SCOTUS upholds September 2017 "travel ban" in 5-4 decision, simultaneously kinda/sorta overturns 1944 Korematsu (internment camp) decision

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Opinion here.

 

Three additional features of the entry policy support the Government’s claim of a legitimate national security interest. First, since the President introduced entry restrictions in January 2017, three Muslim-majority countries—Iraq, Sudan, and Chad—have been removed from the list. Second, for those countries still subject to entry restrictions, the Proclamation includes numerous exceptions for various categories of foreign nationals. Finally, the Proclamation creates a waiver program open to all covered foreign nationals seeking entry as immigrants or nonimmigrants. Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review.

[Jason]

"We know it's racist because he told us but if he hadn't told us it'd have been legal! Plus, look, he tweaked it slightly so that's TOTALLY different!"

[Jason]

 

It's hard not to read that as even Trump thinking they wouldn't uphold it.

[Jason]

Wow.

 

 

[Guest]

I think the majority got it right, even though I find the travel ban objectionable policy.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

I'm surprised, but not that surprised - we all figured that they'd walk it this way. 

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

16 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I'm surprised, but not that surprised - we all figured that they'd walk it this way. 

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

That tweet is something I've been saying since law school - every "incorrect" supreme court opinion almost universally ignores some clear contextual fact. It's ridiculous. It's "political correctness" at its truest definition. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

58 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

That tweet is something I've been saying since law school - every "incorrect" supreme court opinion almost universally ignores some clear contextual fact. It's ridiculous. It's "political correctness" at its truest definition. 

Same for the free market types. 

 

As an example:

"People will pay for products from companies that don't pollute, so pollution limits are not needed!"

"No they won't, as most times companies that do heavy polluting are in another country, or are obfuscated from consumer eyes because there is so much information and disinformation, and what constitutes a harmful amount of pollution is a technical question that requires expertise, an individual consumer cannot determine what is and is not a non polluting company"

"..."

[Greatoneshere]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Same for the free market types. 

 

As an example:

"People will pay for products from companies that don't pollute, so pollution limits are not needed!"

"No they won't, as most times companies that do heavy polluting are in another country, or are obfuscated from consumer eyes because there is so much information and disinformation, and what constitutes a harmful amount of pollution is a technical question that requires expertise, an individual consumer cannot determine what is and is not a non polluting company"

"..."

 

Right on point. It's amazing the lies societies and civilizations tell themselves when the truth is right there, staring them in the face. 

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

25 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Right on point. It's amazing the lies societies and civilizations tell themselves when the truth is right there, staring them in the face. 

 

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I hope the next Democratic president and Senate pack the fucking court

[Jason]

 

[TwinIon]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

Sotomayor calls out that double standard pretty hard in her dissent. (starting on page 89)

 

Quote

Unlike in Masterpiece, where the majority considered the state commissioners’ statements about religion to be persuasive evidence of unconstitutional government action, id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 12–14), the majority here completely sets aside the President’s charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant. That holding erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the Court elsewhere has so emphatically protected,

 

 

If an act of government can be illegal for the reasoning behind it, then surely this case should have met that standard. 

 

[mclumber1]

57 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I hope the next Democratic president and Senate pack the fucking court

 

Won't that lead to the eventual court packing by a future GOP Senate/President? Where does it stop?

[Chairslinger]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

So they're giving him the travel ban with a bunch of warnings about going too far.

 

It's a good thing that authoritarian leaders don't perceive such victories as a license to push things one step further.....

 

I was always pretty skeptical that the ban would lose at SCOTUS because I think the court is kind of hoping we can get through 4 years without having to entirely rewrite presidential authority due to what they are hoping is a one time thing.

 

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

I think the court is kind of hoping we can get through 4 years without having to entirely rewrite presidential authority

 

The stupid thing is that as discussed above they didn't have to rewrite presidential authority here. If the wedding cake baker won his case because of the animus against his religious beliefs despite the ruling specifically saying that the commission could do the same thing without the overt animus, then clearly the ruling here should have likewise been "the president, as an office, is allowed to do this but we're ruling against this because of the overt animus against Muslims from Trump."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

56 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Won't that lead to the eventual court packing by a future GOP Senate/President? Where does it stop?

Probably. The ultimate end game of what we currently have for laws (not norms--those are toast) is a supreme Court whose undefined number of members serve for life, and are virtually unaccountable because Congress continues to abdicate it's authority under the Constitution. It's the last refuge of the current Republican party as it is currently structured, as the only real things they can agree on besides triggering libs is appointing someone else to make decisions (judicial nominees) and Trump is good. That's about it really. So I'm actually surprised it hasn't been tried already. The only pushback Trump has gotten has been for ripping families apart. Stacking the court with 45 year old conservative justices would go over smoothly with just about all of those people, and they will have two years after the midterms to change the subject again.

 

Ideally it would stop with a constitutional amendment spelling out the nomination process in more detail (requiring an up or down vote on presidential nominees within 120 days of nomination, a bit more detail on qualifications, and maybe some other things like a 2/3 affirmative vote to confirm judges and an upper age limit to be on the bench) and also amendments making the legislature more effective, responsive, and representative (significantly more reps and roughly doubling or more the number of senators, no fillibuster, and taking some presidential authority and placing it with Congressional committees) so that the presidency and judiciary isn't as important to make policy decisions, where that should be the job of the legislature. 

[Kal-El814]

Shit like this makes me wish hell was real solely so Mitch McConnell has a place to go when he dies.

[Anathema-]

Special shout-out to everyone happy to preserve SCOTUS "balance"

[MarSolo]

35 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Shit like this makes me wish hell was real solely so Mitch McConnell has a place to go when he dies.

 

I still say he should have died from polio as a kid.

[marioandsonic]

4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I hope the next Democratic president and Senate pack the fucking court

At this rate, I wouldn't hold your breath on the Democrats taking any of those within the next decade.

[CitizenVectron]

 

[osxmatt]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

It seems Trumpism aka suck it libs aka triggering tears aka conservative only when it benefits you aka conservatism has made its way to the SC.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

I don’t think those are contradictory holdings because one is about people within the borders of the U.S. and one is about whether to admit people from outside our borders. They aren’t controlled by the same legal standards.

[Jason]

 

[Kal-El814]

17 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Shit like this makes me wish hell was real solely so Mitch McConnell has a place to go when he dies.

I’ve thought about this some more and decided that I want heaven to be real, but have an impenetrable border wall and jank ass immigration policy. Oh and it’s governed by Sharia law.

[Chadatog]

10 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

I don’t think those are contradictory holdings because one is about people within the borders of the U.S. and one is about whether to admit people from outside our borders. They aren’t controlled by the same legal standards.

Actually they are about the same thing and not the made up thing you want them to be about.  They are both rulings on what a politician thinks and has said personally about a religion being behind creating policy.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Chadatog said:

Actually they are about the same thing and not the made up thing you want them to be about.  They are both rulings on what a politician thinks and has said personally about a religion being behind creating policy.

 

Obviously that is the argument being made, but the argument falls flat because the same protections simply do not apply to foreign nationals abroad as they do to persons within the borders of the United States. That is clearly established. That’s not a made up thing