SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[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.