SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2018, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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?

Nah, this is commenting on how it was determined that POTUS was within his scope to issue the band. Has nothing to do with the narrow ruling, more to do with someone here claiming that victory was not a victory.

[*michaelsean*]

In light of this ruling, is The Red Hen still within their rights to refuse service to Sarah Sanders?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-26-2018, 02:02 PM)Millhouse Wrote: 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.

Not only that. I was thinking of all the people that worked hard in bringing about not just a change in laws but a change in minds. People like Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks and all the other unnamed people who gave their all in bringing about change.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-26-2018, 02:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Certain laws are wrong no matter how they're written. 

[*PhilHos*]

(06-26-2018, 02:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In light of this ruling, is The Red Hen still within their rights to refuse service to Sarah Sanders?

Yes. They're also free to experience all the criticism levied against them because of refusing service to Sarah Hucakbee Sanders.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 02:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Not only that. I was thinking of all the people that worked hard in bringing about not just a change in laws but a change in minds. People like Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks and all the other unnamed people who gave their all in bringing about change.

One of the interesting things you can see in this country is that there have been many times when the interpretations/opinions by SCOTUS were more responsive to public opinion than elected officials have been. This has been on a decline since the Warren Court, but it is still true, to an extent, today. Look at the US v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges opinions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm on pain meds and muscle relaxants right now, so forgive me any incoherence. The ruling is based on firm and well established precedent. The POTUS can, and has as recently as Obama, barred travel from countries for numerous reasons. In this instance the ban is based on being a state sponsor of terrorism or having a government in such disarray that proper vetting of visa applicants is impossible. The idea that it was a "muslim ban" always flew in the face of reason and logic as the ban covered a small fraction of muslim majority countries. As Matt pointed out earlier, the lower court rulings based their judicial decision based almost solely on Trump's campaign statements, which is like planting your flag on quicksand legally speaking. I am a bit disheartened to see Matt is disappointed by the law interpreting the order as written and not based on nebulous "maybes" or "could be's". A law or executive order is either unconstitutional on its face or it is not.

Lastly, the Jim Crowe comparisons are the definition of facile. No group is being discriminated against, only nationalities; nationalities determined by means other than ethnicity or religion. I said when the lower courts put an injunction on the travel ban that they did so based on politics and not the law or judicial precedent and that the SCOTUS would certainly overturn it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm on pain meds and muscle relaxants right now, so forgive me any incoherence. The ruling is based on firm and well established precedent. The POTUS can, and has as recently as Obama, barred travel from countries for numerous reasons. In this instance the ban is based on being a state sponsor of terrorism or having a government in such disarray that proper vetting of visa applicants is impossible. The idea that it was a "muslim ban" always flew in the face of reason and logic as the ban covered a small fraction of muslim majority countries. As Matt pointed out earlier, the lower court rulings based their judicial decision based almost solely on Trump's campaign statements, which is like planting your flag on quicksand legally speaking. I am a bit disheartened to see Matt is disappointed by the law interpreting the order as written and not based on nebulous "maybes" or "could be's". A law or executive order is either unconstitutional on its face or it is not.

Lastly, the Jim Crowe comparisons are the definition of facile. No group is being discriminated against, only nationalities; nationalities determined by means other than ethnicity or religion. I said when the lower courts put an injunction on the travel ban that they did so based on politics and not the law or judicial precedent and that the SCOTUS would certainly overturn it.

Wouldn't a nationality be a group? Discrimination can be based on anything. Race, sex, religion, ethnicity, nationality. It's still discrimination. I think your meds may have made this a bit confusing.

All in all, I'm not saying the ruling was incorrect, I am saying I am not surprised because that is the precedent and I am not a fan of it. Laws and policies are put in place in this country on a regular basis that are non-discriminatory on their face but are enacted with discriminatory intent. The courts have a history of upholding them, I think they shouldn't. That's just a disagreement we would have.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2018, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm on pain meds and muscle relaxants right now, so forgive me any incoherence.  The ruling is based on firm and well established precedent.  The POTUS can, and has as recently as Obama, barred travel from countries for numerous reasons.  In this instance the ban is based on being a state sponsor of terrorism or having a government in such disarray that proper vetting of visa applicants is impossible.  The idea that it was a "muslim ban" always flew in the face of reason and logic as the ban covered a small fraction of muslim majority countries.  As Matt pointed out earlier, the lower court rulings based their judicial decision based almost solely on Trump's campaign statements, which is like planting your flag on quicksand legally speaking.  I am a bit disheartened to see Matt is disappointed by the law interpreting the order as written and not based on nebulous "maybes" or "could be's".  A law or executive order is either unconstitutional on its face or it is not.

Lastly, the Jim Crowe comparisons are the definition of facile.  No group is being discriminated against, only nationalities; nationalities determined by means other than ethnicity or religion.  I said when the lower courts put an injunction on the travel ban that they did so based on politics and not the law or judicial precedent and that the SCOTUS would certainly overturn it.

There was always a population that knew POTUS was within his scope in instituting a travel ban based on sponsor of terrorist state and/or the fact that their home country could not vet them. Folks and lower courts simply allowed themselves to be adjudicated by rhetoric from multiple sides and public opinion.

Basically all SCOTUS said today is: This is the law, we are not saying we agree with the law, but that is not our job. That's the job of the legislative branch. I, for one, am glad to see an ending to legislating from the bench.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2018, 03:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wouldn't a nationality be a group? Discrimination can be based on anything. Race, sex, religion, ethnicity, nationality. It's still discrimination. I think your meds may have made this a bit confusing.

All in all, I'm not saying the ruling was incorrect, I am saying I am not surprised because that is the precedent and I am not a fan of it. Laws and policies are put in place in this country on a regular basis that are non-discriminatory on their face but are enacted with discriminatory intent. The courts have a history of upholding them, I think they shouldn't. That's just a disagreement we would have.

Matt I had NPR today and someone was talking about this ruling in relation to the Cake baker ruling in how it treated how one religion was treated versus another.  Any thoughts on that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2018, 03:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wouldn't a nationality be a group? Discrimination can be based on anything. Race, sex, religion, ethnicity, nationality. It's still discrimination. I think your meds may have made this a bit confusing.

All in all, I'm not saying the ruling was incorrect, I am saying I am not surprised because that is the precedent and I am not a fan of it. Laws and policies are put in place in this country on a regular basis that are non-discriminatory on their face but are enacted with discriminatory intent. The courts have a history of upholding them, I think they shouldn't. That's just a disagreement we would have.

Sure, if you were banning a nationality "because".  That is not the case in this instance, there are firm, logical reasons for banning every country on the list.  People can disagree with the validity, or extremity, of those reasons, but they cannot deny they exist.  I suppose we do disagree, because I don't see discrimination in decision made for other, tangible, reasons.

(06-26-2018, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was always a population that knew POTUS was within his scope in instituting a travel ban based on sponsor of terrorist state and/or the fact that their home country could not vet them. Folks and lower courts simply allowed themselves to be adjudicated by rhetoric from multiple sides and public opinion.

Basically all SCOTUS said today is: This is the law, we are not saying we agree with the law, but that is not our job. That's the job of the legislative branch. I, for one, am glad to see an ending to legislating from the bench.

Agreed 100%.  The law can't be based on maybes or feelings.  I said it when it happened, the lower courts should honestly be ashamed at their lack of professionalism in this instance.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2018, 03:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed 100%.  The law can't be based on maybes or feelings.  I said it when it happened, the lower courts should honestly be ashamed at their lack of professionalism in this instance.

Not to open a can of worms, but in my view, I actually see this ruling as the antithesis of the SSM ruling. Folks often want SCOTUS to vote they way they feel on a subject and not to the letter of the law. If you disagreed with SCOTUS ruling on SSM you "were against equal protection under the Law" if you agree with this ruling you are "supporting bigotry".


It'd be great in we could talk Congress into doing their job and not leave it to the Executive and Judicial.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It'd be great in we could talk Congress into doing their job and not leave it to the Executive and Judicial.

That's not what the donors want, though.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2018, 03:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's not what the donors want, though.

Well then we have to roll with what is on the books until there is outrage enough to act. Guess who just might be causing that outrage? The POTUS folks love to hate.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-26-2018, 04:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then we have to roll with what is on the books until there is outrage enough to act. Guess who just might be causing that outrage? The POTUS folks love to hate.

The media isn't doing any favors, either.  If you look at the story in the link, check out the photo they chose of Sotomayor and Ginsburg.  Certainly, they could have chosen a more professional, respectful looking image, than one featuring them with cartoonish, gargoyle like grimaces on their faces.  A picture of them at an unrelated event, no less.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sotomayor-and-ginsburg-issue-scathing-dissent-of-scotus-travel-ban-decision/ar-AAzctPw?ocid=spartandhp

[fredtoast]

Trump's administration wrote a law that was legal, then he touted it as a "Muslim ban" to please his base.

Don't really have a big problem with this. But remember how the right reacted when the SC ruled that the ACA individual mandate was a "tax" even though Obama said it was not.

[Beaker]

(06-26-2018, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Are you commenting on this upholding institutionalized racism

Pretending there is "institutionalized racism" simply furthers the victim hood culture of whatever group you are saying it is affecting. The idea that there is some nebulous "cards stacked against you before you even play the game" monster out there fosters a defeatest mentality. Why even try when there is the specter of this unfairness that will prevent you from getting ahead?

People would be better off if we stopped playing this card and tilting at windmills. Show me actual incidents of racism and I will stand next to you and fight them. That is where we will be better served.....everyone. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 07:23 PM)Beaker Wrote: Pretending there is "institutionalized racism" simply furthers the victim hood culture of whatever group you are saying it is affecting. The idea that there is some nebulous "cards stacked against you before you even play the game" monster out there fosters a defeatest mentality. Why even try when there is the specter of this unfairness that will prevent you from getting ahead?

People would be better off if we stopped playing this card and tilting at windmills. Show me actual incidents of racism and I will stand next to you and fight them. That is where we will be better served.....everyone.

There is plenty out there when looking at the criminal justice system, our immigration system, and a host of other things. The way in which we prioritize white countries over others for immigration or the way in which black people are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than white people. This is all institutionalized racism, and only the tip of the iceberg. Institutional racism isn't about a single act, it is about a system in place that treats people unfairly because of their race. This exists, and pretending it doesn't means we will never address the problems that cause legitimate inequity in our society.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2018, 06:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump's administration wrote a law that was legal, then he touted it as a "Muslim ban" to please his base.

Don't really have a big problem with this. But remember how the right reacted when the SC ruled that the ACA individual mandate was a "tax" even though Obama said it was not.

Your comparison is valid, but didn’t they actually argue it wasn’t a tax in front of the SC?

[GMDino]

(06-26-2018, 05:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The media isn't doing any favors, either.  If you look at the story in the link, check out the photo they chose of Sotomayor and Ginsburg.  Certainly, they could have chosen a more professional, respectful looking image, than one featuring them with cartoonish, gargoyle like grimaces on their faces.  A picture of them at an unrelated event, no less.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sotomayor-and-ginsburg-issue-scathing-dissent-of-scotus-travel-ban-decision/ar-AAzctPw?ocid=spartandhp

Since you already went off topic....what's wrong with the looks on their face?

Hopefully the board's moral guide on appearance posts will comment on this.