Muslim Ban 2.0

First, more Trump lies claiming 9 SCOTUS judges supported the ban. In reality they all agreed to defer the decision and only allowed it to be applied to people with no connection to the US.

He later tweeted: “Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!”

Click to expand...

But the opinion also signaled that some of the justices might believe that Mr. Trump exceeded even that broad authority when he twice sought to impose a blanket ban on entry to the United States from certain predominantly Muslim countries. With the limits imposed on Monday by the court, the travel ban will be far narrower than the one he proposed in his first week in office and a later, revised version.

Click to expand...

Second, the three judges that look to be a really disastrous block: Gorsuch, Thompson and Alito.

Supreme Court Takes Up Travel Ban Case, and Allows Parts to Go Ahead

But Justice Clarence Thomas, who issued a partial dissent on Monday that was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, warned that the court’s opinion would “prove unworkable” for officials at consulates around the world and would invite “a flood of litigation” from people denied entry.

“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Based on the dissent, those three justices are likely to vote in favor of the Trump administration.

Click to expand...

That same gang of three lean toward supporting unlimited POTUS power and may lean toward right wing religious views such as allowing businesses to refuse LGBTQ clients.

Supreme Court upholds same-sex parents' birth certificate rights.

The ruling came in an unsigned opinion from the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Click to expand...

Those Justices creep me out.

And The Supremes have spoken. Most refugees are subject to the ban.

However, the legality of the ban is scheduled to be taken up on October 10. I don't get how the legal stuff works. Seems to me you would decide the legality first then decide what parts and to whom they apply. But I'm sure someone in the know can make sense of it.

Chris P said:

And The Supremes have spoken. Most refugees are subject to the ban.

However, the legality of the ban is scheduled to be taken up on October 10. I don't get how the legal stuff works. Seems to me you would decide the legality first then decide what parts and to whom they apply. But I'm sure someone in the know can make sense of it.

Click to expand...

This is the ruling from October. That's an older article.

The Supreme Court starts its session on the first Monday in October, hears cases, and issues rulings on those cases in the summer before they break. The rulings are coming down now for cases heard in the fall and winter. The article you've got linked there was from when they made a procedural ruling about a lower-court decision.

They've just ruled on the ban itself, and upheld its legality, saying the office of the president has the authority, sort of regardless of whether it's violating the Constitution to ban people of certain religions, which is what Sotomayor is railing against in her opinion. Oyez is the best site for unfettered SCOTUS news and rulings, imo.

Thanks for the Oyez link, cornflake. There's a case that needs to be known I'll post in the other thread.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1140

It's now OK for pro-life clinics to hide their motivation from their patients and to masquerade as medical clinics when they aren't.