Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Courtís conservative justices appear to back Trumpís authority for travel ban
Washington Post ^ | 04/25/2018 | By Robert Barnes, Ann E. Marimow and Matt Zapotosky

Posted on 04/25/2018 10:12:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court seemed to agree Wednesday that President Trump has the authority to ban immigrants from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks that it is necessary to protect the country.

Lower courts have struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban proclamation, the first of which was issued just a week after he took office in January 2017. But the conservative-leaning Supreme Court may be Trump’s best hope, and it gave the administration a boost by allowing the ban to go into effect in December while considering the challenges to it.

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices that the president was well within his power to issue the proclamation and that it came after a thorough, worldwide review of the vetting procedures of countries.

The initiative applies only to a “tiny” number of countries, Francisco told the justices, and permits the vast majority of travelers to enter, including those from Muslim-majority countries.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was most active in advancing the notion that the president is privy to national security information that courts are ill-prepared to second-guess.

But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who always seems to occupy the pivotal position when conservative and liberal justices disagree, asked questions that mostly seemed to support the president’s authority.

The court is considering the third iteration of Trump’s travel ban, issued last fall, which barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities. They are Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. But restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela are not part of the challenge. Chad was removed from the list earlier this month.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: immigration; scotus; supremecourt; travelban; trumptravelban

1 posted on 04/25/2018 10:12:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Former Obama administration acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal, representing Hawaii, said that Trump had taken an “iron wrecking ball” to the law Congress had implemented to govern immigration and keep the nation safe.

“No president in 100 years” has tried to issue such a broad-based immigration ban, Katyal said, adding that it was based on Trump’s animosity toward Muslims.

But conservative justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, along with Roberts, peppered Katyal with questions on how the president had exceeded his lawful authority, given that Congress had granted the executive branch broad latitude to bar people’s entry to the U.S.


2 posted on 04/25/2018 10:13:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In a sane world with a non-politicized court, this would be a slam-dunk 9-0 decision.

But that is not the world in which we live.


3 posted on 04/25/2018 10:16:44 AM PDT by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm using my wife's account.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Alito is apparently on record as saying, it doesnt sound like it applies to Muslims.


4 posted on 04/25/2018 10:17:23 AM PDT by Liz ((Our side has 8 trillion bullets;the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“No president in 100 years”

What a stupid argument. No President in 100 years was a woman, either. Does he argue against breaking that precedent?


5 posted on 04/25/2018 10:20:14 AM PDT by rightwingcrazy (We)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy

“Supreme Court’s conservative justices appear to back Trump’s authority for travel ban”

Supreme Court’s liberal justices appear to not back Trump’s authority for travel ban.

Fixed it.


6 posted on 04/25/2018 10:22:35 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (What is a Blue City? First world cities run by third world politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy

“What a stupid argument”

And...it’s not true.


7 posted on 04/25/2018 10:25:10 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Stop the insanity ,Ban the Demonut Party ,LOL


8 posted on 04/25/2018 10:25:12 AM PDT by butlerweave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

All I want to know is, Is it a tax?


9 posted on 04/25/2018 10:31:49 AM PDT by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy

Besides the fact that it is factually incorrect and a specious argument at best.

Travelers disappearing under visas and the current cut of terrorism hasn’t been a century old problem. It’s a very real and very recent (30 years?) problem.


10 posted on 04/25/2018 10:37:10 AM PDT by Fhios (Mr. Magoo, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fhios

Our navy was founded because of arab terrorism !


11 posted on 04/25/2018 12:10:46 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

But...but...buit... TRUMP!!!!


12 posted on 04/25/2018 12:51:30 PM PDT by TBP (Progressives lack compassion and tolerance. Their self-aggrandizement is all that matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

From the halls of Montezuma and all that ....


13 posted on 04/25/2018 2:18:47 PM PDT by Fhios (Mr. Magoo, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A transcript of the oral arguments can be found here.

What I found to be absolutely astounding is that the attorney arguing against the government pretty much came right out and said "if anyone but Trump had made this EO, it would have been legal."

14 posted on 04/25/2018 3:04:32 PM PDT by zeugma (Power without accountability is fertilizer for tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Roberts asked whether there were a “statute of limitations” on a president’s campaign statements.

One of the great legal minds of our time cleared that up when he said "that was campaigning, this is governing".

15 posted on 04/26/2018 2:33:47 PM PDT by oldbrowser (The rule of law has been turned on it's head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"No president in 100 years..."








16 posted on 04/26/2018 2:54:50 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson