SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[*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.