SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[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.