Supreme court to consider appeal to allow Trump's travel ban

[Equinox Moon]

Source: The Guardian

June 22, 2017
The US supreme court is set to begin action on Donald Trump’s travel ban, leading to a potential final resolution to the defining legal battle of the administration’s early days.

The nation’s highest court is considering an appeal by the Trump administration to allow the president’s controversial order restricting travel to the US from six Muslim-majority countries. Two federal appeals courts have temporarily blocked the revised presidential order by Trump that sought to suspend the issuing of visas from the countries and freeze the US refugee resettlement program.



Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/22/supreme-court-to-consider-appeal-to-allow-trumps-travel-ban

---

What I don't understand is why this is still an issue. Trump's ban was for 90 days so they could work on and enact his "extreme vetting". That time has expired and the "extreme vetting" is in place. End of story. His temporary ban has passed being relevant and should be closed.

[Lulu KC]

1. WHAT????? (n/t)

[Equinox Moon]

2. What are you asking, what about?

[Lulu KC]

12. That the travel ban keeps rising from the dead somehow

When my dearly departed father-in-law started having "mini-strokes" around age 80, one of the things the doctor told him to notice was if "the newspaper seemed to not make any sense." I cannot say how many times I have thought of that recently. I've moved beyond horrified into Another Land.

[procon]

3. That the SCOTUS has even agreed to hear this case after so many

lower courts have ruled it to be unconstitutional, makes me worried that partisanship is driving it.

[DK504]

4. Definitely unnerving.

Seems strange they are moving so quickly to hear this case. They usually take years to let cases to work their way up. And who the hell is trying to get this heard and who has petitioned the court?

[Yupster]

11. My guess is they want to squash the idea

that a court can rule on what a leader says about a law or order rather than the written words of the law or order.

You can't have a law that is legal if one president signed it, but illegal if another signs it. Then you would have laws that would become legal or illegal each time a president changes which would be ridiculous.

[Bayard]

5. I'm no lawyer, BUT...

Is it the Supreme Court's business to change laws? Or just rule on the constitutionality of them? The Muslim ban violates discrimination law.

[onenote]

7. It is to interpret and apply statutory and constitutional provisions.

[BruceWane]

6. Good point - what happened to the "90 day" part?

Shouldn't need a ban anymore, right? Everything should be in place by now, right?

Unless -

- The "90 day ban" is much like "repeal and replace". How many years have they had to work on the "replace" part?*

- The Trump cabal is more interested in "winning" than actually accomplishing anything useful.*







*these explanations are not mutually exclusive

[Equinox Moon]

9. asterisk with footnote!

Fancy!

[onenote]

8. The 90 day deadline was extended.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/14/defensive-move-trump-extends-effective-date-travel-ban-order/102854830/

[Equinox Moon]

10. Thanks for the link.

His reasoning sounds ridiculous. I hope the court will see right through his nonsense.