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

That is precisely what doesn't need to happen. To appeal would be to validate this whole scenario. Those mystical beings in black robes have violated their oath and need to be held accountable. They are attempting to legislate from the bench. To take it to the Supreme Court where more mystical beings in black robes that everyone knows will be voting along political lines is but to endorse the whole sordid affair.

Once their oath has been broken, they take on responsibility personally, their veil of immunity void.

 

Sort of like the right-wingers furiously polishing all of trump's turds, hoping to distract from the (*)(*)(*)(*) they're peddling.
Sisyphus had an easier task.

 

Did they?

- - - Updated - - -

They have since 1803.

 

The same law every president back to FDR used is unlawful? The law the ninth circuit failed to even include in their opinion? Go figure.

 

Wow, a philosopher, you got that one right.

 

You realize there are thousands on the watch list don't you? You think they are just sitting on their hands or maybe convincing others to do their dirty work?

 

No it does not its being heard by a court in Seattle

 

I would guess the same place you didn't get yours!

 

Yes

They are not supposed to

 

Irrelevent to the EO.

 

Korea was called a "police action" to avoid getting a Congressional Declaration of War. Korea occurred long after the Constitution stated that a declaration of war was the duty of Congress.

Vietnam occurred long after the Constitution stated that a declaration of war was the duty of Congress.

No, Iraq was a military engagement authorized by Congress. The last time Congress Declared War was WWII.

 

There is a reason these nutbags on the 9th have 80% of their decisions that make it to the Supreme Court overturned.

 

Dildo Brained Turnip, a pretty accurate description, but of the wrong party.

 

Specious non-sequiters all you got!

 

So you admit it js not whether this EO is constitutional you like the judges just don't like it therefore you want to use unconstitutional acts by the court to stop it.

 

Show me where the EO is a 'muslim ban'? Also the left IS celebrating the 9th circus decision. I have a feeling that even if the President opened the borders you guys would find fault.

 

So you where there personally and know all this. I think not, just another assumption of one that believes reality is based on what they want to be true.

 

Judges, you mean little gods?

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Romans 2:1

 

I could have put any group in there to show how ridiculous your comment was (see below).

Citing

Here is what you posted...(my emphasis)

By your interpretation Congress can pass laws that state:

1. All black people are banned from public transportation.
2. We forbid the Courts from reviewing this law.

1. All Muslims are banned from public transportation.
2. We forbid the Courts from reviewing this law.

1. All Christians are banned from public transportation.
2. We forbid the Courts from reviewing this law.

1. All bearded people are banned from public transportation.
2. We forbid the Courts from reviewing this law.

So, do you want to again assert that "Congress can simply include a clause in the particular law that says that the court can't review it."? Or will you admit that your post was total BS?

 

LMAO, there are already procedures to vet people coming into the US. Those visiting have to state their business.

If you want to improve the procedures fine, but to focus on just a few nations, is not a very smart way to improve the process. I.e., in all this clamoring about people from the ME of the southern border, don't forget the northern border and the other nations of the ME, can have terrorists too, or a dedicated terrorist can go through those nations and through the northern border to easily avoid these over simplistic actions from Pres Trumps EOs.

 

Doesn't say anything about immigration does it.

Here is what Justice Robert Jackson, FDR'S chief counsel at the Nuremberg and tthen his attorney general had to say about the courts attempting to supercede and second guess the president on foriegn policy and immigration issues.


The court below considered, and we think quite rightly, that it could not review such provisions of the order as resulted from Presidential direction. The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports neither are nor ought to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences. But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 454 , 982, 122 A.L.R. 695; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 299 U.S. 304, 319 -321, 220, 221; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302 , 310. [333 U.S. 103 , 112] We therefore agree that whatever of this order emanates from the President is not susceptible of review by the Judicial Department.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/333/103.html

 

Well, if they had to provide a finance plan for their stay, that would be good too? i mean, if they are illegals, then they will show up without having the cash to 'tour the states.' this would mean that they have other business, yes?

 

If Judge Gorsuch can read the Constitution of the United States with the comprehension ability of half the posters in this forum, he'll know two things, if nothing else:

1. Non-U. S. citizens in foreign countries have no (NO) rights under the Constitution.
2. The President of the United States has the right to bar entry of non-citizens in order to protect the nation itself. Hint: it's been done before, and there wasn't any hyperliberal judicial ambushes staged in Federal circuit courts when it was done before....

I decided to examine this statement, and look at what I found:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/02/09/ninth-circuit-most-overturned-court-us
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/9th-circuit-has-80-percent-reversal-rate-at-supreme-court/
https://americanlookout.com/jpb-fla...eals-is-the-most-overturned-court-in-the-usa/

Not even a well-known liberal spin-desk like Snopes was able to fully evade the thrust of this finding: http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

Good work! If an earthquake doesn't get those lock-step, liberal bastards in San Francisco and Seattle, maybe the TRUTH about what is actually IN the Constitution will!

 

Do you really think that would let that jewel be settled?

 

Why would, and why should a tourist, have to tell when, where and how they are going to spend their money. It wouldn't be good for the multi-billion dollar tourist industry in the US.

The reason why illegals are here, are most likely for employment, while some are certainly up to no good, the number of them being terrorists is small, as is noted in the past 16 yrs since 9/11.