Trump claims 'clear victory' after Supreme Court lets travel ban take partial effect

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico




By POLITICO STAFF 06/26/2017 12:19 PM EDT

President Donald Trump said on Monday the Supreme Court's decision to allow his travel ban executive order to take partial effect was a "clear victory for our national security."

The court agreed to hear arguments on the order limiting travel for people from six majority Muslim countries and let it take effect for foreign nationals without clear ties to the United States.

"As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive," Trump said in a statement.

###

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/trump-claims-clear-victory-after-supreme-court-lets-travel-ban-take-partial-effect-239961

[underpants]

1. But the Russian attack doesn't merit anything, right?

[PJMcK]

2. Of course not

Russians are white and do business with Trump.

[C_U_L8R]

3. What a self-fellating buffoon

Please, just go away.

[iluvtennis]

4. Yep, agree...a real asswipe

[treestar]

5. Even the ties element does not really

coincide with national security. A mere visitor may have no terrorist intent. Someone with a relative here might. It's all so stupid, like you can predict who the terrorists are going to be by facile sets of characteristics.

[chelsea0011]

6. Not complaining about the activist court?

[Gothmog]

7. The Supreme Court just reinstated a travel ban that should have already expired

The SCOTUS has asked for briefing on why this order and case is not moot https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/06/trump-proposed-a-120-day-travel-ban-to-improve-vetting-its-been-129-days/?utm_term=.97df7c2f170f

...“The president has admitted that the ban is no longer necessary,” Fresco said, referring to that tweet. “The only reason to keep the ban now is to actually have a ban.”

In other words, Trump's lawyers will have to convince the Supreme Court that a temporary ban is necessary, even though it was supposed to expire before it was actually implemented, and months before the case is heard.


Because of the way the Supreme Court's schedule is set up, both sides will be arguing about a ban this fall that had long since expired.