Travel ban: Oh for two

[HurricaneDitka]

@2ManyTacos

… swaps Gorsuch for Garland…

That’s not going to happen.

[aldiboronti]

@2ManyTacos

I fully expect the Dems to pursue Court-packing if and when an obviously bullshit decision comes out of SCOTUS;

And of course an obviously bullshit decision is anything the Dems say it is, never mind that it isn’t obvious at all to half the country.

[UltraVires]

@Whack-a-Mole

Trump: I ban all people from Africa because I hate black people!
Supreme Court: You can’t do that because they are black.
Trump: Oh, ok. In that case I ban all people from Africa because they are a security threat!
Supreme Court: That’ll work. You had us worried for a moment but it’s all good now. Carry on!

Again, I am drinking brain bleach tonight, but I agree that is what the Court has done (except for Kennedy). The cleaner way, and my preferred way, is the no standing doctrine.

[The_Tooth]

@aldiboronti

And of course an obviously bullshit decision is anything the Dems say it is, never mind that it isn’t obvious at all to half the country.

I’m not a Democrat. This decision is based in right-wing Christian bigotry, i.e., bullshit.

[DSYoungEsq]

I haven’t read the decision itself, but I thought the whole bit about Korematsu being explicitly set aside as valid law has to do with putting at least SOME limit on what the President can do in the name of “national security”. So constitutional boundaries still apply?

[AK84]

It’s John Roberts trying to assuage his conscience, nothing more.

[UltraVires]

@DSYoungEsq

I haven’t read the decision itself, but I thought the whole bit about Korematsu being explicitly set aside as valid law has to do with putting at least SOME limit on what the President can do in the name of “national security”. So constitutional boundaries still apply?

This is wrong on so many levels. The case was about immigration. *Korematsu *applied to United States citizens.

Without going into how outrageous the dissent was in mentioning *Korematsu *and how un-analogous this case is to that one, there are many, vast things a president can NOT do in the name of “national security.” The case only had to do with what a president may do to prevent immigration.

Roberts was right for calling the dissent out on it…and equally right for overruling Korematsu.

[AK84]

Oh come on. He managed to distinguish and overrule a judgement, almost in the same paragraph. It’s one or the other never both.

[elucidator]

@UltraVires

This is wrong on so many levels. The case was about immigration. *Korematsu *applied to United States citizens.

Without going into how outrageous the dissent was in mentioning *Korematsu *and how un-analogous this case is to that one, there are many, vast things a president can NOT do in the name of “national security.” The case only had to do with what a president may do to prevent immigration.

Roberts was right for calling the dissent out on it…and equally right for overruling Korematsu.

So, that which was marketed under the term “travel ban” was actually about Muslim immigration?

[John_Mace]

@UltraVires

This is wrong on so many levels. The case was about immigration. *Korematsu *applied to United States citizens.

Without going into how outrageous the dissent was in mentioning *Korematsu *and how un-analogous this case is to that one, there are many, vast things a president can NOT do in the name of “national security.” The case only had to do with what a president may do to prevent immigration.

Roberts was right for calling the dissent out on it…and equally right for overruling Korematsu.

@elucidator

So, that which was marketed under the term “travel ban” was actually about Muslim immigration?

I don’t think it’s accurate to say the case is about immigration. It’s about issuing visas to travel to the US. Some of those travelers might be looking to immigrate, but it’s quite possible that most simply want to visit here-- for vacation, for business, to visit relatives, etc.-- and then return to their home countries afterwards.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

Your position fails to acknowledge that there was never a precedent that extended searching Establishment Clause inquiry to immigration visa decisions, and there was plenty of precedent that extended it to cases involving religious exercise of citizens within the US.).

This is a fiction of your framing, and nothing more. Neither the decision to apply the Establishment Clause cases to the immigration context nor the immigration cases to the Establishment Clause context is any more of an extension of precedent than the other.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@DSYoungEsq

I haven’t read the decision itself, but I thought the whole bit about Korematsu being explicitly set aside as valid law has to do with putting at least SOME limit on what the President can do in the name of “national security”. So constitutional boundaries still apply?

Constitutional boundaries always apply, of course. It’s just that pursuant to Mandel and the Travel Ban case, the constitutional boundaries are different in cases involving admission of foreign nationals, because (according to the Court) Congress’s plenary power in this area overrides First Amendment limitations that would apply in other areas. The Lemon test pretty clearly did not govern the Establishment Clause claim in the Travel Ban case, for instance.

[AK84]

@Tom_Tildrum

Constitutional boundaries always apply, of course. It’s just that pursuant to Mandel and the Travel Ban case, the constitutional boundaries are different in cases involving admission of foreign nationals, because (according to the Court) Congress’s plenary power in this area overrides First Amendment limitations that would apply in other areas. The Lemon test pretty clearly did not govern the Establishment Clause claim in the Travel Ban case, for instance.

At common law, only Parliament could make a non-subject a subject, while the rights of entry and residence vested in the King.

Congress expressly has the power of naturalization, but under what provision does it have the power to regulate entry? Commerce Clause?

[VinylTurnip]

@John_Mace

I don’t think it’s accurate to say the case is about immigration. It’s about issuing visas to travel to the US. Some of those travelers might be looking to immigrate, but it’s quite possible that most simply want to visit here-- for vacation, for business, to visit relatives, etc.-- and then return to their home countries afterwards.

True. I guess it’d be more accurate to term it a “total and complete shutdown,” or something to that effect.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@AK84

At common law, only Parliament could make a non-subject a subject, while the rights of entry and residence vested in the King.

Congress expressly has the power of naturalization, but under what provision does it have the power to regulate entry? Commerce Clause?

The S.Ct. in Mandel called it “inherent in sovereignty” and stated as follows (citations omitted).

The Court, without exception, has sustained Congress’ “plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden.” “[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over” the admission of aliens.

[elucidator]

@VinylTurnip

True. I guess it’d be more accurate to term it a “total and complete shutdown,” or something to that effect.

Dammit, I’ve told you a million times, quit exaggerating! “Total and complete shutdown”? C’mon!

[UltraVires]

@elucidator

So, that which was marketed under the term “travel ban” was actually about Muslim immigration?

I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that I believe the Supreme Court got it wrong on standing.

Suppose a president said that he was banning White Gay Tory Catholics from Northern Ireland. All of them. For whatever reason.

We all would agree that would be a horrific policy, and could take our anger out on the president at the next election, or our Congressman for not passing a law to forbid it.

However, none of those people have a right to be in the United States. None of them should have access to our courts. If Macron in France makes a poor policy choice, can I as a U.S. citizen sue him? Of course not, because it is *none of my fucking business *what France does.

If France denies me a visa, should I be able to sue? Of course not, because I have no right to French soil that the country owes me a hearing upon. Even if I knew someone in France who asserted a claim that he really wanted his buddy Ultravires to be there, that is (outside of the immigration context) always the sort of generalized want that never confers standing.

[Bricker]

@UltraVires

What I am saying is that I believe the Supreme Court got it wrong on standing.

You acknowledge that the Court was faithfully applying Mandel on standing, though, yes?

[UltraVires]

@Bricker

You acknowledge that the Court was faithfully applying Mandel on standing, though, yes?

I agree with that.

[Bricker]

@UltraVires

I agree with that.

What you’re then suggesting is that the Burger court got Mandel wrong, with Burger, Rehnquist, Stewart, White, and Powell joining Blackmun as the author. And further that the Roberts court got it wrong in Trump v Hawaii when they failed to overrule Mandel’s standing analysis?