Unanimous 9-0 SCOTUS agrees with Trump travel ban, yet there are still some foot-dragging as to meritorious details

Thomas calls it a compromise, but does describe it as unanimous.

He thinks it is dubious that the litigation of "credible claims" will be booted back to exactly the courts (4th + 9th) who just had their opinions overturned unanimously.

Quadruped wrote:

So SCOTUS inter alia found that the stay applicant (Trump) made a strong showing and is "likely to succeed", and there is no substantial injury to parties who have no bona fide link to USA, while there will be irreparable injury against the public interest if Trump's EO is stalled.

The SCOTUS DID NOT opine,

- made a strong showing and is "likely to succeed"

nor

- there will be irreparable injury against the public interest

Wrong. Trump's comments relate to an allegedly discriminatory practice based on national/religious classifications. This is an entirely different constitutional ballgame then economic regulations.

This is actually a much more interesting constitutional issue then it's being made out to be, but partisan hysterics are much more fun, aren't they?

Go argue with Justice Thomas about that.

So Thomas says the Court made an "implicit conclusion" as to the former, and references the per curiam on the latter.

Con Law 101 wrote:

Wrong. Trump's comments relate to an allegedly discriminatory practice based on national/religious classifications. This is an entirely different constitutional ballgame then economic regulations.

This is actually a much more interesting constitutional issue then it's being made out to be, but partisan hysterics are much more fun, aren't they?

The law is actually very clear. The President can keep any group of people out of the country for any reason he wants. If he wants to keep out all Muslims, he can, so his campaign comments should not have changed anything even if we include them in the ruling. As it turns out, the ruling was based on nationality so religion had nothing to do with it.

If we are going to include all public commentary made by politicians when making court rulings, then Democrats are going to have a very hard time defending anything because they do a lot of trash talking.

This ruling was basically a single judge overturning the results of an election. It's banana republic stuff, and these judges are burning their credibility in the process. If they keep it up then society will have no choice but to reduce their power so that we are not ruled by a single district judge somewhere every time one of them doesn't like the election results.

Only Trump believes it was 9-0 wrote:

Maybe the others (like Ginsburg) are waiting for the main case to proceed, and will write their opinions then. No need to show your hand at this stage.

More likely, the smugs like Ginsburg know that their friends at Fourth/Ninth will ensure that the travel "ban" in practice remains impeded, via onerous litigation techniques as Thomas suggested in his opinion.

Reader of SCOTUSery wrote:

No such things ^5 wrote:

The SCOTUS DID NOT opine,

- there will be irreparable injury against the public interest

CLARENCE THOMAS

The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” Ante, at 13.

PER CURIAM

To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.

Thomas himself inserts the word "irreparable" in this, while the per curiam only said "appreciably injure".

Moreover, "its interests" here is that of the government (or Government, as they call it), not of the public.

Reader of SCOTUSery wrote:

No such things ^5 wrote:

The SCOTUS DID NOT opine,

- made a strong showing and is "likely to succeed"

nor

- there will be irreparable injury against the public interest

Go argue with Justice Thomas about that.

A partisan Republican, oh my.

Con Law 101 wrote:

Wrong. Trump's comments relate to an allegedly discriminatory practice based on national/religious classifications. This is an entirely different constitutional ballgame then economic regulations.

Remind me again why the EPA is making economic regulations (as you term them)?

Aren't they supposed to make environmental regulations?

Justice wheels grinding slow wrote:

Only Trump believes it was 9-0 wrote:

Maybe the others (like Ginsburg) are waiting for the main case to proceed, and will write their opinions then. No need to show your hand at this stage.

More likely, the smugs like Ginsburg know that their friends at Fourth/Ninth will ensure that the travel "ban" in practice remains impeded, via onerous litigation techniques as Thomas suggested in his opinion.

Onerus, like the way Gorsuch "won" his appointment?

They agreed to take the case is pretty much what happened...

No such things ^5 wrote:

A partisan Republican, oh my.

Unable to make intelligent arguments, libs retreat to their bread & butter, party labels and cantankering.

The right move for Trump would have been to change the order to stop ALL immigration. That order would be clearly within his discretion, and would be clearly Constitutional. THAT would have created a yuge uproar, and he could have pointed to the activist judge and said "Take it up with that crazy judge and the Supreme Court, but I'm going to protect the country, and until they let me do it the right way I will do it the only way I can."

That would have put the pressure on the right people, and forced the country to deal with out of control judicial activism.

Only took a few posts wrote:

No such things ^5 wrote:

A partisan Republican, oh my.

Unable to make intelligent arguments, libs retreat to their bread & butter, party labels and cantankering.

0/10.

Thomas added a few words to what the SCOTUS actually released. He revealed he has already decided how he will vote on the case before it has been taken up. He is a Republican partisan, and he made that very clear.

onerus Gorsuch wrote:

Onerus, like the way Gorsuch "won" his appointment?

What is onerous about Article II, Section 2, part 2 of the US Constitution, and the (currently controlling) Judiciary Act of 1869?

Knower of US law wrote:

onerus Gorsuch wrote:

Onerus, like the way Gorsuch "won" his appointment?

What is onerous about Article II, Section 2, part 2 of the US Constitution, and the (currently controlling) Judiciary Act of 1869?

That was Obama.

Legal beagle wrote:

"its interests" here is that of the government (or Government, as they call it), not of the public.

According to Dems, government = public (at least when Obama was in control).

We all belong! wrote:

Legal beagle wrote:

"its interests" here is that of the government (or Government, as they call it), not of the public.

According to Dems, government = public (at least when Obama was in control).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw

You seem to be clueless that Republican in government exempt themselves from what they impose on the public. Your healthcare will be shot, they will have full coverage paid for by the public.

Usa usa wrote:

So based on the courts comments, you believe they disagree with Trump's constitutional right to exercise his judgment and restrict travel from dangerous unlawful parts of the world?

In the Constituiton, "power" is used to describe what the government can do, and "right" is used to describe what the government can't do. As in, "All legislative powers herein granted..." or "The executive power shall be vested..."

If you want to re-write the constitution, and talk about the constitutional rights of the President, go ahead. But you might want to explain why words that were good enough for the Founders aren't good enough for you.