U.S. appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban

[tonyz]

Fascinating...so according to the judiciary in Kenya they can't close the world's largest refugee camp...

...I don't think we want to overtake them as far as being the world's largest refugee camp...

...but, I very well could be wrong.

[bblhead672]

This case won't likely get to SCOTUS until there is a full 9 justice panel. Even then, with Trump's SCOTUS nominee publicly chastising the POTUS statement about activist judges, who's to say that Gorsuch won't side with the 9th Circuit?

[sinjefe]

The fact that he accepts it all or waits for the supreme court is the same as admitting that the judiciary IS the most powerful branch and that he needs them to affirm it. Proving my point that the judiciary has become the law of the land with the legislature AND the executive branch suborned to it.

Given this: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...never_was.html

These justices could easily be impeached by a GOP controlled congress......but they won't.

Also here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ial_power.html

Trump should disavow their decision and direct DHS to follow his EO.....but I'm betting he won't either.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by bblhead672

This case won't likely get to SCOTUS until there is a full 9 justice panel. Even then, with Trump's SCOTUS nominee publicly chastising the POTUS statement about activist judges, who's to say that Gorsuch won't side with the 9th Circuit?

The specific law in question is fairly clear. The president has the authority in matters of national security (the EO that caused the ruckus needs to be withdrawn and a modified and a new EO issued limiting the scope a bit and track with language in the applicable statute in question) then, let the Washington state clowns refile and see what happens. But, whatever the administration does DO NOT let the lawyer who argued before the 9th - and lost - near oral arguments in this case.

To be fair, although no one actually "knows" - Gorsuch, however, is not known to be an activist judge - he reportedly does not have a pattern of making new law. The 9th arguably made new law.

In any event, I suspect that if you travel in from one of the 7 countries - better add some extra time (and maybe bring your proctologist along) for your trip. DHS still works for the Executive not the judicial.

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Hand

The people who should be "getting it" are the same folks who feel that the United States is Constitutionally obligated to open its arms to any and all immigrants, regardless of race/creed/religion,

Well, the US like to flaunt the following to the the world on our high horse:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That, and "we are a nation of immigrants"
So when the world takes those in literal sense.....the old archaic Constitution does not stand a chance against from emotional standpoint.

Forgive my ignorance, but are there other countries facilitating anchor babies?

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by bblhead672

This case won't likely get to SCOTUS until there is a full 9 justice panel. Even then, with Trump's SCOTUS nominee publicly chastising the POTUS statement about activist judges, who's to say that Gorsuch won't side with the 9th Circuit?

He's not confirmed yet; he would get asked either way. I don't find it odd at all that a jurist up for SCOTUS would remark that Trump's quips aren't helpful. He can cite that as evidence of objectivity, or some Republican Senator will feed it to him thus. No matter how he words it, won't matter. He's up for confirmation, not the President.

Anyone remember "Clearly, the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" ?

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by tonyz

But, whatever the administration does DO NOT let the lawyer who argued before the 9th - and lost - near oral arguments in this case.

+10

[sfshooter]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

The fact that he accepts it all or waits for the supreme court is the same as admitting that the judiciary IS the most powerful branch and that he needs them to affirm it. Proving my point that the judiciary has become the law of the land with the legislature AND the executive branch suborned to it.

Given this: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...never_was.html

These justices could easily be impeached by a GOP controlled congress......but they won't.

Also here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ial_power.html

Trump should disavow their decision and direct DHS to follow his EO.....but I'm betting he won't either.

Well stated Sinjefe
Impeachment for these judges should begin immediately. If this is not done then these courts will continue to control the Trump administration for the duration of his term(s).
Disregard the 9th's decision and go about the business of protecting this country. Sure the neo-fascists will wine to high heaven but since he has broken no law and is following the letter of the law and precedents set by numerous other presidents, there is nothing that can be done to him.
It doesn't take an attorney, all it takes is a high school education in English to read the US Code cited for the EO and the wording of the EO to see that no law has been broken or the Constitution violated.

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by Badger52

He's not confirmed yet; he would get asked either way. I don't find it odd at all that a jurist up for SCOTUS would remark that Trump's quips aren't helpful. He can cite that as evidence of objectivity, or some Republican Senator will feed it to him thus. No matter how he words it, won't matter. He's up for confirmation, not the President.

Anyone remember "Clearly, the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" ?

Anything he says that might be remotely construed as negative regarding Trump can only serve to endear him to the lefties, like perhaps a future "Maverick" that whole dust up may very well be a ruse. YMMV

[sinjefe]

Seems to me that what this judge and the 9th circuit are saying is that, now, anyone in the world, US or not, who thinks a Presidential policy / action MIGHT harm them, can now sue him in a US Federal court completely changing the idea have having standing. I'd like to know what our lawyers on this board think of this.

[PSM]

Alan Dershowitz: Trump Should Withdraw Travel Ban and Come Up with New One That Passes Muster

by Josh Feldman | 8:20 pm, February 9th, 2017

Alan Dershowitz said on MSNBC tonight that while he doesn’t think the court ruling on President Trump‘s travel ban was particularly solid, the president should withdraw the order anyway and come up with one that passes legal muster.

He first told Chris Matthews, “This is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many, many flaws.”

However, Dershowitz went on to say that since Trump’s argument is that national security is at risk without the order, he needs to withdraw this one and go back to the drawing board to come up with one that won’t run into these same issues, “otherwise you won’t be protecting the security of the United States.”

As he acknowledged, doing this would require Trump to admit that he was wrong, but Dershowitz insisted, “I don’t think he has any option but to withdraw this order now and come up with an order that’s constitutional.”

Link with video: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-ders...passes-muster/

I'd go Dershowitz one better and get a friendly AG in a more conservative appellate district to file the suit immediately after it's signed. If it's going to be fought in the courts at least fight on friendly terrain.

Pat

[GratefulCitizen]

Dershowitz is setting up future political spin.
Right now, if any terrorism comes from people let in who would've been kept out, the left and the judiciary own it politically.

He is attempting to cast it as Trump's fault for not writing the order better, giving the left cover should anyone let in actually be a problem.
Rewriting the order would also have the effect of tacitly acknowledging judicial supremacy.

Trump needs to stick to his guns.
Make the left and judiciary back down, or make them own the consequences.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Anyone else notice the new lexicon for what was once called: 'alien', 'illegal', and recently becoming 'undocumented'?

Well, now the MSM and SJWs have dropped all the pronouns or adjectives and everyone is just an...

IMMIGRANT

As in, this nation was founded on immigrants, immigrants are the social fabric of the American culture, and immigrants contribute billions of dollars per year to the local economy and the IRS in taxes making them the most valuable asset our nation requires.

Only one thing is missing from the media hail storm being unleashed in the news and the social upheaval being shouted by protesters in the streets and airports.

Those "immigrants" came here through the 'legal' process, they want to work hard to make and have a better future for themselves and their children and they paid a high financial price and personal sacrifice to become an "American."

Then again maybe we should just focus on Melania's accent and the need to dismiss her humble process of coming to America through less than honest procedures to become a naturalized citizen while marrying a really rich guy who successfully became President of the United States of America.

For f_cks sake, Christopher Columbus wasn't welcomed here for long either but he sure left an indelible mark behind after returning home with the riches and rewards of the native inhabitants and people flocked to the new world with dreams of a better life.

I welcome immigrants from all countries of the world to come here. My wife is from another country and we paid a handsome price in money, time and patience with the bureaucracy called the INS.

I don't like immigrants to cross our borders in the night carrying drugs for the cartels, or to be smuggled in through seaports by criminal enterprises in human trafficking just to become slaves and a financial burden to a system that is already overburdened with its own citizens.

Yes, there is a pronoun and/or an adjective before 'immigrant' it's "legal" or "illegal" and one is within the law and the other is not. I don't understand the confusion these people and the media have.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not a nation at all. And if we do get to start picking which laws to follow and which laws to ignore than allow me to choose to ignore the laws that provide you the protections to ignore the law.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

We are either a nation of laws or we are not a nation at all. And if we do get to start picking which laws to follow and which laws to ignore than allow me to choose to ignore the laws that provide you the protections to ignore the law.

For me there are immigrants, or there are invaders. Maybe I need to re-read the thread where the media said it's their job to tell us how to think, because I'm still not listening to them. (x-thread points ).

This is an example of how they maneuver the narrative. I don't play that game; I continue to use the same perjoratives I've always used. And, when in doubt, US statutes work. Lib butterflies hate being pinned for display.

Muhammad Ali Jr....detained at airport despite being a citizen.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...port/98379082/