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

Then cite from the ruling how they determined the order violated 8 US Code 1182 and where in the constitution foreign citizens are granted due rights to enter the country. Cite the irreparable harm to the state, they cannot claim it for other bodies, so where is the concrete irrparable harm they HAVE SUFFERED while this ban was in place.

 

And where is the court granted authority over the President when it comes to regulating immigration. You do know it would be perfectly constitutional if we had NO immigration at all.

Or are you ready to claim now that every citizen of the world has a RIGHT to immigrate to this country and if denied or delayed can file a lawsuit?

 

The courts ban on a ban. The vetting sucks as testified in congress and by people that do the vetting = no stopping terrorists entering the country.

 

You can don a powdered wig and pound your little gavel like a woodpecker on steroids, but your cherry-picked, self-serving interpretation of the law is of no consequence.

Real judges are dealing with the matter. There are presently cases moving through 11 of the 13 U.S. appeals court circuits, as well as many numerous habeas petitions, challenges to detention, filed on behalf of individual people detained at airports after the ill-considered ban.

If your messiah, a virgin in statesmanship and the niceties of governance, had advantaged the wealth of knowledge and experience concerning the law, national security immigration, and diplomacy available to him, as well as consulted his fellow public servants in Congress, he might not have precipitously fallen upon his ample butt in such a spectacular rookie pratfall.

I'm sure the distraction from spewing pissy tweets about Nordstrom's is unwanted.

 

So where did this court fine the EO violated 8 US Code 1182 or that that law is unconstitutional or that the President must get the approval of the SCOTUS on foreign policy and national security issues outside the country?

 

Not to mention these judges don't have access to the classified information that President Trump does.

 

Refusal to allow entry is not a habeas corpus issue, they were not being arrested and could have turned around and flown back home at their will.

 

I'm more in favor of an all out ban. Religious affiliation doesn't matter. If you're a muslim, a Christian, an innocent bystander with no dog in the fight, and you're a citizen in the middle east, you need to find your own hiding spot until we can figure this all out. The left definitely need to pick their battles wisely and stop insisting that every move Trump makes is another step towards armageddon.

 

It also demonstrates that the left will put American citizens' lives at risk to toe partisan lines. If Trump would have only banned Iraqis like Obama did, these same people would still be complaining.

 

When SCOTUS rules, it becomes part of the Constitution. You don't have to like it. My point remains- the three branches are to provide checks and balances on each other, and they have equal power in the government.

If you want to rant about SCOTUS not doing as you wish, rant on.. tilt at that windmill, Don Quixote.

 

Still waiting for case law that shows Trump to be in the wrong, here.

 

I wonder. Maybe this whole thing is being done strategically, specifically to try and get more power in the hands of the Executive by way of a SCOTUS decision & precedent. Is that possible? Might Presidents Trump & Bannon be concerned about the rights of visa and green card holders in this country?

 

No it does not.

 

Why are the whites not passing laws to cars and driver safety since more people die car accidents. If we are talking about safety first. I want to protect the American people from all these accidents but the whites don't care. Safety first!

 

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Hilarious! All of a sudden, Bush is a "liberal".

 

Bush seems like a liberal to the fanatical right, white nationalists, fascists, the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the Klan, and every grifter rancher out west who doesn't pay his taxes.

 

False. He mentioned Muslims once. Then he talked about stopping immigration temporarily from certain countries.

 

For anyone who believes he can contrive credible arguments to re-instate the so-called president's edict, I would suggest he would do well to defer to the multitude of lawyers, constitutional scholars, and judges now addressing the mater.

Indicting a co-equal branch of government and impugning the motives of any judge (In June, Trump had, vociferously and repeatedly, with no evidence whatsoever, persisted in his baseless accusation that an Indiana-born judge overseeing a lawsuit regarding the Trump® University scam was biased because of his "Mexican heritage.") because you are upset by the result of the jurist's far greater legal knowledge is "disheartening" and "demoralizing."

These narcissistic tantrumps are detrimental to the nation.

As impossible as it may be for him to grasp, it's not about him; it is about the law.

His fawning cult may not care if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot somebody, but that acknowledged fanaticism should dictate their recusal in all legal matters that concern their messiah.

 

I think this is a very positive development for the team Trump. Americans get to see who stands where on the important issues. Sort of, traitors have publicly identified themselves. Furthermore starting many initiatives at the same time keeps liberals and other deluded lunatics on the left occupied with their childish efforts to undermine any team Trump's effort. While they're wasting their energy and time on immigration executive order other things get done quietly. Keep it up team Trump!

 

Ignoring the fact that its not in the constitution. Show me where Jefferson was wrong

 

What he did on his Temporary Ban Executive Order was poorly executed, but he intention is spot on. I don't want to become like Germany, Sweden, Belgium, France, Norway, etc... The Executive Branch makes National Security policy and decisions, not the courts, not the states, the ruling is not following the constitution. We now have a new precedent thanks to the 9th Circuit that says a State can make National Security policy. WTF? Thankfully, the 9th Circuit is the most over turned and non-constitutional court in the land and their craziness (which Liberals support) will get struck down in time. 58% of Americans side with Trump on this matter.

 

I really have no interest in your hyped up invective please stick to the issue at hand.

Try again

Refusal to allow entry is not a habeas corpus issue, they were not being arrested and could have turned around and flown back home at their will.

 

No, if they ruled otherwise, we would praise them for not being partisan hacks. I like non biased judges that don't cower to bullies. These 9th Circuit judges are not that. They made decisions based on fear. We need strong judges that don't make decisions based on fear.

 

Ok. Well in the real world, outside of liberal loony land San Francisco (and the west coast), things are done differently. What is considered free of emotion and passion there, is considered biased and based on fear everywhere else.

 

I would gladly put my money towards building the wall. I actually care about this country. How much have we benefited from the enormous global talent pool coming out of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen?