Breaking: 9th Circuit Issues Ruling Not To Protect America's Sovereignty

[Avatar4321]

Your assumption is that the Court will rule along political lines. That's highly unlikely. It will rule along Constititutional lines. The Court is NOT a rubber stamp for Executive Orders or Congressional Legislation.

If they rule along Constitutional lines it's 8-0 to reverse the stay and let the EO stand. There is a standing legal statute granting the president the authority he executed. It's clear and unambiguous.

Yes but there is no way that the four liberals will follow the law, they never do. We will have a four to four, and the case will remand to the lower court for clarification. Then the 9th will have to give explicit transcripts for their ruling, and the world will know they refused to follow the constitution, or the law in direct violation of the oaths they took before being seated. That will be grounds to remove all who took the majority position and replace them. It is time for the Republicans to take up the actions required to stop the dimocrat assault on or country and our people, and use the scorched earth methods the dimshits use. In this case playing nice is not an option, complete and permanent removal of all involved in the deception, lies, treason, assault, espionage, and theft the dimshits have committed is absolutely imperative. They must be rendered unable to even mount a run for a local office for the next hundred years.

Every Constitutional scholar I've read says that the EO is neither legal nor valid, due to the expressed intent to limit Muslim immigration. You cannot discriminate in favour of Christian immigration. It violates everything your country was founded on.

First, there is no intent to ban Muslims in the executive order. It doesn't mention Muslims or Christians.

Second, our assylum laws have always disscriminated towards persecuted religious minorities.

 

[Boss]

As is your post.

You obviously have no understanding of the ruling or the case made by the WH Counsel.

IOW, you are clueless and only pushing your opinion.

I gave you the ruling. Use it to show why it is unconstitutional.

Because the court has no authority to rewrite statutory law. That must be done by Congress.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

14 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Americans are being driven insane by Trump's fear mongering. He is making the United States are larger target by confirming every Jihadists wet dreams. Americans hate Muslims and are at war with Islam. Trump's travel ban is proof positive. Al Qaeda is now opening taunting Trump. None of this will end well.

At home, he's stoking the alt-right to start attacking immigrants and refugees. And undermining the media and the Courts with his attacks.

Donald J. Trump is the world's most dangerous man. Just not in the way his ardent supporters think.

Eventually his hate mongering will convince someone from one of these countries to go on a killing spree. That's all Trump will need. He will be vindicated and see this as a justification to ban Muslims countries around the world, creating the religious war he seems to crave. Actually this may be his plan.

Trump doesn't have hate.mongering. The Muslims do!

 

[Flopper]

The 9th has been ruled a joke years ago. I can't believe anyone here would take them seriously.

SCOTUS will

 

[HenryBHough]

Every Constitutional scholar I've read says that the EO is neither legal nor valid, due to the expressed intent to limit Muslim immigration. You cannot discriminate in favour of Christian immigration. It violates everything your country was founded on.

Please provide us with a link to the source of the actual EO document you appear to have read and point out where the term "Muslim" or the term "Islam" appears.

If you can't or won't do that then please consider whether this is the right board for you.

 

[tycho1572]

The 9th has been ruled a joke years ago. I can't believe anyone here would take them seriously.

SCOTUS will

I can only think the SCOTUS is getting tired of fixing their BS. I know I would if I was in their position.

Fixing an occasional fuckup is one thing. Dealing with those idiots on a routine basis is another.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Every Constitutional scholar I've read says that the EO is neither legal nor valid, due to the expressed intent to limit Muslim immigration. You cannot discriminate in favour of Christian immigration. It violates everything your country was founded on.

Please provide us with a link to the source of the actual EO document you appear to have read and point out where the term "Muslim" or the term "Islam" appears.

If you can't or won't do that then please consider whether this is the right board for you.

You guys really have to read some case law. The point you are making is sadly irrelevant. The EO could've been drafted so much better and could've been defended so much better. The judges were given a stinking pile of monkey dirt and everyone's angry because they called it a stinking pile of monkey dirt.

Fix the EO and reissue it. Done with all this arguing and we start protection for citizens.

 

[pwjohn]

History, precedent, the Constitution & the law are on the President's side. The 9th Circuit just ruled against all of that

All political.

this is political, and the President has broad authority to restrict immigration. He'll prevail.

Detaining green card holders without cause is not up for grabs. So it's not political.

 

[Flopper]

Your assumption is that the Court will rule along political lines. That's highly unlikely. It will rule along Constititutional lines. The Court is NOT a rubber stamp for Executive Orders or Congressional Legislation.

If they rule along Constitutional lines it's 8-0 to reverse the stay and let the EO stand. There is a standing legal statute granting the president the authority he executed. It's clear and unambiguous.

The Ninth ruling was based on the fact that Vista holders have a right to due process, even though they are not citizens. This is a long standing constitution interpretation. They received no notice and had no defined legal way to appeal the action. The court did not challenge the president's authority to regulate immigration. Had Trump given notice as well as specified a method of appeal to Visa holders. The court may have ruled in his favor or at least it wouldn't have been a unanimous defeat. The court didn't seem interested in the religious aspect. Had Obama issued this order, which surely he would not have, he would have seen the constitutional problem immediately. Apparently Trump needs to hire some constitutional lawyers that know their stuff.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Your assumption is that the Court will rule along political lines. That's highly unlikely. It will rule along Constititutional lines. The Court is NOT a rubber stamp for Executive Orders or Congressional Legislation.

If they rule along Constitutional lines it's 8-0 to reverse the stay and let the EO stand. There is a standing legal statute granting the president the authority he executed. It's clear and unambiguous.

The Ninth ruling was based on the fact that Vista holders have a right to due process, even though they are not citizens. This is a long standing constitution interpretation. They received no notice and had no defined legal way to appeal the action. The court did not challenge the president's authority to regulate immigration. Had Trump given notice as well as specified a method of appeal to Visa holders. The court may have ruled in his favor or at least it wouldn't have been a unanimous defeat. The court didn't seem interested in the religious aspect. Had Obama issued this order, which surely he would not have, he would have seen the constitutional problem immediately. Apparently Trump needs to hire some constitutional lawyers that know their stuff.

Winner winner chicken dinner. The problem dear Brutus is not in our courts but in our lawyer.

 

[Flopper]

The 9th has been ruled a joke years ago. I can't believe anyone here would take them seriously.

SCOTUS will

I can only think the SCOTUS is getting tired of fixing their BS. I know I would if I was in their position.

Fixing an occasional fuckup is one thing. Dealing with those idiots on a routine basis is another.

Of course they overrule more cases from the ninth than other courts because far more cases come from the ninth.
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Scoring the circuits - SCOTUSblog

 

[danielpalos]

Blog: Trump could just ignore court’s order halting travel ban

Trump could just ignore court’s order halting travel ban

Does our current status quo make our Constitution a suicide pact? Thomas Jefferson certainly thought it could be, warning that accepting judicial supremacy would make our founding document just that, a felo de se, as he put it in Latin.

Acceptance of judicial supremacy, by the way, is precisely why President Trump's temporary ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations is on hold. Imagine that.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78 that the judiciary is the "least dangerous" branch of government because it "has no influence over either the sword or the purse." Yet it's trumping the man with the sword: the president. Does it have to be this way?

No, Trump could simply ignore the court ruling suspending his ban.

Outrageous?! Unconstitutional?! Actually, it's wholly constitutional.

In his dissent from the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges marriage ruling, the late Justice Antonin Scalia warned that with "each decision ... unabashedly based not on law," the Court moves "one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence."


There's more than one way to do this. Another little known fact is that Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on immigration (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues.

Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court, except for the SCOTUS. So it could have made the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – a bench of fools now reviewing Trump's immigration ban – disappear long ago.

just national socialist, right wing fantasy?

 

[danielpalos]

what do you expect from the 9th District Court of Traitors
I always believed the court were supposed to protect Americans
Another falsehood.comes to light.

The district court judge and one of the appellate judges were "conservatives". They upheld the law. Now the CIA and/or the FBI can conduct a false flag operation and blame the so-called judges.


.

It's time to break up the 9th..they are to big and like 80% of there cases are overulled by the Supreme Court.

..


I read of a bill making its rounds around the house right now.


Break up the 9th !

Be that as it may, the EO violates the immigration Act of 1965.


.

No it doesnt....President has broad authority to do as he pleases with immigration

President Trump should just write another Executive Order with um vague wording and then let the State Department deny visas to all Kebabs on grounds of National Security reasons and tell Homeland Security to enforce the law with an iron rod and if anyone asks questions they can say they can't answer because everything is under the blanket of National Security.

Don't worry President Trump will find a way to get his way so he can protect the American people from Leftist Traitors and Beta Cuck Faggot Judges in Faggot San Francisco.

There are no national security reasons, or we would have, "national security tax rates".

 

[danielpalos]

Funny how the 9th Circus thought it fine when Obama did it.

Well Obama's ban on Iraqi refugees, while similar, had a much smaller scope than Trump's order.

It was not similar, at all.

 

[danielpalos]

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!" - Trump on twitter a moment ago

​

Donald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump
Follow

More​

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

• 
  
  
  • RETWEETS20,802​
  • LIKES54,237​
  • ​
    
    
    ​
    
    
    ​
    
    
    ​
    
    
    ​
    
    
    ​
    
    
    ​
    
    
    ​
    
    
    ​

3:35 PM - 9 Feb 2017
49,666 replies20,802 retweets54,237 likes
Reply

50K

Retweet

21K

Like

54K

No, it isn't; or, Congress would be able to justify, "national security tax rates".

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Update:


www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/liberal-ninth-circuit-court-overturned-average-80-time/

 

[danielpalos]

Update:


www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/liberal-ninth-circuit-court-overturned-average-80-time/

so what.

 

[Boss]

The Ninth ruling was based on the fact that Vista holders have a right to due process, even though they are not citizens. This is a long standing constitution interpretation. They received no notice and had no defined legal way to appeal the action. The court did not challenge the president's authority to regulate immigration. Had Trump given notice as well as specified a method of appeal to Visa holders. The court may have ruled in his favor or at least it wouldn't have been a unanimous defeat. The court didn't seem interested in the religious aspect. Had Obama issued this order, which surely he would not have, he would have seen the constitutional problem immediately. Apparently Trump needs to hire some constitutional lawyers that know their stuff.

Let's break it down...
Whenever the President (that's Trump)
finds that the entry of any aliens (people who are not citizens)
or of any class of aliens (any kind or type of non-citizens)
into the United States (the sovereign nation of the US)
would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, (pose a risk)
he may by proclamation, (executive order)
and for such period as he shall deem necessary, (He, not the courts or congress)
suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens (ban, hold, delay, detain, etc.)
as immigrants or nonimmigrants, (doesn't matter if they are immigrants or not)
or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
(HE can fucking do pretty much any damn thing HE deems appropriate.)

This is not a visa requirement. It has nothing to do with policies for issuing visas.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They expose themselves as mere Progressives, not judges. The president's constitutional authority in this matter could not be more clear.

Where did you earn your JD? Please share your legal analysis.

One does not need a particular degree to read and comprehend plain English.

 

[Flopper]

Every Constitutional scholar I've read says that the EO is neither legal nor valid, due to the expressed intent to limit Muslim immigration. You cannot discriminate in favour of Christian immigration. It violates everything your country was founded on.

Please provide us with a link to the source of the actual EO document you appear to have read and point out where the term "Muslim" or the term "Islam" appears.

If you can't or won't do that then please consider whether this is the right board for you.

You guys really have to read some case law. The point you are making is sadly irrelevant. The EO could've been drafted so much better and could've been defended so much better. The judges were given a stinking pile of monkey dirt and everyone's angry because they called it a stinking pile of monkey dirt.

Fix the EO and reissue it. Done with all this arguing and we start protection for citizens.

That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.