We are a nation of laws......

[TemplarKormac]

The recent 9th circuit appellate decision confirms that tenet.....Mindful that the district court decision was by a judge appointed by a republican....and the appellate decision ALSO had a judge appointed by a republican.......Ergo, Trump's inane comment that the decisions are "all political" is as stupid as most of the comments he tweets.

We are NOT a nation of right wingers interpreting the Constitution as they want it to mean.

We are NOT a nation of ignorant presidents who learn their legal precepts from watching episodes of Law & Order ....

We are NOT a nation that supports xenophobia, torturing and misogynistic policies because some clowns tell us that otherwise we should live in fear.

The "emperor's new clothes" are being exposed.

Nation of laws huh? Funny how you're ignoring these:


(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

--From Section 306 (Restriction on Issuance of Visas to Nonimmigrants from Countries that are State Sponsors of Terrorism) of The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (HR 3525), of which 73 sitting Democrats (House and Senate) voted for, of whom included Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders. This Act is current law.

On the Amendment H.R. 3525 -- Senate Vote #75 -- Apr 18, 2002
H.R. 3525 (107th): Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform ... -- House Vote #131 -- May 8, 2002


8 USC 1182 (f) (Or Section 212(f) Of the Immigration and Naturalization Act)

(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

 

[nat4900]

Actually the only thing the 9th circus proved is activist regressive judges don't give a flying fuck about the law. The law grants the president sole discretion on this. Now it's time to lobby congress to halt all immigration, refugees and student visas for at least 5 years.

I realize that you're royally pissed (dare i say "butt-hurt" as you morons like to say?)

BUT, what these courts have found is that what Trump tried to pull off is something that is UN-constitutional...period.

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Dear Lord, you are clueless about how judicial review works in this country, aren't you?

Is this the state of civics education in this country? No wonder so many people fell for Trump.

You might want to look up the meaning of Sole Discretion.

View attachment 111640

Show me in the law where the president has to justify his decision to ANYONE, no hurry I'll wait.

Try using the OTHER half of your brains....

The Trump DOJ offered NO proof to the court that these banned immigrants posed any "detriment to the interests of the United States."

 

[BoSoxGal]

The 9th is the second most overturned circuit at @ 80%, the federal circuit is the most overturned at @ 83%.

To put it in context, the average rate of reversal at the SCOTUS for all the circuits is @ 68%.

I also want to point out that the lawyering usually gets better the further up the appellate process you go, such that it's not necessarily that the circuits made poor decisions but that they were operating within the context of poor arguments. There's more to it, of course - but I assure you that most lawyers on both sides of the ideological fence are not in any way shocked by the reversal rates nor do they lack confidence in our judiciary.

If I may....and based on your legal knowledge.....what are the chances that Trump's DOJ requests an en banc hearing from the 9th?

It seems like an unlikely choice; the full circuit is overwhelmingly appointed by D Presidents so would not likely return a different decision.

I want to be sure folks understand what they decided; they didn't actually decide on the merits if the ban was unconstitutional. They denied the DOJ's request for relief from the stay at the district court level and that relief was denied because, 1) DOJ didn't make anything like a decent case that they would win on the merits; and, 2) DOJ didn't articulate an irreparable harm to the government sufficient to justify relief. It was really poor lawyering, actually - I listened to the oral arguments and would recommend any interested citizen also do so, it wasn't that long and it was very interesting. Look up the legal terms on Wikipedia and you'll be able to follow it reasonably easily. I'm happy to explain anything to anyone regardless of political persuasion - off board and in confidence if you want to keep your asshole vibe intact.

Edited to add, the asshole comment wasn't intended for the questioner.

 

[nat4900]

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,

Again, yet another right wing moron chimes in with the same half-assed "argument (as FOX is telling them to spew)......THE DOJ SHOWED NO EVIDENCE OF THESE IMMIGRANTS POSING A "DETRIMENT" TO THIS COUNTRY'S INTERESTS.....

Surely there;s got to be a grown up around to explain it to you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again, yet another right wing moron chimes in with the same half-assed "argument (as FOX is telling them to spew)......THE DOJ SHOWED NO EVIDENCE OF THESE IMMIGRANTS POSING A "DETRIMENT" TO THIS COUNTRY'S INTERESTS.....

Surely there;s got to be a grown up around to explain it to you.

Hmm, so why are there the three state sponsors of terrorism on that list (Iran, Syria, Sudan)?

Because those countries have been established as threats to the safety and security of the United States by the State Department.

Oh wait. I seem to be the adult here.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I will add that lawyers are already talking about this decision and more than not believe that it will be upheld at SCOTUS, if it ever gets there. Republican lawyers as well as Democrat and Libertarian and Independent. It's about the law, not politics. Truly.

Bullshit.. It was all political since presidents banned people and countries before..


The 9th does not rule the country and it's past asinine rulings such as the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it has "under god" in it


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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,

Again, yet another right wing moron chimes in with the same half-assed "argument (as FOX is telling them to spew)......THE DOJ SHOWED NO EVIDENCE OF THESE IMMIGRANTS POSING A "DETRIMENT" TO THIS COUNTRY'S INTERESTS.....

Surely there;s got to be a grown up around to explain it to you.

You stupid fuck we are talking 7 worn torn fucked up countries..

 

[BoSoxGal]

Actually the only thing the 9th circus proved is activist regressive judges don't give a flying fuck about the law. The law grants the president sole discretion on this. Now it's time to lobby congress to halt all immigration, refugees and student visas for at least 5 years.

I realize that you're royally pissed (dare i say "butt-hurt" as you morons like to say?)

BUT, what these courts have found is that what Trump tried to pull off is something that is UN-constitutional...period.

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Dear Lord, you are clueless about how judicial review works in this country, aren't you?

Is this the state of civics education in this country? No wonder so many people fell for Trump.

You might want to look up the meaning of Sole Discretion.

View attachment 111640

Show me in the law where the president has to justify his decision to ANYONE, no hurry I'll wait.

I'm not the one who is missing the boat here. I'd suggest you start with Marbury v Madison. Also the Federalist Papers might help you understand why our forefathers carefully crafted a government with checks and balances - NOTHING is beyond judicial review, thank goodness! And honestly, I feel that way even when I LOATHE the opinions. Our system is beautiful; please don't support Donald John Trump in his efforts to destroy it. Don't you love our country? I do.

 

[OKTexas]

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Don't insist on being a moron.....In total FOUR judges have reviews the constitutionality of Trump's overreach with his EO......TWO were staunch republicans appointed and backed by republicans ...You claim that "its all politics" is your ulcers acting up.

Foreign nationals on foreign soil have no constitutional rights, so who's rights were violated. Also their justification for granting standing is suspect.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually the only thing the 9th circus proved is activist regressive judges don't give a flying fuck about the law. The law grants the president sole discretion on this. Now it's time to lobby congress to halt all immigration, refugees and student visas for at least 5 years.

I realize that you're royally pissed (dare i say "butt-hurt" as you morons like to say?)

BUT, what these courts have found is that what Trump tried to pull off is something that is UN-constitutional...period.

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Dear Lord, you are clueless about how judicial review works in this country, aren't you?

Is this the state of civics education in this country? No wonder so many people fell for Trump.

You might want to look up the meaning of Sole Discretion.

View attachment 111640

Show me in the law where the president has to justify his decision to ANYONE, no hurry I'll wait.

Try using the OTHER half of your brains....

The Trump DOJ offered NO proof to the court that these banned immigrants posed any "detriment to the interests of the United States."

I can't help that a maobama hired attorney was incompetent, more capable attorneys will take it from here and Trump will prevail. Then you assholes will get to bitch and moan about all those poor people caught in the air, again.

 

[BoSoxGal]

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Don't insist on being a moron.....In total FOUR judges have reviews the constitutionality of Trump's overreach with his EO......TWO were staunch republicans appointed and backed by republicans ...You claim that "its all politics" is your ulcers acting up.

Foreign nationals on foreign soil have no constitutional rights, so who's rights were violated. Also their justification for granting standing is suspect.

It's clear from your comments that you are entirely unfamiliar with the facts of the case and the arguments made therein.

What is the point of criticizing the court's decision if you are too lazy to familiarize yourself with the basic facts upon which it was based? Good citizenship requires more than an opinion and a willingness to bark it out loud over and over.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually the only thing the 9th circus proved is activist regressive judges don't give a flying fuck about the law. The law grants the president sole discretion on this. Now it's time to lobby congress to halt all immigration, refugees and student visas for at least 5 years.

I realize that you're royally pissed (dare i say "butt-hurt" as you morons like to say?)

BUT, what these courts have found is that what Trump tried to pull off is something that is UN-constitutional...period.

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Dear Lord, you are clueless about how judicial review works in this country, aren't you?

Is this the state of civics education in this country? No wonder so many people fell for Trump.

You might want to look up the meaning of Sole Discretion.

View attachment 111640

Show me in the law where the president has to justify his decision to ANYONE, no hurry I'll wait.

I'm not the one who is missing the boat here. I'd suggest you start with Marbury v Madison. Also the Federalist Papers might help you understand why our forefathers carefully crafted a government with checks and balances - NOTHING is beyond judicial review, thank goodness! And honestly, I feel that way even when I LOATHE the opinions. Our system is beautiful; please don't support Donald John Trump in his efforts to destroy it. Don't you love our country? I do.

No you're the one not answering the question about the LAW. And don't try to impress me with one of the courts earliest power grabs.

 

[OKTexas]

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Don't insist on being a moron.....In total FOUR judges have reviews the constitutionality of Trump's overreach with his EO......TWO were staunch republicans appointed and backed by republicans ...You claim that "its all politics" is your ulcers acting up.

Foreign nationals on foreign soil have no constitutional rights, so who's rights were violated. Also their justification for granting standing is suspect.

It's clear from your comments that you are entirely unfamiliar with the facts of the case and the arguments made therein.

What is the point of criticizing the court's decision if you are too lazy to familiarize yourself with the basic facts upon which it was based? Good citizenship requires more than an opinion and a willingness to bark it out loud over and over.

You're making assumptions, feel free to enlighten me on what you think I'm missing.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Ok, if that's too hard for you, try this:

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

Obama had EOs overturned too, you know. Were you bawling about judicial activism then? If not, you are being entirely disingenuous.

And Marbury v. Madison wasn't a 'power grab' in the way you mean it - it was the SCOTUS asserting the power granted to it by the Constitution.

Please read more and watch FOX news less. I think you'd find the history of your own country to be pretty fascinating stuff.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, if that's too hard for you, try this:

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

Obama had EOs overturned too, you know. Were you bawling about judicial activism then? If not, you are being entirely disingenuous.

And Marbury v. Madison wasn't a 'power grab' in the way you mean it - it was the SCOTUS asserting the power granted to it by the Constitution.

Please read more and watch FOX news less. I think you'd find the history of your own country to be pretty fascinating stuff.

You keep hollering about the Constitution, yet you haven't given one example how the order violated it or how the States have standing to sue in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's clear from your comments that you are entirely unfamiliar with the facts of the case and the arguments made therein.

I find that rich coming from someone with an avatar like yours.

At any rate, the facts are clear. The president is well with in his Constitutional and statutory jurisdiction to do what he's doing. I've cited statutes thus far that liberals like you have blown past altogether.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Roe was law in Texas.

The SCOTUS jumped in....and did what.....

After all.....we are a nation of laws.

Am I missing something, or are you really this dense?

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so. Let me know if you require further explanation.

No...there was an existing law in Texas.

There was no federal law to rule on.

It appears you miss a great deal.

It appears you don't understand how judicial review works.

I have a law degree; I do.

Here's a quick explanation: A state has a law, that law impacts a citizen, giving the citizen standing to challenge the law. The citizen sues in the state or federal courts, eventually through the appellate process the case makes its way to the biggest baddest court - where the buck stops - the SCOTUS. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, that ruling is binding on that state and that citizen - and in many cases, it is binding then also on EVERY state and EVERY citizen.

There are many nuances and some kinds of cases wherein the rulings are very limited, but I don't wish to confuse you. The above is basic civics you should have learned in junior high or high school.

I didn't realize Cracker-Jacks had law degrees in them.

What you describe sometimes happens...sometimes it does not.....

Unless you are stupid enough to say that every case makes it to the SCOTUS.

Many land at the State Supreme Court and go no further.

We'll stop there on that point.

In the case of Roe...that is what happened. Landing in the Texas SC.

But Harry Blackmunn (or Harry the asshole as we call him) decided to get in a states business.

And we'll simply bypass the issue of what goes to the SCOTUS and what does not.

However, states immediately began (and have ever since) passed laws that have chipped away at Roe so that in many states it is much more difficult to get an abortion. And pro-choice leaders won't take it back to the SCOTUS because the are afraid it will be overturned.

But if it was.....it would go back to the states and probably 30+ would legalize it at some level (from what I recall it was legal in five states when Roe was decided).

So thanks for the flawed description....

And you are welcome for the correction.

You might call whoever gave you your law degree (assuming you really didn't get it out of a candy box) and ask for your money back.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ok, if that's too hard for you, try this:

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

Obama had EOs overturned too, you know. Were you bawling about judicial activism then? If not, you are being entirely disingenuous.

And Marbury v. Madison wasn't a 'power grab' in the way you mean it - it was the SCOTUS asserting the power granted to it by the Constitution.

Please read more and watch FOX news less. I think you'd find the history of your own country to be pretty fascinating stuff.

For example:

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. 299 U.S. 304 (1936) stated that the power to conduct foreign policy matters is strictly the purview of the President.

NOT A FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT, NOT CONGRESS, THE. PRESIDENT. OF. THE. UNITED. STATES.

On that merit, the ruling should be overturned. Be it as it may, the Supreme Court consists of far more experienced legal minds who despite their politics will acknowledge the letter of the law and not what the president said or didn't say. I think they may very well overturn this ruling, too.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I'm not the one who is butthurt over the decision, you are. And you still haven't evidenced an understanding of what was argued and decided. I'm not going to waste my time engaging with anyone too lazy to read the homework ahead of the seminar discussion. So, prove to me that you have done the homework by arguing what specifically in the briefs, oral arguments and decision you object to - not just 'judges bad! Me no like!' Then I'll happily argue with you all day long.

Going to bed now, I look forward to reading your arguments in the morning. Hint: all documents are available on the 9th Circuit's website, as well as the oral argument recording - which is also on YouTube.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Seriously, Trump should scare the shit out of all of us.

You better wear a tracer....because if he really scares the s**t out of you....they'll need a magnifying glass to find you.

You supported a loser.

You lost.

Suck on it.

We are a nation of laws.

And it's really unfortunate when the morons in the 9th circuit don't follow them or even seem to understand them.