- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Indeed. It was closer than I figured it would be, since the President has broad powers under the constitution to set policy at and beyond the border (of course, we forget that when a Republican is in the WH).
The thing that really bothers me with respect to this case, however, is that the travel ban was put in place with an explicit window of reviewing and correcting vetting procedures. That window has LONG since passed, and so you have to wonder how sincere the “temporary” nature of the ban really was since we are still discussing.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
Agree, but have the named countries fixed their internal vetting processes? Wasn’t that part of the travel ban? Chad was named in the original ban, but changed their internal policies and wasn’t included in the second. . . .
I don’t understand Sotomayor’s argument though. She claims that the President’s words on the campaign trail mattered, enough that any reasonable person would see the ban as discriminatory. Didn’t she argue the opposite when she wrote that Obama’s words didn’t matter when he stated over and over again that the ACA wasn’t a tax.
Finally, weren’t the bridge tolls in the Bay Area temporary as well, only to last until the original construction costs of the bridges were paid off?
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.