[The Final Dakar]

Question: As I understand it, the purpose of the 90 day temp ban was to give us breathing room until a new vetting process was in place. It's been over 90 days since they first tried to implement the ban. The amount of time they needed to implement the new vetting process has passed. What is the point of the temp ban now?

[subego]

[subego]

My guess here is they actually intended to do something with that 90 days, even if it was just nebulous schemes to throw raw meat at the base.

Once the issue became RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAY, everything else (such as the ostensible reason it was enacted in the first place) became secondary.

[The Final Dakar]

Oh, I agree the legal challenge is about sending a message now, I'd just like a reporter to call them out on what progress or changes have been made over the time frame.

[subego]

Absolutely. It's a slap me in the face obvious point.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Absolutely. It's a slap me in the face obvious point.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Question: As I understand it, the purpose of the 90 day temp ban was to give us breathing room until a new vetting process was in place. It's been over 90 days since they first tried to implement the ban. The amount of time they needed to implement the new vetting process has passed. What is the point of the temp ban now?

This idea has apparently germinated for long enough and is beginning to sprout.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This idea has apparently germinated for long enough and is beginning to sprout.

Yeah, I saw a GOP senator mentioned it?

[The Final Dakar]

Well that's one way to undermine your case.

[OreoCookie]

Maybe Trump should have EXTREME VETTED his staff?

[Chongo]

SCOTUS reinstates most of travel ban pending hearing in October.
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...0f25c234304a4a

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Not even a little shocked. It's time the activist courts had some of their power trimmed. Travel bans aren't a new thing and you can't say that this one is unconstitutional merely because you hate the guy issuing it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Not even a little shocked. It's time the activist courts had some of their power trimmed. Travel bans aren't a new thing and you can't say that this one is unconstitutional merely because you hate the guy issuing it.

When The ACLU lawyer was asked the question "If Hillary had issued the XO, would it be constitutional?", he said yes.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Now that's what I call privilege.

[The Final Dakar]

Far as I can tell the stay on the hold has some broad exemptions.

What's more confusing is oral arguments won't occur until another expiration of the 90 days so I'm not sure if that s an attempt to defang or avoid the case or something else.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Far as I can tell the stay on the hold has some broad exemptions.

Not just broad, but also vague, and given the fact that the oral arguments will be held after the 90 days have expired, this may cause some follow-up legal proceedings that have to litigate what “relations to the US” means.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What's more confusing is oral arguments won't occur until another expiration of the 90 days so I'm not sure if that s an attempt to defang or avoid the case or something else.

Makes me think this whole procedure is to decide about the validity of the extension of this XO.

[The Final Dakar]

Sadly Hawaii is challenging how the admin is limiting the scope of stay through its definitions of close family.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

That'll last a few hours.

[The Final Dakar]

First judge wisely said he wouldn't try to interpret who SCOTUS meant by close relative. Second one has broadened the list that qualify. Hope this goes back up the chain quickly.

[The Final Dakar]

News is unclear but it sounds like SCOTUS upheld the broad family exceptions. Unholy trinity dissented

[The Final Dakar]

SCOTUS cancelled the hearing now that new rules are in effect. I don't see why they scheduled it in the first place since they knew it would expire before their next term. This entire ordeal felt like theater on their part.

Also, Venezuela?

[reader50]

Sudan was dropped in the new order. Possibly by agreeing to accept lots of deportations. guardian article

I wonder if Mexican border crossers who's country of origin can't be determined will be unloaded to Sudan. It would depend on the exact wording of the agreement, assuming an agreement does exist.

Venezuela (certain government-related people), Chad and North Korea (blanket bans) were added. Everyone knows what a hotbed North Korea is for Muslims. Also, the new order is permanent. So much for Trump's ban expiring in 90 days after new vetting procedures were completed. Lie.

Activist groups suspect Venezuela and North Korea were added as a smokescreen. So Trump can argue the ban isn't related to religion. Never mind what he said during the campaign, or in multiple tweets.

The SCOTUS cancelled the hearing, but asked for updated briefings from the government and opponents. They certainly haven't closed the case.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Venezuela (certain government-related people), Chad and North Korea (blanket bans) were added. Everyone knows what a hotbed North Korea is for Muslims.

That's the point, isn't it? By adding this random countries they make the law defensible. Unless you got email of them admitting to this, doesn't this stand up in court?

Originally Posted by reader50 

The SCOTUS cancelled the hearing, but asked for updated briefings from the government and opponents. They certainly haven't closed the case.

It's a different case now. There will be no ruling on whether that 90 day ban was constitutional or not. They dodged it.

[The Final Dakar]

[The Final Dakar]

3.0 going to SCOTUS at the end of April

[The Final Dakar]

So, the arguments were held last week. I haven't listened yet, but court watchers say it went poorly for those against the ban.

Notably, the solicitor general argued that if we elected a raging anti-semite who did an Israel ban, as long as he had some BS reason for it, it'd be ok.