SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH)

SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH):

IRAN
LIBYA
SYRIA
YEMEN
SOMALIA
CHAD
NORTH KOREA
VENEZUELA

NEIL GORUSH BALANCES SCOTUS & RULES AS SCALIA MAY HAVE.

DEMOCRATS STOP WAITING FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT OR TRYING TO ENCOURAGE AN ASSASSINATION.

INSTEAD KEY DEMS SHOULD BE STRATEGIZING TO WIN IN 2018 OR 2020.


Sources: BBC, CTV News, NY Times, TIME, Youtube


***** Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban to take full effect


The US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump's travel ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go fully into effect.

But the directive against travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen still faces legal challenges.

On Monday, seven of the nine justices lifted injunctions imposed by lower courts on the policy.

The ruling covers the third version of the directive that President Trump has issued since taking office.

The presidential proclamation also imposed restrictions on travellers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials, which have gone into effect.

In striking down the other parts, lower court judges had cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Further arguments will be heard this week by federal courts in San Francisco, California, and Richmond, Virginia.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed an earlier version of the policy to take partial effect.

The president's travel bans have each been frustrated by the courts to some degree:

In January, he signed an order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending all refugee entry. The measure prompted protests and legal challenges across dozens of states
A revised version in March exempted green card holders and dual citizens. By June, the Supreme Court allowed most of it to go into effect, a including 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US, but granted a wide exemption for those with a "bona fide connection" to the US
President Trump's third order was announced in late September. It added non-Muslim-majority nations North Korea and Venezuela, provisions which lower courts have allowed to proceed
What have lower courts said?

In striking down the other parts, federal judges have cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Lower courts have also found the policy violated the first amendment of the US constitution covering freedom of religion.

In October, a Maryland federal judge said: "The 'initial' announcement of the Muslim ban, offered repeatedly and explicitly through President Trump's own statements, forcefully and persuasively expressed his purpose in unequivocal terms."

A federal judge in Hawaii said the administration "lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'".

A court in Virginia ruled: "The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed," the court ruling said, pointing out that the countries' populations were between 90% and 99% Muslim.