General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court allows President Trump's travel ban to go fully into effect
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/supreme-court-allows-president-trumps-travel-ban-to-go-fully-into-effect.htmlElections have consequences.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)Yay! Drain that swamp!
Uhhhh...
MontanaMama
(23,308 posts)Tax cut scam and now the ban? Moore? Goddamit. Its only Monday.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)"extreme vetting" procedures to be put in place. It's long past 6 months and whatever they wanted to do in that period should already have been accomplished.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)FBaggins
(26,731 posts)This is the replacement "permanent" program.
Ms. Toad
(34,066 posts)Always read legal analysis by lay people - and especially headlines - with a grain of salt.
The course is still winding its way through the system. A lower court blocked the ban while it was being reviewed. The Supreme Court lifted the temporary lower court block.
It is not a direct review of the merits of the travel ban by the Supreme Court (although an injunction does embed in its analysis a likelihood of success on the merits test).
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)They obviously couldn't rule on the merits because the lower courts haven't ruled so there's nothing on the merits to consider).
However - the lower courts' preliminary injunction necessarily had to consider a likelihood of success on the merits... and thus overturning the call also makes a statement about their opinion of the likelihood of success.
Additionally... their last word on the topic agreed to some of the lower court's carveouts for certain family members. In this case they appear to have agreed with the administration on that.
Likelihood is only one of four elements in deciding to grant an injunction. So the Supreme Court's decision disagrees with one or more of the elements (one of which is likelihood of success on the merits).