U.s .supreme Court Backs Trump's Muslim Travel Ban.

[ladybirder]

Vote was 5-2 in DT's favour. What do you reckon to that then?

https://news.sky.com/story/us-supreme-court-backs-donald-trumps-muslim-travel-ban-11156911

[New Judge]

I reckon it's not before time that the US Courts backed their President's proposals.

[jim360]

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.

[ichkeria]

This version isn't really a "Muslim travel ban" any more

[New Judge]

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.

[sp1814]

I think it was bound to happen.

However, the good news is now that it's out of the way, Trump can concentrate on doing something to reduce the number of mass shootings (307 so far this year) in America.

That looks like it'll be a tougher call.

[douglas9401]

Come on Judge, get with the programme, Islamist, not Islamic.

An angry mob will be along shortly to explain the difference. :-)

[jim360]

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.

[vetuste_ennemi]

There was no genuine constitutional case for the original "checks" were there?

[New Judge]

"Come on Judge, get with the programme, Islamist, not Islamic. "

Makes no difference to me, doug. It's Muslims blowing people up, mowing them down with lorries or chopping off their heads. Don't really care what it's called.

[naomi24]

Jim, //US gun violence far dwarfs any threat to the US from Islamic terrorists.//

Not so. US gun violence wasn't responsible for Paris, or Manchester, or Madrid, or Bali, or Egypt, or London, or 9/11 ..... or ... or ... or ...

[jim360]

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.

[ladybirder]

// 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?

[jim360]

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.

[naomi24]

Jim, jiggle numbers all you like. It doesn't wash. Shameful to attempt to portray something that threatens the whole world to be less than it is.

[jim360]

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.

[Ken4155]

Naomi, jim said that US gun violence far dwarfs any threat to the US from Islamic terrorists. Your @Not so' reply that 'US gun violence wasn't responsible for Paris, or Manchester', or, etc, etc, etc is redundant as none of those places are threatened by US gun violence.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Terrorism is a real threat. So are gun deaths. One kills more than the other;//

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Surely not that one be ignored because the other is more important?

[naomi24]

Ken4155, they are two separate issues and shouldn't be confused.

[Theland]

Grow up. Smell the coffee.

[jim360]

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.