- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Today travel ban Appeals hearing will take us to the SCOTUS
Posted on 3/26/17 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 3/26/17 at 6:07 pm
And because we have an infestation leading the Sen, Trump's nominee may not be confirmed.
What will be the backlash from the population if we see that happen?
What will be the backlash from the population if we see that happen?
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 10:22 am
3
Posted on 3/26/17 at 6:14 pm to Jjdoc
Who? What? What?
WTF
WTF
Posted on 3/26/17 at 6:20 pm to the LSUSaint
4th circuit will hear the appeal on the travel ban.
If the President wins, the left will seek the SCOTUS.
If the left wins, Trump goes to the SCOTUS
If the President wins, the left will seek the SCOTUS.
If the left wins, Trump goes to the SCOTUS
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:24 am to the LSUSaint
He is saying the Dems will stall out Gorsuch nomination in the event that the travel ban reaches the SC
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:27 am to deltaland
Even if they stall, Trump will win at SCOTUS. Kagan, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts would all side with the Federal government over the states
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:32 am to Jjdoc
If the original travel ban had gone into effect, there would only be one month left. By the time this goes to the SC, the administration will have had 3 months to come up with better vetting/immigration procedures. What is the point of pursuing this further? Maybe precedent, because it's certainly not national security any more.
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 8:33 am
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:35 am to Jjdoc
I think the hearing is in May man. I could be wrong though.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:55 am to Jjdoc
Doesn't matter. They have foreseen this and wrote the bill specifically to win unanimous in the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS will look at the written words of the ban AS IT IS WRITTEN. No other factors will be considered, like some stupid ducking far reaching play on words from speeches a year ago.
It's a slam dunk once in SCOTUS hands.
SCOTUS will look at the written words of the ban AS IT IS WRITTEN. No other factors will be considered, like some stupid ducking far reaching play on words from speeches a year ago.
It's a slam dunk once in SCOTUS hands.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 9:11 am to the LSUSaint
quote:I think the "religious" ban argument is an easy win for the Trump administration, but I'm curious about this provision added in the amended Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:
Doesn't matter. They have foreseen this and wrote the bill specifically to win unanimous in the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS will look at the written words of the ban AS IT IS WRITTEN. No other factors will be considered, like some stupid ducking far reaching play on words from speeches a year ago.
It's a slam dunk once in SCOTUS hands.
quote:There seems to be two competing issues within the same law at hand.
No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 10:15 am to buckeye_vol
How does nationality compete with place of residence? I do not see it.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 10:17 am to Bourre
Kagan ain't siding with Trump. Kennedy is dubious as well.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 10:20 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
I think the hearing is in May man. I could be wrong though.
It's today at 1:30pm
Posted on 3/27/17 at 10:33 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:They don't. I was pointing those out as possible points that could stand against the authority of the EO..
How does nationality compete with place of residence? I do not see it.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 10:41 am to Jjdoc
quote:
It's today at 1:30pm
Where are you seeing that? Everything I've seen says May 8th.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 11:03 am to kingbob
I don't think Kagan is as ideological as the other democrat appointed justices. She voted against Obama 51.5% of the time. She was the only democrat appointed justice to vote against Obama over 50% of the time. I think she is more reasonable than the other leftist who mostly vote based on ideology instead laws.
Supreme Court Justices’ Loyalty to the President
Supreme Court Justices’ Loyalty to the President
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 11:05 am
Posted on 3/27/17 at 12:36 pm to Bourre
True, but she was typically ruling against him for taking overbroad, executive action.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:43 pm to buckeye_vol
Oats not a ban in people who are nationals of that country. It's a ban of ANY people trying to travel here from the banned country.
Lets take Syria. A French guy cannot fly to the US from Syria. Not without going thru a country with strict vetting. Right?
So it's not blocking him because of his nationality, he's being block because he is flying from a country that has a travel ban on it for ANYONE travelling from there.
Lets take Syria. A French guy cannot fly to the US from Syria. Not without going thru a country with strict vetting. Right?
So it's not blocking him because of his nationality, he's being block because he is flying from a country that has a travel ban on it for ANYONE travelling from there.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:47 pm to the LSUSaint
quote:That may be a plausible winning argument; I'm just saying it's not as clear as your arguing.
Oats not a ban in people who are nationals of that country. It's a ban of ANY people trying to travel here from the banned country.
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:17 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
That may be a plausible winning argument; I'm just saying it's not as clear as your arguing.
They planned on this going to appeals and the SCOTUS. That's why the restarted it, actually, it's the only reason. They made it in language that would have to be read that way by SCOTUS,
There isn't language in it about nationality or religious affiliation. And on top of that, we have CLEAR law stating the preside t can do this when deemed necessary. They CANT shoot it down as long as the law is there. That would mean we could never ban a country, ever, under any conditions.
And once it wins, he'll add other countries.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:18 pm to the LSUSaint
quote:And a clear law that says he can't ban based on those specific categories, including place of residence.
There isn't language in it about nationality or religious affiliation. And on top of that, we have CLEAR law stating the preside t can do this when deemed necessary.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News