Posted on 12/04/2017 2:12:08 PM PST by billorites
“Just two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, noted their disagreement with court orders allowing the latest policy to take full effect.”
Ruthie has one foot on a banana peel and the other in her grave. Trump will get to replace her. Sotomayor reportedly has some form of cancer. Anyone know what her long term prognosis is?
“Is the travel ban then stopped until an appeal to a higher court reverses the lower court?”
Remedied by POTUS’ legal team applying for an injunction staying the application of the decision pending appeal to the Supreme Court. It would seem that the SC has already given a presumptive basis for allowing this with the current decision.
Well, well sanity prevails.
I wonder how many have entered while the injunction was in place
Thank you.
“Kagan is prone to occasional lapses into common sense.”
Or maybe she had just downed a bad batch of Knishes and her bowels had backed up into what passes for her brain.
I'm no lawyer but maybe we have one reading this thread who could comment on your very reasonable query.
My bet is that the Trump Administration would request an immediate Stay of the lower court order pending a full review by the Supreme Court. And given the clear view of the court on this matter, I would anticipate that the Stay would be granted.
But, then again, I'm not a lawyer.
To me, it doesn’t matter if Sleepy and Dopey dissented. It’s a win against judicial activism!!
Has the wailing started yet?
That clarifies the previous reply that I got. My thanks to you both.
Supreme Court has overrode lower court decisions. Lower courts can argue all the like, the ban is the law of the land!!
after a year of screwing around, the legal system finally confirmed what we all knew to begin with. gotta love the inefficiency.
meanwhile, still no wall. liberals will do everything they can to stymie Trump.
Interesting how the AP slants their stories. If it was about SCOTUS agreeing with the 0 king it would read, "The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, has sided with President Obama..."
The AP goes and spends most of rest of their "report" explaining how the fight against Trump's ban will continue...
Isn’t she a homegrown terrorist?
Exactly, the order just puts a hold on the injunction and permits the case to continue. Under the language of the order, it continues until the lower court rulings make it no longer necessary or until there’s a final disposition of the case, which includes any possible supreme court appeal.
Other than what one could argue is the court saying, “there’s a possibility the lower courts got this wrong, so we’re going to put a hold on their injunction until we can be sure”, the ruling has no impact on the merits (or lack thereof) of the case.
The AP is right in this case. Why didn’t SCROTUS vacate the lower courts unconstitutional edicts when they were first made? That’s right...They wanted to usurp executive authority. They have. The question is who made the decision in the executive branch to play this out in the courts where it never belonged.
That’s already addressed. This “hold on the hold” continues until a final disposition on the case, including any Supreme Court appeal.
Huge win!
The “Wall” is meaningless unless cities and localities enforce US law. Get rid of sanctuary cities first. Cut off their funds.
People don’t just enter illegally from Mexico, but are smuggled in via sea containers, put on legitimate flights, or simply overstay a visa they got as a family member of some legal family...and the “sanctuary cities” protect all these people. This is the case even though some of them are basically slaves (in Asian restaurants, where they are also often prostitutes and have to live in an alcove off the kitchen) or where they are terrorist Muslims kicked out of their own countries who somehow manage to go directly onto some kind of state or church benefits. But I guess if you’re a “sanctuary,” that doesn’t matter. It should matter to the Federal Government, however.
That said, it’s great that the SC upheld this “travel ban.”
In brief, no... as long as the administration immediately appeals to the Supreme Court.
They didn’t vacate them initially because the issue wasn’t before them.
And, of course, they’re also not ruling on the merits of them now.
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.