Breaking: Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Trump's immigration order

Increasing the quota has no impact whatsoever on the vetting process. It just takes longer for the refugees but it doesn't alter how the vetting itself is done.

 

Except that one was appointed by Bush, and is a conservative.

 

The other option being living peacefully with immigrants which has been happening more or less since the nation was founded.

 

Radical Jihad declared a war on 9-11-2001, and the interested parties have not signed a peace treaty. Is that enough for our robed friends?

 

No. If (more like when) he brings us into war, he won't have to ask the permission of the courts. That's covered by the Constitution. That poor old and somewhat tattered document. No. If he brings us into war, he must get permission from Congress. It's called checks and balances. Our forefathers were brilliant that way.

Now, the War Powers Resolution (a terrible resolution IMHO) does allow him to send troops - which is different from going to war. However, he has to notify Congress within 48 hours and can only keep them there for 60 days before requirement of congressional approval. It's called checks and balances.

 

Lol...Only if your robed friends also wear pointy hoods.
The independent judiciary doesn't need your so-called president's permission to rule on points of law.
They are an equal branch of government, in case you didn't know.
But please keep wasting time trying to polish that turd.
Trump has been publicly spanked for his ignorance and bigotry, so when you keep gnawing on it, only helps to remind people of your great orange hope's latest turd dropping.

 

This has nothing to do with religion. Wise up.

 

How are you going to that people with no record, especially from troubled to countries?

 

Maybe there should be testimonies from the armed services and police? these sources could give an expert opinion, from people that are supposed to protect the people of the united states, as to how they feel about it? this would be like interviewing doctors about new medication, instead of the people getting the prescribed medication.

 

Excellent post!

 

There are several Constitutional problems with the EO, but the one they ruled on was that the President does not have unchecked power, even in the case of National Security, and that they failed to prove their case that the ban was necessary over the steps that were already in place. The DOJ lawyer said because it involved national security, the EO was un-reviewable. The entire basis of our government is that no one part has absolute, unchecked power to do anything. Each of the three parts is able to keep a check on the power of the other two.

 

Bad generals prepare for the last war, good ones for the future one. In this case the ban is on countries in which ISIS, AL-QAEDA and other terrorist groups are active, in control of the territory and millions of people, where the government is impotent and/or uncooperative and from which the enormous number of poorly vetted people, possibly heavily infiltrated by terrorists and fundamentalists are flooding the West and the US.

 

No, it is Trump who has now claimed that if anything happens it will be the judiciarys fault. The man is a pathetic excuse for a President.

 

Excellent post. Liberals are obsessed with questioning the opinion of the president when theirs means nothing. Does he have the power to do what he did? Yes, end of story.

 

No POTUS, no matter how fanatical his cult, and no matter how absolute they deem their messiah's authority, is above the Constitution, the law of the land the interpretation of which is the purview of the judiciary alone.

Richard Primus, Professor at the University of Michigan Law School, has provided a thoughtful analysis:

Nowhere does it say [in the Constitution] “courts should stay out of immigration and security issues”…

However,

 

This is factually incorrect. The power has been given to the President through law.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

A judge's opinion of the merits of the action means nothing. Their opinion on how much of a risk we are at or how much this will curb terrorism means nothing. The president has the power to do exactly what he did and there is no law that can be cited to prove otherwise.

This is the classic difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals see the law as bending to their emotions. Conservatives see the law as its actually written.

- - - Updated - - -

Please educate yourself.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.​

 

Sorry to have to tell you this but the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not ISIS thugs.

- - - Updated - - -

Except of course Trumps repeated statements that he was going to institute a Muslim ban. Or were you not paying attention during the election?

 

This is actually Obama's ban, yet the MSM and the Democrat sheeple refuse to acknowledge that fact!

- - - Updated - - -

SO, once the vetting system is in place, non ISIS thugs can enter the country. This is a temporary ban, the outrage is assinine.

 

No, the 9th didn't even rule on what you posted. They ruled on whether or not to overturn the stay. If you have read my other posts in this thread, I have already said the President DOES have the authority to limit immigration and the issuance of visas for national security purposes, BUT it has to be done Constitutionally.

The judges opinions DO mean something. The system of checks and balances is crucial to the operation of our country and protects us from any one of the three branches seizing power unConstitutionally. The stay has been upheld because the DOJ lawyer did not make his case proving that the changes the EO made were necessary to keep us safe, and should be reinstated. Thus the stay means that we go back to the former way we were handling travel into the US. That means that people are not allowed to travel from those 7 countries into the US without a visa.

You may be a Conservative and I may be to the left of you, but that does not make me a liberal, so that whole last line is nothing but non-sense and inflammatory. Every political alignment test I have ever taken puts me in the moderate, centrist category. Everyone that disagrees with you isn't a liberal. I haven't stated anything "liberal," but instead have talked about the law. There's nothing emotional about the law. It seems that Conservatives aren't the only ones that can read the law.

 

Exclusive: Syria’s Assad tells Yahoo News some refugees are ‘definitely’ terrorists.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusiv...gees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html


Michael Isikoff
Chief Investigative Correspondent.



The left leaning Isikoff. Now understands what the illiberals will never comprehend.

 

Exactly. You are making my point.

Then if you believe that their opinion is factually incorrect as they lack the power to question the merits of his order. Only the lawful ability to produce it should be in question.

Interpretation of the law is the only duty of the judge not their personal opinion of the actions of the law.

Do you really want me to dig through your posts proving you are a liberal? Really? And yes you have stated liberal opinions in this thread when you ignore the reality that the judges have no right to question the merits of this order only the lawful ability of the president to do it.

 

I agree the 1952 act was pretty broad in what power the president had. It is interesting to note immigration acts have been constantly updated to eliminate refusing to admit those of a different "political" persuasion and those the president just didn't like - as the 1952 law allowed. At one time (1907) immigration law allowed for banning "imbeciles, idiots & professional beggars", LOL. It is also interesting to note the time frame, 1952 - Korean war in full swing and the Cold War really heating up. "Commies, socialists and other assorted miscreants were on the list.

Giving a president this range of latitude is risky (my opinion only) and I believe the framers of this 1952 statute were working under the assumption any future president would be a sober, thoughtful, understanding and reasonable person. Trump is anything but......

I'm assuming, in addition to going to SCOTUS, there are two other options; go back to Robart's court or rewrite the EO and do a professional job this time, not some ham fisted edition. Either way, I still think Trump has a chance of winning however, the damage has been done to his administration and it is severe.

I still maintain this EO was entirely political, it has nothing to do with any threat that popped up between January 19 & 20. It is Trump being Trump, feeding his mob........

 

This is not nor has ever been Obama's ban. Where do you people get this stuff?

 

I'm not going to respond to all the parsing you have done.

Are you really trying to make the argument that you posted a law attempting to refute my post, one that the 9th didn't rule on and that I said the 9th didn't rule on, is me making your argument for you? Seriously? That's some circular logic.

Four judges have now ruled on this issue- 2 appointed by Republicans and 2 appointed by Democrats. Read that as often as necessary to understand this was not done by liberals, or using emotion. The decision was based in law, not politics.

Trump has several options now. One is to re-write the order so it is Constitutional. He can appeal to the entire 9th, or take it to the Supreme Court. His problem is that it was temporary and time is ticking. By the time it makes it to the Supreme Court, the bans will have expired.

You don't get to determine how to classify my political leanings. You're welcome to your opinion, but I really don't care what you think I am politically. Believing that the judges have the right to decide what they did does not make me or anyone else a liberal. Sheesh! You claim to be able to read the law, but not to know the 9th has the right to make this decision? Uhm… OK.

 

And you are free to express that opinion. But for the courts the only concern is the law and does he have the legal authority to do what he did.

Anything else is irrelevant and this decision is actually an attack on the separation of powers because it denies the law and replaces it with personal opinion.