ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Supreme Court brings back travel ban

The God-Emperor is vindicated:
In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as this fall.

The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- the president's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban."

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security," Trump said in a statement. "...As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive." He added: "My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland."

The court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced immediately with a full hearing to come in the Fall.
Next step: full immigration ban and deportations to the travel-ban countries.

Labels:

72 Comments:

Blogger Ransom Smith June 26, 2017 12:33 PM  

INb4 federal judges claim supremacy over the Supreme Court.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 26, 2017 12:34 PM  

Good first step

Anonymous Andrew E. June 26, 2017 12:39 PM  

Good news is it was unanimous to re-instate with just the exception of those with family members already in the US. And three justices said they'd let it stand with no exceptions: Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. (Along with some other rulings, Gorsuch appears to have been a terrific choice. Fingers crossed.) Hopefully, the Kennedy rumors are true and Trump nominates someone who will be the forth to uphold on the merits with no exceptions and that Roberts is just being cordial here by not joining the other three at this stage.

Anonymous Incurvatus June 26, 2017 12:42 PM  

Don't overlook the religious SCOTUS case this morning with the Missouruh DNR trying to deny free playground rubber safety chips to a church's preschool.

Anonymous Starbuck June 26, 2017 12:44 PM  

Next step: full immigration ban and deportations to the travel-ban countries. VD

While I know legally it's possible. Could this really happen? I know it needs to happen, but do you seriously believe Trump could or would that?

Anonymous Phantasmic June 26, 2017 12:45 PM  

which even Trump has termed a "travel ban."

Why do I keep seeing this statement as though it's some gotcha kill shot that Trump admits it is what it is. The thing Trump won't admit is that it's a "Muslim ban".

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 26, 2017 12:45 PM  

While I know legally it's possible. Could this really happen? I know it needs to happen, but do you seriously believe Trump could or would that?

Full travel ban is probably easier from a legal standpoint because it avoids the first amendment religion issues that held up the limited bans.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 26, 2017 12:48 PM  

The thing Trump won't admit is that it's a "Muslim ban".

https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/673993417429524480?

Blogger Matt June 26, 2017 12:48 PM  

Leta add Saudi Arabia and Israel to the list

Blogger KJE June 26, 2017 12:53 PM  

Still not tired.

Anonymous Just another commenter June 26, 2017 12:55 PM  

Any more lefty head-'spoldyness and it'll start looking like a Scanners remake.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 26, 2017 12:56 PM  


Leta add Saudi Arabia and Israel to the list


Along with
Egypt
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Qatar
Chechnya

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 1:01 PM  

Tragic that policies like these have to be justified on the grounds of safety and even then are controversial.

Blogger Dangeresque June 26, 2017 1:07 PM  

Fifth column on SUICIDE WATCH.

Blogger Nick S June 26, 2017 1:14 PM  

@14 That would make a great headline.

Blogger seeingsights June 26, 2017 1:18 PM  

I do not hope for another 9-11 style event, but if it does happen, Trump should do what Bush should have done: institute a universal travel ban. That would shut down immigration at one stroke.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2017 1:19 PM  

> Don't overlook the religious SCOTUS case this morning with the Missouruh DNR trying to deny free playground rubber safety chips to a church's preschool.

Fox is saying they decided in favor of the school.

Blogger YIH June 26, 2017 1:20 PM  

The Japanese have the right idea:
Japan Shut Down Radical Islam Entirely… And Here’s the Simple Way They Did It
When was the last time you heard of an act of terrorism in Japan? Over 20 years ago wasn't it?

Anonymous Looking Glass June 26, 2017 1:24 PM  

@1 Ransom Smith

Breaker: 9th Circuit Court rules SCOTUS is Unconstitutional. :)


@18 YIH

What's scarier about Aum is they might have set off something close to a nuclear-class weapon in the Australian desert in 1994. That isn't a joke. The Japanese do everything quite seriously.

Also, Japanese internal security was massively improved to prevent a repeat of the situation. Aum also murdered several people to cover up their activities, so the Japanese have taken an extremely dim view of them as a result.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 26, 2017 1:28 PM  

Matt wrote:Leta add Saudi Arabia and Israel to the list

NATO wasn't built in a day. But I like where your head's at.

Anonymous patrick kelly June 26, 2017 1:33 PM  

Starbuck wrote:Next step: full immigration ban and deportations to the travel-ban countries. VD

While I know legally it's possible. Could this really happen? I know it needs to happen, but do you seriously believe Trump could or would that?



I wondered if this was the long term game plan. Get the rulings rejecting it based on the discriminating limitations and exceptions and then go nuclear with a complete travel and immigration moratorium.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr June 26, 2017 1:49 PM  

Frankly, I'd like to see Trump push for an immigration reform act...the centerpiece of which being a limit to less than 100K legal immigrants per year, with no more than 10K from any one country. Plus skill-based screening.

Anonymous Panzer Man June 26, 2017 1:50 PM  

Nice. I don't want to get too excited, having had a couple of real downers in the first part of the year from being excessively hopeful, but this finally something mildly positive. Thumbs up!

Blogger Johnny June 26, 2017 1:50 PM  

This is not so much a victory as avoiding a loss. The Constitution gives the president close to exclusive ability to administer foreign policy. Way over the top judicial overreach avoided. The founders, unfortunately, made the judiciary a little too strong.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 26, 2017 1:53 PM  

but this finally something mildly positive

This is not so much a victory as avoiding a loss


Defeatists.

Blogger JohnR219 June 26, 2017 2:00 PM  

The Supreme Court kicked the can down the road....the ban lasts 90 days...It will expire before they hear the case....

Anonymous DissidentRight June 26, 2017 2:09 PM  

Unanimous decision? What does that mean for Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor? Does this mean they are actually limiting their judicial activism, or is it just a strategic retreat (for reasons that could include 'avoiding self-embarrassment')?

I skimmed the text of the ruling and apparently Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were in dissent because they wanted to they a full stay on the preliminary injunctions, rather than a partial stay.

Blogger Matamoros June 26, 2017 2:11 PM  

Off topic: Transformers are Jewish says Jewish Daily Forward -

https://www.dailystormer.com/jews-admit-that-the-transformers-are-jewish/

Anonymous Kentucky Headhunter June 26, 2017 2:11 PM  

Frankly, I'd like to see Trump push for an immigration reform act...the centerpiece of which being a limit to less than 100K legal immigrants per year, with no more than 10K from any one country. Plus skill-based screening.

Zero is the number.

Anonymous Phantasmic June 26, 2017 2:13 PM  

@8

Yeah that was back 2015. The actual EO is something completely different from a proposal in a Tweet. The admin has, to my knowledge, always referred to the order as a travel ban and never as a Muslim ban because "Muslim ban" complicates the legal case for it.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2017 2:18 PM  

Unanimous decision? What does that mean for Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor? Does this mean they are actually limiting their judicial activism, or is it just a strategic retreat (for reasons that could include 'avoiding self-embarrassment')?

Probably mostly the latter. Everyone knew the Ninth pulled their ruling entirely out of their ass, and that it was going to be overturned, even pre-Gorsuch, which this vote confirms. No point in embarrassing themselves in a losing cause.

Blogger roughcoat June 26, 2017 2:22 PM  

Kentucky Headhunter wrote:Frankly, I'd like to see Trump push for an immigration reform act...the centerpiece of which being a limit to less than 100K legal immigrants per year, with no more than 10K from any one country. Plus skill-based screening.

Zero is the number.


Agreed.

Kill the work visa programs, and foreign students can fuck off back to their own countries as well. Tough titties for any school or business that can't survive the transition. Adapt or die.

Blogger The Remnant June 26, 2017 2:23 PM  

#13 - Bobby Farr wrote:Tragic that policies like these have to be justified on the grounds of safety and even then are controversial.

Precisely. The fact that a mild immigration restriction like this must be justified on the grounds of physical safety rather than national identity illustrates how fixated America has become on its body instead of its soul.

Blogger Antony June 26, 2017 2:24 PM  

OT - Kubrick on establishment paedophiles ; http://yournewswire.com/nicole-kidman-kubrick-pedophiles/

Anonymous BBGKB June 26, 2017 2:31 PM  

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,"

That must have burned Ginsberg to not make a scene. I was thinking that if TRUMP pushed an EO that hate crimes laws couldn't be used against those who harm child rapists, the lefts shilling over it would convert the normies. In the UK girls raped by 3rd world moslems have been given harsher sentences for "hate crimes" than their rapists.

OT-Next up for the Supremes forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes.
http://www.towleroad.com/2017/06/jack-phillips-2/

Blogger Ken Prescott June 26, 2017 2:39 PM  

There's also their homegrown lefties, usually they try homebrew mortar fire on US bases. But their mortar rounds usually fail to detonate.

Blogger tz June 26, 2017 2:42 PM  

What brand of pillow was Scalia found not breathing under?
Can we send some to Ginsberg.
And things come in threes, and we've only had two Kennedy assassinations.
Judge Pryor from TX, and Roy Moore from AL...

Meanwhile under the Russian tie weather radar, Trump is thoroughly packing the courts with originalists and conservatives.

Not tired of winning.

This is what really annoys me about the impatient, why hasn't Trump done X yet? He has done more than any president to move things rightward during the same early period than any president in the last century (and probably longer as I've not gone through history and adjusted for slower transport and communications - the lame duck period was much longer in years past).

Trump is a builder and buildings require time and patience, first to demolish the existing stuff and second to carefully build a structure that will last through the ages. My guess is his buildings would take a few years, and his presidency is following the pattern.

While it is early, Trump is competitive with George Washington (who had to defeat the red-coats), but perhaps Melania is better than Dolly Madison or any other first lady.

Back to building, Trump knows a lot, but not everything so he chooses the right people to accomplish the goals. My only worry is the Military who doesn't seem to know how to do 4GW (Make William Sturgis Lind the secdef!).

He is also a master of media and PR judo. The Embassy isn't moving to Jerusalem (yet?), but he went to the Wailing wall in a yarmulke. The reverse of the cucks that talk big and do nothing. Trump signals big leftward (even the Syrian airbase strike that concerned me) but implements rightward.

And the Left is helping by melting down. I can't do just one analogy, but like the wicked witch of the west when wet, Sauron once the ring dropped into the lava, and various other descents into insanity. The recent CNN episode shows they can't help themselves from publishing obvious very #FakeNews when it sounds juicy enough. I remember in my lifetime rare retractions and usually over some smaller point or bigger problem (Rolling Stone's Jackie), but now it is weekly or monthly the NYT, WaPo, or CNN has to completely retract something major rather quickly.

And the Democrats have forgotten nothing and learned nothing, and even the pigs at the trough are getting worried that they are becoming irrelevant but can't do anything as the convergence is past the point of no return. The only conflict I see is between LGBTQ+ and Muslims and the (secular 70% pro Clinton) Jews who can't coexist, so who is going to be thrown under the bus, so it is providing for a spectator sport.

The most serious aspect is the violence that will further split the country. Punch a Nazi v.s. Punch a Commie.

Blogger Jew613 June 26, 2017 2:45 PM  

I believe SCOTUS wants to avoid His Majesty going Andrew Jackson on the courts so will rein in the crazier lower courts for now.

Anonymous BluePony June 26, 2017 2:56 PM  

"NATO wasn't built in a day."

Can we dismantle it in a day?

"Zero is the number."

Well, NATO wasn't built in a day.

Anonymous JAG June 26, 2017 2:59 PM  

Kentucky Headhunter wrote:Frankly, I'd like to see Trump push for an immigration reform act...the centerpiece of which being a limit to less than 100K legal immigrants per year, with no more than 10K from any one country. Plus skill-based screening.

Zero is the number.


Yep. We are too full now as it is. We need a net decrease in population via having to go back.

Blogger Desdichado June 26, 2017 3:01 PM  

Kentucky Headhunter wrote:Frankly, I'd like to see Trump push for an immigration reform act...the centerpiece of which being a limit to less than 100K legal immigrants per year, with no more than 10K from any one country. Plus skill-based screening.

Zero is the number.

No, it's millions negative.

Blogger joc June 26, 2017 3:08 PM  

"Next step: full immigration ban and deportations to the travel-ban countries." Also need to end the 'anchor baby' BS. Just because you dropped your load in this country shouldn't make your crumb cruncher a citizen.

Blogger Johnny June 26, 2017 3:10 PM  

Jew613 wrote:I believe SCOTUS wants to avoid His Majesty going Andrew Jackson on the courts so will rein in the crazier lower courts for now.

Could be. I suspect we are really close to that already. Let's say a big terrorist hit by somebody that Trump could not keep out because of the courts.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 26, 2017 3:14 PM  

Let the respections begin!

Blogger Timmy3 June 26, 2017 3:22 PM  

The travel ban was a partial victory. There's no back down on people who supposedly have a relationship in the US. Thus, Trump must not back down on developing tougher vetting procedures. Or he should insist on an exception to the order on national security concerns, on an individual basis of course.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 26, 2017 3:29 PM  

@6 "Why do I keep seeing this statement as though it's some gotcha kill shot that Trump admits it is what it is. The thing Trump won't admit is that it's a "Muslim ban"."


You say that as if it's a bad thing

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr June 26, 2017 3:45 PM  

@40: I think we can get to negative by expulsion of illegal aliens and legal immigrants who have become a burden on the public purse.

Blogger VFM #7634 June 26, 2017 3:46 PM  

Meanwhile, the refugee racket agencies are arguing that their clients have a "bona fide" relationship with them, and therefore should continue to be allowed in.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2017 3:58 PM  

Meanwhile, the refugee racket agencies are arguing that their clients have a "bona fide" relationship with them

Good. Let everyone see exactly where they stand -- with the terrorists.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 26, 2017 4:25 PM  

@46 Dirk Manly

"You say that as if it's a bad thing."

This is one of the best uses of Encyclopedia Dramatica that I've seen.

Blogger D. Bay June 26, 2017 4:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Elder Son June 26, 2017 4:44 PM  

The good news? We all can still enjoy the influx of all those other magic indispensable migrants and make Americans out of them!

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 26, 2017 5:11 PM  

Related to our discussion from yesterday about posterity referring only to the Founders' descendants - here's a view from the left:

First of all, it is critical to understand that the appeal to abortions being “Constitutional” reinforces white supremacy. There is no way around it. The Constitution was drafted and signed by white men, for white men. Slavery was Constitutional. The “right” to terrorize citizens through the bearing of arms is Constitutional. So-called “due process,” in which white juries condone the murder of innocent black men (sic), is a Constitutional process. Being Constitutional does not make something progressive or innately valuable. In fact, Constitutionality is often synonymous with “exclusively beneficial to the white race.”

They hate civilization because not all can benefit from it. They hate the Constitution because it was written to help whites build and maintain civilization.

https://medusamagazine.com/beyond-pro-choice-the-solution-to-white-supremacy-is-white-abortion

Anonymous waynecolvin June 26, 2017 5:55 PM  

But I thought the original EO only had 7 out of 8 countries with a Muslim majority.

Blogger Johnny Philosopher June 26, 2017 6:29 PM  

The tide is turning. I am not tired of winning yet.

Blogger Silly but True June 26, 2017 6:38 PM  

I certainly look forward to the Wallstreet Journal editorial by Sally Yates about how SCOTUS doesn't understand immigration law or the Constitution.

Anonymous andon June 26, 2017 9:41 PM  

@ #53 - on other websites there is speculation that "Medusa Magazine" is some kind of joke put out by the right. they say its too absurd

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 26, 2017 9:57 PM  

@56  That's projection.  It's obvious that judges on the left don't understand the Constitution, especially the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the commerce clause.

Blogger red clock June 26, 2017 11:05 PM  

Personally, I'd prefer immigration controls or permanent bans on some specific third world nations rather than travel bans. Travel all you want, you just can't stay for long.

They will hear the case in October, but if Trump reinstates the ban now, it will be done by October. The ruling then will only be relevant for the future.

There are four key actions I am looking for Trump to carry out:
1. Build the wall.
2. Get Congress to pass Tom Cotton's RAISE Act (this is a moratorium on legal immigration to lift up wages. Look it up.)
3. Speed up illegal-immigrant deportations.
4. Pass strict federal Voter ID laws to stop Democrat-fraud.

So far, he hasn't done any of this. How long do we have?

Anonymous waynecolvin June 26, 2017 11:57 PM  

Your article blames "political correctness", instead of perverse law or corupt judges or even the very real SJW schemes and witchhunts.

Blogger Thucydides June 27, 2017 12:24 AM  

@59
President Trump may have been handed an Ace by the very same disloyal bunch who have been trying to disrupt his presidency, the imaginary Russian election hacking.

If he were to come out and say "we need to institute voter ID, clean the voter rolls and eliminate avenues of fraud like mail in ballots in order to prevent the Russians or anyone else from trying to hack elections" the Dems would fall on their faces, since they would be forced to support dismantling the voter fraud operation they have built up over the past several decades. Because "Russians".

Anonymous I didn't make your quote up June 27, 2017 2:49 AM  

Also, last time I checked, the Preamble is not legally binding in any fashion.

It's more important than the law. It provides the basis for the law and either legitimates or renders it illegitimate.


Let's talk about how the Preamble is more important than the law as it pertains to the rights of the Executive branch.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 27, 2017 3:31 AM  

The Preamble is the logical foundation of the entire thing, so of course it is admissable in arguments.

To say otherwise is to deny the entire logical and ideological basis of our system of government.

Just like the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment makes it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the 2nd Amendment is about fighting people, not hunting for dinner in the woods.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 27, 2017 3:33 AM  

Scalia's opinion in Heller v D.C. makes it quite clear that the "preamble" component of the 2nd Amendment makes it entirely clear that government restricting the right to keep and bear arms "because you might shoot someone" is directly contradictory to the entire purpose of the Amendment, because the purpose of the Amendment is so that you have the means to shoot somoene if the need arises.

Anonymous Grrr man stuff June 27, 2017 3:37 AM  

Dirk Manly wrote:Scalia's opinion in Heller v D.C. makes it quite clear that the "preamble" component of the 2nd Amendment makes it entirely clear that government restricting the right to keep and bear arms "because you might shoot someone" is directly contradictory to the entire purpose of the Amendment, because the purpose of the Amendment is so that you have the means to shoot somoene if the need arises.

I accept all of your premises because your Internet name is "Dirk Manly."

That's 100% alpha, right guys?

Blogger Dirk Manly June 27, 2017 4:40 AM  

Read the Heller decision.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Anonymous JAG June 27, 2017 4:47 AM  

The 2nd Amendment is for three primary purposes.

The first is the basic human right of survival. You might have to kill to avoid your own death.

The second is in case the land is invaded by a foreign army that our own military is unable to stop. This is the militia part. Hirohito understood this concept.

The third, and perhaps most important of all, is to give one last check and balance on the government. If the government becomes too evil then the people have the means to rise up, and overthrow it.

The third part is understood by the globalist elite. They wish to govern in a way that they know they would deserve to be killed for, thus the constant push to take away the 2nd Amendment.

The surest way to know if a given government is evil is to examine its policy towards armed citizens.

Anonymous JAG June 27, 2017 4:53 AM  

Thucydides wrote:@59

President Trump may have been handed an Ace by the very same disloyal bunch who have been trying to disrupt his presidency, the imaginary Russian election hacking.

If he were to come out and say "we need to institute voter ID, clean the voter rolls and eliminate avenues of fraud like mail in ballots in order to prevent the Russians or anyone else from trying to hack elections" the Dems would fall on their faces, since they would be forced to support dismantling the voter fraud operation they have built up over the past several decades. Because "Russians".


You underestimate the left. They would simply practice Doublethink, as they so often do. They would maintain there is no voter fraud while simultaneously screaming about Russian hacking of elections without the slightest hint of personal embarrassment.

Anonymous Pennywise June 27, 2017 7:53 AM  

The court only *temporarily* lifted *some* of the legal roadblocks correctly put in place by lower courts on the president’s Muslim ban. Who could “hail” such paltry gains?

Blogger James Dixon June 27, 2017 9:54 AM  

> Who could “hail” such paltry gains?

Anyone with any sense. Yes, we know that lets you out.

Anonymous Pennywise June 27, 2017 12:53 PM  

I have enough sense to call it for what it is...paltry gains. If you want to label it differently, be my guest.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd June 28, 2017 11:41 AM  

red clock wrote:So far, he hasn't done any of this. How long do we have?

Back in November, we gave Trump four years. He's not moving at the pace I'd like, but we hired him to do the job, we gave him four years to do it, and it's a little early yet to say he's not going to get it done on time.

If you wanted it done on your schedule, you should have gotten elected President.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts