Posted on 09/25/2017 2:09:26 PM PDT by markomalley
The Supreme Court has cancelled an oral argument hearing, scheduled for October 10, about President Trump's travel ban issued by executive order earlier this year.
The hearing was taken off the schedule after the President issued a new ban and restrictions Sunday night, adding additional countries and laying out specific national security requirements for entry into the United States.
Sudan has been dropped from the original travel ban list, while Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia remain. Iraq has also been dropped, although increased vetting has been implemented. North Korea, Chad and Venezuela have been added with varying levels of vetting and restrictions for each country. Citizens traveling from North Korea and Venezuela are not affected, only government officials.
“Following an extensive review by the Department of Homeland Security, we are taking action today to protect the safety and security of the American people by establishing a minimum security baseline for entry into the United States,” Trump said. “We cannot afford to continue the failed policies of the past, which present an unacceptable danger to our country. My highest obligation is to ensure the safety and security of the American people, and in issuing this new travel order, I am fulfilling that sacred obligation.”
The case surrounding President Trump's authority to ban individuals from entry into the United States will likely continue when new briefs opposing the ban are filed with the Supreme Court. In other words, this is far from over.
“Six of President Trump's targeted countries are Muslim. The fact that Trump has added North Korea, with few visitors to the U.S., and a few government officials from Venezuela doesn't obfuscate the real fact that the administration's order is still a Muslim ban. President Trump's original sin of targeting Muslims cannot be cured by throwing other countries onto his enemies list,” the ACLU, which opposes the administration, released in a statement.
This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.
The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.
Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.
It’s fine that on 9-11, SCOTUS apparently agreed with this constitutional mandate that Trump is enforcing, but either way, Trump should be (and I think is) proceeding on the basis of the Rule of law of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land over the federal government including the courts and SCOTUS (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 4).
Neither - well kinda “good” in that SCOTUS is following the law. With the order replaced by a “new” order which targets obviously non-Muslim countries the original arguments are moot and there’s not even an appearance of the violation of the first amendment.
So, no government rule in force, no need for the court to hear it.
One of the best things POTUS could do for the country would be to dissolve the 9th District Court.
He slid this right by, while everyone else is chasing the shiny object/
Yeah I heard it 3 hrs ago... :)
The ban is not going to be challenged at SCOTUS. It stays.
Moreover, couple this decision with the ruling forbidding the 9th Circus to “temporary stay” Trump, the writing is on the wall. Hear that Hawaii and Wash state.
In the scuffle with the parishioner deemed a hero, Samson’s gun went off, with the result being that he shot himself in the leg. It was not a life-threatening wound and the gunman is in custody.
The headline is misleading to say the least. The case is still up for review, but the Court postponed the oral argument in light of recent executive action and want to give the parties time to address it. Which is very sensible.
It’s not that they won’t hear the case. Clickbait.
See #29
Also see:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/travel-ban-3-0-could-derail-supreme-court-case/index.html
“In general, when one policy expires and a new policy is developed, the court may consider any challenge to the expired policy to be moot,” said Irv Gornstein, the executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law. Gornstein stressed he was talking generally, but he suggested that if the parties are no longer affected by the new policy, or its impact has changed, there may not be the injury that is necessary to establish a case — potentially meaning things will have to start anew. “
Utah IS a racist, gun-crazy place. Stay away.
???
That’s an approach I support and have preached for a long time.
OK, I had to read back a few posts to get the context. :)
Yes, I couldn't agree more! And Wyoming is WORSE!
Banning all m*slims is an excellent idea. Permanently, and retroactively.
car pulls up about 3 years ago on my street,and I noticed the stickers. All liberal ones, and a MA Tag.
She asked me how living around here was, and I told her it was quiet about this time, but nights,and weekends gets really loud due to the gun shots going off from hunters, and a few good ole boys having a few drinks.
Never saw that car again, and the house was never built
Even so delayed, federal law is clear on this that the Executive has control over the borders and aliens. The court is not going to reverse itself from a few short years ago under Obama. Arizona v. U.S. 2012:
“Held:
1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; “
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182
And Kennedy wrote the opinion.
*high five!* Well done, FRiend. :)
So these countries are 100 % Muslim? If so, why ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.