Supreme Court agrees to hear travel/refugee ban cases!

Just in: Good news (for all but the PC crowd and terrorists, that is)! The Supreme Court has accepted for review the Trump travel ban and refugee cases. Since the administration as yet to win a significant victory, all the Court would have had to do to affirm the lower courts' blocking of the ban was to simply decline to hear it. This leads to the possibility that the Court might have a mind to allow the ban and overturn the lower court rulings, though that is not a certainty.

Unfortunately, the case will not be heard until the next Court term beginning in October. However, that could be a plus if Justice Kennedy retires as rumored (again, no certainty). Then President Trump can name another solidly conservative justice who will arrive in time to partake! Let’s cross our fingers that these hopeful signs bear fruit later this year and President Trump is enabled to protect us from possible terrorist infiltration as he is so sworn!

P.S. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented on a gay marriage rights case that indicates he will be a trusted conservative voice on the Court for years to come; a justice who will actually interpret the law as written and not as what liberals want it to say!

.

Get a blog.

A maiori ad minus?

Yeah, no idea how you think that applies here.

Update: From CNN: "The court is allowing the ban to go into effect for foreign nationals who lack any 'bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.' The court, in an unsigned opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States, which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases."

Lookin' good! Half a loaf...for now!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politi....html?adkey=bn

Fear Fear!

Figuratively: "He who can do more can do less" Isn't that what you were suggesting?

Er, no. It's not wrong, but it's entirely orthogonal to what I'm saying. Blogging is not more or less, it's simply a different medium (and a more appropriate one, given your disinterest in discussion). And it wasn't a suggestion that you could (which is obvious), but that you should (which is obvious to everyone but you).

For those wondering what the Supreme Court allowing the ban for those with no bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States means, it is a firm reiteration of the principle that aliens not in this country have no rights under the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the remainder of the case, to be decided next term, will hinge on the standing issue. Does an American citizen (or legal resident) or an American institution (such as a college or company) have the right to have an alien related to or associated with them admitted into the country even though the alien himself or herself has no such right? We shall see how it comes down, I personally believe it will hinge upon whether Justice Kennedy retires in the interim as rumored and, if so, the president making another wise pick as Kennedy’s replacement. (Justice Kennedy, though certainly a whole lot better than the four liberals on the Court, has too deep a libertarian strain within him for my or other true conservatives' tastes.)

The pragmatic impact of this partial ruling thus far seems unclear to me. Is Homeland Security supposed to detain every alien who enters this country from the banned countries pending an investigation as to whether he or she has such a bona fide relationship? This seems vastly impractical to me. My guess is that no action will be taken until the full case is decided; though with President Trump, such is problematic.