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

In the entire decision they did not even mention the statute that grants him the authority. How can they issue a stay and not even mention the applicable law and how his EO violates it?

 

Yet it was expected they would. You are aware that the SCOTUS has smacked them down 19 out of the last 26 times, Right?

Their lucky....if it would have been me. I would have used a backhand for the impact.


Oh, is that what you think. Now lets check reality.


Poll: Majority Supports Trump's Executive Orders on Sanctuary Cities, Refugees.....


It's time once again to play pick your poll. Let's start with the one Trump will like -- and not dismiss out-of-hand as "fake news." A fresh Morning Consult/Politico survey measures majority or plurality support for every Trump executive order they polled. The three that garner a majority are withholding federal funding from sanctuary cities (55/33), temporarily banning travel for most people seeking to enter America from seven majority-Muslim nations (55/3, and suspending new federal regulations (54/33). Also popular are orders pertaining to the unraveling of Obamacare and construction of two pipelines delayed by the Obama administration:




Trump's job approval is underwater at (42/51), with most Americans holding negative views of his character and handling of major issues. One big exception: The economy, on which Trump is right-side-up by three points. A majority of men approve of the president's job performance; a larger majority of women disapprove. Issue by issue, it's striking how different the results are from the Quinnipiac and Politico surveys, with the former being much less favorable to Trump and Republicans overall. The Q-poll nevertheless finds strong approval (+20) for Trump's selection of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, with a very large majority (+40) of respondents saying that Democrats should permit a vote on the nomination (even as most give a thumbs-down to Republicans' use of the Biden/Schumer Rule against Merrick Garland. I'll leave you with this:


NEW POLL: Trump administration seen as more truthful than news media http://hill.cm/CiGwpUG






There goes your theory about looking inept.

 

Reality: All branches of government are respecting the law, and are now in compliance with the rulings of the courts.

That reality trumps cherry-picked opinions from private individuals having no standing in the matter, be those opinions favorable or unfavorable.

 

Until SCOTUS smacks down the 9th again. Due to the laws posted. Then all will be in compliance. Maybe you should look up Jonathan Turley. Another Constitutional Attorney of the left that thinks SCOTUS will stand on the law that they already decreed.

 

I agree that green card holders ought to not have to go through extreme measures, as well as permanent residents, or US citizens who visit. However, the latter portion re: Islamic State Fanatics, is irrelevant. Humanitarianism says we should care, but US constitutional law says the President has the express authority to limit immigration from any country by any alien for any reason he deems reasonable. I dislike what ISIS is doing also, but, it's not our job to police the globe.

The Neocons did that for 8 years before the American public threw them out, then the Liberals did it, 8 more years, and we threw them out too.

It's not a matter of effectiveness; it's a measure of constitutional authority, which Donald Trump expressly has given by the constitution. It may damage the efficacy of those programs, but it's quite clear Trump has made the speculation that the damage is worth the expediency of banning these people. I agree none of those countries has attacked us, and I disagree with the countries chosen - I want Saudi Arabia banned.

He doesn't have to do so. It's also not expressly illegal; the courts may rule that ban is stayed, but that doesn't make it illegal, and the constitution gives him the authority to ban immigration, in black and white.

I agree the judiciary has the authority to review; however, the constitution is rather clear.

Now, I agree, I think it's sad Trump called it a Muslim ban. I personally am not against a Muslim ban.

Here's why.

There are extremist Buddhists who do not blow themselves up and kill innocent victims. There are fundamentalist Buddhist who do not legislate faith and force everyone to convert.

The problem with Islam is not it's extremists or it's fundamentalists. It's the fundamentals of Islam (And Judaism and Christianity, too boot.) Banning MUSLIMS takes us one step closer to a religion free state; which I support entirely.

 

And again you are incorrect. At the very least knowing what the law states asking for a stay itself is a violation of the separation of powers.

Of course you are wrong. You ignore the reality that the law invalidates the argument they are making. Their argument has no merit because the law is clear he has the right whether they agree or like it.

I wasn't making it personal. You denied something you clearly are. I countered by asking if you wanted me to prove my argument. I am a die in the wool conservative. I don't pretend to be middle of the road and only lean a certain way because I think it makes me look more "reasonable" and therefore my arguments should be taken more seriously. That's not my bag. But I don't see it as personal to counter someone's belief in a debate.

 

Because Trump signed the order. These people didn't say a word when obama turned Cubans around.

 

My statement being an example of thr consequences of such a court ruling, are we under a dictatorshil of unelected judges?

All the time prove it and prove these judges received the same classifed informatio upon which they just declared they have the higher authority to judge such matters over the President.

What standing and whose due process? A foreigner in a foriegn country has no due process here never have. Where is such due process granted in the Constitution and where are states granted standing in immigration law and enforcement thag supercedes tbe President.

[/quote]

It is entirely based on their beliving it is not a necessary policy.

 

Well we all know that he didn't sign an order that had muslim anywhere in it, so you can't call it a muslim ban. Plus it bans more than just muslims. I agree with you on banning Saudi Arabia. We should temporarily ban all middle eastern countries. The reason he didn't add them, however, is because supposedly people are getting vetted before they travel here from there, but not from the 7 in the order.

 

Trump's ban wouldn't change any of that. Which is why I called you on your completely false conclusion:

 

Three unelected people in black robes, just substituted their thoughts on what constitutes a threat, for that of an elected President.

The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is clear that Congress has complete authority in regards to US immigration policy. In the act that Trump used, to write his EO, Congress delegated specific powers to POTUS.

The Court had no right even taking up the case.

 

You've really swung back to the left in recent days, haven't you?

 

Is that a serious question?

 

This is the result of liberals appointing liberal judges in the court system. We get rulings not based on the rule of law, but on progressive "feelings" and social goals.

- - - Updated - - -

Four liberal activist judges, you mean.

 

No - it was rhetorical. MMC tried to show that Venezuelan passports are being sold to potential terrorists, and that if any such people get in to the US the 9th circuit will be to blame.

I was pointing out that if they have Venezuelan passports, Trump's ban would not apply to them anyway. So if terrorists get in that way, you can't really blame the 9th circuit.

 

Where did the court state his Order violated US Code? Where did they state that law was unconstitutional? Where did it find in the Constitution due process rights for foriegners to enter the country and where has such precedent been established? What concrete irreparable harm was shown?

 

Looks to me like the courts are. Whats the check on them ? There was no ban

 

Those decisions were partisan decisions. Those judges knew what they'd face if they ruled against the bullies of San Francisco. Lets see how the SCOTUS rules. They won't face the leftist bullyish backlash that the 9th Circuit would have faced.

 

They didn't even address the law under which he has absolute authority.

 

They didn't, because they can't. Congress needs to remind the courts of who has the power to shut down their entire operation. Looks like it may be time for Ryan and Mitch to use the power vested to them in Article 1, Section 8, clause 9, and break this run away Circuit Court up.

 

Bipartisan support to restrict brown people from coming to the US? Something tells me one party is never going to go for that.

 

Yes it means we need more orientalists on the bench who rule on what the law says not what they want it to say