It begins.
Well, at least they struck down Korematsu v US (which had upheld rounding up Japanese Americans during wwii for security reasons) in the process.
Sotomayor:
âOur Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Courtâs decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.â
Well, I would say thatâs disappointing but that doesnât even really begin to describe it, does it? Especially the âwhat the President says about the purposes of the travel ban doesnât matterâ part of it. Thatâs just⌠not a road I really want us to go down.
When I saw the decision I got a feeling in the pit of my stomach very much like the feeling I got when shitgibbon won.
Same here.
See, it doesnât really matter if the President openly states that the US government is targeting people based on ethnicity or religion. All that really matters if it falls under executive authority, then heâs good.
I donât think Roberts was overly biased or political in his ruling.
The order itself does not make any rules regarding religion, and canât really be interpreted as such. Itâs not limited to muslim countries. It doesnât apply to all muslim countries. It makes no mention of religion at all.
Issuing a ruling based on the text of the order itself, rather than based upon rhetoric by the idiot pushing it forward, is not crazy. If we had to consider everything that everyone said, aside from what was actually in a law or order, things would be insane. I mean, for instance, Steve King has said all kinds of insanely racist shit. But we canât challenge the constitutionality of arbitrary laws heâs made on that basis.
The real issue here, is that this ban was supposed to be put in place for 90 days, while the government âfigured stuff outâ. So by all rights, this order is moot at this point.
Imagine if presidents could only do what they promised during their campaigns. If their campaign rhetoric was deemed gospel and every other decision they made had to be in line with those campaign promises. And if those campaign promises could then prevent them from taking action on issues.
Wait a second, donât we apply penalties all the time to entire nations as a whole? Like trade embargos, tariffs, war, the whole 9 governmental yards?
Maybe Iâm missing something, but banning all people from {dangerous} country from entering doesnât seem much different to me? Other than the remapping of {dangerous} to {because racism} of course.
I guess my point is that thereâs tons of legal precedent for our government penalizing whole countries depending on our relationships with those countries?
Yeah, this is basically why the SCOTUS upheld the ban.
The action itself was clearly within the authority of the President. No one even questioned that aspect.
The main argument against it was that, regardless of what was in the order itself, Trump himself had demonstrated that he was doing it because of racist intentions.
So basically
Ah I see, so they didnât judge the initial orders that got blocked, only the revised one at the end in which they included non-muslim countries within the ban so they couldnât be accused of this very thing.
Trump openly said today its about keeping Muslims out.
"If you look at the European Union, theyâre meeting right now to toughen up their immigration policies because theyâve been over-run, theyâve been over-run.
âAnd frankly, a lot of those countries are not the same places anymore.â
So yeah Roberts is simply pretending he doesnt know this is about keeping out Muslims. It is and always has been.
Harvard can deny a student admissions for a whole hell of a lot of reasons from grades to an interviewerâs personal opinion and it is fine. Harvard canât deny a student admission because they are Muslim.
The core problem with the early versions of the travel ban is that the administration was specifically saying that they were doing it because of religion. Literally on the record saying it was specifically because of religion.
Thatâs why they kept revising it to try and distance themselves from their own words. Apparently they pulled it off.
WaPo annotated analysis of the ruling is worth reading.
IMO, even the 2nd and certainly the 3rd EO would have based constitutional muster, with any other president.
However, Iâm confused if it is fine for Scalia to go back and look at the argument surrounding the 2nd Amendment in order to be able to understand the original meaning of the words. Then Iâm not sure why the same standard canât be applied to Trumpâs words on the original intended of the EOs.
Is it necessary for everybody to be dead to be an originalist?
I think the difference is that thereâs really no lack of clarity on terms of what the order does.
It kind of doesnât matter that Trump is a racist fuck. This order was written to be constitutional. Trumpâs motivations donât make it into an unconstitutional order.
This ruling doesnât bother me. Yes, we know Trump is a racist and hates Muslims and all sorts of other things. But you donât strike down legal actions because the action was taken by an ass for the wrong reasons. What you do is fight to change the action that you donât like through legit means, which is all the more reason to get people to vote and keep hammering Trumpâs terrible actions in the media to show how bad it is that this ass is our President.
One thing that does bother me is how the ruling is being constantly portrayed as âvictory for Trump.â Itâs a victory for sober reading of the law without taking a lot of twitter and campaign rhetoric into account, yes, but not for Trump. He wanted a much more restrictive ban targeted at only Muslim nations, remember when he first tried this? The only reason this is considered a Trump victory is that he keeps failing so hard everywhere else.
Trump the Originalist sounds mighty good.