The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld portions of President Trump’s March 6 executive order, known as the “travel ban”. More from SCOTUSBlog:
Today the Supreme Court agreed to review rulings by two lower courts blocking the implementation of President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order, popularly known as the “travel ban.†Citing national-security concerns, the order imposed a freeze on new visas from six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen). But the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had put the order on hold last month, concluding that – although it did not specifically say so – the order likely violated the Constitution because the president intended to discriminate against Muslim travelers. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit also blocked the order, but on a different ground: It concluded that the order exceeds the authority that Congress has given the president to regulate immigration. The court’s announcement today means that the justices will review both of those decisions. The justices also granted the Trump administration’s request to allow the ban to go into effect, at least for would-be travelers who don’t already have some connection to the United States.
I’m sure this action by the Court will be disappointing to just about everybody. Opponents of the president or fans of unlimited immigration will be upset that the Court didn’t leave the appellate courts’ injunctions in place. Supporters of the president or opponents of immigration from the countries name above will be disappointed that the Court’s order was not broader.
We’ll need to wait until the next session for a decision. Who knows what the composition of the Court will be then?
I suspect the composition of the Court will be the same as it is right now, barring something unforeseen or unfortunate involving one of the Justices.
Traditionally, retirements not announced on the last day the Court sits (which was today) don’t happen over the summer either unless there’s some medical reason to make an immediate decision. More recently, it’s become the practice for Justices to announce their intent to retire effective on the confirmation of a successor by the Senate in the Spring in order to give POTUS and the Senate time to name and consider a nomination before the new term begins in October. Kennedy (or anyone else) could break with that tradition, I suppose, but I suspect the fact that there was no announcement before the Court adjourned today means nobody is retiring.
Once you reach 80 “unfortunate” should no longer be thought of as “unforeseen”.
This is a fair point. Hopefully, though, both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kennedy, and the others, will remain healthy.
Isn’t the official last day for the SCOTUS session this Friday? And, if so couldn’t a retirement announcement be made at that time?
Way OT, but hope you will consider this. I have been looking for a fact checking site that is recognized as a right wing oriented site. Cant find one. Why is that? At this point, all of the existing fact checking sites and places like Snopes are all officially left wing propaganda sites according to the right (someone who worked there once dated a Democrat, or something). Anyway, I have my own, probably less than charitable views on this but would appreciate your thoughts.
Steve
Absolutely correct, steve. Chase tha t one down. Knock yerself out…..
Now, back to CNN and their resignations…..
Facts have no ideology. The interpretation of facts does as do all human activities. It’s inescapable.
What is called “fact-checking” generally comes down to interpreting facts. Major media outlets tend to lean left. That hasn’t always been the case. The causes for it now are complicated, rooted in history. Since fact-checking sites tend to be the offspring of major media outlets that they, too, would lean left is hardly surprising.
I can only offer guesses as to why you can’t find right-leaning fact-checking sites. Libertarians tend not to engage in collective activity and it’s darned hard to maintain a viable, major fact-checking site without collective activity. Those who presently characterize themselves as “conservatives” are a different kettle of fish.
I doubt that those on the right are uninterested in facts as you are presumably implying but that they are uninterested in fact-checking.
This is a victory for the Trump administration; they’ve got a large portion of the lower court rulings unanimously reversed before hearing, and a hearing on the remainder to follow. The only tea leaves left are:
1. Mootness discussion to be incorporated in the briefs, suggesting Trump may moot the remainder of the appeal with new procedures;
2. The SCOTUS appears to be deadlocked on two immigration enforcement cases from last term, which now will be reviewed next term with Gorsuch’s vote, which makes it appear that the court’s general split in this area is a 5-4 conservative.
3. There wasn’t a majority that thought Trump’s discriminatory religious intent in drafting the ban was an argument likely to succeed. The more likely framework for any successful challenge on the ban will be due process, with the process due depending on different classes of individuals.
Josh Blackman did a three-part series on the travel ban at Lawfare Blog that lawyers at OTB pooh-poohed. Given the composition of the court I didn’t think his arguments were so easily dismissed:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-3617-executive-order-part-i-statutory-and-separation-powers-analyses
“Facts have no ideology. ”
They shouldn’t, but they really do now. We are at the point where there are no longer even data sources that are seen as credible by the right. If you cite data from any government source, CBO, BLS, FRED, whatever, it must be biased against conservatives. Cite any data from a university, unless it is Liberty University or such, and it must be left wing. I find myself trying to discuss health care issues with people who cite as their experts people with no background in health care, no economic training, no history in health care policy, no background in statistics, no nothing except they are from the correct tribe, and maybe they have a Masters or PhD in something. Present data from NEJM, JAMA or any specialty journal and it must be left wing bias.
Steve
There are all sorts of factors that have contributed to the problem. Hyperspecialization, bootstrapping (claiming authority in a field disconnected from the field in which you actually have some authority), the high stakes, general loss of professionalism and ethics just to name a few.
I guess I’m kind of used to it. In my field every high school dropout claims authority while rejecting mine (despite an advanced degree and 50 years of experience). Something that happened the other day highlighted that. My immediate supervisor asked me to explain to him what a colleague and I have created. We did. We lost him after about the third sentence. It requires too much specialist knowledge just to follow the basics.
Nonetheless facts still have no ideology or agenda. People explaining the facts generally do. And very many specialists lack the intellectual equipment to distinguish between the facts and their opinions.
@Janis, that’s a pretty good link, and after looking at the page on due process issues:
https://lawfareblog.com/legality-3617-executive-order-part-ii-due-process-clause-analysis
I’m not sure of what if any effect is left of the court injunctions still in place. The Amended ban provided a hardship exemption for a foreign nation who seeks a visa and entry “to visit or reside with a close family member.†There may be some procedural issues about how this exemption is obtained, but its not as if the travel ban is intended to restrict spouses, children and parents from getting a visa in the normal course.
Yikes, I meant foreign nation[al].
Although not a “fact checking” source, conserapedia is a site giving a conservative point of view – a right-sided alternative to wikipedia.
Thanks jan. I do check there but it is not a data heavy site. At heart I am a numbers guy. It generally tells me how conservatives feel about stuff and what they think is important.
Steve
Steve,
It’s insightful, to say the least, to have an idea about all the thoughts trains out there. IMO, most have a similar ends in life. It’s the means in getting there that are sometimes vastly different.
The problem with fact checking sites is that they often aren’t checking facts. Then there is the general inability to distinguish between facts, evidence, opinions about facts, analysis based on facts, estimates, probabilities, etc. An added problem is that usually facts do not “speak for themselves.”
IMO fact-checking sites are, at best, a beginning, not an end. They “explainer” sites are even more suspect. These days I trust very little until I do my own research. When I do, I often find that key information was left out or that reality on a topic is best expressed in terms of probabilities or gray area and not absolutes. Unfortunately absolutes are what sells when it comes to politics. That said, I think snopes does a decent job.
PD,
One interesting aspect of the EO is that the refugee ban and the travel ban are supposed to be temporary – 120 and 90 days respectively. The stated purpose of restrictions was to allow the federal government to evaluate and update screening procedures and some other measures. The latest EO was signed in early March, so I don’t really know what, if any, effect the day limits will have – especially considering that SCOTUS won’t look at this until October, but it’s not an aspect that’s ever discussed.
Yeah, the second EO was for 90 days and directed the executive officers to consider and propose improvements to visa- and refugee-processing procedures. The Hawaian Judge inexplicably enjoined the interagency review process when he enjoined the EO, and the 9th Circuit reversed that portion of the injunction on June 12th. So I think the assumption is that the EO is set to expire around Sept. 10th.
Generally, the EO would become moot if it expires and the Court will be without jurisdiction to rule on the EO at that time. The exception to mootness is when a matter is capable of being repeated and avoiding judicial review. Abortion cases become moot in 9 months, but Courts apply that exception.