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

Where have you been the last 8 years? Pinocchio has had a catch and release program since day 1 of his regime's rise to power. What do you call that?

 

What does your response have to do with my post?

 

Mostly a riff on your best Constitutional minds sarcasm.

I found it pretty amazing how the court had to address the govt. lawyers who wrote that mess like they were school children.

I think they were facepalming most of the way through it.

 

Obviously, Der Donald and his legal braintrust disagree with you.


That is why Der Donald and his legal braintrust are not challenging the stay with an argument used in a 1950's shipping case.
That is why Der Donald and his legal braintrust are going back to the drawing board to write an EO that abides in the Constitution.

 

& When Jackson wrote that in the 40's, this

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/17.46

law was not on the books. That changes things.

Similar to the 1956 law righties keep bringing up, neglecting the 1965 law that was updated in 1965:

"no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

 

Got it!

 

Which SCOTUS ruling overturned it and how? The Executive can CHOOSE to brief a judge but there is no law that requires that and the court must give deference they cannot demand or make it subject to their ruling as this court attempted to do. Go back and read Jackson ruling as cited previously.

Feel free to cite the rulings otherwise.

 

That is a totally seperate issue and a law does not vacate a SCOTUS ruling it is subject TO IT.

 

Oh really?

I guess Obamacare - a law that was ruled by SCOTUS as being constitutional -- can't be vacated by a new law.

lol.

Seriously give your noggin a little wag at what you just said there.

 

The law cannot change the Constitution. This court said that it was not removing the stay order because the WH had not proven there was a necessary national security issue. Go back and read Justice Jackson's ruling on THAT matter. No that cannot be changed by a law or a lower court rulung. It is a seperation of powers issue.

 

<smh> ^ What a mess.

Incorrigible as ever.

 

So what are the key points of the new EO going to be? How do they word it to be sure of no risk of loss in the Supreme Court?

 

Good luck demonstrating that a temporary ban on travel from a nation known to spawn terrorism into our own equals "discrimination".

 

Yes the district court has made a mess of it injecting itself into matters of national security and the Presidents constitutional authority.

 

In general you have to show the other side anything you show the judge. Things can get awkward.

 

I think they the judges do have the legalities to question not really deviating and through feelings.

 

Not sure if you read he entire post but it's clear enough that these three were deviating from the case in front of them. An appeal should straighten it out.

 

Yes, that is decided. Where have you been.

 

Thos will help you understand just how fraudulent that statement actually is:

http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

- - - Updated - - -

The same program that has existed in the previous three administrations. Why do you ask?

 

Its being heard again your talking old news

 

The real reason is that a 4-4 SCOTUS leaves the Circuit ruling in effect.

 

I'm troubled by the Washington State ruling that foreigners who've never been to the US have Constitutionally guaranteed "due process" rights. This is an innovation, it has never been that way and implies the US must provide foreigners notice and a hearing before denying them a visa. Spain won't provide a US citizen with a notice and hearing if it decides to deny him a visa, neither will Mexico or any other country -they can't provide a hearing abroad, countries can only provide a judicial hearing within their jurisdiction. Unless the Court in Washington State determines the US must have an Immigration Judge to hold hearings at each of it's embassies it will be impossible to comply with their due process requirements. I'm not sure foreign governments would even agree to allow US embassies to hold hearings affecting the rights of their citizens and instituting such a procedure would require substantially changing the whole visa process.

Another issue that is troublesome relates to the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This is "equitable relief" which requires the issuing judge extreme consideration of the absent party (the Federal government in this case). Yet in issuing his TRO, the "so called" judge found the Federal government failed to show a risk in admitting refugees and immigrants from the countries listed in the impugned Executive Order. We know there is evidence the listed countries harbor terrorists (some of that evidence has been posted here already). In an equitable proceeding the judge must give the defendant (here the Federal government) the benefit of the doubt, the judge must presume the defendant's "good faith" because when the TRO is issued that defendant is not in Court and cannot offer his defence.

Finally, there's recent reporting the 9th Circuit seeks to delve into the Federal government's intent with the aim to determine whether that intent was religiously discriminatory. This seems unwarranted based on the impugned Order, the 9th Circuit seems to be grasping at straws it appears to be searching for a politically premised justification and this reflects its own bias.

 

The ninth circuit court did not even follow their own precedent.

The Supreme Court has &#8220;long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government&#8217;s political departments largely immune from judicial control.&#8221; (Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016))

 

Apparently the U.S.Sct. does not agree.