Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: SCOTUS backs Trump's travel ban 7-2

  1. #1
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,665

    Default SCOTUS backs Trump's travel ban 7-2

    I thought this worth discussing outside of the Trump thread as its surely its own subject and I'm absolutely shocked not just that the lower court injunctions have been lifted but that they were at a margin of 7-2. After so many years of controversial 5-4 or at most 6-3 decisions I'm amazed that the "liberal" wing only got 2 votes for keeping the injunction. What's happened and why?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42231806
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #2
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,244
    The vote is to allow the travel ban to take effect while it works its way through the courts. It doesn't rule on the constitutionality of the ban itself. Different legal standards.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,494
    Also, this is the third version. SCOTUS already allowed most of version 2 to go into effect while the legal challenges work through the system, and this one really just adds two countries (North Korea and Venezuela) to the list.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #4
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,665
    So if the precedent is that v2 was allowed to go ahead then why was v3 blocked in lower courts that surely should have been obliged to follow SCOTUS's v2 precedent?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #5
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,494
    I don't believe there is any concept of stare decisis when it comes to temporary injunctions. A temporary injunction is always considered directly on the merits, "precedent" has no role. There are standards for the federal courts to follow, but here the court disagreed on the merits.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I thought this worth discussing outside of the Trump thread as its surely its own subject and I'm absolutely shocked not just that the lower court injunctions have been lifted but that they were at a margin of 7-2. After so many years of controversial 5-4 or at most 6-3 decisions I'm amazed that the "liberal" wing only got 2 votes for keeping the injunction. What's happened and why?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42231806
    It wouldn't surprise me if the final vote goes 5-4 when it the case actually makes it to the SC for decision.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •