WOW US Supreme Court backs Trump on travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

Highlights

• The US Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries
• The 5-4 ruling ends a fierce fight in the courts over whether the policy represented an unlawful Muslim ban
• The ruling affirms that the current ban can remain in effect and that Trump could potentially add more countries

US President Donald Trump. (Reuters file photo)
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Tuesday handed Donald Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency, upholding his travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries.

The 5-4 ruling, with the court's five conservatives in the majority, ends for now a fierce fight in the courts over whether the policy represented an unlawful Muslim ban. Trump can now claim vindication after lower courts had blocked his travel ban announced in September, as well as two prior versions, in legal challenges brought by the state of Hawaii and others.

The court held that the challengers had failed to show that the ban violates either US immigration law or the US Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the government "has set forth a sufficient national security justification" to prevail.

"We express no view on the soundness of the policy," Roberts added.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1011620271327989760

The current ban, announced in September, prohibits entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The Supreme Court allowed it to go largely into effect in December while the legal challenge continued.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...lds-trump-travel-ban/articleshow/64751403.cms

 

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

Trump Calls for 'Total and Complete Shutdown Of Muslims Entering the U.S.'

 

[Dalit]

This is a good development. We need more and more hate flowing out of the US. Well done, Trump.

 

[Fledgingwings]

Despite of all the hatred towards this guy the world ignores a big fact that he has been elected as president by the americans so Courts also have to obey his supermacy in some way.

 

[Dalit]

Despite of all the hatred towards this guy the world ignores a big fact that he has been elected as president by the americans so Courts also have to obey his supermacy in some way.

No doubt. Trump is speaking the mind and will of many many Americans. So are the judges. The beauty of democracy.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Trump is making a JEW state in USA

a) Holding Mexican (Latino/Central American) children in jails
b) Banning Muslims from entering
c) Laws against Chinese immigrants
d) Laws against Russian investors

Treating humans like some sort of animal housing

At the end of day it is up to South American/Central Asian countries to clamp down on US action for abuse against their citizen

The whole system is reflection of racial superiority aspects and it's roots can be traced to what is happening in Israel

While at home there is a ban for travel but his own goods are providing Terrorist weapons in Syria and destroying homes for people and their business

 

[Asimzranger]

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

here is another gem:

MJ Rosenberg, Contributor
Worked on Capitol Hill for Democratic Senators and House members for 20 years
Democrats Join Republicans In Bill Criminalizing Speech Critical Of Israel
I cannot imagine any reason for this egregious offense against the First Amendment except to please AIPAC and their AIPAC associated donors.
07/27/2017 11:40 am ET Updated Jul 27, 2017

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...minalizing-speech_us_5978bc17e4b0c6616f7ce6d9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the topic of this thread, no surprises there!

this snippet is from a column published in 2012 discussing a certain decision, in this case, by the Federal Appellate Court.:
".. Many judges hate it when news reports note this sort of thing, saying it undermines public trust in the courts by painting them as political actors rather than how they like to see themselves — as disinterested guardians of neutral legal principles.

But there is a lot of evidence that the party of the president who appointed a judge is a significant guide to how that judge will vote on politically charged issues like affirmative action.

A book scheduled to be published in January by Harvard University Press provides the most comprehensive and detailed empirical analysis yet of the role played by ideology and political affiliation in judicial decision making. It is called “The Behavior of Federal Judges,” and it collects and analyzes a daunting amount of data."

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Despite of all the hatred towards this guy the world ignores a big fact that he has been elected as president by the americans so Courts also have to obey his supermacy in some way.

If that was the case this wouldn’t happen:

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-has-lost-supreme-court-more-any-modern-president

Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President

 

[Reichsmarschall]

here is another gem:

MJ Rosenberg, Contributor
Worked on Capitol Hill for Democratic Senators and House members for 20 years
Democrats Join Republicans In Bill Criminalizing Speech Critical Of Israel
I cannot imagine any reason for this egregious offense against the First Amendment except to please AIPAC and their AIPAC associated donors.
07/27/2017 11:40 am ET Updated Jul 27, 2017

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...minalizing-speech_us_5978bc17e4b0c6616f7ce6d9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the topic of this thread, no surprises there!

this snippet is from a column published in 2012 discussing a certain decision, in this case, by the Federal Appellate Court.:
".. Many judges hate it when news reports note this sort of thing, saying it undermines public trust in the courts by painting them as political actors rather than how they like to see themselves — as disinterested guardians of neutral legal principles.

But there is a lot of evidence that the party of the president who appointed a judge is a significant guide to how that judge will vote on politically charged issues like affirmative action.

A book scheduled to be published in January by Harvard University Press provides the most comprehensive and detailed empirical analysis yet of the role played by ideology and political affiliation in judicial decision making. It is called “The Behavior of Federal Judges,” and it collects and analyzes a daunting amount of data."

@Solomon2 is this the freedom you keep talking about?

 

[cloud4000]

People call it a Muslim ban when it is, in fact, a country ban. Trump just happen to choose Muslim countries. He could easily ban migrants from any country if he chose to do so. This is the point of the SCOTUS decision. They weren't deciding the merits of his policy, just the legality of it.

If this is truly a Muslim ban, as like to call it, then all migrants from Muslim countries would be banned, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, but he didn't. And it was truly a Muslim ban all Muslims, even from non-Muslim countries would be banned, but this hasn't happened. US doesn't even track a person's religion on any visa form or asylum application.

 

[Imran Khan]

tha tis good i hope he scrap B1 visa also . so educated people stay in home country are serve us

 

[Clutch]

People call it a Muslim ban when it is, in fact, a country ban. Trump just happen to choose Muslim countries. He could easily ban migrants from any country if he chose to do so. This is the point of the SCOTUS decision. They weren't deciding the merits of his policy, just the legality of it.

If this is truly a Muslim ban, as like to call it, then all migrants from Muslim countries would be banned, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, but he didn't. And it was truly a Muslim ban all Muslims, even from non-Muslim countries would be banned, but this hasn't happened. US doesn't even track a person's religion on any visa form or asylum application.

Good point

 

[third eye]

Despite of all the hatred towards this guy the world ignores a big fact that he has been elected as president by the americans so Courts also have to obey his supermacy in some way.

That’s a wrong assumption. At least 4 Judges dissented.

 

[Falcon29]

People call it a Muslim ban when it is, in fact, a country ban. Trump just happen to choose Muslim countries. He could easily ban migrants from any country if he chose to do so. This is the point of the SCOTUS decision. They weren't deciding the merits of his policy, just the legality of it.

If this is truly a Muslim ban, as like to call it, then all migrants from Muslim countries would be banned, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, but he didn't. And it was truly a Muslim ban all Muslims, even from non-Muslim countries would be banned, but this hasn't happened. US doesn't even track a person's religion on any visa form or asylum application.

Nah, it was initially intended to ban all Muslims singling them out for their religion until it got controversy and his advisers changed the narrative to make it security related pinpointing some specific nations.