our people from such predation.
Alito makes the obvious point succinctly: the ban doesn’t keep Muslims out of America: it keeps individuals from 8% of the Muslim world out and provides credible reasons for doing so.
16
That rationale alone should cause the Court to reverse the lower federal court on this matter. It’s not the purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court to second-guess a president’s conclusions about what is necessary to protect our country – Congress can do that, but it has chosen not to. The Court’s sole legitimate purpose here is to determine if a Hawaiian judge was right or was wrong in concluding that THIS president is seeking to protect our country and our people in an unconstitutional manner. Clearly, he’s not.
11
Richard, Trump's travel ban is intended solely to play to the bleachers.
It has nothing to do with national security or any other legitimate concern.
The reactionaries on the Supreme Court like to pretend to take it seriously. It makes them look like fools.
They know, and as an intelligent man you know, that it's a political gambit with no real purpose except to gain points with Trump's xenophobic base.
7
Clearly, Trump is not doing it for national security, but to make political capital with his bigotted base.
He's not helping Americans. He's harming refugees from the regimes he pretends to abhor.
6
If SCOTUS upholds the ban along party lines, we will see one of the greatest political crimes in history bear fruit. That of the stolen SCOTUS seat by Mitch McConnell and his refusal to even hold a vote on Merrick Garland.
18
Before the hyperbole, remember that this decision will uphold the Constitution. This is not a Trump issue. We've seen what can happen when authority is used in very different ways, good and bad, in different branches of the government. The stupidity and bigotry of the ban might satisfy the base on the Right (not any Republics I know), but there is a price to be paid for that in the polls.
3
The 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia not the other 6 countries. If he is banning due to national security (his favorite battle cry), he should ban Saudi Arabia (but can't do that because of financial interests). The Justices are afraid he will start name calling & threatening them with all sorts of stuff. Our government in all 3 branches are turning into cowards. No one wants to stand up to this maniac. His pick is helping & if he can get the older ones to retire he will have his way in all the branches of government. Welcome the dictator.
13
Journalism is pretty hard.
Trump did not "promise to secure the nation’s borders," he promised to ban Muslims. No one is fooled by his attempts to ban Muslims disguised as "security concerns," including the Conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court. They're just okay with placing their hatred of minorities over their responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
10
That includes Justice Thomas?
It would seem to me to be rather simple. He has the Constitutional authority. I may not like the travel ban (I do not), but, it is not the Court’s job to orchestrate foreign policy. They are jurists, not foreign policy experts.
13
It's not foreign policy, it's domestic!
2
True, however, it is their job to determine whether the law, or proclamation in this case, violates the Constitution by discriminating against a religion,and whether the argument of national security is just a pretext for discriminating against Muslims.
1
Banning entry into the US by reason of religious or ethnic discrimination is prohibited by US law.
The Constitution does not give the president unlimited power to impose bans on travel to the US.
4
How #45 have some rightful authority to speak about any "real" topic related to this country ? How a man who his main activity are tweets constantly insulting people dares to impose an openly racist travel ban? How can we respect a Supreme Court with "Supremes" such as Alito , Thomas, or the new one, Gorsuch?
6
9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia is not on Trump's ban list, because the corrupt Trump family have business deals in that country, proving that the travel ban has nothing to do with "security" it is all about racism!
11
Americans are slaughtering each other with guns, and we're arguing over whether to let stand travel restrictions that have no basis in public safety and everything to do with othering particular groups of people? You want to get rid of dangerous elements in our midst? Start with the NRA.
22
The first non-sensical proclamation of a delisional would-be dictator that is upheld by cowardly sycophants. If he gets this victory it will be only the first in a series of steps towards the consolidation of power and growing fervor over what his supporters will see as his ability to make good on his promises - and their wishes - in the face of liberal (and sane) opposition.
7
In the 15 months since the President's first travel ban executive order, which have been blocked by the Courts, how many foreign nationals from these countries have committed, or been caught plotting terrorist attacks?
Now, in the same time period, how many American citizens have committed acts of mass killing, or have been arrested plotting to do so?
Who is kidding whom here?
16
If Trump is trying to protect th U.S.A.,he should be told that the only 'Muslim" attacks on this country were planned, financed and carried out by citizens of Saudi Arabia, our "close friend and ally" in the Middle East. To secure our country should not Saudis be at the top of the banning list?
Read some recent history Mr. Trump as well as current events,from sources other than tabloids!
9
The simple solution is to just expand the ban. Allow business and tourism, but turn off immigration (especially "refugees") completely. The US is overcrowded already, and likely to get more so - we just don't need any more people.
4
In answer to CC:
Yes, we see horrors every night coming from the Middle East. What about those people trying to escape those horrors? How can we shut our doors to them? They are innocent victims...
7
my bet is it's 7-2 to uphold Trumps position which is so obviously correct that only blinded partisans can be foolish enough to overturn his ban.
9
It will get worse, it has to. Subsequent administrations will push and pull at the law in new ways after all these broken norms.
This GOP government is an extension of Bush II, using the same dodges. Remember dumping all their emails before leaving the WH, and in the next breath going after HRC?
The next GOP government might well wrap itself in golden sheep cheeks and run on 'finally catapulting the Inuit into the sun'.
3
In the second bullet point, the word "though" belies what it's saying, creating immense ambiguity..
Why oh why aren't angry white American men with multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition not feared, harassed, imprisoned, rejected or otherwise banned from society, but simply practicing another faith from another country ("Hmm!" mused the Statue of Liberty) is grounds for refusal of entry?
10
The possibility that SCOTUS could uphold the facially ridiculous Muslim Ban is due directly to the fact that Gorsuch got the seat that should have gone to Garland. Had Garland been seated, as he absolutely would have — if Mitch McConnell hadn’t taken over as Majority Leader — we wouldn’t even been having this discussion.
As it is, we’ve got a bunch of right-wing Justices who apparently think it’s perfectly OK for Trump to issue an EO discriminating against Muslims, and containing not a scintilla of evidence that banning Muslims from the specified countries would have the slightest impact on terrorism in the U.S.
Once more and more of Trump’s judicial picks have shifted the federal courts far to the right, all bets are off.
3
The branches can't be co-equal when one of them is corrupt.
5
Perhaps Europe should be banning Americans- white male gun owners in particular- since they are the cause of carnage here in the U.S. and would love nothing more than to subvert gun restrictions in other countries. They could label it as a 'national security' issue.
8
My question: Are there really still people from whatever country who actually want to come into an America ruled and run by Donald Trump? If there are such people , I say President Trump is right . Such folks must indeed have ill intent or else be raving lunatics.
Yes, I get the tongue-in-cheek attempt.
But they're called "refugees."
And they're running from viollence and death.
3
Some people are just unable to see how this ties us back to our racist past. Or what we'd like to think of as past.
2
"The restrictions vary in their details, but, for the most part, citizens of the countries are prohibited from immigrating to the United States, and many are barred from working, studying or vacationing here." This is amazingly bigoted, nonsensical, and frankly, hurts America. People from these countries have contributed significantly to the United States, as teachers, doctors, attorneys, business people. They've assimilated, raised families, and contributed to their communities. I survived jr. high in the Midwest during the Iranian hostage crisis, and now it feels like one of the loud-mouth brats who would scream "Bomb Eye-ran!" from his parents' car while I walked down the road is not only running the country, but sitting on the Supreme Court.
4
"Mr. Trump’s lawyers urged the courts to ignore Mr. Trump’s statements and Twitter posts..."
The White HOuse has stated that the President can and does announce policy using Twitter.
For example, he announced the ban on transgender people in the military on Twitter on July 26, 2107:
"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....
....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you"
It took him 3 tweets to announce the policy on Twitter.
Noel Francisco should have been asked "How do we know when to believe what the POTUS announces on Twitter?"
Either it is an official medium, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
The White House says tweets are official POTUS statements. Good enough. The Supremes should accept that as the truth.
That says the travel ban WAS motivated by religious animus against Muslims.
4
I hope someone with the National Archives are printing Trump’s tweets as soon as he makes them onto paper. If not he will delete all of them. Besides there should be a hard copy somewhere of all his policies & firings. Personally, if Trump had fired me I would want it in writing as proof so he can say I quit. If he fires you, you can apply for unemployment. His Muslim comments are official Presidential comments & declarations of policy. The Supreme Court will not go against him.
1
This is NOT a blanket ban on Muslims. In fact, it only affects roughly 8% of the world's Muslim population AND that 8% all would be from terrorist sponsoring nations. Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and Syria. The other, North Korea, is not even Muslim. So, if the ban does NOT affect 92% of the Muslim population worldwide, how is this a ban on the Muslim religion? The fact it that it is NOT, but rather a ban on a specific group in the name of national security. The real irony is that those countries have their own travel bans in place. aside from that, another fact is that Trump has already removed another predominantly Muslim country (Chad) from the original list as they increased their security vetting procedures.
11
It is precisely those countries with the worst human rights records that refugees are fleeing from.
Trump isn't banning people to protect national security.
He's denying desperate refugees asylum to gratify his own ego and play to the xenophobia of his base.
3
AWESOME! And fair enough. So next time we get a Democratic President and Congress don’t go crying to Supreme Court when the entire Muslim Ban is lifted, we accept more refugees, allow undocumented ppl to stay, and give green cards quickly to qualified legal immigrants!
1
And that is why I will not vote for a Democrat ever again.
"They prevailed before a Federal District Court in Hawaii and before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco."
This says it all
4
It seems odd to see Mr. Trump and national security judgment in the same sentence.
1
Trump justifies his expensive travel to Florida every weekend as needed for national security as are the McDonalds.
Let’s try for a Donald j trump ban next.
20
what do the justices need to consider about muslin ban? It is inhumane to think of that notion even for a microsecond! Instead of just dismissing this dotard's idiotic claim, the chief justices are considering it??? This is NOT normal.
where are we heading as a nation? so much hayred, I even feel like leaving USA for good.
12
About national security? My a*&. If it was about keeping Islamic terrorists out, then why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list? They've produced the most violent and destructive terrorists in the world. As well as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. C'mon, Supreme Court, do your damn job and hold Trump accountable for this egregious, racist, and unnecessary travel ban.
33
Personal accountability is, at best, just a word, in a mantrafying reality in which graphic numbers represent real people.Alive or dead. And words represent reality. Experienced in some way or not. Which each of us, in some active, or passive, way enable!
So The Donald's ban excludes the country where most of the 911 terrorists came from . . . Saudi Arabia?!! And then, "The president’s lawyers urged the courts to ignore Mr. Trump’s statements and Twitter posts, and to focus solely on the text of the proclamation and the process that produced it." In other words, Trump is an imbecile, so ignore him, and pay attention to the text of the third iteration, which contains the 'right" wording and was most definitely NOT written by the president. So, are we to ignore his babbling except for when he says the words "national security"?
The conservative justices are basically saying Donald didn't mean all the bad things he said about Muslims before, so it's really about security. This, unfortunately, is what we get when McConnell and the Republicans blocked President Obama's legitimate SCOTUS nomination and then placed Gorsuch in the stolen seat. The result is that the conservative majority looks at the facts of this case, listens to the arguments and then decides two plus two equals purple . . .
12
Anyone else notice that the vast majority of terror and mass murders is being done by white male Christians..."Muricans" making America great again. Just sayin...Pogo was right.
25
Everyone keeps hoping that the Supremes will uphold the constitution and be the bulwark against tyranny and extremism. When has the court done that in the past? For a short period in the 1950's and 1960's, they were for the bill of rights and the little guy or defendants in criminal cases. Otherwise they have pretty much always been pro wealth and pro statist. What did they do for the Japanese who were interned during World War II. Did they stick up for the constitutional rights of the Japanese/Americans -- most of whom were actually U. S. citizens? No.
The justices use a lot of gobble de gook such as originalism, textualism, strict construction, etc. to pretend that they follow sincerely held legal principles and to obscure what they do. But often their decisions can be easily predicted ahead of time.
If an individual sues a corporation -- the republican members of the court will rule against the individual regardless of law, the facts of the case, etc.
If an individual sues the federal government in a case relating to foreign policy/defense -- the individual will lose. Again regardless of the facts of the situation or how egregious the actions of the government, the republican justices will uphold the government. All the government has to do is say that it relates to "national security."
9
To what extent do our laws (including security and immigration) require that policies aren’t arbitrary and capricious? It seems to me that the administrations argument is “it’s not discriminatory, it’s just stupid and we can do stupid legally”.
But for most rules, you have to follow a careful weighing of evidence, etc...
5
actually "arbitrary and capricious" is a direct quote from the standard set in the federal statute (law) known as the Administrative Procedure Act. that is why you often see it written in accounts of legal cases relating to actions by of federal agencies. This standard applies to all federal agencies, so the answer to your question is: to a great extent
3
Freedom For All.....: ....in the USA....well those in The Supreme Court who
vote their Religion ;those who are opposed to Muslims...perhaps those of
the Christian or Jewish Faith...are not being loyal to their oaths; to protect and
defend...etc.
Well...perhaps those who are on the Supreme Court need to examine their
conscience...and do so ASAP..!!!
3
Islam is not a country. I am praying that that quotation by the President's lawyer is a misprint. If he actually said that, then that's all you need to know about where they are coming from.
11
As a lifelong Democrat and liberal, I oppose Trump's travel bans. But as a lawyer familiar with presidential power under the Constitution, I cannot. The current ban will stand, perhaps in a narrow unanimous decision, because it is within the president's constitutional and executive authority.
That's constitutional law, however. The politics and public perceptions here are driven, like most national issues these days, by whether you like Trump or despise him.
One day, Trump will be history. Although many will call the SCOTUS decision political, it will take the long view that an enduring Constitution, interpreted consistently apart from who is in office, is most important.
15
Islam is not a country (last graph); headline seems awkward.
3
Trump wants to ban Muslims only from countries where he doesn't own property or have businesses.
That should be a major reason to nip this in the bud.
7
President Trump "has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country, and he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world.” Pretty much typifies his off-the-charts IQ.
2
Another gem from our stable genius.
Meanwhile, home grown, white nationalists are actively shooting and bombing fellow citizens, yet there is no mention of this by POTUS. Instead he referred to the fascists in Virginia a fine people, or some such nonsense.
Research shows that many Muslims come here are highly educated doctors (we have a dire shortage), engineers, and other highly educated people who add to our communities.
Furthermore, the two primary sources of Islamic terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (where political Islam was born and nurtured) are absent from the list of banned nations.
This ban is meat for his base. It has no basis in reality, much like the low IQ’d troglodyte who conceived it.
We are all more likely to be the victim of a white, male, Christian born in the US than we are anyone from the nations on this list. Should we bad Christians?
3
If Trump and his base are really so concerned about Muslim terrorists, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list? Almost 80% -- 15 of 19 -- of the 9/11 hijackers were from that country.
6
I’m Jewish. I see what’s going on in Europe- antisemitism has been sharply rising. The rise correlated exactly with immigration from Muslim nations. I do not want to be spit on as I walk down the street because of my religion, as is common in France and other European nations. I fully support not bringing people to this nation who hate me because of my religion. I do not hate Muslims. I do not want them here because they hate me
18
The extreme left does not care about you unfortunately. They are deep in an ideology that will bring down this nation in a couple hundred years or so.
2
Brian,
Europe has been indiscriminate in the migrants it has allowed in. We have the capacity to screen for refugees who are 1) secular and college-educated, 2) members of a persecuted ethno-religious community (such as Druze, Yazidi, Shabak, Maronites, Assyrians, Bahai), 3) members of secular, persecuted Muslim sects (Sufis, Nizaris), 4) women and children (i.e., no adult men), 5) survivors of sex trafficking, 6) gays and lesbians, and 7) working or have worked with the U.S. military (translators, for example).
These groups pose no security threat, chiefly because most of them are themselves are also victimized by Islamic governments. Blanket bans prevent them from even being considered.
1
How do feel about the statements by right wing politicians in Europe who want to round up immigrants and put them in camps?
Republican appointees to the Supreme Court may continue to do violence to innocent Americans. See
https://www.legalreader.com/republican-racketeers-violent-policies/
The far-right, media-hating Evangelicals who purport to be pious and God-fearing pose an infinitely greater threat to America and our democracy than patently banning immigrants from predominantly Muslim nations. It's a pity that there is no ban on ignorant racists; Trump and his ilk would have to be deported.
5
An historically proven racist is elected President and suddenly the racist anti-immigration laws of the 1910s and 1920s are once more relevant? The Supreme Court as constituted has obviously been waiting for this opportunity to invoke its similarly pro-racist judicial outlook with a new and improved Dred Scott case, one that srikes out at minorities before they enter the USA. It's a perfect storm of reaction, racism, and Anti-Americanism.
2
I don't know how many times I have read it, but all the "terrorists" here have been HOME GROWN. What national security issues do we have? SDOTUS =Supreme dolts of the US
6
People have babies. The terrorists that knocked down the WTC were not all home grown. Look it up. Facts are enlightening.
1
This is a Supreme Court decision, it's collusion with a racist (Trump) and a moral degenerate (McConnell).
4
And the plunge towards fascism speeds onward
7
The balance in the Supreme Court reflects the Will of the People.
It is the prerogative of the President, whomever that may be at any point in time, to take action that he believes is in the National Security of the Country.
It is the prerogative of the people to either vote for the President or his challenger in the subsequent election.
The Travel Ban is not for Life. No President's term is for Life.
People who are getting their panties in a bunch over Trump's Travel Ban need to calm down and realize everything is temporary, including the Travel Ban.
Everyone needs to understand that just because they have a strong opinion about Trump, his Travel Ban, or any of his policies, they don't get to decide for all the people living in the United States. Your opinion should be respected, but it is just your opinion and cannot be forced on the rest of the people.
The visceral reaction to Trump just energizes his base. Your strenuous objection to Trump and his policies is counterproductive to your objectives.
Work through the structure and framework of the Constitution. Write your Congressman, or run for office if you want to effect change. But the more you try to bring down this President, all you will do is create more support for him.
11
when you talk about the "prerogative of the president" maybe you should recall the prerogative to appoint federal judges. whose side did you take when Mitch McConnell prevented Obama from exercising his constitutional authority to appoint Scalia's successor. I expect your answer is "McConnell's". No, the Supreme Court does not reflect the will of the people. Republicans deprived Obama of this appointment, and Trump does not have a popular mandate, so his pick does not reflect the country
4
Samara’s post seems sincere and dishonest at the same time. Much of it is true, about how campaigns change policy. But it’s also disingenuous because it misrepresents what campaigning means, and it conflates the term of a president with the impact of his (or her) policies.
Obama’s opponents campaigned by writing letters and running for office. They also accused the president of being legally unqualified without evidence, sued to prevent states from needing to give their neighbors healthcare, hacked DNC data (illegal), staged rallies against Muslim and immigrant Americans, and refused to let Obama appoint judges as the Constitution requires. It was all part of a campaign that eventually helped Trump into office. In other words, lawsuits and public speech are part of U.S. campaigning, not just writing to representatives or running for office.
Second, whether Trump’s ban is temporary or permanent, it has already done damage and some of that may be irreparable. If you have relatives that were born in Syria, are good people, but cannot visit you because of the ban, Maybe you cannot see them while they are alive. It may not matter whether they live in Syria or Britain. Trump’s policy will protect us from Syria’s poor security even if Syria would play no part in vetting them.
These contradictions suggest your point is either misinformed or dishonest. The campaign that includes this Hawaiian case aims to protect Americans from prejudiced policies. Hopefully they will succeed.
Meanwhile, refugees are dying.
They can't wait.
1
I do believe that out of 2 Billion Muslims on planet earth, there are several hundred thousand who want to commit murders on those who oppose them. Their goals might be to be revolutionaries or they might be disgruntled thugs. There are probably a similar percentage of our own U.S. citizens who want to do the same thing here. But we can't tar all Muslims or all Christians with the same brush no matter what country they are from - and that is what the Trump administration wants to do
4
NYT's coverage cleaverly includes interviews with "fiances separated by the the ban". How about including interviews with European victims of muslim terrorism to shed light on the danger posed by immigration from the Mideast?
8
Trump may have been elected, but that doesn’t mean he won’t destroy the democratic structure and institutions from within. After all, Adolph Hitler was elected in Germany, and he very quickly proceeded to destroy the government from within. This Administration is using every angle it can manipulate within the rule of law to destroy the institutions that uphold the rule of law.
5
Destroy the Democratic structure? You think it started with Trump? You have to be kidding me. This country has been sliding for decades including under Saint Obama.
2
Does this Court have the guts to show a fascist President the written words of the Constitution?
2
Which "written words of the Constitution" do you think make the travel ban illegal?
3
Islam as one of the great countries of the world? Doesn’t that need a [sic]? Is that correct?
1
Here's a thought. Every time you hear a right-wing politician or media figure inveigh against "Muslims," replace that word in your mind with "Jews."
Then ask yourself how that sounds to you.
1
Here's a better thought: read & understand the travel ban before you jump on the bandwagon of those saying it's a "muslim ban."
The ban is applied to countries, not people, or religions. Muslims are free to enter the country, as long as they are not from one of the "banned" countries. Conversely, if they are from one of the banned countries, Christians are not permitted entry either. Muslims from England, Germany, France and dozens of other countries are NOT denied entry.
The countries with the largest muslim populations on the planet (Indonesia, India, Pakistan) are NOT on the list. So muslims from those countries may enter the list. Meanwhile, the list of banned countries includes Korea & Venezuela; how many Muslims do you think there are in those countries?
So going back to your comment: "Every time you hear a right-wing politician or media figure inveigh against 'Muslims,' replace that word in your mind with 'Jews.'" OK. The travel ban uses the word "muslim" exactly zero times. So if we substitute the word "Jew" for "Muslim" in the travel ban, we see that it is not there at all.
2
The word "Muslim" was prominent in Trump's speeches, and explains his motives in issuing the travel ban.
It cannot be otherwise than apparent to anyone with a sense of continuity that Trump's travel ban is a show to solidify his base through xenophobia and racism.
Since the latest acts of terror, the Las Vegas shooter and now the Waffle House shooter, were committed by white Christian males, how do we protect our national security from these kinds of people?
4
Something besides an immigration ban. Such a ban can only keep out foreigners who want to murder Americans. Which exist.
2
My life is more threatened by white male, gun-loving, Christian Republicans than by Muslims. That's based on facts, evidence, American culture. You won't find that reported by Fox because Fox only sprays venom against non-white, non-Christian, non-citizens.
However, I don't expect the Republican ideologists on the SCOTUS to do anything but support Trump. Republicans have made the rule of law a farce and it comes down from the highest levels.
8
Trump needs to throw his racist base a bone. His achievement thus far is a tax bill that will ultimately punish most all but the wealthy. He baited his fans with his hateful rhetoric toward people of different religions and colors. As white American men slaughter people at waffle house and concerts, his singling out of the 'other' is his distraction from his juvenile, corrupt behavior. The challegne here is a test of the morality and nonpartisinship of our highest court. Much like the disaster of Citizens United, this ban defies the logic of our founding fathers. If the court upholds this, the facism that lies dormant in the president's tweets will destroy our Democracy.
3
The Supreme Court is once again rotten to its core -- once again embracing racism and unAmericanism.
4
Remind me again, was Donald Trump really elected president on the night of November 8, 2016? Aside from other bizarre aspects of the man he did propose to ban individuals on the basis of their religion from entering the United States. That would be in principle, a fifth to a quarter of the world's population including 50 majority countries. He also said he was going to build a wall to prevent Mexican rapists from attacking U.S. citizens. Further, he spent years demanding to see Barack Obama's birth certificate based upon the racist lie that he was in fact born in Kenya. So, there you have it, in plain sight, an overt white racist being elected to the highest office in the land, the office of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and the full proud legacy of the United States as a civilization here comes...the white racist, utterly naked in his contempt for people who are not European. And he was elected? And the Supreme Court wants to honor his travel ban? Were we collectively poisoned by the Russians? How can one explain this?
3
The safety of my family is more important than the travel wishes of foreigners.
It is like that in every other country on the planet.
I don't care if Trump is a bigot. I am tired of my country being turned into the dumping grounds of the world.
And I have to face reality- our culture is different than that of the Middle East. I would not be welcome in any Middle Eastern country and would be summarily killed in most.
Religion is a self-chosen set of beliefs. Some religions are not compatible with our way of life. I will never support people who believe women are animals. I will never support people who believe homosexuals should be killed.
And I don't care how sad their circumstances are- some things are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.
11
That’s sad.
Mr Francisco needs some educating. Islam is not a country
2
"praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world"
Is that a misquote?
1
note to headline writer's...it's skeptical about, not skeptical to...
1
The strict interpretation of the constitution or a statute "as written", without regard to context of circumstances and intent, means that the real reason for the law is disregarded. Under those circumstances, the Court can rationalize any
decision they make according to the will of the justice's politics, the dictates of the leader of their political party or public opinion polls.
1
“The question is, what are reasonable observers to think given this context?”
This is where I would respectfully disagree, that is NOT the question at all. That may be the politically correct question but not a basis on which to determine policy. Even with terrible context the President must have an unfettered ability to formulate and carry out foreign policy including regulating non-US residents entry into this country. Does he have the authority to do so or not is the actual question before the court and that is what will likely be narrowly answered. The court will not rule on the merits of the ban, and hopefully their personal perspectives on it wont enter in, but only rather on Trumps right as President to do so. And maybe far more importantly, Presidents that come after him.
7
The challengers cannot win this case because it is virtually impossible to prove Trump's action as a direct result of his hostility to a community or his willingness to appease his supporters. And of course, the composition and leanings of the court will play a role.
However, in a rational world, the government can lose its case if they cannot objectively prove the threat from the selected countries.
1
Trump and the GOP are imposing policies representing the minority of Americans on the majority of us. This includes nominating and confirming far-right conservative justices who can't see our society in a balanced way. Since when does a minority have the right to impose its will on majorities when it comes to immigration policy, climate change, science, women's rights, equal opportunity under the law for all people and for the rule of law itself?
We the majority must take our country back and we can do that by working for Democratic candidates between now and the midterm elections, registering and voting. Both houses of Congress can be flipped. Let's just do it!
2
what makes you think you are such an overwhelming majority? 3 million more popular votes out of a population of over 326 million people? got news for you, that's less than 1%. that's not what I call much of a majority. as a result, perhaps you should consider that your views are not representitive of the entire population and you should consider that imposing your views on others is actually what you are accusing trump of. Maybe a little compromise in things is the right answer and we can get away from the "my way or the highway" mentality which clearly isn't working for this country.
5
It should be obvious to anyone that the ban is sop to Trump's anti-immigration base. As long as certain countries are on it, the list serves to prop up his base. So, is it anti-Muslim? Yes. Is it anti-immigrant? Yes. Does it improve national security? Who knows?
4
The Muslim travel ban has nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with marketing Trump's brand.
It's sad that the judges on the U.S. Supreme Court choose party line judgements, compared with well-thought out unbiased legal arguments.
5
Are you an American legal expert?
6
"Extreme vetting" of refugees from W's and Trump's wars?
Trump appears to do no vetting of his senior appointees given his list of self-inflicted disasters.
With 12 per cent of the American population Canada takes in five times the number of refugees. My own housing co-operative has taken in two wonderful Syrian refugee families.
In 1972 Canada took in 12,000 Ismaeli refugees from Idi Amin's pogrom in Uganda. That wave of refugees was rich in entrepreneurs who started major companies in Canada.
Canada took part in the UN-sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 to eject terrorists. But it did not participate in the 2003 W/Cheney/Rumsfeld disastrous Iraq invasion because Prime Minister Jean Chretien said the operation needed a UN vote and no military action was valid without a specific Security Council resolution after inspector Hans Blix had finished his work. Blix said the Iraqis were cooperating fully and no weapons of mass destruction had been found.
Blix pleaded for a few more weeks but the chickenhawks of W/Cheney/Rumsfeld insisted on their illegal and catastrophic war. Canada admitted tens of thousands of refugees from that American insanity.
5
SCOTUS justices will live to regret it if they allow Trump’s hate speech and bigotry to become the law of the land; and SCOTUS, as the third branch of government and the only one infected but not completely ruled by white supremacists, will be seen as corrupt and debased.
5
The consevartive justices wouldn't have asked those ridiculous questions regarding the president's ability to thwart terrorist attacks if the countries in question were made up of predominantly right wing, born again christians. I wish one of the opposing attorneys would have brought this point up during their arguments. Such hypocrisy on the right. It's just mind boggling
4
The Roberts Court is being tested on basic American principles of equality and no discrimination against those of other religions. The founding fathers were emphatic on this issue. George Washington wrote to the Jewish congregation on Rhode Island: "For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance ..."
James Madison wrote the Jewish congregation of Savannah in 1820: "Equal laws protecting equal rights, are found as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty, and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony and most favorable to the advancement of truth."
From these beautiful sentiments on equality, mutual respect, and tolerance to trumpeted tweets of bigotry. The Supreme Court justices may do enormous damage to this country if they support Trump's Islamophobia.
6
The Roberts court failed a long time ago.
1
...before or after it said gay marriage and the ACA were Constitutional?
1
Once again we see the impact of Mitch McConnell's stolen supreme court seat... This will be the legacy of the modern Republican party- corruption and disloyalty to their country.
11
It is a tragic day for our great nation. Shame on Justice Roberts and Kennedy.
You lost your soul. As human, we are ashamed of both of you.
8
This travel ban is the result of a congress that will not address the issues of immigration, migration and asylum. Our legal system needs to be updated for current conditions around the world.
But neither Republicans or Democrats can muster up enough courage to compromise and make something better than what we have today.
We do need to vet people and supposedly this ban is because vetting is not possible in those countries. That is something that we needs to be addressed. As one commenter put it, a lot of these immigrants are trying to flee here to escape their horrid conditions much like many of our ancestors did. We should not shut them all out, but let's try to shut out the fanatics.
And to the poster who said that Europe is fine and doesn't have an immigration problem, you probably haven't lived here recently.
11
European immigration is a mess. why do you think UK voted for Brexit? Germany is having issues also. people don't want to see the truth
6
this should be a 9-0 decision in Trump's favor. there is no legal basis or precedent for using a President's words prior to becoming President for challenging government action. there is a statute in place that gives the president authority to do what he did.
Time to end the judicial "resistance" end the lawlessness and restore the rule of law.
26
They can use his words all they want, and it still doesn't matter.
POTUS is ultimate authority on immigration and entry into the United States, for any reason.
2
Johnny,
I am always intrigued by such simple analysis of an issue. I can't help but ask.
Wasn't this ban about these countries vetting processes? and...
What is the emergency?
No attacks since he tried to place the travel ban pretty much proves there isn't an emergency and the fact they have had plenty of time to solve the vetting issues points to there being something else going on...no?
That seems simple to me...
Trump and his inner circle will do far more damage to this country than poor third world immigrants coming here looking for a better life. Going by European history in the last century, strongman demigogues did not enjoy a leisurely
retirement in old age.
1
Terrorists aim to kill ALL AMERICANS.
Terrrorists are not pulling the pin on their backpack bombs, car bombs, crock pot bombs or other explosive devices that have "kill white people only" detectors. Let us not kid ourselves any longer that on the daily black, brown, and beige Americans are gunned down and murdered and many are unarmed people of color at the hands of mostly white policemen and women. We Americans of color see our own terrorists right here in far too many cities and states and few to none of those officers are little more than reprimanded and even fewer are convicted and jailed.
I am very concerned about foreign terrorists strking the USA like 9/11 again, trust me.
But, I am much more fearful of my daily wondering will some white policman or policewoman, see my 73 year old black skin as a reason to shoot me because I am buying coffee in a coffee shop or someone has pointed a lying finger accussing me of doing something illegal. That too is terrorism using one's white skin to pull the pin!
Reader's ask yourselves, seriously ask yourselves, how you'd feel if you had black, brown or beige skin living in America being attacked in one way or another due to the hue of your skin be it our police force or the vocal hatred posted on internet about folks of color who are considered terrorists.
ALL Muslims are not terrorists anymore than All black, brown or beige people are "thugs, gang members, murders or rapists. Americans, we Can do so Better. Yes?
4
It sickens me that Clarence Thomas's vote registers in this vote.
3
Gorsuch has to go when Trump goes down. An easier better idea is to pack the court by appointing two Democratic judges. This time, to repair what Trump did, a majority of the public will go along with it.
3
I'm not surprised that a majority of the justices on this right-wing Supreme Court will vote to uphold this ban. A majority of the court already implicitly stated its position six months ago. On Sept. 11, 2017, Justice Anthony Kennedy granted a stay of the 9th Circuit's ruling issued five days earlier in which a three-judge panel had unanimously halted the administration's revised travel ban. The 9th Circuit's ruling was based primarily on statutory grounds, holding that the order violated the framework of the INA (The Immigration and Nationality Act). As a federal appellate attorney I have been left wondering how people who purportedly understand how the Supreme Court works convinced themselves, and others, that a challenge to the ban could possibly prevail. Moreover, where in the world did they get the idea that Kennedy, who had issued the stay, could possibly constitute a fifth vote when his ruling allowed the current ban to go into effect as written? This current executive order of the administration was not only the third version of a "travel ban," it was the first designed to be in effect indefinitely. The stay was not unanimous, but only Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor indicated they would have allowed the limits on the ban to stay in place. Chief Justice Robert's snarky rhetorical question "Is there a statute of limitations on that?" speaks volumes. Roberts' knows full well that there's no statute of limitations on bigotry, he just doesn't care.
2
Wait, what's with this talk of "liberal" Justices and "conservative" justices? Should their decisions be driven by the letter of the law, and not their political bent?
OK, call me naive, but I'm just sayin'.
10
absolutely correct but no longer true in practice. if it were, then that one looney judge in Hawaii would just be quiet.instead, he thinks he's "on a mission from god"
4
Dear Bored Critic,
Please show some respect and remember the Golden Rule. Maybe you disagree with the judge from Hawaii. But that judge worked hard to get where he is over the course of years, just as you have worked hard to develop expertise in your chosen field(s) of interest. He is not loony. He has the duty to write his opinions. And he is due common courtesy and respect just as you are.
It's astounding and shocking for the Court to accept the government's argument, without any evidentiary proof whatsoever, that banning millions of Muslims from entering the US somehow is acceptable to avoid a potential threat?? Show we the people the evidence that Muslim's who immigrated here from the proposed countries have committed terrorist acts heinous enough to allow religious discrimination.
Suddenly, the Court's Right Wing shows that it's interest in protecting freedom of religion is void if you happen to be a Muslim.
2
I hope I'm wrong, but from the arguments today and the questions asked by several of the Justices, it looks like the Supreme Court is not going to save our nation from Donald Trump.
5
Even if the ban were to also exclude orange people with white discs under their eyes, to make it seem less religiously prejudicial, I would still oppose it. And excluding orange people is a huge incentive. Believe me.
5
We might as well return the Statue of Liberty to France.
After all, it only was a gift and it seems to have run its course after almost 132 years in NY Harbor.
7
Justice Kennedy says he's concerned about second guessing the president. (Does he remember who the president is? Donald Trump is totally ignorant of the Constitution.)
Trump has made it very clear that he wants to ban Muslims from coming into our country. We've heard him say it with our own ears many times, and it's unconstitutional to ban a group of people from entering the United States based on their religion.
There's also the issue of Saudi Arabia. Almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were from that country. If he's so concerned about terrorists entering our country then Saudi Arabia should also be included in the ban.
8
The initial bans were justified as a "temporary measure" to more carefully examine target countries own vetting processes on immigration. If true, almost 2 years have gone by since those initial bans were effected, therefore, a reasonable amount of results from their research efforts should now be available for public scrutiny as to whether a sufficient basis exists to "national security" or not.
Why did the ban not involve Saudi Arabia where many of the 9/11 hijackers came from?. Is the ban truly temporary, providing the U.S. with a pregnant pause in which to assess clear and present dangers, or are they designed to be permanent? What criteria would need to be met for a banned country to come off the list at any point in future then?
Remember, Trump is a glorified Real Estate Agent, at best. Not a reader, not geo-politically well-informed, not one to apply exhaustive study to any particular subject matter, but he does possess a black-belt expertise in shooting-from-the-hip and pandering to his base. The likelihood of Trump's locating any of the banned countries on a blank map is slim to none. Yet, "just a week after he took office, Mr. Trump issued his first travel ban". To the Supreme Court Justices, "Yes, it's more than ok to doubt a Presidents actions where sufficient doubt exists".
2
1. What Trump uttered before the election is legally irrelevant. What is relevant is a President's (any President’s) constitutional authority.
2. This is not a "Muslim ban" by definition:
a. Two of the countries are non-Muslim
b. The majority Muslim countries include many non-Muslims who are also affected by the ban.
c. The vast majority of Muslim countries, and the vast majority of actual Muslims, are not included in the ban. The most populous Muslim countries are Indonesia and Pakistan - they and other Muslim countries are not included in the ban. How can this be a "Muslim" ban?
d. This is not a religious discrimination case: One, the Administration said clearly that it is a security issue (and it is), squarely in its Constitutional purview - does the Department of Homeland Security reside in Congress or at the Supreme Court? No. The fact that no terrorist who succeeded came from those countries is irrelevant - they are known breeding grounds for Jihad. Two, I don't believe we fear Islam qua religion, but Islamism, i.e. Islam qua a political system with which some people (Islamists) want to dominate the world, using terrorism as means.
I have no idea why any logical Justice, or person, would weigh on the side of not permitting this ban. If for whatever security reason we banned people from Poland (98% Catholic), would that be an impermissible Catholic ban?
Liberals always forget: what applies to Trump will apply to all future Presidents.
21
I totally agree with you. The facts of this case clearly lie with the administration regardless of the anti-Trump narrative being pushed by the left. Whether Trump is motivated by racism is irrelevant. This executive order is clearly not a Muslim ban, rather a security-driven ban from countries that do not share vetting info with the US.
The fact that liberal idealists such as Sotomayer and Ginsberg are willing to bend the interpretation of the Constitution to how THEY would like to see it rather than how the founding fathers intended is far more troubling and damaging than Trump's bluster to rile up his base. Putting more originalists such as Gorsuch on the bench is necessary to maintain our democracy and keep evil at bay. Using the SCOTUS as a social liberal sledgehammer against personal freedoms and security, which surely would have happened had another revisionist liberal such as Mr. Garland were appointed, would be disastrous to this country.
Don't like Trump's bluster and narcissism. Don't like the petty attacks and "fast and loose" grasp of factual detail. Do like the stuff that actually matters: Maintaining personal freedoms and protecting our country.
Make no mistake, the leftists want to weaken the US in favor of a utopian globalist world-view as well as weaken our personal freedom to think, speak and live as unique individuals in favor of their idealized positions. It's this realization that got Trump elected in the first place.
65
The President said this was a Muslim ban. Repeatedly. The President's Press Secretary said his tweets were official Presidential Statements. Furthermore, none of Trump's lawyers have been able to explain what the security concerns are, or even come up with new ones when given months to do so by the courts. That's why this ban has been found unconstitutional again and again and again. If the Supreme Court signs off on it, they risk rule of law itself. There's no point in having laws or a constitution if the President can run roughshod over them for literally no explicable reason.
To use your analogy, no - you cannot say that you would like to ban Polish from the U.S. because they are Catholics, then ban the Polish for security reasons, then when asked what those security reasons are just shrug. Another analogy, businesses can fire anyone they want for almost any reason or no reason, but cannot fire them for religious reasons, then claim another reason they can't back up. It doesn't hold water. This honest to God is not right / left thing.
6
Ma'am, you make a petty quarrel out of a plain humanitarian conflict. It is the humanitarians of the world, those in Greece and Germany and France and others, yes, Muslim countries who have given refuge to those
bombed and pillaged out of their meagre shelters, without food or future for their children who are pleading at our doors.
Let the government use eminent domain to give these families land in t6he great western regions, unpopulated and unused, or elsewhere save where plutocrats want a quick buck. Give them seed and soil, a tractor and a plow. a shift shack that can stand the winter and a poverty stipend to buy corn and beans and what they are used to eat. These are not the fat ones we are cousining, not the ones who cannot6 count their billions. They are the salt of the earth.
2
In my humble opinion, I think Adam Liptak heard what he wanted to hear.
Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow hard-right Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch asked the attorney for the challengers, Neal Katyal (a former Obama administration lawyer)
The Justices asked him questions with a decidedly hostile edge. They appeared defensive and protective about the president’s right to protect the country by limiting entrants. Justice Alito, in particular, returned to his “broccoli” sarcasm, seeming to side with Trump’s Solicitor General, Neil Francisco, who argued that the ban would only affect a “tiny” portion of the world’s Muslim population. Justice Alito remarked that it seemed “reasonable” and did not put down to the administration a malicious and anti-Muslim intent.
The Justice most beholden to this hand-on president, Mr. Gorsuch, appeared eager to validate Mitch McConnell’s theft of the seat from Judge Merrick Garland by inquiring by what right the president could be checked from his Constitutional duties to protect the country, an irony that certainly could not have escaped his notice, as his place on the Court was made possible by McConnell’s un-Constitutional power grab, one not in his (lawful) power to effectively make.
Chillingly, the expected silence from the Sphinx-like Clarence Thomas, and the frowning queries from Justice Anthony Kennedy do not augur well, in the aggregate, for opponents of what is demonstrably a ban driven by xenophobia and religious hate.
1
This is why Republicans stole the Supreme Court seat. And this is why people need to show up in massive numbers to vote for Democrats on November 6, 2018.
7
Ruling in favor of these bans will indeed be a historic stain on the court and on the traditions and values America has so long professed.
The Administration has often justified this ban citing a statement by then FBI Director James Comey that we simply aren't able to get enough information on people living inside these countries to properly vet them.
I don't think it was a commment made with malicious intent, but it was ill-informed.
The US Refugee Resettlement program has by all measures been highly successful in not importing terrorists threats to the U.S. If anything the program's vetting process has become too extreme often taking 2 years or longer to process applicants. If a lack of informaiton is the problem, please provide names of refugees who have comitted terrorist attacks (the Boston bombers were children of asylees--a different process.) To suggest you need a a refugee's home country to provide information on a potential refugee is a standard that is rarely applied in refugee admisisons.
Moreover, with the exception of North Korea, there are thousands of aid workers in all of the countries listed under the bans and large diaspora communities here in the U.S. Aid organizations have worked closely with the communites producing refugees for years and many in the diaspora are in regular contact. To suggest nothing is known about these people is simply not true.
1
The issue is how many people from these countries have engaged in terror-related activities in the US. If this ban is evidence based then Saudi Arabia should be at the top of the list. The current ban simply picks on nations that we can afford to anger so that the Republican base can tout it as an accomplishment. The ban has nothing to do with safety.
2
Banning ALL people of any particular place or race smacks of where we once were as a country. When women didn't have the right to vote because they were women. When blacks couldn't stay in the same hotel or go to the same school because they were black. It didn't work then and won't work now. Evaluate each person on their individuality, not because of where they were born or live.
2
The turnip truck must be bigger than the Nimitz to accommodate your reporters and 334 commentators that just fell off it.
this breathless suspense story can be summarized in exactly 4 words: How will Gorsuch vote?
1
I predict at least 6-3 and maybe 8-1 in favor of the ban. This was an easy case.
7
As my father used to say, go directly to the top when dealing with an important situation. President Trump has gone to the highest court in the land and is no longer dealing with the lower courts which have far less significance when deciding important cases. Immigration is one of our most important issues today and one that helped him get elected.
This is not a permanent travel ban but one that investigates those coming from certain countries until they can be fully vetted. Once they are approved to enter having passed an investigation, they are welcome to enter. We cannot take any chances after all the attacks that have occurred around the world. We must keep America and its citizens safe. Americans should be our first priority.
6
The President has wide ranging powers and IMO he can impose a travel ban in cases of emergency. In the past, Executive Powers have always held sway when there wasn't enough time in the Congress to get everyone together, debate, and vote on it. Executive Powers allows us to move swiftly in times of need. Problem is, what's the urgency? If people from these Muslim countries were blowing things up every day then yes, I would welcome a Muslim ban. However, if you look at the majority of terrorist attacks, most of these aren't being committed by people from other Muslim countries. So where is the justification for this travel ban?
101
So it's OK if they're blowing things up every few months?
not enough urgency, i guess ;o
3
Lotus--The only emergency we have, in this country, is one of White Nationalist terrorists. Immigrants are far more law abiding, as has been proven, time and time again.
3
Leaving the ban in place puts the U.S. back into the darkest and least humane eras in modern times. It's hard to make an empirical claim that the threats are so acute as to assume an imminent attack, and to justify the ban, particularly when there are separation of powers concerns layered over the issues of human rights.
1
I fully acknowledge that the statements Trump made during his campaign certainly suggest that the travel ban was motivated by religious animus, and voters should see it as such in 2018 and 2020. However, the Supreme Court has to deal with the text of the law first and foremost, and the text of the law is not a ban on Muslim immigration. True, it targets majority-Muslim countries, but it affects all the citizens of those countries, regardless of religion (at least as far as I know), so by the strict text of the law, it is geographic, not religious, discrimination. A Muslim from Saudi Arabia can immigrate to the U.S., but a Christian from Somalia cannot. The question is whether the President can order the U.S. to have different immigration policies toward different countries.
2
I am surprised the ban includes fiance visas. They are very different, because the application and approval is issued to the American citizen here, not to the foreign fiance.
The fiance has no right to enter, but the American citizen has a right to live here with spouse.
The ban applied to this is a limitation on American citizens harming the American citizens, limiting their marital choices, and forcing Americans into exile to live with their spouse.
These are important legal distinctions.
4
Since white anglo saxon males "exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms" pose the single greatest threat to the citizens of the United States, does Trump propose to send those sons of European immigrants back to the countries they came from, returning this nation to the indigenous tribes it was stolen from, and to the African Americans who were brought here against their will? Just wondering how far we take this line of thinking...
12
Maybe the keyword is "citizens". Sorry that you love terrorist Muslims more than you tolerate native-born citizens.
2
Actually white people do not commit the majority of homicides in this country. According to the Bureau of Justice 52% in the last several decades were black offenders. I'm not trying to blame black people, I'm sure these statistics can be explained by income inequality and other factors. I just think you should check facts before making blanket statements that can be used to discredit progressive arguments.
1
When these banned countries figure out all they need to do is come up with $20,000,000 (preferably CASH) to hire some lobbyists, they will be removed from the list. When the US misses International Investors & Tourists who consciously choose to invest or spend their money elsewhere, the US will change. What should be more concerning is what other countries can be added to the ban (i.e. Cuba), in an effort to send political messages, or to inflict petty retribution. I want America to be Great Again too... like it was under the previous administration!
4
Using nationality as an exclusionary factor is no better than using religion or skin color. It is arbitrary and wrong. The Dred Scott decision, the Roger Taney Court and James Buchanan come to mind. It is racism no matter how it is legally pretzeled.
5
There are plenty of examples of Muslim terrorism, open your eyes.
3
Precisely. Clarence Thomas got his, so now let them others figure out how to get theirs -- not that his four corporate and authoritarian Justice pals are any better.
If five justices are firm about upholding Trump's travel ban, the case will probably be resolved 7-2, maybe even 8-1. It's one thing to stop Trump. But if the liberals can't do that, they will be reluctant to file dissents that would hobble future Presidents. (Ginsberg can be counted on for a dissent, because her ego will allow her to overcome any such reluctance.)
10
So, it seems we have learned nothing...
3
It is a double-edged sword. To assume the country will never have a president or situation where somebody turns the other edge of that sword towards other groups is dangerous.
They need to make their decision for the good of the country, not current politics.
10
If the supreme court upholds the ban, it will be just another step in the US's steady march towards irrelevance.
5
Trump recently picked a judge to rule the corrupt way his way. Don't be shocked when the judges do what ever Trump wants. That system is corrupt also letting a bad President put in bad justices. The people should have a vote who will go in those justices positions and they should not be lifelong positions either.
1
The justices made a good point - this is not a constitutional issue and it's not their job to second guess the executive branch's every single policy decision.
If there is anyone to blame, blame those who voted him into the White House.
14
the fact that this case got to SCOTUS is asinine from the beginning, and represents unprecedented activism from left leaning justices in several circuits substituting their politics for clearly established authority of the executive branch to establish immigration preference.
11
My state Hawaii is one of them. The Democrats rule here.
6 - 3 or 7 - 2 upholding the travel restrictions. Unfortuantely for opponents, the facts are on the administration’s side. — the restrictions to not apply to most predominantly Muslims nations and, in fact, exclude those nations with the largest populations of Muslims. Additionally, the restrictions focus on nations where there are legitimate reasons to worry about their ability or willingness to cooperate in screening of applicants. (These facts make the Israel hypothetical silly.) Trump is odious, but as proposed, the travel restrictions are not unreasonable.
15
This third version of the ban will not be struck down and the president and his supporters can go around the country talking about how they succeeded in implementing his campaign promise of a Muslim ban after arguing that it was something else. This version has been tailored just barely enough and with enough pretense to pass while still being called a Muslim ban among the president's supporters to keep us "safe".
7
Heartening to know the Supreme Court is not enthusiastic about striking down President Trump's travel ban. Thank you.
11
That’s one southern boy’s opinion. At what point will people learn that with the problems facing our planet, that it would be better if we considered ourselves as citizens of the world?
1
“Is there a statute of limitations on that?” the chief justice asked.
Yes. If he apologizes and resigns. The same for the chief justice.
2
A Muslim ban? Sensible in certain respects to reduce terror from bad actors. There are two questions to address here. (1) Likelihood of terrorists getting through as a percentage of all Muslims coming to the US and (2) the ability to effectively be more secure than with open immigration.
2
Everyone knows, but doesn't say, that Muslims practice a violent religion. Oh the Koran is about peace, sure.
But the most extreme practitioners are Muslim terrorists.
2
I believe it is a prerogative of the Commander in Chief - an obligation, really - to act as he sees fit to defend the country.
11
Sad to say but it looks like the "Roberts Court" will once again make the wrong decision and side with trump. This will join other truly terrible opinions by this court, "Citizens United", the gutting of the civil rights act, Corporations are people also. This Court if it favors trump in this will go down as one of the worst in history!
7
No, it would be the right decision. Sorry that you hate the SCOTUS in advance.
The Muslim religion is a terrorist religion, but they try to portray their extremist religion as peaceful. When they get what they decide they are entitled to, they then say they are peaceful.
2
legalization of gay marriage, constitutionality of ACA, -- you were saying?
Sorry that you hate decisions from SCOTUS.
2
These nations are war-torn, enemies, threats to national security, or a mixture of the three. It has nothing to do with the religion of the majority of the people there, and everything to do with the fact that anyone coming from Iran or Syria is, statistically, much more of a threat than someone coming from the U.K.
The opposition to the travel ban is just another example of Democratic obstructionism, because they feel their voter base will support them more if they oppose Trump (and let's be honest; they're probably right). I didn't see any complaints when President Obama did practically the same thing in 2011.
9
When it is finally proven that our president-by-technicality was ushered into power by Russia, should Neal Gorsuch and all other justices seated under his illegal regime be forced to resign? It is galling to me and millions of other Americans that legal decisions are going to gain the power of precedent because of the cheating and mendacity of McConnell and Trump.
9
If I remember correctly, on various occasions, in various ways POTUS has said the travel ban was a necessary temporary measure to protect the country while the government figured out the best way to control the flow of immigrants.
This Administration has been in office for 16 months. That is certainly adequate time to put in place more permanent means for vetting who is allowed into the country rather than the restrictive means of this temporary ban. Hasn't the time frame and rationale for the travel bans expired? Aren't they moot at this point? Why are they still being argued for by this Administration?
5
"Chief Justice Roberts posed hypothetical questions about the president’s power to thwart terrorist attacks, and he asked whether Mr. Trump is forever unable to address immigration in light of his campaign statements. “Is there a statute of limitations on that?” the chief justice asked."
No Justice Roberts, there is no statute of limitations on that! We are talking the President of the United States making campaign statements. Can't we hold this important individual to his words? Why not? Because lying is OK as long as you are campaigning?
6
Seems America has lost it's way and with it, common sense.
2
If Trump's intention is to keep those "who pose a clear danger" to the country then what is he doing about the home grown young (and sometimes older) citizen white men armed to the teeth who pose a far, far greater danger to Americans than people who Trump is trying to keep out of the country? What's he doing to keep us safe from them?
4
I am hoping and praying for this ban to be closed down. It goes against all our principles since the founding of our country.
1
Justice Kennedy "asked whether Mr. Trump is forever unable to address immigration in light of his campaign statements."
The answer to Kennedy's question should be a resounding "Yes". Trump should not be able to force his bigoted ideas on the people of this country, and people visiting this country. We are above this, and the SCOTUS needs to uphold our constitution and our values.
5
Too many people are missing the point that the travel ban is not unconstitutional because it is terrible policy. Trump was elected President. The President has almost unfettered control over immigration under the Constitution and statutes. It’s an easy case, at least for a judge who is not blinded by politics
6
What I don't understand is that illegal (and legal) immigration have actually gone down the last few years, and the amount of violence to Americans from illegal alients is tiny compared to home grown people who used AR-15's and other weapons to kill so many more.
So, if illegal immigration is down, then why is this a national security concern? Shouldn't the Supreme Court do something about home grown killers instead?
5
I’m personally fed up with a Judge who upholds the core principles of our Constitution being criticized as “liberal”.
But a judge that sides with an American President in his discriminatory overreach in violation of these of basic constitutional principles is praised as a “conservative” — and some how on the right side of democracy?
Sorry my “conservative” friends, I think you’ve got it backwards.
I thought a Judge following a strict reading of the Constitution (in this case, discrimination) IS the “conservative” one?
Even if the “conservative” GOP wants to - You don’t get to cherry pick the constitution depending on your own personal bias or political agenda.
6
It is too early to jump to any conclusion that Key justices seem skeptical of challenge to the Travel ban and therefore will not strike down the travel ban. Also the front page bullet point was misleading "Supreme Court justices asked tough questions of both sides in weighing President Trump’s travel ban, which restricts entry into the U.S. from predominantly Muslim nations." A more accurate wording would be "President Trump's travel ban restricts entry into the U.S. from a handful of nations that happen to be predominantly Muslim" There is no ban on highly populated nations with predominantly Muslim persons (over 10 million) eg. No ban on Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, India etc.
1
"If re-elected, I will allow businesses and governments to discriminate against Blacks, Jews, and Women. Don't worry, we will write the law in a way that it can pass review by the courts"
is what Trump will say on the campaign trail if the Supreme Court determines that campaign promises have no meaning
1
Well, no, of course campaign promises don't mean anything. Let's test my hypothesis:
- If Bernie had been elected, but Congress did not pass single-payer healthcare, would there be single-payer healthcare?
- If Trump campaigned on a promise of eliminating the estate tax, but Congress did not repeal it, would there be an estate tax?
Iran and N. Korea are known and frequent sponsors of terrorism. They regularly conduct terrorist attacks on their enemies Israel and S. Korea. We are also enemies with them. There is no reason why their citizens should not be banned.
Anarchy breeds terrorists that want to kill Americans. The lawlessness in Afghanistan created Al Qaeda. The lawlessness in northern Iraq created ISIS. And the lawlessness in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia is also creating terrorists that hate us. There is no reason why those countries shouldn’t be banned.
Trump’s immigration policy is smart. Not only should we protect ourselves but we should help ourselves and make it 100% merit based. Most Americans agree with Trump.
4
Why is it not sufficient to institute more rigorous vetting for travelers from countries with hostile governments?There are relatives of American citizens who live in banned countries and students who would be qualified to study here.I am surprised that the Supreme Court did not recall that we condemned all Japanese to interment camps because we were at war with Japan.A blanket restriction on all citizens is too easy to install and too hard to reverse.This invites other countries to ban American travel in a tit for tat.
2
As the Justices of the Supreme Court consider Trump's travel ban, perhaps they would be wise to remember the following quote by Martin Niemöller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
2
Fortunately for Trump, inasmuch as it has become abundantly clear since he made his original anti-Muslim statements that he regularly says things that either aren't true or which he doesn't actually mean and regularly changes his mind, those Supreme Court Justices who are leaning towards upholding the travel ban will have a basis for ignoring Trump's discriminatory statements.
3
"In the President’s judgement,” but that is exactly what Trump lacks, i.e., judgement as proven by his behavior time and again. The fault lies within the Congress for abstaining in its sworn duties so that we continue with an impaired and all probability a guilty executive running America. The 3 branches are not serving the “checks balances” as required in their sworn obligations.
Words have meaning. Speech has consequences. A few months time doesn’t erase what was said. He has said and done nothing to repudiate his prior words on the subject. He’s given us no reason to even suspect he has softened on his anti-Muslim views.
2
Alito’s argument is a statistical argument. In essence he argues that because only 8% of the world’s Muslim population is affected the ban can’t be considered a Muslim ban. This is specious. It’s like claiming that because a law in one state that only discriminated against 8% of blacks in the US the law cannot be considered anti-black. This is very weak logic he’s using perhaps to justify his inherent bias in favor of executive powers.
3
We better get used to Supreme Court decisions that favor Trump policies as long as he sits in the Oval Office. He was elected and has now put at one diehard conservative (Gorsuch) on the bench. He could easily have two more openings in the next couple of years that he could use to pack the court with more conservatives. Since they serve for life this means the court could be conservative leaning for many years to come.
The results of a conservative Supreme Court would set our country back to the dark ages. The next will be a full frontal assault on pro-choice.
Therefore, it is imperative that Democrats take the majority in both the House and Senate in November. Trump must be removed from office ASAP! It is the only way to save our democracy from more and worse conservative policies to be instituted and upheld by the Supreme Court.
4
When presidential authority is clear and virtually unbridled, as is the case here due to Congress's delegation of such broad power to the executive, the rationale behind such an exercise of clear authority is and should be legally irrelevant. What all these cases have in common is that all the judges who have enjoined the executive are explicitly substituting their own views on what is wise policy for those of the executive, or demanding an explanation when none is required.
They may well be right on what is the best policy, but one unelected "legislator" (or even five of nine) is not permitted to concoct and impose additional requirements, such as demanding the executive provide a rationale for this action, or deciding that there are better ways to accomplish this objective, when Congress has not required it. I hope the Supreme Court has the guts and wisdom to decide this on the law rather than on politics, as the former is quite clear cut.
6
I don't understand how the Court can accept national security as a justification for the ban and then fail to note that no terrorist acts were committed here by immigrants from any of these countries, but those incidents committed were by people from countries not on the list.
7
Justice Kagan basically answered my question in the clips broadcast on the news, that the Court doesn't want to second-guess private intel the president may have. This is going to be very close.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the other female justices are a scourge to the United States.
They should be impeached and removed from office.
2
Sure, we'll remove them when we remove your darling Donald, a scourge to this country if ever there was one.
But in all seriousness, I was wondering when the rabid misogynists were going to come out of the woodwork, and then Rolf from Grebbestad swooped in with his big-mouthed, big-man-on-campus, chest-thumping brand of idiocy, which would be laughable if it wasn't so demented and frightening. What's even more appalling is that one person (as of this writing), appears to agree with him. What ails thy wretched souls, Rolf and fellow idiot, that makes you so afraid of women?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has more intelligence and fortitude in her entire body today, at this moment, then men like you will ever have in your lives. Women are equal participants in this country and this society, and they have every business in every aspect of its government, including the Supreme Court. Don't like it? Get thee to Saudi Arabia. They don't like women much there, so you'll fit right in.
1
The ban would not be upheld if Merrick Garland was on the bench. I still don't understand why President Obama was not able to force a vote on his nomination, since the Constitution gives the President the authority to make appointments to fill vacant Supreme Court seats.
3
I still don´t understand why Democrats in the Senate and the House didn´t just force the issue. By resigning en masse, if need be. This was a mini-coup and they just brushed it off.
1
Garland was never going to pass the Senate.....moot point
I wonder what Garland would argue?
3
Roberts is capable of asking the most oblivious questions. He ought to say nothing like Thomas, then vote his right wing heart. It would be more honest.
Skeptical, as they should be. The constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the President is clear. The challengers' position is disingenuous and political.
5
In essence, isn't this really the president's call, who to allow in and who to bar?
It's not like these foreigners have any right whatsoever to come here. They do not. Foreigners not on US soil have zero Constitutional rights. Whether they come here or not is totally within our sole discretion.
If you don't like that, next time elect a different president who may impose different policies.
7
The Court must not recuse/invalidate a President-thus invalidating an election-on any pretext. To do so would be a silent coup against the Constitution. Justice Black was a member of the Ku Klux Clan, and turned out to be one of the greatest civil libertarians when he served on the Court. The Court can not enquire into a President's motives any more than the Executive could question a Judge's motives. If that day ever arrives, wen will no longer have a constitution, nor a government. At stake is our form of Government and the rule of law.
1
If the Travel Ban is anti-Muslim, is the "Wall" anti-Catholic? After all, Mexico is a Catholic country. Is Trump trying to keep the Catholics out?
4
So Justice Kagan thinks past political statements taint the President?
I guess that wasn't the case with Mr Obama who stated many times he was against homosexual marriage?
The double standard is amazing.
7
only if we had such hard questions asked before invading those countries...
2
Bottom line: the travel ban is constitutional as the president is empowered to set immigration policy/limits. This appeal is just a continuation of Democratic efforts to use the judiciary to achieve policy objectives that they are unable to achieve through the political process. Lower courts may be sympathetic to these efforts but, hopefully, the SCOTUS rules on constitutional merits, not emotion.
13
No judge should apply the standard that promises during a campaign control anything, unless they are identical. The president has this right and responsibility, the supreme court will probably put a big hole in the lower courts with this decision. As is very correct.
14
Were there any questions posed by any of the Justices regarding the actual multi-layered processes and strict procedures that have been in place for some time to vet these assumed national security risks? It would seem that a fact-based discussion before the Court on that specific issue, their adequacy or inadequacy, is a key consideration.
How many terrorists from the banned countries have gained entry under that vetting? What improvements need to be made, if any? Is it the government's argument that no amount of vetting will be sufficient? That if a solitary suspect enters, a total ban is justified?
Regarding Trump's constant anti-Muslim campaign exhortations, this was a core component of his electoral appeal and of his nativist platform. It helped to determine the election. For the Court to ignore the actual potency of that policy promise, and accordingly its rightful evidential place in its judicial review is deeply problematic. Robert's question about the statute of limitations cleverly seeks to diminish its determinative role, impliedly conflating it with trivial campaign bombast. From the bench, a majority of the Justices, should have even taken judicial notice of these facts.
11
your arguments are moot.
The President's standing to do this has already been addressed by the judicial and legislative branches in the past. SCOTUS in a 1950 decision established that "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," .
Congress also passed legislation in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants whenever he thinks it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
It took unprecedented judicial activism by several left leaning circuits to rehash this issue that has a clearly established legislative and judicial precedents applicable. Trump should prevail in this case fairly easily
1
The president has the authority to restrict entrance to the country by those who pose a clear danger to the security of the country. Surely in the first 19 months of his administration, the president has had enough time to establish procedures that adequately distinguish between those who pose a danger and those who do not. A blanket ban is the lazy way to secure the country and leaves out those from countries not on this list. Presumably, those are vetted the old fashioned way, by looking at the individual case history. Why cannot the same be done for all entrants, regardless of origin?
151
Or from countries that you can't tell, for those you assume that they are a danger since you don't know and can't tell if they are not.
3
The way you want to do it might be better, but Congress gave the President the authority to do it what you call "the lazy way." 8 USC sec . 1152 reads:
"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"
The issue before the Court is not the best way to do it. The issue is whether Trump's exercise of his power under the statute is constitutional.
5
Indeed, 19 months is enough time, and during that time we have seen who the dangerous people are: nutcases from within our own borders. Enforce existing laws, restrict guns, and stop grandstanding about nebulous threats from "the other." The latter may soothe cranks, paranoids and cowards, but it does nothing to increase our security.
4
The ban was crafted not so much to protect us but to garner votes for Trump and right wing bigots. The Supreme Court can and should ask for the administration to show a factual basis. The court is political and a good reason to vote so that we have selections to the court of justices who care about individual rights balanced against a president who cares only about himself and stokes fears to get elected.
21
I wonder how Chief Justice Garland would have weighed in on this. Too bad we'll never know.
1
Hmmm. Interesting. One could say the same thing about former President Obama who also proposed essentially the same ban. Where was your sarcastic and faux outrage then? And is everyone that disagrees with your assessments also considered a “bigot”, or is that label simply reserved for everyone who voted for President Trump?
You wear your own hatred and bias as armor of pride.
1
May I gently point out that any ban against a nation because of the actions of a few of their fellow citizens is no different than racial profiling or religious persecution. It is a form of punishing the masses for the actions of a few, presupposing future bad actions based on prejudice. It is morally wrong and destroys our basic concept of due process after illegal acts, not before. Must be unconstitutional.
16
Right. Following the same logic, since school shooters have been white males then white males should be banned from owning guns (Works for me!)
This question is really a series of legal questions. Does a sovereign state have the right to exclude nationals from a particular jurisdiction, or that may pose a threat to it? Can the U.S. exercise that sovereign right in a manner that discriminates based on national origin, or some other basis that might be considered "suspect"? (That is, are foreigners protected by the 14th Amendment?) Is the Executive empowered to exercise that right on behalf of the United States under existing laws and the Constitution or does he/she need additional grants of authority from Congress? And finally, did Trump's statements in the election undermine his authority to act as President? A lot of the emotion around this issue is just emotion. The answers to these questions are pretty well established, and is does no one any good to attach ad hominem attacks use teleological reasoning -- "I think everyone in the world should have the chance the way to feel like other immigrants to the U.S. have felt." Maybe we could better address our emotion to understanding how authoritarian political philosophies have undermined the cause of liberty in so many cases, and stop trying to justify these abhorrent regimes because it they are based on "culture." Maybe American culture has something going for it after all. Just maybe.
5
Foreigners, i.e. persons, are only protected by the 14th Amendment if they are under US jurisdiction. Potential immigrants or visitors to the US are not under US jurisdiction. This applies to all other rights and privileges in the Constitution. They don't apply to people in Holland, or any other country.
This point seems to be completely missing from the discussion here, though you raise it in support of the Administration's position, I assume.
1
You're correct, and this case should never have moved forward at all. The reason the courts are able to meddle in this at all was by accepting the unbelievably sketchy claim of standing proffered by the state of Hawaii (essentially, that some of these excluded folks would come to Hawaii as tourists, students, etc., and that keeping them out would harm Hawaii in some real manner). The court decided that this specious claim was sufficient to grant Hawaii standing, and thus enabled the first court to rule in its favor.
The Court might eventually resolve this matter by ruling that Hawaii didn't have standing in the first place, thus averting a need to rule on the legal issues raised and discussed here. But I would prefer that they use this opportunity to slap down all these courts who have decided to join the "resistance" and restore the rule of law.
1
This is reminiscent of the 1944 case of Korematsu v. U.S. in which the Court approved the constitutionality of the WWII internment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans that began by Executive Order in 1942.
The Court ignored the racist assumptions underlying the decisions that imprisoned so many citizens; and it ignored dissenting Justice Jackson's warning that this opinion would lie about "like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."
In Korematsu, the Court made virtually no demand for facts that supported the claim that Japanese-Americans might have greater loyalty to Japan than to America because of their race. The Court was also intentionally deprived by the Atty General of evidence collected by the Office of Naval Intelligence showing how few persons of Japanese extraction in the US were actually considered risks...and that these persons were under surveillance already.
It took until a 1988 act signed by President Reagan for Congress to award (meager) reparations and to apologize for the extraordinary damage done to the lives of tens of thousands of Japanese-American citizens.
In 2018 we see that the Supreme Court may again be cowed into ignoring its constitutional duty by racism and unsubstantiated fear. If the Court approves Trump's unjustified travel ban--a ban imposed by a president pandering to the insecurity of the nation--it will be repeating one of its, and the Nation's darkest hours.
8
A more appropriate case of judicial shame would be the SCOTUS ruling in the Dread Scott decision in 1857. It only took a hundred years to overturn that decision.
On Korematsu we’re still counting.
1
It is actually nothing like that case since this deals with excluding non-US citizens from entering the US as opposed to forcible internment of US citizens.
Other than that, the cases are exactly similar
Legally, both cases deal with the question of whether the federal government can make major decisions solely on the basis of race or religion.
Culturally both cases deal with the question of whether fear and intolerance are going to turn the American Dream into a nightmare.
For those of us who do not have Native American blood, we are all illegal aliens.
Despite Robert's questions, this isn't about Trump's "national security judgments."
There already are evidence-based procedures for vetting travelers from other countries. These are factually grounded.
Anything else, if seat-of-the-pants, is by definition arbitrary and capricious.
The travel ban is exactly what Trump it is - hostility based on religious animus. Only willful blindness can persuade otherwise.
249
Yes, a marginal person with multiple biases and prejudices against many people. Including any person who does not worship him, support him and agree with him. So sad. So worrisome for the country
1
If it is "hostility based on religious animus' then why are Indonesia and Bangladesh and Pakistan not included in the ban?
They ARE Muslim countries, are they not?
Anything Trump does is wrong, correct?
I’d like to say we can count on the Supream Court to up hold the law and the
Concepts of “the right to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I can’t.
Having denied Ruth Badger Ginsberg the right to free speach,when she spoke out against Trump, and saddled us with citizens United ,to choke the politically corrupt republicans with all the money they can carry ,do you think the conservatives will vote to continue freedom to those who seek it,here?They
Are special in their own eyes, they know better then those of us who work for a living ,want to educate our children and are outraged by Mulvaneys comments on lobbyists in today’sTimes;and daily out raged byTrumps criminal approach to our Republic and its laws,,when they approved Citizens United they lost my respect.The ones who voted against this atrocity still have my respect.The Roberts court is an arm of the Republican Party.
2
Justice Roberts asked how long should we consider Trump's campaign promises when determining if those are the true basis of his decisions as President. Unless Trump shows that he has had a change of beliefs, it should continue to serve as evidence for his decisions. Do we clear the records of criminals after a year?
Sadly, the Executive Branch has a lot of power, so if you are an immigrant or you have close family members and/or friends that are immigrants, I strongly suggest you vote in November 2018 to protect yourselves, your family members, and your friends. We will only ever truly win this battle by voting these racists out.
4
Are you suggesting that non-citizens should be voting in the next election - regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally? You are encouraging voter fraud? You know, that thing that does not exist?
1
I have traveled to 116 countries and lived in the five largest Muslim countries in the World. I have lived in war-torn locations and the West Bank of Israel. I have also worked for USAID and the State Department during my career of 42 years so I feel as if I am well equipped to speak about this issue.
The pre-election campaigning Donald Trump made clear that he didn't want Muslims in this country. With each attempt to ban they excluded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries whose nationals perpetrated the 9/11 massacre. What else could I believe about the Trump ban other than those countries with whom he had business dealings remained untouched including Indonesia.
I know for a fact that many Europeans and others nationalities wonder whether they will fall victim to the violence which appears to be an inherent part of our culture.
We have systems in place to protect us from people of all religions from entering our country. The Trump administration placed non-Muslim countries like North Korea and Venezuela on the 3rd ban list in order to be able to claim it was not picking only on Muslims, but those countries have since been removed, as was Chad when the administration learned the role that they and Benin play in working with us to stop the growth of radical Islam based groups in Western Africa.
It looks like the Supreme Court will provide the support to Trump he needs to enforce his ban which will make him ecstatic but set our country back 100 years. Sad!
420
The fact that, as you point out, the ban does not include Saudi Arabia of Pakistan, both predominately Muslim countries, is actually evidence that this is not a 'Muslim Ban'. If it were, there would be a lot more eligible countries to ban with larger Muslim populations than the smaller countries picked.
3
The Saudi Arabian government has an interest in not sending terrorists to the US. So they cooperate in the vetting process and their nationals are granted visas to travel to America.
The Iranian government does not cooperate. Iranians who flee because their government is hostile to them flee to a nearby safe country. Since we have no way of evaluating whether their claims are valid that Iran is hostile to them, the safest course of action for the US is for them to remain where they are.
Although I am not a big fan of Saudi Arabia, they are currently providing for many refugees. But they are not in a position to evaluate whether they are safe to travel to the US.
3
Since you’ve done all those things and been all those places you must surely know that there are 50 predominantly Muslim countries, that this ban (consistent in most respects with the Obama determination) would affect only a handful of them — those being failed states incapabable of self governance except at the most rudimentary level...
4
And where's the evidence of all the Muslims who have caused us to be unsafe?
Where's been all the attacks that have been carried out by Muslims in the U.S.?
Certainly, there's been lone wolf attacks, but if we go by statistics alone, it seems that there's more threats to our safety from homegrown Americans.
We shouldn't be surprised if they uphold the ban, given that this is the same court that gave us Citizens United, corporations are people, after all as Mitt Romney said.
3
Applying the Constitution to the President's national security judgments is not second-guessing, it is enforcing the Constitution.
If a President ordered troops to commit genocide, would it be second-guessing to find that genocide is unconstitutional and the order is invalid? Does the Court have the authority to shut down the concentration camp?
National security is a transparent excuse for racism, religious hatred, and ending the rule of law.
It is a republic if you can keep it. Without the Constitution you cannot keep it. Decisions of the Executive Branch are reviewed for compliance with the Constitution.
3
Under what clause is genocide unconstitutional?
Close it down to everyone - fare's fare.
1
It is a question of Presidential right! Does the president have a right to regulate entry into the US based on public safety? This is what the Supreme Court will answer. Opposition to the president state it is a Muslim ban, yet only affects 8%of the Muslim population. The opponents also claim based on candidates tweets and campaign speeches is the basis of the ban and prejudicial toward Muslims. The administration shall prevail based on constitutional law!
3
Four words: stolen supreme court seat.
7
Ban Muslims today, they will ban Christians tomorrow.
The Supreme Court may seal the future of the Evangelical Trump Supporters.
What one sows is what one reaps....THE BIBLE THEY READ.
1
They already ban Christians. A little late on the current news.
And so the courts fall too. Good bye USA.
6
If the Supreme Court goes along with this, what curtails Trump from banning anyone or any group over whom he can gin up a security issue? The entire world knows this is a political play by Trump, designed to feed red meat to his xenophobic followers. He has shown virtually zero interest in actual security issues, focusing instead on this, the wall, DACA. Whenever he can inflame a crowd of yahoos, he's all for it. The facts make zero difference. His actions are reprehensible, and the entire world knows it. If the Supreme Court goes along, the US will have stepped closer to banana republic mode. Unbelievable to me.
8
Just curious where the NYT's moderators are. This is considered civil?
2
Just short one stolen Supreme Court seat that should have been filled by Merrick Garland.
11
Not so clear -- Court voted 7-2 in favor of putting the current ban in place pending this argument.
While I agree that the refusal to hold hearings on Mr. Garland was inexcusable, I doubt that he would have been approved had they been held.
2
Well, Supreme Court. Let’s see if you do your job or you are just more Donald Trump puppets.
The American people are losing faith. As seniors, we are deeply saddened.
8
I was happy to learn RBJ has a robust workout routine. We will probably need her for at least 7 more years.
3
My God! I hope that Trump doesn't get a second term!
Let's hope that RBJ's workout lasts at least for the reminder of Trump's current term...then we will see if the Republicans try to unethically steal another seat in addition to Garlands.
If one believes at all in karma, the Republicans have got a big whack coming to them.
1
Jerry: i am banking on Democrats staying true to form and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Their aim is always dead center on their own feet.
"President" or "King"?
I think that's what the Supreme Courtiers are going to tell us shortly.
5
IN the case of Syria - 70% of these refugees are women and children who undergo extreme vetting over an 18 - 24 month period. How are these victims of violence and war a threat to national security?
8
However, why should Syrians be resettled across the globe to the United States rather then neighboring countries?
What has this country become? When I think that we’ve reached the bottom, the hole seems to gets deeper. If this ban isn’t unconstitutional, then we might as well disband all the other branches of government.
3
It is a disgrace that, at least, five justices do not seem to be ready to strike this disgusting and hateful ban enacted and enforced by radical white nationalist extremists.
2
Shouldn't we take a step back and look at the precedent set by President Obama with his "memo" regarding DACA? Is that how we want policies to be implemented moving forward? Without input from Congress? So a sitting President can create, from thin air, a policy via memo, and it's basically law. The consequences are staggering.
4
I long for a government with integrity that is a force for good in the world.
If memory serves, the tavel ban was for the first 90 days of the administration. Here it is 15 months later the supreme quart takes it up. I am not convinced legal matters need to run this slowly.
3
Why don't we let the Supreme Court decide? I did not see the name of any former Supreme Court Justice among the commentators.
Perhaps some of those commentators would like to see a Supreme Court whose rulings always agree with their beliefs. If that is what they want, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela and a few others will welcome them.
7
Bravo Emperor Trump. You succeeded in creating a racist SCOTUS. Let the brown shirt March begin!
3
Muslim ban? ... North Korea and Venezuela are Muslim? Conversion occurred when?
6
No one was traveling from NK, and the Venezuelan ban only affects government officials. Those were window dressing and you know it
Mr/Ms Angry ... 85% of the world's Muslim population uneffected by the " ban ". Anyway, the question is moot. SCOTUS will uphold the " ban " on 15% of the world'series Muslims.
One can only hope that the Strict Constructionists on the Supreme Court read and follow the Constitution. The Congress (Article I) is the legislative body. The President (Article II) is charged with executing the laws passed by Congress, not circumventing them. For those inclined to research rather than rant, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 4 (using the word "naturalization"), and Section 9, paragraph 1 (using the word "migration")might be helpful.
Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7 sets for the oath of office for a President requiring, among other things, that he "defend the Constitution of the United States". Nowhere in Article II is there any mention of naturalization or migration as words or concepts falling under Presidential powers.
1
And you would be wrong there. This has already been addressed by the judicial and legislative branches in the past. SCOTUS in a 1950 decision established that "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," .
Congress also passed legislation in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants whenever he thinks it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
2
You mean like DACA? You fake phony fraud!
2
The goal of the GOP is for the US to be a whites only country. If Trump wins a second term, watch for the Confederate states to agitate for a return to Jim Crow. This time they’ll include Hispanics too because they, like black people, terrify the racist Southern Evangelicals that are the face today’s GOP.
4
Why not ban Saudi then?!
3
Should the Supreme Court roll over and enforce racism and bigotry as the law of the land, let’s amend our name to the United Racist States Of America.
7
Once he gets his ban, in the name of security, he will likely, in the name of security, need to identify everyone in the US from the "banned countries" (see rules for upcoming census). Then once identified he can, in the same of security, make those people ware "yellow crescents" on their outer clothing. Then when he start roundups, in the name of security, he can ship them to private prisons in Alabama! Hitler took power if a so called free election.
2
I guess we will soon start to find out the depth of Chief Justice Roberts' fascist tendencies.....
5
This is a racist POTUS imposing his values on the country via this travel ban. And his tiki torch and other racist followers are, of course, in agreement. We have a much higher chance of being whacked by a domestic terrorist (although the powers that be are loath to use that term) than we are of being hurt by a visiting Muslim.
2
I'd feel a lot better if it kept out the Saudis.
3
One stolen Supreme Court seat could make the difference. If the challengers lose 5-4, this will be one of several history making decisions that would have turned on Mitch McConnell's unprincipled and illegal theft of a seat on the Court.
4
Odd how for once NYT and Post have differing headlines, differering spins. Post must not have gotten the liberal memo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-cons...
2
They claim they needed a 90 day immigration ban to give them time for a 90 day work session to "find out what the heck is going on" with immigration. They've had a year and a half to find out, and haven't lifted a finger on the supposed needed work. This is a subterfuge of the highest order designed to make xenophobia palatable, SCOTUS approved, and reinvigorate the stinking thinking of 1/3 of the voters. Self-delusional madness at the hands of a loose cannon narcissist. Prove me wrong.
4
Donald Trump said the travel ban would be temporary, until they could implement "extreme vetting". I believe the time frame was 90 days for travelers from those countries and 120 days for refugees. It has been well over a year since the original travel ban was implemented (in fact about 1 year and 90 days), but where are those extreme vetting procedures? There's been little talk of what the administration actually intends to do to beef up national security. So let's be real, this was never intended to be a "temporary travel ban" for national security purposes, it was meant to appease a racist base of people who hate the thought of more brown people coming into this country.
1
The Trump legacy of right-wing justices will continue to subvert the nation long after Trump is gone.
The conservatives on the court, if their being disingenuous, will view Trump's action as the generic " President" and not review his campaign rhetoric. A procedural ruling favors Trump. A ruling on Trump's actual rhetorical substance favors Hawaii. A decision based on a generic president, failing to take into account the serial lies and distortions by Donald Trump, reveals the partisan political agenda of the SCOTUS conservative block,and makes an absolute mockery of the concept of an " objective court".
How does a religion conflate with terrorism, and when do the terrible acts of a few taint all of the rest? If the right wing of the evangelical white supremacists in the U.S. engage in terrifying and repeated killings, should we jail everyone of that faith? Isn't that what this ban is doing? Isn't that unconstitutional? Trump is not making us safer, he's making us a target.
253
"Isn't that what this ban is doing?"
No. The Proclamation says nothing about religion. You can read the Proclamation online:
"Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats"
Proclamation 9645 of September 24, 2017
federalregister.gov
2
I know, right? If we're going to do things based on statistics we should jail all the men.
3
Maybe true but that isn't what this ban is about.
This ban does not ban every person from the Muslim faith from coming to this country.
Therefore your analogy is wrong and and what Trump has done is not unconstitutional based on the reasons you give.
1
Didn't he get elected based on those tweets and campaign promises which the voters believed will be acted on. If this is not intent, dear justices are not just blind but deaf.
3
"Mr. Trump’s lawyers urged the courts to ignore Mr. Trump’s statements and Twitter posts...” You mean the public expressions of animus that can’t be a basis for laws?
3
The only way Trump should win this,if he adds Norway to the list of the banned countries.
5
"Mr. Trump’s campaign speeches and tweets about Muslims were a clear indication that the ban was aimed at a particular religious group and not justified by security concerns."
It is outrageous that a bigoted, ignorant, hateful person with an agenda of 'keep out those Muslims' has the power to keep people from immigrating, working, studying or vacationing here. How very sad that Trump has the power to appoint justices who will cause hateful, degenerate decisions that will be in place for a lifetime. Judges are political. So much for equality and fairness. One example of far right disastrous judgements is Citizens United. More are coming.
7
Finally the liberal ideology that Democrats think is Constitutional is making way for the actual Constitution.
2
Liberal ideology ? You mean liberal ideology like: freedom from being discriminated against based on race or religion ? Freedom to practice (or not practice) whatever faith you may choose to follow ? Like those primary principles for which people left the strictures of countries/kingdoms that dictated your how and what you worship....to leave and found this FREE country ? That liberal ideology ? Have you actually read the Constitution ?
1
As far as I am aware the Constitution applies only to legal citizens. If that is true then we can ban anybody we like because they have no legal standing. Sure, sure don't mistreat them but nowhere does the Constitution give illegal aliens the right to emigrate.
EBD thanks for making my case.
I would urge the New York Times to, in future, put the word "travel" in quotes.
We all know what the true purpose of this ban is.
1
Mr. Obamas ban was never questioned.
8
False equivalency. Obama didn't ban entire countries and wasn't a known bigot
There are several vital issues SCOTUS must consider.
First, when may Federal District judges issue rulings that apply nationally. SCOTUS has this right, but do district judges? There are over 670 district judges, and there is a real risk that if all are empowered to issue nationally applicable rulings, the result will be anarchy.
Then, there are the merits of the ban, which are complex and defy easy answers. Within our borders, the First and 14th amendments protect freedom of religion. This is unequivocal. But it is not clear that this constitutional protection applies to immigration at our borders.
It is also not clear whether restrictions applied to some countries are an appropriate response to national security, but it an issue we should not ignore. The respected Pew Research Center has found that in some mostly Moslem countries 10%-15% or more of the population believes that suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified. This is a minority, but it is a significant one. Should our immigration policies consider or ignore this issue?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-...
I again emphasize that the above comment applies to immigration and entry policy, NOT to the clear rights of those who live here or legally enter!
Finally, did President Trump act within the authority delegated to him by Congress by imposing his ban? This is a difficult question, which hopefully SCOTUS will also now address.
2
Seems like generalizing to me. (The human mind may conclude that if one purple person did something evil, then all purple people must be evil). However, we know that this protective strategy is not based on reality. People's behavior varies based on many factors not solely on their purple-ness.
I'm struggling to make sense of the Supreme Court's questions. But then again, I did not study law. ???
The question that weighs most on the Supreme Court in this case: Is it up to the courts to protect us against a despot and a bigot in the White House, or is it incumbent on us to not elect one to the highest office?
2
None of the comments, or the four liberal justices, will ever address the substantive legal issues. They will only cite the fact that Trump said something about some Muslims, and that forever prohibits him from taking any action that involves any Muslims. When will liberals start dealing with reality and actually address real issues and questions, instead of ranting about what must be Trump's "motives" for doing this--rather than focusing on what he actually did (ban some people from some countries--that focuses more on terroristic threat than it does on Religion. (I know, you're going to change the topic to domestic terrorists and not answer the question).
125
Well, Hooey.
If Trump banned Muslims from all Muslim countries that would be on thing.
But he does not want the ban on Muslims from the Muslim countries where he has business. And those are the countries where the most terrorists have originated.
So, this is a business deal for Trump, and pandering to his followers.
21
Hooey: You, and most Trump apologists, always want to couch everything in all-or-nothing terms. Flawed bans getting struck down becomes "...Trump said something about some Muslims, and that forever prohibits him from taking any action that involves any Muslims." No. When Trump finally crafts an order that does not arbitrarily discriminate, or feign proper discrimination by cosmetically adding or subtracting a country in the ban, then it will pass muster. I will tell you that as long as Saudi Arabia is not part of the ban, clear thinking people MUST look askance at it on general principles.
As to looking at motives, that is an element of the law in this country. And in every civilized, non-authoritarian country. In this case, what Trump actually did (and, again, the issue of Saudi Arabia is a big clue) does not make complete sense until you look at his tweets and campaign promises, and his administration's subsequent words, plus his own personal business interests. Some folks complained about 'Emperor Obama", but Emperor Trump is okay? Let Trump's EOs take the same scrutiny as Obama's; not every Obama order passed muster. Of course, Obama is a legal scholar and worked with others to craft his orders. I know Trump wants to reverse or ignore everything Obama did, but he should take a cue from 44 on some things.
138
And what are your qualifications which allow you to address the substantive legal issues and conclude that all Muslims are a threat to national security? Huh?
10
Dress it any way you wish; rationalize it any way you may. It remains, in the context within which it was written, a ban on Muslims.
14
Hawaii vs. Trump is an opportunity to establish modern precedent that tweets and campaign speeches can be considered when determining animus or other Constitutional issues related to discriminatory intent. For well over 50 years, Republicans have mouthed clear discriminatory intent during election cycles, but have managed to push through facially neutral legislation that hides such intent and survives Constitutional challenge. A Supreme Court rule that opens the door to a government official's statements before or after an election, narrowly tailored for explicit statements in which intent is easily ascertainable (everything Mr. Trump says), would be a powerful Constitutional standard that should have been in place all along.
In the 1977 case of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., the Supreme Court held that government policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities do not violate the Constitution, and that proof of racially discriminatory intent is required to show a violation of the Constitution. Discriminatory intent can be shown through many factors, but the Court's ruling in Hawaii vs. Trump should clarify those factors and allow challengers to present tweets or other unofficial statements as proof of discriminatory intent as well. Such a ruling would be a powerful rebuke to Mr. Trump's reckless and dangerous speech, and it would send a clear message to his apologists that the plain text of a President's speech means exactly what it says.
3
Hopefully the justices will take a very close look at what predominantly Muslim countries were banned and which were not. Why was Saudi Arabia not included when most of the 9/11 attackers came from there and Saudis have continued to fund terrorist groups throughout the world? Why was Chad originally part of the latest ban and then removed? Was it because Chad, which was long a major part of U.S. efforts to fight terrorism in Africa, was being punished for it’s winning a multi-billion $ lawsuit against Tillerson’s Exxon-Mobil? How about the reasoning for its being taken off the list after Tillerson’s departure and the bad blood between Trump and Tillerson. What about excluding Muslim countries with a lot of terrorism that are also where Trump’s hotels are located? It’s patently obvious to any careful observers that Trump keeps trying to dress up the pig (the ban) but that the rationale is still a pig. The justices need to dig deep into those “security” rationales.
7
The legal reasoning behind ignoring Trump's tweets is sound because if the Court had to wade through them it would crowd out everything else on their calendar.
3
Don’t worry my friend, I’m sure the Justices are well aware of Trump’s tweets, public statements, and race baiting during his vulgar campaign, and his even more vulgar presidency.
The Court's decision to uphold what turns out to be a very weak 'ban' has been a foregone conclusion for some time. Only those whose hatred of Trump distorts a plain reading of the law would disagree.
7
The travel ban is not a law made by congress, but an executive order or regulation. The constitution gives the congress the right to make theses decisions, so it should be rejected on that basis.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
1
Marvin you are just plain wrong. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and act of Congress, Section 212(f), 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.” The law is plain and simple and delegates almost all powers related to immigration to the President.
I'm impressed.
So long as we stay with the familiar behaviors of punishing without trial, extracting eyes for eyes, supporting violence
and cruelty because "we can", we will remain mired in an insecure world that never changes.
That's comforting, isn't it?
5
“Old Testament” justice. WWJD?
When a court declines to issue injunctive relief, as was urged here, this is a signal of its decision on the merits. Courts rarely allow the application of a law to proceed where they have serious doubts about its legality. So we should expect that this Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump.
But what does this ban actually do? It doesn't make the country any safer. Not one citizen from any country on the travel ban has ever committed an act of terrorism on U.S. soil. And it would have prohibited none of the 9/11 terrorists from entering the country. Nor would it have prohibited the San Bernardino shooters from committing their terrorist acts, as they were from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, countries noticeably absent from the list.
So what this ban provides is a permanent bar of people from nations which do not pose a threat to us. The list shows clearly it is directed at barring either Muslims, or non-white ethnic minorities. This is what Trump's goal is, and what he campaigned on, with tremendous success. The racism, as well as the support of his base remains rock solid, and a win from this Supreme Court will go far in ensuring his reelection in 2020.
But what of the ban's legality? Republican attorneys explained in this paper just yesterday that it violated both immigration laws and Constitutional protections. Recall, though, that Korematsu was a 7-2 decision in favor of interning Japanese Americans. The Court was wrong then, and it will be wrong now.
4
Trump is wrong in imposing the Muslim ban, but he has a right to do wrong. Sadly, the other two branches of the government are unwilling to challenge him. Sooner we get rid of the Republican majorities in congress and senate or throw the charlatan out of the White House better of we would be. Meanwhile, pray if you are a believer.
3
The Supreme Court is not going to rule that the United States cannot impose travel restrictions on countries that are predominantly Muslim because President Trump has expressed hostility toward Muslims. The Muslim countries on the list were placed on a list of counties of concern by the Obama administration. The rationale is that they either refuse to provide documents verifying the identity of visa applicants or are in such disarray that they are unable to provide adequate documentation. According to the Pew Research Center in 2010, there are 50 Muslim-majority countries. The travel ban applies to only six of the 50 Muslim countries. It is not a “Muslim-ban.”
8
This case is not a "test" of presidential power.
It is a "demonstration" of the effects of Constitutional theft.
The single biggest mistake of Obama's tenure was not installing Merrick Garland. He should have told Mitch McConnell that by refusing to "advise and consent" that he had abdicated his authority over the nomination, and then told Garland to report for duty at the Supreme Court.
Systematically lying the country into Iraq, stealing a SC seat, supporting a racist for the presidency, supporting a pedophile for the senate, opposing gun control what-so-ever, destroying the environment, massive redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class into the hands of the filthy rich. Hypocrisy, lies, duplicity, and moral degeneracy - these are the tenets of the modern GOP.
Irrespective of the outcome, any decisions issued forth from this Supreme Court are wholly, completely, entirely, profoundly and absolutely - illegitimate. McConnell and the GOP betrayed their oaths and they used the Constitution like a piece of Charmin. They are traitors of the highest order in the truest and deepest sense of the word.
7
The travel ban is an appalling piece of work and I am sure if the lady holding up a torch on Liberty Island in New York harbour could lower her head a bit and bite her lip, she would.
It is strange to read claims that it is justified in order to protect America from the mess in the middle-east. Well, Europe was as a big a mess in 1939, so the decision to turn away the St. Louis was also correct then? How do you know Nazi saboteurs were not blending in with the refugees?
Even so, it is curious to argue that President Trump cannot legally issue such an executive order. Similar orders have been issued before, though none like this one, which was Mr. Trump's dog-whistle to his base. Now, this is just an interpretation and by itself cannot be reason enough to strike down the ban.
In short, morally the fiat belongs to the dumpster, but is legally tenable. The legal challenge to it will be very likely thrown out in June, as is becoming evident. Short of a constitutional amendment, the solution for not having such disgraceful decrees on your books is not to elect presidents who authorize them.
4
no kidding - who would have thought -
1
Aliens do not have Constitutional rights, particularly before they arrive in the United States. Indeed, the fundamental principle of visa law -- at least on the nonimmigrant side -- is a legal presumption of ineligibility until the alien satisfies the inspector (an Executive branch official) that he overcomes that presumption. So the President is within his prerogatives; nobody has ever suggested the details of implementing immigration law, normally written in broad categories, are an exclusively Congressional mandate. It seems that a majority of the court is inclined in that direction; what is disturbing is that lower courts seem to be on other wavelengths, making one ask whether they are applying general principles of law or enacting a judicially preferred political agenda, which then should be met by a political response and not pretend judicial deference.
10
The easiest constitutional answer is that Congress gave the President these powers, and can take them away again. It's Congress' problem, not the court system's. That is the answer which will appeal to Roberts. Kennedy will probably go along.
1
Aren't passports easy to fake?
If so, no one knows who we are letting in. But the facts seem to be that our most dangerous enemies were born in the U.S. Borders don't change the universal truth that man is wolf to man, always has been, always will be. If you are killed -- god forbid! -- you will probably know your killer.
2
Which way will 'stolen-seat' Gorsuch vote?
2
So if SCOTUS does NOT strike down Trump's travel ban that will legalize discrimination based on religion & officially make the US a "Christian" nation. Or maybe I'm missing asomerthing.
4
If the Supreme Court upholds the ban, it will go down in history as the Trump-McConnell Muslim Ban and rank with the ugliest stains of discrimination and racism in the history of the country.
2
I have never understood why the Democratic Party has never been able to make appointments of Supreme Court justices a fundamental issue in presidential elections the way that the Republican Party has.
I won't argue the merits of this case but, by being unable to effectively oppose McConnell's blockade of Obama's nominee or press the importance of winning the election for Democrats, we are left with this mess. And T will very likely be able to replace Kennedy this summer and, perhaps, one of the liberal bloc members, as well.
2
If the language of this ban passes Constitutional scrutiny, then I would think the President has the right to implement it--regardless of who he seems to be at his core.
5
If SCOTUS upholds the ban, Congress should rescind it. Whatever Congress thought when they let a president exclude "any aliens", it wasn't thinking of a President Trump. Now that we know that Trumps can be elected, it's time to restrict what they can do unilaterally.
2
What ever happened to “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", since when doesn't the country that I grew up in snub it's nose at those that are seeking a better life.
Doesn't President Stupid remember that his grandfather was one of these looking for a better life.
We as a nation need to remember ever day that even though we might have been born here we descended from those that didn't.
1
Elections matter. If the 2016 one was stolen, we need to know that soon.
1
These are the same Justices that gutted the Voting Rights Act. They seem to have minimal concern for the rights of minority U.S. citizens. Why would anyone expect them to have greater concern for Muslims from other nations?
3
Kagan’s hypothetical isn’t so far fetched. Entrants from those countries are likely vehement anti-semites. See Pew research if you didn’t know it already. Trump is his own worst enemy mixing his prejudicial opinion with matters of security. It’s not so far fetched—as Obama knew—that entrants from certain Muslim countries pose security risks. But any entrant should embrace America’s diversity and not resent having Jewish, Hindu or Christian neighbors.
2
I am in favor of a Muslim ban but not the one promulgated by this stupid administration. What is the logic in denying entry to the many excellent and highly educated Iranian dissidents who are opposed to their country’s Islamist rulers? No, the ban should be individual, not national. If you subscribe to the ideology and theology of radical Islam; if you stuff your wife and daughters into a burka; if you believe that infidels deserve death, there should be no place for you here. Immigration laws already ban Communists and Nazis. Why should radical Islamists be treated differently?
2
Even the commies on the Supreme Court couldn't bring themselves to strike down actions that were clearly legal. These federal judges who ruled against Trump's ban should be impeached.
2
The absence of Russia, an adversarial country run by a thug dictator that interfered with US elections, thereby attacking the foundations of the Constitution, completely undermines — or perhaps “nullifies” is more accurate — the whole, “This is for the protection of our borders” argument.
2
Without the president's oft-expressed fear and loathing of Muslims there is no travel ban. How do you separate the two?
2
If the court upholds Trump's "Muslim Ban", I can foresee an American employer routinely rejecting white Christian job applicants, because...white Christian terrorism is on the rise.
1