Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court allows President Trump's travel ban to go fully into effect (Original Post) Joe941 Dec 2017 OP
Trump-addled comment I read on FB: Roland99 Dec 2017 #1
Wtf is happening? MontanaMama Dec 2017 #2
I don't get this at all. Originally, the ban was to be in effect for 6 months to allow Vinca Dec 2017 #3
He now has Gorsuch backing him - thats legit huh? Joe941 Dec 2017 #4
That program was retired FBaggins Dec 2017 #7
For the time being - the Supreme Court did not consider the matter on its merits Ms. Toad Dec 2017 #5
Yes and no FBaggins Dec 2017 #8
Mostly. Ms. Toad Dec 2017 #9
This is until lower courts decided, just lifts injunction but still sucks uponit7771 Dec 2017 #6

Vinca

(50,269 posts)
3. I don't get this at all. Originally, the ban was to be in effect for 6 months to allow
Mon Dec 4, 2017, 06:23 PM
Dec 2017

"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.

Ms. Toad

(34,066 posts)
5. For the time being - the Supreme Court did not consider the matter on its merits
Mon Dec 4, 2017, 06:31 PM
Dec 2017

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)
8. Yes and no
Mon Dec 4, 2017, 09:26 PM
Dec 2017

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.

Ms. Toad

(34,066 posts)
9. Mostly.
Mon Dec 4, 2017, 09:37 PM
Dec 2017

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).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court allows Pres...