SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"The Supreme Court announced Friday it will take up the case against the latest version of President Trump's travel ban, which bars entry in to the United States for residents of six majority-Muslim countries.
The court will hear arguments in April and is expected to issue a ruling by June." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/19/supreme-court-announces-it-will-rule-on-trumps-travel-ban.html
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Supreme Court Will Rule on President Trump's Muslim Travel Ban
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 61 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:51AM (5 children)
...is the fact that these challenges can be made at all. It is apparently within the powers of the executive to control immigration law. These challenges are only based on supposed "religiuos discrimination" against muslims. This is pretty clearly nonsense, as there are plenty of muslim-majority countries not on the list.
Debate his choices of countries, sure. Personally, I think it is past time for Saudia Arabia to be shunned by the West. But claiming religious discrimination? That's just to attract attention? They can't actually be serious, surely?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:28AM
If criticising Israel counts as anti-semitism, then criticising Saudi, or any other nominally Muslim state, must be islamophobia.
Except if it's done in the name of Israel.
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Wednesday January 24 2018, @01:56PM (1 child)
Of course they can make the challenge... but the Supreme Court can also decide there's nothing to be done about it (by them, at least).
I'm not happy about the ban but I don't think this is the best way to fight it, personally.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:15PM
If the ban is unconstitutional, then this is one of the best ways to fight it and apparently the case has enough merit to get this far. If the ban is constitutional, then it is best that everyone knows what the expanse of these powers is.
I haven't really been following the issue but, in general, I'm in favor of limiting the powers of the executive branch especially whenever they use terrorism as an excuse.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:27PM (1 child)
There are 2 ways to prove religious discrimination by the government in court: You can either prove that the effect of a policy is discriminatory, or you can prove that the intent of the policy is discriminatory. For instance, if you have a policy that says "Police should investigate all religious groups for signs that they are dangerous cults", and then only investigate synagogues, that's a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Or, if a politician is on the record saying something like "We should get rid of all those Papists in town", and then passes laws that don't mention any religion by name but cause problems for the Catholic Church, that's also a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
In this case, members of the Trump administration have said and Tweeted publicly that make it pretty clear that the purpose of the policy is to discriminate against Muslims who live in the Middle East and Africa. That's why the case can go forward.
What I expect to happen is the same thing that happened the last time this got in front of SCOTUS: Right before the ruling is going to come out, they'll end the policy officially, then immediately create a new somewhat different version of the policy, and SCOTUS will say the lawsuit was over the former version of the policy and declare the whole thing moot.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:49PM
...or you can prove that the intent of the policy is discriminatory.
And when the president specifically says he wants to ban Muslims intent is pretty easy to prove.