The Supreme Court finally handed Trump a travel ban victory

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/trump-travel-ban-decision/index.html?sr=fbCNN062617trump-travel-ban-decision0500PMVODtopLink&linkId=39112284

(CNN)"Ever since Donald Trump signed the first executive order banning people from seven countries from entering the U.S. on January 27, it's been nothing but trouble.

Within 24 hours of the EO being signed, judges in several states blocked the so-called "travel ban" from going into effect. Trump submitted a second executive order on March 6 taking the number of affected countries to six (Iraq was excluded from the 2nd ban). It was, again, immediately stopped by a lawsuit in Hawaii. Trump went on to lose a series of appeals in court.

On Monday, the Supreme Court actually handed Trump a win on the travel ban -- albeit not a complete one.

The Court decided to hear the full case in October but, in the meantime, knocked down the lower courts' move to completely shelve the ban. Instead, the Supremes ruled that some foreign nationals from the six states included in the second executive order could be kept from entering the U.S.
Here's the exact language:

"In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO--2."

"All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [Executive Order]--2," is the key line there -- affirming that a not-insignificant piece of the Trump travel ban can go into effect while the Court waits to rule on the constitutionality of the broader ban.

What's less clear -- at least to me -- is what a "bona fide relationship" means. Is that blood connection? Close friend? And who decides what a "credible" claim of a "bona fide" relationship is?
That is a legal question, of course, not a political one. The political reality is far clearer: After a string of losses, Donald Trump just won one. And it's not a small one..."

There will be more litigation seeking definition, but the Supreme Court protected the Executive Power in our constitutional system, and did not even look at the intent in those campaign words. Three of the judges could care less if he said no dirty muslims are coming into this country as Thomas, Alito, and the new appointee simply said the President's power is absolute in this regard. Not all bad in the long term, but certainly unfair to Muslims in the short term. The Supreme Court has always been guarded on qualifying the powers of the executive.

2seaoat wrote:  The Supreme Court has always been guarded on qualifying the powers of the executive.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube!

Youngstown Sheet and Tube

A domestic strike versus border issues. Cutting and pasting does not work if you do not understand the underlying concepts.

2seaoat wrote:Youngstown Sheet and Tube

A domestic strike versus border issues.  Cutting and pasting does not work if you do not understand the underlying concepts.

What I understand is that in your original statement--"The Supreme Court has always been guarded on qualifying the powers of the executive."--you didn't differentiate between domestic and border issues. You made a blanket statement and YOU WERE WRONG!

There was never any doubt as to the president's authority on this issue... just leftist judicial activism.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:There was never any doubt as to the president's authority on this issue... just leftist judicial activism.

Actually using that argument, the President could ban all black people from entering America. The problem is that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does qualify the executive powers. It appears the Supreme Court did NOT look at the President's stated intention to ban a religion, rather three of the justices virtually said the President can do whatever he wants whether it is legal or not. Clearly, his intent was to fire up his base with a discriminatory offering which makes the Dixiecrats happy. It will be interesting to see the follow up cases defining the Court's nexus of legitimacy. A poorly written decision, but anything Thomas is involved in now without Scalia, is going to be a CF.