WWTBAM Bored

BackInTex wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Estonut wrote:Are you now saying you have developed SSS-like mind-reading skills? You are reading things into something which may or may not be there. What ever happened to the requirement for proof?

SSS and Bob# don't need mind-reading powers when the President is open about his intent. After the courts said the original EO was discriminatory, the White House wrote a revised version that removed the worst parts and added language about national security. But now Trump says the new EO is watered down and he prefers the first one. That makes it harder for the Justice Dept. to claim that the new EO is legal.

Why would Trump's preference of one over the other have any bearing on the legality of one or the other. Did Justice take her blindfold off?

What you're really saying is that it shouldn't matter if the actual decision maker actually was motivated by religious animus if some other decision maker could have reached the same conclusion without relying on religious animus. That's a very mechanistic view of how things work. Fortunately, it's not the law. --Bob

Looks like Trump loses again in court as the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling striking down Trump's travel ban. Trump and his lawyers are rapidly becoming the Washington Generals of the court system.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102682654/

But he's going to get another chance pretty soon, since the DC and MD attorneys general have filed suit against him on corruption charges:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102774884/

Here's the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I haven't had time yet to get past the first page, but it looks like the Ninth Circuit relied solely on statutory grounds (the President did things Congress has already said he's not allowed to do) and didn't reach any constitutional issues. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:Looks like Trump loses again in court as the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling striking down Trump's travel ban. Trump and his lawyers are rapidly becoming the Washington Generals of the court system.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102682654/

But he's going to get another chance pretty soon, since the DC and MD attorneys general have filed suit against him on corruption charges:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102774884/

I'm curious -- what's their theory re standing? I understand the substantive theory isn't corruption per se but a violation of the Emoluments Clause(s). (There's both a foreign and domestic Emoluments Clause.) But all I've seen is reports of the expected lawsuits in the popular press, so I'm not confident that the reporting will be sufficiently sensitive to the difference. --Bob

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring
enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the
Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the
extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with
respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship
with a person or entity in the United States. We
leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place
with respect to respondents and those similarly situated,
as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring
enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the
Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the
extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with
respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship
with a person or entity in the United States. We
leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place
with respect to respondents and those similarly situated,
as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

What does that mean (in English, for accountants)?

The preliminary injunctions are gutted and the case will be argued on the merits in October. Three judges would have voted to eliminate the injunctions in their entirety.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The preliminary injunctions are gutted and the case will be argued on the merits in October. Three judges would have voted to eliminate the injunctions in their entirety.

What it means is that "tourists" from those countries are banned but those who want to visit family or friends or who are coming for business reasons are not banned.

BackInTex wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring
enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the
Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the
extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with
respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship
with a person or entity in the United States. We
leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place
with respect to respondents and those similarly situated,
as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

What does that mean (in English, for accountants)?

Family members can come in. So can those invited to the United States by an entity for a bona fide reason (such as college students, attendees at academic conferences, prospective employers). (The limitation is intended to avoid fake entities being created specifically to evade the ban.) The ban can apply to tourists with no other connection to the United States.

I think the Court majority is setting things up to find the case moot. --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The preliminary injunctions are gutted and the case will be argued on the merits in October. Three judges would have voted to eliminate the injunctions in their entirety.

What it means is that "tourists" from those countries are banned but those who want to visit family or friends or who are coming for business reasons are not banned.

There's a fairly good chance that the final vote on the merits will be the same as on the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court usually doesn't grant a stay unless it thinks it's likely that the appealing party will prevail on the merits.

Two things of note. I think this is the first controversial case in which Gorsuch has participated and he came down with the two most conservative justices, Thomas and Alito. Second, today was the last day in the Court's current session and there was no mention that Justice Kennedy was retiring.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

What does that mean (in English, for accountants)?

Family members can come in. So can those invited to the United States by an entity for a bona fide reason (such as college students, attendees at academic conferences, prospective employers). (The limitation is intended to avoid fake entities being created specifically to evade the ban.) The ban can apply to tourists with no other connection to the United States.

I think the Court majority is setting things up to find the case moot. --Bob

As it's a 90-day ban, it would be moot before October.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The preliminary injunctions are gutted and the case will be argued on the merits in October. Three judges would have voted to eliminate the injunctions in their entirety.

What it means is that "tourists" from those countries are banned but those who want to visit family or friends or who are coming for business reasons are not banned.

There's a fairly good chance that the final vote on the merits will be the same as on the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court usually doesn't grant a stay unless it thinks it's likely that the appealing party will prevail on the merits.

Two things of note. I think this is the first controversial case in which Gorsuch has participated and he came down with the two most conservative justices, Thomas and Alito. Second, today was the last day in the Court's current session and there was no mention that Justice Kennedy was retiring.

I read it as more of a compromise decision. Note that none of the liberals published a dissent. Note also the pointed remark that the Administration should have enough time to review entry procedures (the putative purpose for the ban), given the relief the Court has granted. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Note also the pointed remark that the Administration should have enough time to review entry procedures (the putative purpose for the ban), given the relief the Court has granted. --Bob

The review of vetting procedures has already started, and is one of the reasons given for removing Iraq from the ban. Homeland Security also said that the review could add countries to the ban as well as remove them.

Another factor in removing Iraq is a deal that the Iraqi government made with the Trump administration, which has had surprising effects:
Chaldean Patriarch: "sadness and concern" for the issue of Iraqi Christians whom the US government wants to expel

The Court today refused to stay the portion of Judge Watson's decision holding, contrary to the Administration's position, that grandparents are "close family members" who must be allowed entry. --Bob

Miller spoke up Wednesday on another immigration issue, Trump's proposed reforms to legal immigration. A CNN reporter argued, “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn't say anything about speaking English or being able to be a computer programmer.” Miller countered that that poem wasn’t on the original Statue.

Miller is technically correct; the plaque with that famous poem was added in 1903. But in the 1880s, when the Statue was built, blacks were segregated, American Indians were persecuted, and women couldn’t vote. Our standards of liberty are completely different from that era’s.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

What does that mean (in English, for accountants)?

Family members can come in. So can those invited to the United States by an entity for a bona fide reason (such as college students, attendees at academic conferences, prospective employers). (The limitation is intended to avoid fake entities being created specifically to evade the ban.) The ban can apply to tourists with no other connection to the United States.

I think the Court majority is setting things up to find the case moot. --Bob

Told you so. --Bob

SF court strikes down Trump’s third attempt at travel ban

But the Supreme Court already allowed the latest travel ban to be enforced during the appeals process, so the appeals court ruling doesn't matter much unless the Supreme Court agrees.