SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the probably-gonna-be-some-unforseen-side-effects dept.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40409490
The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban.
The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
"All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."
Mark this down as a win for Donald Trump. The path to entry into the US for immigrants and refugees from the affected nations, if they don't have existing ties to the US - either through family, schools or employment - just became considerably harder.
The decision marks a reaffirmation of the sweeping powers the president has traditionally been granted by the courts in areas of national security. There was fear in some quarters that the administration's ham-fisted implementation of its immigration policy could do lasting damage to the president's prerogatives. That appears not to be the case.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:23PM (1 child)
A jury decides fact; a judge decides law.
That is how case law is made.
You may be confused by the fact that certain minor criminal-code offenses (including those that could lead to a revocation of your license) are explicitly forbidden a trial by jury; this is strictly a matter of efficiency. However, a lawsuit in which the facts are disputed (is this a credible claim or a bona fide relationship?) is necessarily afforded a trial by jury at the expense of the litigants.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 27 2017, @05:52PM
Come again?
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision." -- First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay
My rights don't end where your fear begins.