●   Bản rời    

Tòa Án Tối Cao hứa sẽ xem xét pháp lệnh của Trump vào tháng 10, đồng thời cho phép

Subject: ***_Tòa_Án_Tối_C ao_và_ý_đồ_của_Trump_chặn_dân_từ_Trung_Đông__...
From: Mike Wilson
Date: Wed, June 28, 2017 7:51 am

Theo Alan Smith - Business Insider:

Ban đầu, Trump đòi 90 ngày để rà soát lại thủ tục khám xét những người thường, nhập cảnh vào Mỹ từ 6 nước Trung Đông .

Trump cũng đòi 120 ngày để rà soát lại thủ tục khám xét những người dân tị nạn nhập cảnh vào Mỹ từ khắp nơi trên địa cầu .

Tòa Án Tối Cao hứa sẽ xem xét pháp lệnh của Trump vào tháng 10, đồng thời cho phép những ai có liên hệ từ trước với thân nhân, bạn bè, doanh nghiệp, đại học trong nước Mỹ được nhập cảnh hợp pháp mà không bị lệnh của Trump ngăn chặn ! đúng như phán xét của các tòa án cấp dưới !

- Trump thua đau ở chỗ này, nhưng miệng vẫn ti toe "thắng lớn" ...
vì đó là bản chất của "ngài" (!)

Như vậy đa số từ 6 nước Trung Đông sẽ được vào, chỉ trừ du khách từ 6 nước ấy (không có thân nhân tại Mỹ) mới bị chặn, và dân tị nạn từ khắp nơi bị chặn, nếu họ không có ai đỡ đầu trong nước Mỹ !

Đến tháng 10 thì lệnh 90 ngày của Trump sẽ hết hạn, như vậy Tòa sẽ không còn vấn đề để bàn cãi!

Nếu Trump "cương ẩu", đòi đổi pháp lệnh 90 ngày, thành pháp lệnh mới, có hiệu lực thường trực, thì Tòa sẽ phán đó là luật mới, và sẽ quẳng nó trở lại xuống các tòa cấp dưới, để họ xét lại từ đầu !

Nếu Trump đòi gia hạn pháp lệnh cũ thêm 90 ngày, để rà soát thêm thủ tục khám xét, thì Tòa sẽ đặt câu hỏi với Trump, "Ngài làm ăn kiểu gì mà đã gần hết cả năm rồi, mà vẫn chưa rà soát xong thủ tục khám xét?"

nth-fl
____________

The ball is "back in the president's court": Here's the key question as Trump's travel ban heads for a Supreme Court showdown


The White House has claimed the ban, which temporarily restricts travel to the US by citizens from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and from all refugees for 120 days, is needed so it can review its vetting process.

It is possible the bans will no longer be active by the time the court is scheduled to hear the case. The court asked both parties to address whether the case would be moot by then. With oral arguments set for early October, the 90-day pause would likely have been completed, while the 120-day ban would be in its final days.

If the Trump administration decides to take no further action, and the executive order is left simply to expire, Pearlstein told Business Insider there would be an extremely strong case for the litigation being moot, meaning the court could not review it.

"The whole point was Trump gets 90 days to carry out this internal review. By the time the court gets this case, it will have had those 90 days, [so] why is there any further legal question," Pearlstein said in a phone interview. "Plaintiffs arguing the case is moot are going to have an extremely strong case at that point if he takes no further action. The court may still hear the case, but just focus on arguments about mootness."
She added the administration may argue the Supreme Court should "still hear the case on the merits," but "the arguments will be extremely strong that the case is moot."

If the Trump administration decides to either make the ban permanent, issue a new executive order, or take further action imposing new procedures on travel from those six countries — Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Syria, and Yemen — or beyond, Pearlstein said the court will most likely dismiss the case or remand the case to a lower court.

"In essence, that would be a whole new lawsuit," she said. "Who knows what that order is. Maybe it doesn't discriminate, maybe it doesn't distinguish those six countries, maybe it proceeds more broadly or more narrowly and avoids some of the legal problems this one created. So, the appropriate and most likely thing for the court to do in those circumstances is send the case back to the lower courts and essentially start all over again."
If that option is what the Trump administration decides to do moving forward, its looking at a potential years-long court battle.

The other possibility Pearlstein outlined was the chance the administration asks the court for more time to review the vetting procedures. But she considers that option to be the least likely of the three.

The administration "would be taking a real risk" by going forward with that option, she said.

"And the risk is that it looks like something that is in less than good faith," she said. "The administration announced in late January that it wanted to undertake this review. And by October, it will have had the better part of a year to do that. If it hasn't been able to complete it in almost a year, a justice could almost wonder if in fact, that was the real basis for seeking the ban of people from this country in the first place."

Top Democrats have seized on the third point Pearlstein made, asking why the president hasn't already been able to review the vetting process since more than 90 days have passed in his term. Along the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly called for a ban on Muslims entering the US, and opponents of the ban have used Trump's past statements to argue the ban is intended to unconstitutionally target Muslims.

"Remember the purported reason for President Trump’s original travel ban?" Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a statement. "He needed a 90-day pause to formulate an extreme vetting model for travelers from these seven, now six, Muslim-majority nations. It has now been 150 days, and the President is spending more time fighting American judges than any suspected terrorists."
"The Supreme Court will revisit this awful policy again in October," he continued. "Any chance President Trump will have his vetting reform ready by then?"

---