Also,
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately to say they would have revived Mr Trump’s travel ban in full. The “compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country”, they wrote, and will invite “a flood of litigation”. And, Justice Thomas added, the very judges that blocked Mr Trump’s travel ban would probably be the ones considering whether a potential traveler has a “bona fide” reason for being excused from it.
I'm sure the judges that blocked the ban aren't going to enforce it in this circumstance. 'Bonafide'.
Lawyers for the Trump administration went back to the Supreme Court again late Friday in the ongoing battle over President Donald Trump's travel ban -- this time asking the justices to resolve the uncertainty created by last month's ruling on which foreign nationals are exempt from the ban.
The Supreme Court decided in June that the travel ban must not apply to those people with a "bona fide connection" to a person or entity in the United States while the case is pending full argument this fall. The justices further explained that for "individuals, a close familial relationship is required."
A federal judge in Hawaii ruled Thursday, however, that the administration's decision to keep out some foreign nationals with close family members (like grandparents) but not others (like spouses) defied common sense, and was not in line with the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision.
Justice Department lawyers argued in Friday night's motion that the justices should now clarify what they meant in June and, in the meantime, place an immediate freeze on the lower court's decision.
"The district court's interpretation of this Court's ... ruling distorts this Court's decision and upends the equitable balance this Court struck," lawyers said in the motion. "And the district court's sweeping interpretation of 'close familial relationship' ... to encompass a wide range of distant relatives -- including cousins, uncles, and siblings-in-law -- effectively eliminates the 'close' requirement and has no basis in this Court's ruling."
Justice Clarence Thomas predicted in June that the Court's "compromise" decision would prove unworkable.
The justices may ask for the state of Hawaii to respond to the Justice Department's motion before issuing a decision on the latest dispute.In retrospect, I dont think they handed him a win on this. what they did hand him was a political time bomb, the opportunity to drop the ball a third time regarding the travel ban. Mr. Thomas told us this, but we failed to listen I see. at this point, im almost hoping you guys do deliver on healthcare, its been a rough week/month/quarter/whole administration for the guys in the WH. Insert bigly joke.
so, thoughts? you cant really argue the logic on this, although this is clearly obstructionist in nature. they just have a point; how do you fuck over all the grandmas and grandpas in all this? jokes aside, its obviously a close relationship in American society, and we have intergenerational cohabitation in some homes, I lived with my gma for a little while when I was a kid.
