Bob,
It's very interesting that the ACLU has put a positive spin on this and I've
heard their various representatives on Democracy Now, as well as Start
Making Ssense which is the Nation magazine podcast. I only heard one person
on a podcast, and I'm not sure who that was, possibly from The Center For
Constitutional Rights, who pointed out that this eliminates all refugees
from those countries and that it's still unconstitutional because it's a
religious exclusion. But to me, this is just more evidence that at this
point, our vision of a democratic society which strives toward freedom and
equality, is gone.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:27 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Hardly a 'Clear Victory': SCOTUS Hands
Government Sweeping Defeat on Travel Ban
Hi Miriam,
What bugs me here is that even the liberals on the court allowed limited
implementation of this travel ban. IF the court wants to hear the case, so
be it. But they should have not allowed any part of the ban to take effect
until after the case is decided.
Did you know that hard-right Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch actually voted to
have the entire ban be implemented now? Seems that puts Gorsuch to the right
of Scalia.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 6:58 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Hardly a 'Clear Victory': SCOTUS Hands Government
Sweeping Defeat on Travel Ban
Activists rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (photo: Getty Images)
Hardly a 'Clear Victory': SCOTUS Hands Government Sweeping Defeat on Travel
Ban
By Cody Wofsy, ACLU
27 June 17
After the Supreme Court ruled today that it would hear arguments on the
Muslim ban that a number of lower courts have ruled against, the president
claimed "clear victory."
Hardly.
In fact, the court handed the government a sweeping, but not complete,
defeat. It rejected the government's blanket ban and recognized what all the
lower courts in two separate cases saw: The ban would be devastating to
families, organizations, and communities across the United States. The court
also allowed the government to implement only a narrow version of the ban,
explaining that anyone with a "bona fide relationship" to people or
organizations in the United States cannot be barred. To view that decision
as "clear victory" is wishful thinking.
As a refresher, the court was considering two cases challenging the revised
Muslim ban, which had been narrowed after it was swiftly struck down in
court: IRAP v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump. In both cases, federal district
courts concluded that the order was an unconstitutional attempt to implement
the Muslim ban President Trump had repeatedly promised on the campaign
trail, and both courts issued orders blocking key provisions of the ban.
Those orders were upheld by two courts of appeals. In a case argued by the
ACLU, the Fourth Circuit in Virginia rejected the ban on people from six
overwhelmingly Muslim countries, concluding the president's order "drips
with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination." The Ninth Circuit
blocked that same provision and two others barring refugees, explaining that
the president's order violated federal statutes.
The government wanted to allow the ban to go into effect immediately and
completely, arguing that the appellate decisions were wrong. At most, the
government contended, the lower court orders halting the ban should only
apply to two individuals (one plaintiff in IRAP and one in Hawaii).
The Supreme Court said no. It did not limit the lower court orders to those
two individuals alone. It did not limit the orders to the other plaintiffs
in the cases. Instead, it told the government that it may not apply the ban
to anyone "who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or
entity in the United States."
What does that mean? Well, for starters, anyone with close family in the
United States is exempt from the ban. The court explained that having a
spouse in the United States would be enough to allow entry, and so would
having a son-in-law. Coming to live with a family member is sufficient, and
so is coming to visit family on a tourist visa. A large proportion of those
who would otherwise be barred by the Muslim ban do have family in this
country, and remain protected under the Supreme Court's order.
Anyone with a relationship with a U.S. entity (like a school, employer, or
nonprofit organization) is also exempted from the ban. The court was clear
this has to be a "bona fide" relationship - meaning it cannot be
manufactured just to get around the ban. But, again, a large segment of
those who would otherwise be banned will fall into this category: students
coming to study at a university, employees coming for a job, and clients and
members of U.S. organizations.
So who is banned? It appears relatively few can be legitimately prohibited
under the Supreme Court's decision: individuals who are abroad and have no
connections to family or organizations in the United States. To be clear,
the Supreme Court did not say the ban is legal as applied to those
individuals. It only allowed the government to implement this limited
version of the ban while it considers whether the rest can be upheld at all.
Which brings us to the other action the court took today. It agreed to hear
both IRAP and Hawaii in October. That is not particularly surprising. These
cases raise exceptionally important legal questions, making them precisely
the kinds of cases the Supreme Court is likely to review. We are confident
that when the court reviews this unconstitutional order this fall, it will
strike it down once and for all, and vindicate both our fundamental
commitment to religious neutrality and the responsibility of the courts to
serve as an independent check on the exercise of presidential power.
So where is the president's "clear victory"? Nowhere to be found.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
