SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Tymon]

Relevant text from the opinion:

The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion.

This is basically saying that the Court was asked to rule on the text, not what Big Don said on tape. I don't really see what else to infer here. Ruling otherwise would theoretically take the power to ever do anything similar away from the Executive Branch, which would be dangerous. There is a future for this country after Trump and removing powers from the federal government long-term over a short-term problem is stupid.

[archibaldcrane]

The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: Ensuring that voters are literate and able to effectively participate in elections by having an understanding of the issues at hand. The text says nothing about race.

.

[Tymon]

Thanks for that excellent example of a strawman argument

[Tyche]

Thanks for that excellent example of a strawman argument

It's a dumb argument you're making because it allows for saying shit like "I hate black people, they're an infestation. I'm going to make an EO banning anyone from Atlanta leaving city limits" in public domains.


Then have some policy wonks craft and expertly worded executive order saying that due to the crime rate in the central parts of the state of georgia, you're going to limit travel to and from that area.



It's an extreme, but used to illustrate that context fucking matters. SCOTUS ignored that.

[Dotsudoku]

there's a mountain of evidence(see: sotomayor's dissent) suggesting the motivation for said EO goes far beyond its text. Law isn't my thing, but I take issue with a ruling that effectually says context, regardless of how much reasonable support there is for or against it, does not matter

[Zealot]

Oh hey, they used today's ruling to explicitly overrule Korematsu. That's a net gain for society.

[Tymon]

It's a dumb argument you're making because it allows for saying shit like "I hate black people, they're an infestation. I'm going to make an EO banning anyone from Atlanta leaving city limits" in public domains.


Then have some policy wonks craft and expertly worded executive order saying that due to the crime rate in the central parts of the state of georgia, you're going to limit travel to and from that area.



It's an extreme, but used to illustrate that context fucking matters. SCOTUS ignored that.

No it isn't because you're replacing the stated purpose of the order with markedly different and obviously unconstitutional statements. The President doesn't fucking have power to restrict the individual rights of American citizens or tell black people they're too stupid to vote in elections. Come the fuck on dude.

I'm saying that it's my personal opinion that SCOTUS is ignoring the context because they believe it sets a dangerous precedent for restricting the power of the Executive Branch to act in the interest of national security. Could I be wrong and they're partisan hacks? Yes, but I choose to believe SCOTUS is above such things.

Of course there's a mountain of evidence that the motivation is about Muslims. That's why it's going to be challenged further, because this ruling ignores the context. I hope it gets struck down. It probably will because to anyone with a brain this isn't really acting in the interest of national security.

[Lokus]

It's a dumb argument you're making because it allows for saying shit like "I hate black people, they're an infestation. I'm going to make an EO banning anyone from Atlanta leaving city limits" in public domains.


Then have some policy wonks craft and expertly worded executive order saying that due to the crime rate in the central parts of the state of georgia, you're going to limit travel to and from that area.



It's an extreme, but used to illustrate that context fucking matters. SCOTUS ignored that.

To add to this, I believe it was the third iteration of the travel ban that was looked at so it already went through revisions to change language so it could hold up to scrutiny if you took it at face value.

[Tyche]

No it isn't because you're replacing the stated purpose of the order with markedly different and obviously unconstitutional statements. The President doesn't fucking have power to restrict the individual rights of American citizens or tell black people they're too stupid to vote in elections. Come the fuck on dude.

I'm saying that it's my personal opinion that SCOTUS is ignoring the context because they believe it sets a dangerous precedent for restricting the power of the Executive Branch to act in the interest of national security. Could I be wrong and they're partisan hacks? Yes, but I choose to believe SCOTUS is above such things.

Of course there's a mountain of evidence that the motivation is about Muslims. That's why it's going to be challenged further, because this ruling ignores the context. I hope it gets struck down. It probably will because to anyone with a brain this isn't really acting in the interest of national security.

A statement can't be unconstitutional. That's kind of the point here. The president can say whatever he wants, enact policy around whatever he wants, then craft the policy around the horrendous shit he just said with a flimsy legal justification. And if you think that SCOTUS is above partisan hackery, I welcome you to do some SCOTUS research.

[Gredival]

there's a mountain of evidence(see: sotomayor's dissent) suggesting the motivation for said EO goes far beyond its text. Law isn't my thing, but I take issue with a ruling that effectually says context, regardless of how much reasonable support there is for or against it, does not matter

Sadly Scalia's voice whispers spookily in the background "Textualism" and all conservative notion of jurisprudence disappears.

[Quicklet]

Oh hey, they used today's ruling to explicitly overrule Korematsu. That's a net gain for society.

Will be fun to see the twisted logic when they uphold Trump's internment camps.

[Zealot]

I don't know if there's a more specific German term to describe overruling Korematsu at a time when we once again have actual internment camps, but I think "irony" is close in English.

[Zealot]

Oh, found it, it's "Kampenkeepen."

[Athas]

So I have a question; wasn't Trump's travel ban sold as a temporary 40 or 100 day stop get while he crafted some more permanent plan? Why does it even still exist?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/60642...gnancy-centers

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a lower court decision upholding a California law requiring anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to more fully disclose what they are.

The case pitted the right to know against the right of free speech. On one side are self-identified "crisis pregnancy centers" that seek to prevent abortions and on the other side is the state of California, which enacted a 2015 law to ensure that these centers do not intentionally or unintentionally mislead the women who walk through their doors.

[Gryffes]

That kind of ruling is absolute 2020 ammo for trump to show why you need to re-elect him if you're pro life.

[Tyrath]

That kind of ruling is absolute 2020 ammo for trump to show why you need to re-elect him if you're pro life.

Did you misread it?

[Byrthnoth]

No, he didn't.

[Tyrath]

Supreme court removes law that forces anti-abortion clinic to disclose their true nature to people.

How is that ammo for pro-lifers? It's in favor of them.

[Dotsudoku]

"we've seen Trump's court save unborn children before, we need to keep him there if it's to continue"