Trump lawyers make final Supreme Court pitch on travel ban

[webfact]

Trump lawyers make final Supreme Court pitch on travel ban

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO - A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, DC, U.S. on October 13, 2015. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Wednesday made its final plea to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow its proposed ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect as the justices weigh how to handle the hotly contested dispute.

 

The court papers filed by President Donald Trump's administration complete the briefing on the government's emergency application asking the justices to block lower court injunctions in favour of challengers to the ban. The Supreme Court could now act at any time.

 

The lower court rulings blocked the 90-day ban on travellers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to give the government time to implement stronger vetting procedures.

 

In the court papers, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said the lower courts had wrongly second-guessed the president on national security policy when reviewing the March 6 executive order.

 

"The president expressly determined that the order’s provisions are needed to promote national security, but the lower courts here ... nullified that judgement," he wrote.

 

In court papers filed on Tuesday, lawyers for the state of Hawaii and individual plaintiffs in Maryland urged the high court not to allow the ban go into effect.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-22

[darksidedog]

And with their verdict we will find out if there is any decency, integrity and morality left in America.

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, darksidedog said:

And with their verdict we will find out if there is any decency, integrity and morality left in America.

Well with the election and continued support for Trump by Congress and Senate Republicans, you know the answer to your question already. 

[Traveler19491]

 

 

Interesting that they still feel this is needed. We were told by the "almighty" orange one that both versions of the Muslim travel ban were needed to give this so-called administration time to revamp immigration procedures. It's been over 90 days, so why do they still need the Muslim ban. Oh, and there have been no terrorist attacks by Muslim immigrants in the U. S. during that time, something that the so-called administration intimated was "imminent" and why the ban was so vital. So, why do they still need the ban? Have they done nothing during the 90 days they said they needed? (Sorry, rhetorical question.)

 

One more item...to all of the trumpettes who will want to jump all over this post screaming about how this was NOT a Muslim ban. Trump's "tweet storm" railing against the DoJ for coming up with a watered-down, "politically correct" ban (Trump's words) did more to harm his position than any arguments offered to the courts by his opposition to date. He threw the Solicitor General under the bus, stating in essence that his ban was, in fact, religiously based, I suspect Kennedy will take note. Here's an interesting summary of the damage done by the orange one to his own EO:

"So, here is the president’s commentary on this lawyer’s solemn assurances to the court: (1) the lawyers lied: it is a “travel ban”; (2) it’s not the president’s personal considered judgment at all, it was written—badly—by wimpy Justice Department lawyers; (3) despite what the lawyers said, it is in fact a “watered-down” version of the explicitly religious ban; (4) if the government gets approval of the “watered-down” version it will push for something stronger; (5) never mind the brief’s “political correctness,” we know what the ban really is about; and (6) the Supreme Court had damned well better get out of my way or I will—as I did with the courts below—attack its very legitimacy." (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trumps-tweets-may-have-sunk-his-travel-ban/529167/)

 

Trump...his own worst enemy.

[iReason]

14 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

We were told by the "almighty" orange one that both versions of the Muslim travel ban were needed to give this so-called administration time to revamp immigration procedures.

 

Trump...his own worst enemy.

Yeah, he be 'vamping:

 

Trumps suggests creating law that has been enacted since 1996

 

"President Trump in a rally on Wednesday evening said immigrants who enter the United States should not be eligible for welfare benefits for five years, though such a law has already existed for 20 years."

 

“The time has come for new immigration rules which say that those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa at the U.S. Cellular Center."

 

"The president said his administration would be “putting in legislation to that effect very shortly.” 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/338901-trumps-suggests-creating-law-that-has-been-enacted-since-1996

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by iReason

[Scott]

Well before 1996 it was very difficult to get welfare benefits if you were an immigrant.   It was also difficult for natural born citizens.   If you didn't have a permanent address, you were not considered a resident of a county and thus were not eligible for benefits, since welfare benefits were administered by the county (with the county paying a small portion).   Even the children of homeless people couldn't attend school because they were not a resident of the district.  

 

[Scott]

It should also be noted that anyone who is even applying for a tourist visa must show sufficient funds for their time in the US.   They also have to overcome the presumption that they will not remain in the US.

 

For immigrants, they have to overcome the presumption that they will become a public charge, that means that the sponsoring relative/spouse has to have sufficient funds to support the immigrant.  

 

Most people who have tried to bring a spouse to the US will know the rules on this.  

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, darksidedog said:

And with their verdict we will find out if there is any decency, integrity and morality left in America.

America's current situation is not unredeemable.  First you have to remove the cancer (Donald Trump) and then drain the swamp that he has filled.  Then start again with someone who has integrity, who is decent and has morals.  Now I do understand that these things are not easily achieved but for the sake of country it really needs to happen.

[fabphil]

Go Trumpy......