Split decision? Huh? I thought Trump claimed it was, like, 9 or 10 to nothing. 10 I think he claimed.
Not numerically split. “Split,” in the sense of upholding the ban where the person seeking the visa has no personal connection and enjoining it where the visa applicant can show a personal connection.
A-ha. Thanks.
And… it’s underway. The Trump administration was back in court Monday dealing with precisely the issue of what makes for a bona-fide relationship.
Question for the court in this case… does a refugee applicant have a bona fide relationship with a resettlement agency for the purposes of this travel ban exception if the relationship is one established by the US government assigning the applicant’s case to the particular resettlement agency? Without the intervention of the US government, the Trump administration argues, there would be no relationship.
And social media is seeing posts with #GrandparentsnotTerrorists in an effort to encourage that a grandparent relationship be considered a close familial relationship for the purpose of the travel ban exception. Such relationship is not currently considered close enough for immigration sponsorship. The Trump administration’s guidelines did not include grandparent/grandchild relationship as one close enough to be covered under the exception.
Bumping.
The travel ban case, Trump v. Hawaii, will be heard at the US Supreme Court this week. This is actually a case centered around Travel Ban v 3.0. The high court did issue a stay of a lower court’s injunction. Per the Washington Post “only once in the more-than-a-decade Roberts court have the justices granted a stay without later reversing the opinion of the lower court.” This might portend a win for the administration. But, as the whole WaPo article reflects, this case is as much about what “a president” may do which might be different than what the court is prepared to say “this president” can do.
WaPo article linked, but paywalled. Search article name in Google to read. In travel ban case, Supreme Court considers ‘the president’ vs. ‘this president’
The case was heard today. According to both Scotusblog and the NYT, what they heard from the Justices it sounds like the travel ban will be upheld. :mad: Although we won’t know for sure until they release their decision, of course.
Just curious here, as I have to admit I had a hard time following the discussion…was this what you predicted? Sadly, I actually can’t tell even having read the non-paywalled version.
It’s not inconsistent with what I would have predicted, but no one actually stepped up to offer a wager, so I didn’t offer up anything exquisitely detailed.
And if the decision goes the way you’d like, that makes you smiley face why? I’m genuinely curious.
Because of safety concerns, I’m sure.
From the reporting I’ve seen, the more moderate Justices are inclined to the view that the president has the right to make this decision even if it is incredibly boneheaded.
It’s a terrible policy, but it’s a policy decision and the courts should leave that up to the Executive branch. Plus, I don’t like the idea of the courts using campaign promises to interpret policy actions.
A few years back, SCOTUS had to decide whether the ACA’s individual mandate was a tax or not. They decided it was a tax, and therefore constitutional despite the fact that Obama had gone around telling us it wasn’t a tax. Aren’t you glad the SCOTUS didn’t use his campaigning for the bill as proof that the mandate was not a tax?
Can you tell us why you are sure? Perhaps some quotes from previous threads on this subject by that poster?
I’m just curious why anyone would smile about this.
Perhaps in response to the frown in the post he quoted. Did you see that?
I frowned when the policy was announced, but smile when the courts make the right decision, even if I disagree with the policy.
It’s in response to suranyi’s frowny face.
That said, I regard the policy itself as unwise, so “the way I’d like,” is a nuanced condition: I’d like the courts to uphold the ban, but the reason is that in my view it’s not violative of the Constitution, NOT that I approve of the merits.
Bingo.
I appreciate your explanation, but respect in no way a support of a ban like this.
Would you support removing the ban by kidnapping and torturing those who favor it?
I suspect the answer is “no,” because you would recognize that the desire in rejecting the kidnap and torture plan is not to support the ban, but the unwillingness to engage in such horrible tactics even for a putatively good end.
Am I right?
I’m no lawyer and also no Constitutional expert. I can see that there is uncertainty about the constitutionality of this ban among people who are, else this wouldn’t be before the Supreme Court. So I will not call it constitutional or unconstitutional, and I hope the court makes Trump choke on it.