Only two justices dissented.
"U.S. top court lets Trump's latest travel ban go into full effect
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts.
The court, with two of the nine justices dissenting, granted his administration's request to lift two injunctions imposed by lower courts that had partially blocked the ban, which is the third version of a contentious policy that Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January.
The high court's action means that the ban will now go fully into effect for people seeking to enter the United States from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad. Lower courts had previously limited the scope of the ban to people without certain family or other connections to the United States.
Trump's ban also covers people from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela, but lower courts had already allowed those provisions to go into effect.
The nine-member high court said in two similar one-page orders on Monday that lower court rulings that partly blocked the latest ban should be put on hold while appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Virginia weigh the cases. Both courts are due to hear arguments in those cases this week. Two of court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said they would have denied the administration's request.
The ban was challenged in separate lawsuits by the state of Hawaii and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both sets of challengers said the latest ban, like the earlier ones, discriminates against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution and is not permissible under immigration laws.
Trump issued his first travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries in January, then issued a revised one in March after the first was blocked by federal courts. The second one expired in September after a long court fight and was replaced with the present version. "
"During the Christmas season last year, the Obama administration ignored the majority of Utahans by designating a vast tract of land in southern Utah as a national monument.
Last week, the Department of the Interior took a welcome step toward reversing this executive abuse and returning to a legislative solution.
President Barack Obama used the 1906 Antiquities Act, written to protect “objects of historic or scientific interest,” to transform 1.3 million acres in San Juan County into the Bears Ears National Monument.
There is no doubt that specific sites within the new monument demonstrate historic, scientific, as well as cultural and spiritual significance. Native American tribes believe the area is sacred. And every citizen can appreciate the natural beauty of the sandstone buttes that gave the area its name."
Trump thinks people should be able to hunt and fish and Obama doesn't.
- Saudi Arabia - United Arab Emirates - Egypt - Lebanon - Kuwait - Cuba
Number of these countries on Trump's Travel ban: 0
This isn't about hunting and fishing on these lands. You can do those things now. It's about energy exploration, mining, and other industrial development. In fact, Trump's move to shrink both of these monuments will likely result in fewer public hunting and fishing opportunities.
Nonsense. Where did you get that notion?
As far as the "travel ban" I said from the beginning it would pass and it will win all appeals. Leave it to atheist to again prove to us how jaded, biased, and stupid heshe is. The ban is on countries who are not vetting properly and working with us to vet properly. Arabia and Egypt for example are real hot spots but work with us on vetting, in an extreme way when needed. Cuba is a crap hole and an enemy to the free world all right, but are they a hub for terror coming to this country or training there? It is the islamic swine we need to be focused on, those that are planning and attacking freedom throughout the world in the name of their insane theocracy. Along with those that would applaud them. That's not Cuba. We also have no vetting problems with Cuba. It is a real crime that mikey V is allowed to go near children as an educator.
"In fact, Trump's move to shrink both of these monuments will likely result in fewer public hunting and fishing opportunities."
Wrong! National Monuments make it challenging for sportsmen to access and often times prevents state agencies and their NGO partners from accessing said lands to manage wildlife at all.
That mountain did not form overnight. The locals have been using it for decades, if not centuries and has yet to become a wasteland.
Every square inch of the land Trump re-designated will still be under federal control. It merely opens the land up for certain commercial activities that were previously restricted under the monument designation, like energy exploration and production.
Just like the vast acres of BLM in Colorado, when those commercial activities take hold they reduce opportunities for hunters and fishermen. Ranchers with grazing rights will treat the land like their own, often limiting public access. Land that once rewarded a determined hunter or fisherman willing to put in the effort, will inevitably have a spiderweb of roads and 2-tracks that lazy hunters and fisherman will buzz around on 4-wheelers. I've seen it happen dozens of times with land I'm familiar with here.
That included hunting and fishing, and allowed the Interior Department to issue only a limited number of livestock grazing permits.
It also prohibited Americans from building bathrooms and fire pits.
More consequentially, it put most of those lands off-limits for mining, oil and gas drilling, and logging.
And most motorized vehicles, including trucks, ATVs and motorbikes were shut out.
Returning most of those acres to local control will reverse what oil and gas companies call a federal land grab.
National monuments are somewhat like national parks: lands that are protected by law from most development.
While Congress creates national parks, howveer, national monuments are created by presidents under the 1906 Antiquities Act, a law that allows the White House to unilaterally mark millions of acres off-limits.
The Antiquities Act requires presidents to limit their national monument designations to the 'the smallest area compatible' with the care of the land.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz50LXHAvLc Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Utah Republican leaders had complained that the monuments locked up too much federal land. And Trump said 'this tragic federal overreach' had resulted in 'harmful restrictions on hunting, ranching
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz50LYEGAWj Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
More nonsense. Read my link if you want the truth. Here's the pertinent quote regarding hunting and fishing in Bears Ear:
Will hunting, fishing, and outfitting continue?
"Yes. Hunting, fishing and outfitting are popular and important activities for local communities and for recreation-oriented small businesses. The Forest Service and BLM will continue to apply the laws, regulations and policies currently used in issuing and administering permits on public lands in the national monument, consistent with the proper care and management of the national monument. The monument does not change the State of Utah’s jurisdiction as it relates to fish and wildlife management."
Please explain why unit 2C in NM is a hotspot and "holy grail" for large mule deer in New Mexico and the very heart of oil and gas development.
There are already many federal laws on the books that protect the land. A monument was not needed for BE's.
Gray Ghost's Link
Does the national monument affect existing rights-of-way, water or utility infrastructure or commercial activities?
"The national monument designation does not alter or affect valid existing rights of any party and will not impact the operation, maintenance, replacements or modification of existing utilities, pipelines or telecommunications, as long as they are consistent with the care and management of the objects identified in the national monument proclamation."
Access for state wildlife agencies to manage wildlife on federal land often depends of the whims of the BLM, USFS or NPS Superintendent for that particular area. 'Access to manage' on Monument properties is even more challenging.
The 'access to manage' issue has been one of my top two issues when I go back to DC to lobby. The other issue, of course, is the disease issue involving domestic sheep transferring a deadly pneumonia virus to wild sheep when they come in contact with each other.
Every state wildlife agency in the West has horror stories about the Feds deying access to them on important wildlifee management issues. The issue often involves simply who the superintendant of the day is. I've had personal experiences where we were being told 'Hell, no,' by an NPS Superintendent in CA. Then she got transferred and her replacement was exactly the opposite. He'd call us and ask us to come and help.
For example, this latest expension on monumuments created the Castle Peak Monument in CA. There's an old style big game drinker there which is heavily used by wild sheep and which is in desperate need of repair. Back in the 90's, an identical style drinker in CA had a ram get up on the top of the deteriorating tank. He fell through and drowned. Two more wild sheep then also fell through and drowned. Then 45 more wild sheep later died of botulisim from drinking the contaminated water.
The drinker in the Castle Peak Monument needs repairing or better yet would be to replace it with a newer style drinker. But the Feds are saying CA DFW and the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep cannot come in and fix the problem unless it's an 'emergency.'
When aked what would be considered an 'emergency,' the Feds are essentially saying we'd have to wait until another incident like the one I mentioned above takes place. UFB!
I've been to DC twice this year to lobby on this issue and have met with Sec. Zinke's staff on this both times. Less than one week after we were back there in early Sept., Sec. Zinke issued Executive Order 3356 directing Dept. of the Interior land managers to work with and cooperate with state and tribal agencies and their NGO partners so as to allow them access to manage wildlife on the lands in their jurisdictions.
Although the Desert Protection Act (created the Mojave National Preserve back in the '90s') clearly states the CA DFW has sole rights to manage wildlife on the MNP, the language is oftentimes meaningless as noted above, because whomever is the superintendent at the moment will often interpret it however he or she chooses to do so, then do whatever he or she darn well pleases.
Thanks for your efforts to help the Bighorn sheep.
From what I'm reading from numerous sources, the monument designation in Bears Ear and in Grand Staircase-Escalante didn't change the state's wildlife regulations or authority in either location.
Trump's ruling simply changes the land designations back to what they were before, which was mostly BLM. The feds still ultimately control all of the land. The state still manages the wildlife and sets wildlife regulations. The only difference is, now those public lands are subject to other commercial activities that were previously restricted under the monument status. Based on my experiences here in Colorado, that is never good for outdoorsmen. Ever.
I'd love for certain BLM properties in Colorado to be designated as monuments. That would eliminate a vast majority of the lazy yahoos on their 4-wheelers who ruin the hunting and fishing for everyone on those properties.
I caution the outdoorsmen of Utah to be careful of what they wish for.
Trumps travel ban? Much needed.
And Trump's ruling did neither of those things. it was fed land before the monument designation, and it remains fed land now, only with fewer commercial and industrial restrictions.
My apologies for derailing this thread.
As a sportsman, I couldn't disagree more. I kind of like having 640 million acres of land at my disposal. Given the legal requirements around state land and the track record of the states in managing it (Nevada has sold off 99.9% of the state land it has ever owned, as it was required to; Utah is at 50%; the numbers are similar across other western states), I struggle to see how anyone thinks this could possibly be a good idea, at least from the perspective of a sportsman.
"From what I'm reading from numerous sources, the monument designation in Bears Ear and in Grand Staircase-Escalante didn't change the state's wildlife regulations or authority in either location. "
That's probably true. It's also misleading and even irrelevant because in the minds of the land managers for those federal properties, the 'monument' designation elevates the importance of those lands and they therefore are more apt to restrict access for state and tribal agencies and their NGO partners to manage wildlife.
That's exactly what happened in the Castle Peak monument area. Prior to the monument designation, SCBS (which built the drinker) would have been able to replace or repair the drinker in question. But now they are being told they will only be allowed to do so in an 'emergency,' regardless of the current threat to wild sheep the aging drinker presents.
Throw in that the lands in question are in Utah. Home of SFW and we all know how they help the common hunter. They already took to many tags no way we want the lands to be in there control.
I'd love to discuss this more with you, but perhaps we should start a new thread. It seems staying on topic has suddenly become important to a few. As if that ever happens here.
It's my thread. The discussion has moved to an important topic, so I'm cool with that.