SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[*bfine32*]

It's most likely one of those wins that is not a win:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-n873441

[quote[The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld President Donald Trump's restriction on travel to the United States from a handful of Muslim countries on Tuesday, giving the White House its first high court victory on the merits of a Trump initiative[/quote]

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's most likely one of those wins that is not a win:

Are you commenting on this upholding institutionalized racism and that being a bad look for our country, or is this still belly-aching over not understanding the whole "narrow ruling" thing?

[*Nately120*]

Your move, Islam!

[*PhilHos*]

Quote:Chad was part of the proclamation but was taken off the list in April after the White House said it met enhanced visa security requirements.

Chad? There's a country called Chad? That. Is. AMAZING. I want to move there. What are citizens of Chad called? What's the capital? What language do they speak in Chad?

[Millhouse]

It's only 5 countries that are on the ban list - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. "It lifts restrictions on visitors from Sudan, and it adds new limits on North Korea and Venezuela." based on link provided.

In other news, 1.6 billion or so Muslims elsewhere around the world can come here.

[*michaelsean*]

8% of the world's Muslims is a Muslim travel ban. Go figure. They need to fix any part that stops Americans from coming back though.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 12:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: It's only 5 countries that are on the ban list - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. "It lifts restrictions on visitors from Sudan, and it adds new limits on North Korea and Venezuela." based on link provided.

In other news, 1.6 billion or so Muslims elsewhere around the world can come here.

Hearing Ken (of @popehat fame) talk about this ruling, it is a lot about how what the policymaker says (i.e. Trump's comments about it being a Muslim ban) are applied for judicial scrutiny of a policy when it is neutral on its face. With this ruling, the court has said it doesn't matter as long as the policy is written in a neutral way.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-26-2018, 12:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: With this ruling, the court has said it doesn't matter as long as the policy is written in a neutral way.

Which is the way it should be, IMHO.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 01:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Which is the way it should be, IMHO.

Jim Crow laws were written to be neutral on their face. Slavery wasn't based on race, at least when it came to policy. Just sayin'. I mean, this ruling isn't surprising to me because the courts have been ruling this way for a couple of decades, now, but if they had been ruling like this in the decades prior then the civil rights movement would not have succeeded.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2018, 01:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Jim Crow laws were written to be neutral on their face. Slavery wasn't based on race, at least when it came to policy. Just sayin'. I mean, this ruling isn't surprising to me because the courts have been ruling this way for a couple of decades, now, but if they had been ruling like this in the decades prior then the civil rights movement would not have succeeded.

Jim Crow?!?!

"Your argument is moot!" ~ The Usual Suspects.

All seriousness aside you're spot on as usual.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 01:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Jim Crow?!?!

"Your argument is moot!" ~ The Usual Suspects.

All seriousness aside you're spot on as usual.

In the official minutes of the General Assembly session here in Virginia that debated the law to disenfranchise felons, the sponsors of the bill outright said it was to target freed slaves. They applied it to laws that black people broke more often than white people. Well, more well-to-do white people; they had a succeeding discussion about how they didn't care that poor white folks would get caught up in it because who cares about the poor?

Yet felon disenfranchisement is still the law of the land here in Virginia, even though it is verifiable that it was enacted with racist intentions. Because the policy is neutral on its face it stands up to scrutiny.

Also, I wish I was being hyperbolic, here. I'm really not. And this is a similar story as to how these laws came to be passed in other states. We just have the official record to prove it.

[jj22]

Looks as though the unprecedented and Anti American/Democracy stolen SCOTUS seat is paying off with all these 5-4 rulings.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 01:37 PM)jj22 Wrote: Looks as though the unprecedented and Anti American/Democracy stolen SCOTUS seat is paying off with all these 5-4 rulings.

This is one of those things that bothers me. We really don't know how Garland would have ruled. He is a moderate judge, and so some of these opinions may have been the same.

[jj22]

Garland would have stood with the liberal branch. Obama foolishly trying to please Republicans by nominating a moderate but most moderates are against this ban that doesn't ban anyone from the countries that have actually attacked us.

Ban the travel from countries that have people who have attacked Americans on our soil and I'll stand with Trump. He doesn't. He banned those Muslim countries that didn't do business with him.

[*michaelsean*]

Good God Jim Crow? Really? The overreaction on these boards never ceases to amaze me. It's neutral just like jim Crow laws so they have to be the same thing. Like a lot of things from this admin, it's a knee jerk poorly thought out plan, but can we please just stick to the criticism of they are clueless a lot of the time. I think that's sufficient insult.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-26-2018, 01:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Jim Crow laws were written to be neutral on their face. 

Wait, what? What's neutral about saying "no white person shall [insert action here] with negro person"?

(06-26-2018, 01:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just sayin'. I mean, this ruling isn't surprising to me because the courts have been ruling this way for a couple of decades, now, but if they had been ruling like this in the decades prior then the civil rights movement would not have succeeded.

So, it was the courts that won the civil rights movement? I'd like to think that eventually we as a country would have inevitably come around and recognized that denying equal rights based on skin color is wrong.

[Millhouse]

(06-26-2018, 01:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Wait, what? What's neutral about saying "no white person shall [insert action here] with negro person"?


So, it was the courts that won the civil rights movement? I'd like to think that eventually we as a country would have inevitably come around and recognized that denying equal rights based on skin color is wrong.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed by LBJ was the knockout punch to legalized segregation & Jim Crow laws that were exclusively based on race. Or at least thats what public education & college taught me once upon a time.

[NATI BENGALS]

Strong Christian values.

Cant remember the exact bible quote but it was something about refugees from certain countries can F off because Jesus said so.

[NATI BENGALS]

Another crack in the moral foundation of America. As Trumpets continue to back a morally bankrupt wanna be dictator.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 01:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Good God Jim Crow? Really? The overreaction on these boards never ceases to amaze me. It's neutral just like jim Crow laws so they have to be the same thing. Like a lot of things from this admin, it's a knee jerk poorly thought out plan, but can we please just stick to the criticism of they are clueless a lot of the time. I think that's sufficient insult.

It was a response to someone saying that if laws/policies were written in a neutral manner then they should stand, even if they were written with discriminatory intent. Many Jim Crow laws fall into that category. It is an apt comparison.

(06-26-2018, 01:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Wait, what? What's neutral about saying "no white person shall [insert action here] with negro person"?

Poll taxes, literacy tests, felon disenfranchisement, red lining, etc., etc. All of these laws were racially neutral but were targeted against black people during the Jim Crow era.

(06-26-2018, 01:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, it was the courts that won the civil rights movement? I'd like to think that eventually we as a country would have inevitably come around and recognized that denying equal rights based on skin color is wrong.

The courts played a large role. Had the courts not ruled the way they did then we would never have seen the CRA, VRA, or FHA, all of which were also tested in the courts and upheld. As to inevitably coming around to that, that's great to think that. But seeing as we still aren't there I doubt that.