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

I think the 9th did the right thing. I think the EO was poorly written and incompetently implemented. I think it was a campaign promise that Trump was determined to do and did it too quickly. He needs to slow his manic roll, and do things right, not just fast. He's like a kid saying, "look what I can do" and doing it… simply because he can, not because it needs to be done. I want him to do the right thing for the country, not so he has a win. I may be by myself with that sentiment, but that's where I am.

 

2.5 meters.

In the face of the ongoing terrorism threat in France, Paris’s iconic monument, the Eiffel Tower, will undergo a massive facelift to tighten security by next autumn.

Heightened security measures around the capital's "iron lady" were put in place as early as 2012 during the European football championships. Temporary fences were installed last June, but these rather unattractive barriers will now become permanent with the placement of a 2.5 meter-high bulletproof glass wall, according to French daily Le Parisien.

http://www.france24.com/en/20170209-paris-erect-bulletproof-glass-wall-around-eiffel-tower-terrorism

Cheers

 

What you still don't understand is your opinion of how it is written or implemented is irrelevant to the law. The only question legally is whether or not the president has the authority to curb immigration through executive power and he does. Any entertaining of whether or not it will curb terrorism based on the opinion of any federal judge is a violation of the separation of powers because they have no legal authority to do so.

 

NO! This is not all on one side. Stop with the "lefties" this and the "righties" that. This divisiveness has to go. It is literally ripping our country apart. Look at the slide in Trump's approval ratings. Look at the latest information on Flynn. Look at the rallies and the protests. I was a child when Kennedy was elected and remember every election since. I never remember things being like this in my country. Trump's losing it and some partisans are defending him rather than pushing him to do things the right way. EVERYONE wants what is best for our country, not what is best for "lefties" or best for "righties." Everything isn't partisan.

If DeVos does nothing, I'll be happy. She's incompetent to run the Department of Education and the only cabinet member ever to need the VP break a tie to be confirmed. Did you see her hearing? She couldn't answer any of the questions she was asked. It's ridiculous that more qualified people were overlooked because this woman donated lots of money to those voting for her.

I'm stepping out of this thread after this post. It's depressing me.

That was not even the question the 9th was asked to deal with. They were asked to rule on whether the restraining order should be overturned or not.

I can't talk about this anymore. It's getting circular and I am repeating myself. Read the findings. I linked it in this thread.

Enjoy your evening.

 

I went to France last year. Didn't notice any barriers at the Eiffel Tower. I imagine clear plexiglass would be even less noticeable.

But not my place to stop the hysterics around here.

Via con dios.

 

Of course they didn't because as liberal judges they avoid the law that is staring them in the face proving they are wrong. The president has the authority. There is no law that states a judge can question that authority. That itself is a violation of the separation of powers.

 

Didn't Lincoln issue an arrest warrant for a judge that defied his orders? Yea, and the left thinks we all need to accept the judges over-riding the President in a time of WAR.

Why didn't these judges just admit that his EO is legal, its just that they don't agree with his political outlook? It's becoming increasingly clear that the left just wants to destroy this country. Trump is playing the 9th circuit for fools- probably to expose how their motivations are purely political, they are NOT deciding law, because he can accomplish what's in the EO by "extreme vetting."

 

Right. So we do nothing about 10,000 American deaths per year, but we spend trillions worrying about who is killing 333 per year.
I guess that's your idea of protecting the security and safety of innocent US citizens.

 

LOL What? No it does not become part of the Constitution. Its an opinion on law and like any court opinion the Senate and House can supercede it through legislation.

My God where did you come up with that? By that logic slavery would still be in place through Dred Scott v. Sandford.

 

Exactly! They should have kicked it back immediately since the federal judge has no legal standing to question the power of the president to regulate immigration.

 

No.

This is what happens when Russians learn American history from Wikipedia.

 

TIL: Trump haters are not aware of current events.

Paris to erect bulletproof wall around Eiffel Tower

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.fr...l-around-eiffel-tower-terrorism?client=safari

 

Where is your evidence we are doing nothing?

 

The judge in question was the Chief Justice of SCOTUS

 

Aaaaand wrong again. You really should research these things before embarrassing yourself. .

Unfortunately, for Lincoln's apologists, research recently unearthed two other solid sources to corroborate the account set forth in the private papers of the Federal Marshal, Laman.

In 1887, George W. Brown, the mayor of Baltimore, later a Supreme Court judge for Baltimore, wrote in his book, Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of War, (John Hopkins University, 1887) p. 90, of a conversation he had with Taney following the Merryman decision:

"Mr. Brown, I am an old man, a very old man, (he had completed his 84th year) but perhaps I was preserved for this occasion." I replied, "Sir, I thank God that you were."

He then told me that he knew his own imprisonment had been a matter of consultation, but the danger had passed, and he warned me from information he had received, that my time would come.

It did.

Eight years before in 1879, The Memoirs of Benjamin Robbin Curtis's were published. Justice Curtis was one of the most prominent lawyers in that period. He represented President Johnson in his trial before the Senate following his impeachment. Most important, he served as a Justice on the Supreme Court. He wrote the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott, which Lincoln carried in his pocket while debating with Stephen A. Douglas. He resigned from the Court after a dispute with Taney over that case. Yet he admired the Chief Justice for his Merryman decision, and makes reference to the plan to arrest Taney, calling it a "great crime."

If he had never done anything else that was high, heroic, and important, his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus and the dignity and authority of his office against the rash minister of State who, in the pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great crime, will command the admiration and gratitude of every lover of constitutional liberty so long as our institutions endure. Vol. 1, p. 240.

Commenting on this, Mayor Brown wrote 8 years later:

"The crime referred to was the intended imprisonment of the Chief Justice. Although this crime was not committed, a criminal precedent had been set and was ruthlessly followed."

Brown then cites the oft quoted remark by Secretary Seward to Lord Lyons (British ambassador to the United States), boasting of his power to imprison just about anyone.

Finally, it was Secretary of State, William Seward, who signed the executive orders suspending the right of habeas corpus throughout the war, when it should normally have been the President. Curtis's account refers to "the rash minister of State," who could be none other than William Seward. History shows that it was Seward who urged the President to embark on a policy of unrestrained arrests of private citizens by the military. Most likely it was Seward who urged the President to sign the warrant to arrest Taney, and most likely on second thought, Lincoln did not permit the arrest to take place. Chief Justice Taney and Seward were bitter enemies. So much so that Taney said, if Seward were elected President, he would not administer the oath of office to him. So arresting and imprisoning Taney would have been Seward's final triumph over the Chief Justice. And so the case stands, the Presidential warrant to arrest the Chief Justice is on solid ground. It represents just one more tough nut the apologists and gate keepers have to live with; it cannot be swept under the rug, so to speak, as a fabrication.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01...roger-b-taney-a-great-crime-or-a-fabrication/

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/1195393/posts?page=60

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2001/11/lincolns_crackdown.html

https://americanvision.org/5420/lincoln-vs-taney-a-case-of-military-tyranny/

Perhaps someone needs to crack open a history book.

 

Or perhaps someone needs to figure out that websites aren't books.

 

Wow that was a pretty sad dodge. And ignore my evidence as well. Face facts, you were dead wrong.

 

Makes you wonder where he went to school or did he simply sleep through US history. This is a well known fact , like his wanting to deport all Negroes to a nation of their own

 

I guess that proves that they are wrong? Just admit you were ignorant on this fact please!

 

So post the warrant. Is this the part where you go *poof*?

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't even talking to you. Put the beer down and go to bed..

 

That's ridiculous. The Constitution and the INA specifically gives the President the authority to limit immigration of certain nationalities based on national security and gives discretion to the President to define what those national security issues are. As you know there is no mention of the INA and the specific clause which gives the President the authority to issue the EO.

 

I know you aren't. You ran from my facts given to you on this.

 

...again... I don't know what part of I wasn't talking to you do you not understand. Though I have to admit your ZERO knowledge of Constitutional law is impressive.

 

He must be a judge on the 9th circus