Link to decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...7pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

Court says Proclamation is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA."

Court says that the language of the INA is "clear," and "the Proclmation does not exceed any textual limit on the President's authority."

Says the proclamation is based on legitimate purposes, without saying anything about religion. Proclamation is result of a "worldwide review process" by multiple cabinet agencies. Notes that it doesn't apply to Iraq, "one of the largest predominately Muslim countries in the region."

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY,
THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., and THOMAS,
J., filed concurring opinions. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which KAGAN, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which GINSBURG, J., joined.

Looks like we posted at the same time..
I deleted my post.

It’s in the Trump thread too.

I love to see liberal outrage. This’ll provoke some!

I'm not a lawyer but in reading the 5-4 ruling, it looks like it was a slam dunk in favor of the ban as many of us have long believed it would be. I'm only disappointed (but completely unsurprised) that the four liberal justices opposed the ruling.

More liberal tears.

This settles the question as the the constitutionality of the thing.

So, if it's clearly constitutional, the previous courts who ruled it unconstitutional were WRONG.

In how many other occupations can someone do their jobs in such a manner as to be always wrong, effecting the lives of others, and still bear no consequences.

If a cop makes a mistake and releases a crook, or arrests an innocent person there are consequences.

But judges can be wrong with impunity.

More from SCOTUSBLOG:

This, from the majority, is notable:

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

The pundits are concentrating on the muslim issue, and ignoring the real problem, which is the lack of reliable information about its citizens from places like Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing. This is why Saudi Arabia is not on the list.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:

But judges can be wrong with impunity.

That sums up EVERY decision made by the Ninth Circus, I mean Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The challengers, though, argued that the court could not just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Trump's campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States.”

Nonsense. The court properly ruled on the language of the executive order. Campaign rhetoric, newspaper editorials, etc. are irrelevant.

This is a good decision no doubt, but something else continues to really bother me. This issue was always clearly within executive authority throughout the tenures of 'all' prior presidents. Yet four current SCOTUS justices still voted against it, clearly on an ideological basis, with no deference to the law. And that's where we are as a country today, one vote away from the Constitution and rule of law meaning absolutely nothing. I think it more important than ever that President Trump has an opportunity to confirm another SCOTUS justice. Two more would be even better.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
This is a good decision no doubt, but something else continues to really bother me. This issue was always clearly within executive authority throughout the tenures of 'all' prior presidents. Yet four current SCOTUS justices still voted against it, clearly on an ideological basis, with no deference to the law. And that's where we are as a country today, one vote away from the Constitution and rule of law meaning absolutely nothing. I think it more important than ever that President Trump has an opportunity to confirm another SCOTUS justice. Two more would be even better.

Truth. The liberal justices vote based upon desired policy NOT on the constitution and rule of law. This is why we need originalist justices so badly who adhere to the original intent and not the living document crap where the preferred interpretation of the day changes with the political whims of whoever is in charge.

Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion dealt only with the growing use, abuse, of universal injunctions, where District court enjoins the government from certain conduct anywhere.

As he describes, those were virtually unknown before ~50 years ago. There are several issues raised in the use of these, and no real authority for them.

quote:

Originally posted by asonie:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
This is a good decision no doubt, but something else continues to really bother me. This issue was always clearly within executive authority throughout the tenures of 'all' prior presidents. Yet four current SCOTUS justices still voted against it, clearly on an ideological basis, with no deference to the law. And that's where we are as a country today, one vote away from the Constitution and rule of law meaning absolutely nothing. I think it more important than ever that President Trump has an opportunity to confirm another SCOTUS justice. Two more would be even better.

Truth. The liberal justices vote based upon desired policy NOT on the constitution and rule of law. This is why we need originalist justices so badly who adhere to the original intent and not the living document crap where the preferred interpretation of the day changes with the political whims of whoever is in charge.

Ideology triumphs over the written law for Liberals. And clearly that commitment to "progress" is alive in well in SCOTUS. It makes me sick to my stomach to know that we are only a vote or two away from a death spiral.

quote:

Originally posted by Yanert98:
Ideology triumphs over the written law for Liberals. And clearly that commitment to "progress" is alive in well in SCOTUS. It makes me sick to my stomach to know that we are only a vote or two away from a death spiral.

Yes sir. This illustrates how important it was to keep HRC out. If for no other reason than to keep her from filling the vacancy on the court.
Thank God for DJT.

The Lefts' common argument is that the Constitution is a "living document"......which translates to "until we can kill it completely."

Yes, thank God for DJT. We just need to fill a couple more seats on the Supreme Court.

quote:

As he describes, those were virtually unknown before ~50 years ago. There are several issues raised in the use of these, and no real authority for them.

I would have though that for a single Federal District Judge anywhere to enjoin the entire Federal Government is a unworkable idea. The system cannot work effectively this way.

It is my understanding that even Appeals Court decisions only apply to their district. Are there exceptions?

Yes, could you imagine if the federal courts made rulings all the time based on what a candidate said during a campaign??

They were only doing it because they were trying to stop Trumps agenda and negate his presidency.

4 justices decided NOT TO UPHOLD the constitution.
They need run out on a rail.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

As he describes, those were virtually unknown before ~50 years ago. There are several issues raised in the use of these, and no real authority for them.

I would have though that for a single Federal District Judge anywhere to enjoin the entire Federal Government is a unworkable idea. The system cannot work effectively this way.

It is my understanding that even Appeals Court decisions only apply to their district. Are there exceptions?

Yes, federal district judges issue nationwide injunctions as well as Appeals Courts - as in this case.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...e-legal-journey.html

No, I don't think it should be legal. Here's a good discussion of the issue from SCOTUSBLOG:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018...ionwide-injunctions/