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

I can't say I'm surprised. It is the best way to get to the heart of any debate rather than trying to hide behind general arguments without addressing specific points.

You still aren't getting it. What the 9th did was ignore the law completely. Their ruling was a violation of the separation of powers because they did not focus on the law itself rather their own opinion of what Trump did.

Oh please. Both were establishment Republican pics and one, the judge in Seattle in his offtime actually volunteers to help immigrant cases. So spare us the BS that this wasn't political. Your side judge shopped to make sure they got that judge and knew it would go through the 9th Circuit. You can't possibly be so naive to think this wasn't planned since this the path liberals always take when they don't win at the polls.

And here is your liberalism in spades. What he did WAS constitutional. You cannot cite a single part of the Constitution he violated. Not one.

Remember that you are citing the most overturned circuit court in US history as your basis for your argument. One that completely ignored the law and instead focused on their personal opinion. This is exactly why they are the most overturned. And as far as your political leanings, I don't determine them, your posts do.

Now if you wish to deny you are a screaming liberal I can counter that with quotes from your own posts. That's easy. Do you want me to do that?

 

Terror Threat: Venezuela Has Been Selling Official Passports to Anyone Willing To Pay...In Iraq.....



According to a new investigative report from CNN, the Venezuelan government has been issuing official passports to any individual willing to pay for one in Iraq, even if they have ties to terrorism.


A whistleblower working for the Venezuelan Ambassador to Iraq alleges workers in the embassy have been making millions of dollars off of the practice, putting the lives of people living in western countries at risk.


[One confidential intelligence document obtained by CNN links Venezuela's new Vice President Tareck El Aissami to 173 Venezuelan passports and ID's that were issued to individuals from the Middle East, including people connected to the terrorist group Hezbollah.]


Venezuela is a close ally of Iran, the backer of Hezbollah, and extremely hostile to the United States. Hezbollah is the most prevalent terrorist organization in the world and be fore 9/11 was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization. The group operates in over 40 countries and on 5 continents, including operations in at least 15 U.S. cities and four major Canadian cities. Those traveling on a Venezuelan passport must obtain a visa to enter the United States, but can enter 130 other countries without one.....snip~


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...years-n2283550


Oh.....uhoo 9th Circuit Court Judges. Guess what happens to your asses, if any of these people get into the US and commits an act of terrorism. That's Right.....no more cushy lifetime job. Plus unlimited humiliation for the rest of your miserable existence. Good Times.

 

Fake news and dishonest hypocrisy is all you get from the right these days.
That's what happens when you have to polish all the turds coming from the great orange hope.

 

I don't know that the constitutional argument will stand up. I mean, Trump is on record saying it was a muslim ban. Throughout his campaign, after his election, and after his inauguration. The only issue is if the courts use these statements to pin him for the religious part of the test.

Thing is, I don't disagree with his ban.

I just want him to ban Saudi Arabia.

Then I'd be perfectly happy.

 

Please educate yourself.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the national government is divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to help ensure that no one branch became too powerful. Courts can judge executive actions to be unconstitutional through the power of judicial review.

If presidential power were limitless and unchecked, your messiah could have every man, woman, and child entering the US from nations he doesn't fancy executed on the spot.

Fortunately, his powers are circumscribed by the aforementioned system of checks and balances.

He can hysterically tweet about it, and his cult can howl and wail over the rule of law but, sorry, your Grabber-in-Chief is not an absolute monarch.

 

The court went outside of the four corners of the document which I would expect a liberal court to do. If anything happens it is the courts fault. They are not in a position to determine national security.

 

I don't think he could order summary execution of immigrants. The constitution is pretty clear, though. He has the express authority to stop immigration. It's in black and white. It is actually one of the only authorities given to him that is not expressly restricted.

Now, the courts can review it. But I don't think, unless it restricts something otherwise then the express intent of the constitution, that the courts can stop the order.

Is it comprehensive enough? I don't think so. Was it implemented childishly? Absolutely.

But that doesn't mean it's illegal, and I think given the profound and horrible videos coming out of Syria, the horrible nature of Islam, people have every RIGHT to ask the president to protect them.

 

So Venezuela is selling passports to potential terrorists.

And if any of them get into the US and commit acts of terrorism you will blame the 9th circuit.

Remind me again - is Venezuela on the list of banned countries?

Do you engage your brain before you write?

 

Too bad you can't point to single part of the Constitution he violated.

The law is perfectly clear he has the power. What you support is the violation of the 3 branch system.

Not that its a surprise of course.

 

The damage has been done huh? While the Demos have lost all political capital trying to delay Trump's cabinet. While Trump has made good on 5 or 6 promises already? Give it a break and come back to reality.

Oh and the 52 law wasn't that broad and not after 82, or 72 nor 2015.



Judicial second-guessing of the president's determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches' plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952) ("[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government."). "t is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien." Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543; see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).


The vast majority of the individuals that Washington State claims are affected by the Executive Order are aliens outside the United States, but it is "clear" that "an unadmitted and nonresident alien" "had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise." Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762; see Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 32. This is fatal to Washington's facial challenges, which require it to show that there is no constitutionally valid application of the order. Even if the state could show a constitutional violation with respect to some individuals — and it cannot — they plainly cannot establish such a violation as to non-resident aliens who are outside the United States and who have no prior connection to this country…The district court's sweeping injunction…conflicts with the basic principle that "an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative." Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982).


Washington State argued that the district court should disregard the president's stated rationale for issuing the executive order because Washington State believed it was prompted by religious animus toward Islam. That argument is wrong, and it cannot be reconciled with Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 US. 753, 770 (1972), which held that, "when the executive exercises" immigration authority "on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion[.]" Cf. Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that Mandel's "reasoning has particular force in the area of national security"). Here, as another district court has recognized, the executive order undeniably states a facially legitimate and bona fide reason — ensuring the "proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals" and "that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists." Order, §§ 3(c), 5(a), (c); see Louhghalam, Order 18-19. The order does so in part by incorporating a list of seven countries that were identified by Congress — and by the Executive in 2016 — as raising terrorism-related concerns.......snip~


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613988


Want to take another stab at it?

 

I think this is a wailing at the removal of globalism. IDK. I really don't understand WHY people are so upset.

I disagree with blocking green card holders. I disagree with enhanced vetting (The vetting process is already insane.) But I do AGREE that he has the express authority, and it isn't restricted as far as the constitution goes. I just wish he had banned Saudi Arabia.

As much as I dislike Trump, I dislike his cabinet more. I want him to succeed, because he is the leader of our nation. We NEED him to succeed. It's not even an option otherwise.

As far as this ban goes, people need to calm the (*)(*)(*)(*) down. They should let in the green card holders and permanent residents (Which I believe they have been) with no further vetting; ban Saudi Arabia, and call it a night.

 

Trump's turd polishers know as little about the Constitution as their great orange hope.
They think that the independent judiciary, an equal branch of government, should just bend over for trump and the free press should just shut up and not report on his asinine antics.
He certainly is trying to ape Putin and his totalitarian mentality.

 

Was that dense grey matter of yours able to filter the Country of Iraq being one of the 7 countries mentioned in the EO and by Congress and BO peep?

Next time think before you open your mouth. Or at least try and show some effort. Now filter that down in big gulps.

 

If your nonsense were true, the judicial decisions that checked his discrimination would have no impact and his ban would apply.

Obviously, you are wrong because the judicial decisions do apply, and your messiah's decree has been nullified.


.

 

SCOTUS has not yet ruled, and the SCOTUS is the final authority on constitutional law.

Tell me, as someone who very clearly opposes the ban, what reasons do you have for opposing it?

 

Let me try to take you through this step by step. If I'm going too fast for you, just let me know and I'll try to make it simpler.

You were highlighting the risk of Iraqi nationals (including potential terrorists) buying Venezuelan passports.

If they came to the States, they would be travelling on those Venezuelan passports. (Although I add that they still need a visa and that might not be easy to get, even for Venezuelans.)

Venezuela is not one of the countries named in Trump's ban.

So those people would not be affected by the ban.

 

Weaklings crave an authoritarian, and regard the Constitutional system of checks and balances conceived by the Founding Fathers as a diabolical conspiracy against their messiah.

 

Then there is the reality check. Try and act like this wasn't a surprise and unexpected okay lil fella.



Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court.....


This week, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz told NewsMaxTV that he expects Donald Trump to lose his appeal to undo the stay of his executive order freezing travel from seven mideatern countries, but to win the next time at the Supreme Court.


"I do not believe that this order constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution," the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told "Newsmax Prime" host J.D. Hayworth. "The fact that they picked seven Muslim states, those are the states that have high levels of terrorism.

"We're talking about Islamic terrorism.

"When you focus on real victims or real perpetrators — and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that doesn't create a constitutional problem.


"So, I think that the Trump administration will ultimately win on that issue, at least as it relates to people who have never been in the United States," Dershowitz concluded......snip~


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ill_win_travel_ban_case_at_supreme_court.html

 

What you don't seem to get is it wasn't the job of the 9th to rule on the law. They were ruling on the stay, and what they did was according to law. The 9th used several precedents to make their ruling.

If you've looked at my posts, you've seen that I haven't been wrong on the law one time, and I'm not wrong now.

As for the rest, we're not going to see eye to eye and I'm not going to get personal with you. I try to keep my posts on the substance and not on the person.

Have a nice day.

 

Yes now lets make it simpler for you.....Iraqi Nationalists, refugees, and others from Syria. Can buy the passport and that doesn't stop them from getting into a 130 other countries. Such as Mexico and Canada. Where they don't need a Visa. Where they can walk across the border.

Do I need to make it simpler for you? Should I call Simon for you, he can have you follow along just by using some pretty lights.


Oh, and you should have read the link. Its not just the Venezuelans making passports, ID's, etc.


ISIS, which has taken over large swaths of Iraq and Syria, has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal to purchase official passports. Additionally, the terror army has set up their own fraudulent passport system......snip~ same link.

Did you need to take that any slower with those alleged smart powers you claim to have?

 

Wrong again. They ignored the law.

LOL Because they ruled makes me wrong? Oh that's rich.

How about the SCOTUS court that ruled the Patriot act was Constitutional? I highly doubt you agree but since they ruled on it they must be right without question according to your warped logic.

- - - Updated - - -

Very nice ownage.

 

And yet the 9th allowed the stay to continue...imagine that. The next round should be fascinating

In the meantime the buffoon's administration looks as inept as can be. I mean it is so bad one wonders if this isn't part of a plan, LOL.

 

Arbitrary discrimination against highly-vetted individuals, many of whom are fleeing the depredations of the Islamic State fanatics, is ineffectual when it targets nations that have not insinuated a single terrorist into the US during the past forty years, and could well damage US security, its global reputation, and its primacy in academia as well as medicine, high-tech, and other thriving capitalistic enterprises that have benefited from the global talent poll that has hitherto been available to them.

There is no indication that the presidential ingénue sought the expertise of the nation's intelligence services, immigration authorities, constitutional scholars, or Congress before his precipitous, currently illegal antic.

Whether he is temperamentally unstable, a victim of narcissistic personality disorder, or a megomanical berserker is speculative, but the judiciary having a duty to determine whether he is in compliance with the Constitution is undeniable, despite his cult demanding that he be summarily obeyed like an absolute monarch, his every tweet regarded as divine revelation.

 

I doubt this is part of the plan but it does work out in President Trump's favor. The 9th Circus court just let him off the hook for any potential terror attacks in the US. Good luck in the mid terms.....hahaha!

 

I have a little more faith in these Supreme Court judges. I don't think they'll be partisan about this. Those San Fran judges would have had to deal with anti-Trump bullies if they'd ruled the other way, the SCOTUS judges won't.