ChatterBank43 mins ago
U.s .supreme Court Backs Trump's Muslim Travel Ban.
76 Answers
Vote was 5-2 in DT's favour. What do you reckon to that then?
https:/ /news.s ky.com/ story/u s-supre me-cour t-backs -donald -trumps -muslim -travel -ban-11 156911
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladybirder. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The courts are meant to act as a check to the president so there's no obligation to "back their president's proposals". Quite the reverse, in many cases. Not much to be said about a 7-2 ruling, though. Pretty comprehensive.
Worth noting that this applies mainly to the more extensive third version of the ban which included countries such as Venezuela and North Korea.
Worth noting that this applies mainly to the more extensive third version of the ban which included countries such as Venezuela and North Korea.
Quite so, Jim. But if western countries are ever to get to grips with Islamic terrorism they need to start taking some radical, if sometimes unpalatable measures. They need to decide if they'd prefer to be seen to be playing by the rules or if they wan to tackle the problem because it's evident that they cannot do both.
sp's post is unfortunately apposite. US gun violence far dwarfs any threat to the US from Islamic terrorists. I am not saying one shouldn't deal with the latter -- of course we should -- but it's a shame that there is no will to do anything at all about the former. And, frankly, it makes a mockery of this idea that the rules supposedly have to be broken in one case, when they are equally firmly stuck to when it comes to gun rights.
And anyway, the Supreme Court has argued that the travel ban can go ahead, so in point of fact the rules still haven't been broken.
And anyway, the Supreme Court has argued that the travel ban can go ahead, so in point of fact the rules still haven't been broken.
Numerically, Naomi, it's pretty clear which is a bigger threat to the US. In 2017 so far, there have been over 14,000 deaths attributed to gun violence. In the same period, there have been 14 deaths attributed to Islamic Terrorism in the US.
I don't think it's unreasonable to call 14000 bigger than 14.
I don't think it's unreasonable to call 14000 bigger than 14.
// The legality of the ban is due to be argued in two US appeals courts this week, with the hearings expected to be run on an accelerated basis. This leaves open the possibility that the travel ban could return to the Supreme Court in yet another legal challenge to the White House. \\
So it could be about turn again shortly?
So it could be about turn again shortly?
Potentially.
I think the general gist of it is that President Trump has the power in principle to implement a ban of this nature, but didn't draft the first versions very well and targeted them too narrowly. The context of campaign speeches about "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" maybe didn't help either.
But even in the court rulings against Trump I think it was made clear that the bans were being struck down on technicalities, eg trampling over States' rights and so on, so a tightly-drafted version could still be implemented and, potentially, effective in terms of what Trump was wanting to achieve.
I think the general gist of it is that President Trump has the power in principle to implement a ban of this nature, but didn't draft the first versions very well and targeted them too narrowly. The context of campaign speeches about "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" maybe didn't help either.
But even in the court rulings against Trump I think it was made clear that the bans were being struck down on technicalities, eg trampling over States' rights and so on, so a tightly-drafted version could still be implemented and, potentially, effective in terms of what Trump was wanting to achieve.
Since I was specifically talking about the US I haven't juggled any numbers.
Not that it matters. I think you are missing the point (willfully) by pretending that talking of another threat, or danger, as greater somehow diminishes the other one. Terrorism is a real threat. So are gun deaths. One kills more than the other; for sad, historical and political reasons, the more deadly one gets less attention than the less deadly one.
Not that it matters. I think you are missing the point (willfully) by pretending that talking of another threat, or danger, as greater somehow diminishes the other one. Terrorism is a real threat. So are gun deaths. One kills more than the other; for sad, historical and political reasons, the more deadly one gets less attention than the less deadly one.
Indeed not. But one of the two threats to American lives *is* being ignored, pretty universally. And I'm saying that maybe it's a little bizarre that the one being ignored is the more serious one, at least in terms of American lives at stake.
Put another way, I'd like to see them *both* dealt with, which isn't happening at all right now. Whether or not Trump's travel ban deals with the problem it's meant to address we'll have to wait and see.
Put another way, I'd like to see them *both* dealt with, which isn't happening at all right now. Whether or not Trump's travel ban deals with the problem it's meant to address we'll have to wait and see.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.