SCOTUS Reinstates Key Parts of Trump's Travel Ban

[pete311]

Your obtuse shtick isn't convincing, just FYI.

Explain how it's possible to implement vetting policies and procedures when the EO itself is blocked by moonbat judges.

What does the ban have to do with updating immigration procedures? How does the ban not being in place prevent the procedures from being updated?

[jimnyc]

What does the ban have to do with updating immigration procedures? How does the ban not being in place prevent the procedures from being updated?

It's additional security. It allows them to 'impede' and disallow certain folks - whereas now they may be powerless to an extent in stopping people.

If it's protecting America, and an additional layer of protection, why do you have such a problem with it?

[hjmick]

Considering that the administration has signaled that their travel "ban" would go into effect 72 hours after a Supreme Court ruling in their favor, my guess is they already have a plan...


What I don't see is a need for the Court to hear any oral arguments in the Fall. According to everything I've read, the restrictions were intended to last for only 90 days...

[NightTrain]

Considering that the administration has signaled that their travel "ban" would go into effect 72 hours after a Supreme Court ruling in their favor, my guess is they already have a plan...


What I don't see is a need for the Court to hear any oral arguments in the fall. According to everything I've read, the restrictions were intended to last for only 90 days...

I was reading that earlier today as well. Sounds like it's a moot point to pursue this any further, except for getting complete clarity over the idiotic injunctions issued earlier to put that crap to bed. That would possibly be a risky move, but by the wording on that decision it seems like a slam dunk to me.

[jimnyc]

Considering that the administration has signaled that their travel "ban" would go into effect 72 hours after a Supreme Court ruling in their favor, my guess is they already have a plan...


What I don't see is a need for the Court to hear any oral arguments in the fall. According to everything I've read, the restrictions were intended to last for only 90 days...

That is correct, or maybe it was 120 days? And THAT is the part that I don't understand. I would have went for a longer time. The time they asked for has went and past since the original executive order.

With any executive order aside, I think it simply makes sense to scrutinize more the folks coming from Syria, for example, a war torn country. It makes sense to know that it's not a nutcase, and they need to be vetted. If someone comes back clean, let them in asap. If someone comes back with a violent felony, no entry. If they can't find anything at all on someone, no entry.

[hjmick]

I was reading that earlier today as well. Sounds like it's a moot point to pursue this any further, except for getting complete clarity over the idiotic injunctions issued earlier to put that crap to bed. That would possibly be a risky move, but by the wording on that decision it seems like a slam dunk to me.

I've been drinking...

I'm thinking the 90 days is for them to iron out the vetting procedures while no one gets in during that time from those six countries. Of course that begs the question, as pete pointed out, why the hell haven't they been working on that while they waited? And now we're right back to... why bother to hear arguments in the Fall?

[aboutime]

So what was the state dept doing these past 7 months?

Poor petey. Still hasn't managed to pass the test for graduation at PRE-SCHOOL.
Someday, you may grow up, and feel like the SCARECROW in the Wizard of Oz.

<img src="http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/61000/Barack-Obama-as-the-Scarecrow-61331.jpg">

[Kathianne]

I've been drinking...

I'm thinking the 90 days is for them to iron out the vetting procedures while no one gets in during that time from those six countries. Of course that begs the question, as pete pointed, why the hell haven't they been working on that while they waited? And now we're right back at... why bother to hear arguments in the Fall?

Yeah, I sort of wonder the same, I'm sober. To the best of my knowledge the State Dept., can use whatever vetting they want regarding granting visas. Now they've had nearly 6 months to come up with how the 'extreme vetting' should work and the 6 month timeframe restarts.

I do think though it is important that SCOTUS ruled on the legality of the EO. Just because judges (or voters), don't like Trump, doesn't mean that he should have less control over his legal functions. Congress can make laws to restrict some of those powers, but the judiciary? Nope, not if the actions are constitutional.

[NightTrain]

I'm pretty sure that there's been work done on the vetting procedures in anticipation of this.

I can make it short & sweet : DENIED!

The only exceptions I would make would be if there were some friendlies that put their ass on the line helping our troops out overseas... those guys get a green light. The rest of those people can head to Germany.