It's easy to show how ineffective government is when the man running it spends his time lying and having various agencies chasing their tails. Also, I watched a Sam Kinison special on Netflix and God Damn, does our Commander in Chief speak remarkably like ol Sammy. Not the yelling, of course, but the set up sounds a great deal like how Donny T talks.
This has been going on too. Not that it's an unmerited investigation, but it's pretty obvious it's to try to shift the news away from being so dominated by the Trump/Comey situation. I'd like to think we can get to the point where the government does absolutely nothing at all other than a bunch of crooks finger pointing and investigating each other. That's got to be the apex of fail.
It is absolutely the correct ruling in my opinion. I don't know how worthwhile the travel ban is, but an intellectually honest reading of the constitution definitely gives Trump the authority to do it. I don't think this even should have had to go to the supreme court, but I'm sure many would disagree. This whole thing stank of "I don't like you so I'm not going to let you do this..."
They didn't rule on it. They said the ban could be in place until they actually do rule on it. They haven't decided it's constitutionality yet.
Maybe SCOTUS will say it's Constitutional, maybe they won't. What is for sure though is that your one or two readings of the Constitution doesn't hold up against judges who have spent their lives steeped in the law with these questions. For you to try to contradict numerous judges over two different appellate circuits on the basis of them being intellectually dishonest is just plain silly. Really every post you make about this issue stinks of "I don't like courts making rulings I don't like."
Interesting decision. It's basically lifting the injunction on the ban until the court can rule on the case, but only “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It's basically saying the injunction was overly broad, but that there was a valid injunction to prevent harm to US persons who would be impacted by having the travel of their family and associates blocked.
Both sides pretty much do this, but the Executive Branch's ability to impose a ban like this is pretty cut and dry, no law degree required. Which makes the lower courts decision and opinion a bit baffling. The Constitution applies to US citizens, not every Tom, Dick, and Mohammed that want to come here for refuge or otherwise. Legally, non-citizens do not have a right to be on American soil. Whether or not thats sound foreign policy, or ethical or simply a decent thing to do should be irrelevant. The lower courts essentially granted themselves executive power here, which is not the role of the judiciary. The 9th Circuit is notorious for legislating from the bench.
The Constitution applies to the United States as a political entity, and at times references rights held by citizens (and at other times references human rights more generally) in its restrictions on what the United States may or may not do.
Yes, but on American soil. Its not a global human rights charter. And in terms of this ban, it is a temporary travel stop-order for 6 countries with whom the US doesn't have acceptable information sharing about their citizens and are close to the ISIS conflict regions thereby being identified as an entry point threat for terrorists. It was meant to be in effect for only 90 days until proper screening procedures are created. Thats 6 majority muslim nations out of 40.
It's worth noting that the 4th Circuit had issues as well. It's not just a few rogue judges that have taken issue with this. If it were as clear cut as you think SCOTUS, would have slapped it down straight away. However, even now they are protecting the rights of individuals with ties to the United States. Whatever the hell that could mean. We shall see. I just wish Merrick Garland was able to have some input.
Yes, but the question is not whether non-citizens have the right to enter, but rather does the executive have the right to bar them in this manner for these reasons. Which is a more complicated question.
Trump probably doesn't have what would actually be a good reason, but again here's the text that gives the POTUS the authority to do the ban: I mean, I suppose you could argue that the president is supposed to explain his reasoning more clearly than "terrorism is bad and lots of bad things will happen" but it looks pretty clear to me that he has the authority, poorly explained rationale or not. "Finds entry to be detrimental..." is quite a wide scope. I guess we'll see what the supreme court does when it hears arguments this fall.
I thought the original problem was the fact that they were trying to ban everyone, including US citizens, from entering, and that was the part that was considered to be unconstitutional. Now that they've amended the ban to exclude those people who have connections, that kind of gets around that problem.
Forgive me if my memory is hazy, but I think it was that it included people like green card holders, (not actual citizens) some of whom were in transit when the order was rolled out, and they did the original ban with zero notice whatsoever. The part that made it a cluster fuck in the short term wasn't so much what was in it as it was how it was implemented.
The CBO scored the Senate's version of the AHCA. https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/879434806798561280 BREAKING: Congressional Budget Office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026 under Senate health bill in latest hurdle for GOP.
You cannot ban a US citizen from entering the United States. They have a fundamental bedrock right to enter the country (although you can do all manner of things to them at the border). The big issue was banning permanent residents and other individuals with valid visas. The injunctions were granted on various rationales, several of which still apply even if visa holders are allowed in. Should be interesting to see how SCOTUS thinks on them.