MADNESS: 9th Circuit Court rules against Trump's legal travel ban

J

jeffblue101

New member
the courts invent and enforce an imaginary right to abortion but fail to protect a clearly written power given to the President by Congress. pure madness.
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Considering this ban was intended to be temporary (except the Syrian part), Trump's ranting about the suspension preventing us from having the security we need doesn't make much sense. Is anything preventing them from re-evaluating the vetting now? Why don't they get on it? Fix whatever holes you think exist. I don't see why the ban has to be in place in order to start working on that. The current process appears to be working. Did something change that makes it more urgent?

Combine this with the fact that earlier they said that conditions could lead to an extension of the ban and it adds fodder to the argument that this was just a way to have a legal Muslim ban.
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
jeffblue101 said:
I don't get it, does our country even have laws anymore? Trumps travel ban followed the letter of the law but yet liberal judges ruled against it. I admit there was some easily avoidable bumps during initial implementation but the the Order uses powers granted to the president via congress what else do these judges want.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf
Click to expand...
This decision wasn't a final decision about Trump's order. They only said that the suspension can remain in place while the lawsuit continues.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
This part of the ruling is notable:



Reviewability of the Executive Order

The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations). Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
jeffblue101 said:
I don't get it, does our country even have laws anymore? Trumps travel ban followed the letter of the law but yet liberal judges ruled against it. I admit there was some easily avoidable bumps during initial implementation but the the Order uses powers granted to the president via congress what else do these judges want.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf
Click to expand...


Yes, we have laws. Trump tried to bend them. He wasn't successful this time.
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
annabenedetti said:
Yes, we have laws. Trump tried to bend them. He wasn't successful this time.
Click to expand...

bend what?? the courts can review all they want since Americans have a right to launch endless lawsuits but suspending an order during review in which his powers which were clearly given to the president by congress is unreasonable.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
jeffblue101 said:
what does the balance of power have to do with suspending a lawful order. they can still review without suspending. this is just a political cheap shot by leftist judges.
Click to expand...

The courts will decide.

Here's a list from Vox of what might happen next. We've already gone through steps 1-3, so here's what they've suggested might follow:


  1. Meanwhile, Robart still has to decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction — an indefinite hold — on the executive order. (The temporary restraining order is only supposed to last until Robart decides on the injunction.)
  2. Robart has ordered both sides to submit briefs for the injunction by February 17. But he hasn’t scheduled a hearing on the injunction yet, and the Ninth Circuit, in its ruling Thursday, acknowledged he probably won’t get a chance to rule on the injunction for the next several weeks. That means the temporary order would be in place until then, if nothing else happens.
  3. However, the Trump administration has options.
  4. It could appeal Thursday’s ruling to a bigger panel of Ninth Circuit judges (11, rather than three). Given that the Ninth Circuit is notoriously liberal, it’s not clear why the administration would try its luck with that.
  5. Or it could appeal to the Supreme Court to do what the Ninth Circuit panel wouldn’t, and stay Judge Robart’s order.
  6. Justice Anthony Kennedy (who’s the justice in charge for the Ninth Circuit) would have to decide whether to take the case, or to ask all eight members of the Supreme Court to consider it. For such a big case, he’d probably do the latter.
  7. That would happen in a matter of days or even hours.
  8. To grant the stay, the Court would need to get five justices — meaning at least one liberal on the Court would have to join the conservatives in siding with the Trump administration.
  9. And even if that happened, the stay would only be in place until Robart ruled on the preliminary injunction; it’s not clear whether the Court would want to bother to intervene in this case for such a temporary reason.
  10. (Especially when there’s a mountain of other litigation against the executive order, and another federal judge could issue a separate restraining order or injunction against the ban at any given time.)
  11. No matter which way Robart rules on the preliminary injunction, it will probably be appealed back up to the Ninth Circuit and then to the Supreme Court.
  12. But an injunction, unlike the temporary restraining order in place now, doesn’t have to be resolved immediately — it isn’t an emergency order.
  13. So it will likely take months for the preliminary injunction to make it back up to the Supreme Court...
  14. ...at which point, the Court will probably have seated nominee Neil Gorsuch.
  15. Gorsuch could give the conservative wing of the court a 5-4 majority to side with the Trump administration. Or he — and maybe even other conservative justices — could decide to strike a blow for the judicial branch against the Trump administration’s expansive theory of executive power. We have a long, long way to go before we know.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
or, trump can issue an executive order and imprison any judge who disagrees with him! :banana:
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
jeffblue101 said:
what does the balance of power have to do with suspending a lawful order. they can still review without suspending. this is just a political cheap shot by leftist judges.
Click to expand...
The Washington judge that overturned the original ban and one of the three federal judges who unanimously supported him were both Republican appointees.

It would appear that in "The Republic of Trump," anyone who doesn't make the "politically-correct" decision based on "alternative facts" is branded a "leftist" irrespective of the facts, the law and the Constitution!

Even Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Gorsuch, has found this "so called" President's person attacks on other judges as "demoralizing" and "disheartening."

What's next - infomercials from the Oval Office promoting Ivanka Trump's merchandise to the public!
 
D

Danoh

New member
Yep - Hair Furor Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall.

Next, Trumpty's fall from that fraudulent, $23 Billion wall.

America made great...again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top