From MSN:
"U.S. top court lets Trump's latest travel ban go into full effect"
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts. The court, with two of the nine justices dissenting, granted his administration's request to lift two injunctions imposed by lower courts that had partially blocked the ban, which is the third version of a contentious policy that Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January. The high court's action means that the ban will now go fully into effect for people seeking to enter the United States from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad. Lower courts had previously limited the scope of the ban to people without certain family or other connections to the United States. Trump's ban also covers people from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela, but lower courts had already allowed those provisions to go into effect. The nine-member high court said in two similar one-page orders on Monday that lower court rulings that partly blocked the latest ban should be put on hold while appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Virginia weigh the cases. Both courts are due to hear arguments in those cases this week. Two of court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said they would have denied the administration's request. The ban was challenged in separate lawsuits by the state of Hawaii and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both sets of challengers said the latest ban, like the earlier ones, discriminates against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution and is not permissible under immigration laws. Trump issued his first travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries in January, then issued a revised one in March after the first was blocked by federal courts. The second one expired in September after a long court fight and was replaced with the present version.
^ It has often been said that the US is too "sue-happy" and the ACLA, Hawaii and the other places/organizations that sued over this ban fell into that stereotype. They didn't seem to want to follow the Constitution or the country's laws, but to get their 15 minutes in the media. Rather than looking at the facts (as the Supreme Court did) they tried to make something out of nothing by placing an anti-discrimination "cause" to their "case." I have said it before and it still holds: the countries affected are included in the travel ban for reasons besides religion. Two countries are included because the US has not had diplomatic relations with them since 1979 (Iran) and North Korea (ever.) Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia have civil wars and are security risks because of ISIS fighters there. Chad and Venezuela are on the list because of their internal instability. By falsely suing this travel ban the parties on the losing side loose whatever credibility they once had and are made-out to be simply anti-Trump rather than pro-America. What I mean by that is they wanted to sue simply because they do not like President Trump rather than actually looking at the US Constitution and US laws and seeing what is and what is not legal as well as what is and what is not safe for our country and our citizens and not letting people in from civil wars and internal political instability that can hurt our own stability. I have seen these kind of people and organizations simply say and do things rather than looking at the facts and so I know they will continue their "sue-happy" stance on other issues and using whatever the latest witch-hunt craze (I mean "trend") is popular that week. ^
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.