What did Harvard Law Professor Say About Likely Outcome of Trump's Travel Ban?

[jc456]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

In this case, he is.

"(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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got.

every contentious E/O by Obama was brought to court by Republicans....the last one from a Texas group suing, Obama lost, because when it got to the SC it was a 4/4 decision so it fell back down to the lower court's decision, which was against Obama.

he was trying to write a laws. Not put a temporary halt to immigrant vetting.

especially the ones for the ACA. holy fk how many of those did he write do you know?

 

[toomuchtime_]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

In this case, he is.

"(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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got.

every contentious E/O by Obama was brought to court by Republicans....the last one from a Texas group suing, Obama lost, because when it got to the SC it was a 4/4 decision so it fell back down to the lower court's decision, which was against Obama.

There are no legitimate questions about the legality of Constitutionality of this order, whereas there were about some of Obama's orders.

 

[Care4all]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

no he didn't. He merely commented on execution of the order.

yes he did.

believe whatever you want though....that seems to be your M/O....

Trump WOULD NOT be rewriting the E/O if the original one was all hunky dory.

 

[Lakhota]

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no case where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

sure they do. maybe SCOTUS, but that's it.

Nope, also lower courts as well.

show me the precedent that says that.

For your further enlightenment...

Adjudicating Classified Information - St. John's Law Scholarship

can you give me the abstract from it that proves your point?

Was it too complicated for you? Let me dumb it down a little...

Are all of the court’s judges cleared to hear cases involving classified information?

Currently, many of the court’s judges have active security clearances to adjudicate cases involving classified information. When a case involving classified information is filed, the Clerk of Court will randomly assign the case to a judge. If the assigned judge does not have the appropriate security clearance, a reassignment will be ordered.

GUIDELINES FOR CASES INVOLVING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

 

[jc456]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

no he didn't. He merely commented on execution of the order.

yes he did.

believe whatever you want though....that seems to be your M/O....

Trump WOULD NOT be rewriting the E/O if the original one was all hunky dory.

time is not on his side to actually go back to the district court in WA. he will instead, rewrite the EO. It is much simpler and less delay to accomplish the goal. Seems intelligent.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

no he didn't. He merely commented on execution of the order.

yes he did.

believe whatever you want though....that seems to be your M/O....

Trump WOULD NOT be rewriting the E/O if the original one was all hunky dory.

The order was flawed in that it was written to too broad strokes causing some confusion in implementation, but nothing in it was illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[Care4all]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

In this case, he is.

"(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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got.

every contentious E/O by Obama was brought to court by Republicans....the last one from a Texas group suing, Obama lost, because when it got to the SC it was a 4/4 decision so it fell back down to the lower court's decision, which was against Obama.

he was trying to write a laws. Not put a temporary halt to immigrant vetting.

especially the ones for the ACA. holy fk how many of those did he write do you know?

YOU SAID: I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got

I answered your post on Obama's E/O's and anything R's felt was unconstitutional, R's took the E/O to court.

 

[jc456]

sure they do. maybe SCOTUS, but that's it.

Nope, also lower courts as well.

show me the precedent that says that.

For your further enlightenment...

Adjudicating Classified Information - St. John's Law Scholarship

can you give me the abstract from it that proves your point?

Was it too complicated for you? Let me dumb it down a little...

Are all of the court’s judges cleared to hear cases involving classified information?

Currently, many of the court’s judges have active security clearances to adjudicate cases involving classified information. When a case involving classified information is filed, the Clerk of Court will randomly assign the case to a judge. If the assigned judge does not have the appropriate security clearance, a reassignment will be ordered.

GUIDELINES FOR CASES INVOLVING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

so you know you didn't answer the scenario with that right. I don't see national security for immigration.

 

[jc456]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

In this case, he is.

"(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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got.

every contentious E/O by Obama was brought to court by Republicans....the last one from a Texas group suing, Obama lost, because when it got to the SC it was a 4/4 decision so it fell back down to the lower court's decision, which was against Obama.

he was trying to write a laws. Not put a temporary halt to immigrant vetting.

especially the ones for the ACA. holy fk how many of those did he write do you know?

YOU SAID: I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got

I answered your post on Obama's E/O's and anything R's felt was unconstitutional, R's took the E/O to court.

and I answered you right?

 

[Care4all]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

no he didn't. He merely commented on execution of the order.

yes he did.

believe whatever you want though....that seems to be your M/O....

Trump WOULD NOT be rewriting the E/O if the original one was all hunky dory.

time is not on his side to actually go back to the district court in WA. he will instead, rewrite the EO. It is much simpler and less delay to accomplish the goal. Seems intelligent.

I AGREE....

but he is rewriting it, leaving the contentious unconstitutional parts, out of it...so he can act quickly

 

[OKTexas]

Instead of fighting for the original E/O, the Trump team has decided to give it a second shot with a NEW E/O... leaving out the contentious parts.

It really doesn't matter, someone will go to court to stop anything he does. They said so themselves in a commiecrat strategy meeting.

 

[jc456]

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

no he didn't. He merely commented on execution of the order.

yes he did.

believe whatever you want though....that seems to be your M/O....

Trump WOULD NOT be rewriting the E/O if the original one was all hunky dory.

time is not on his side to actually go back to the district court in WA. he will instead, rewrite the EO. It is much simpler and less delay to accomplish the goal. Seems intelligent.

I AGREE....

but he is rewriting it, leaving the contentious unconstitutional parts, out of it...so he can act quickly

in other words implement it correctly this time. I agree.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

What the President needs to do now is address the issue on 2 fronts.

1) Create a new EO and have it implemented immediately.

2) Continue the appellate process to the SCOTUS after Gorsuch is seated for the current EO. The current finding of the 9th circuit needs to be vacated for several reasons. States have no standing in a suit brought by non-citizens against the Federal government. Such jurisdiction rests solely with the Federal government as per the Constitution.

Non-citizens of the US, regardless of visa status, have no inherent right of entry or re-entry into the US as per statute.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

no he didn't. He merely commented on execution of the order.

yes he did.

believe whatever you want though....that seems to be your M/O....

Trump WOULD NOT be rewriting the E/O if the original one was all hunky dory.

time is not on his side to actually go back to the district court in WA. he will instead, rewrite the EO. It is much simpler and less delay to accomplish the goal. Seems intelligent.

I AGREE....

but he is rewriting it, leaving the contentious unconstitutional parts, out of it...so he can act quickly

There are no contentious parts. Trump is more interested in getting on with the business of the country, especially national security, rather than quarrels with his critics while his critics seem to be interested in nothing but quarreling.

 

[Care4all]

What the President needs to do now is address the issue on 2 fronts.

1) Create a new EO and have it implemented immediately.

2) Continue the appellate process to the SCOTUS after Gorsuch is seated for the current EO. The current finding of the 9th circuit needs to be vacated for several reasons. States have no standing in a suit brought by non-citizens against the Federal government. Such jurisdiction rests solely with the Federal government as per the Constitution.

Non-citizens of the US, regardless of visa status, have no inherent right of entry or re-entry into the US as per statute.

legal immigrants who live here, do have all constitutional rights designated for ''persons'' under the State gvt's jurisdiction.... I believe he can still evict them, but only with due process, is my understanding.

 

[Wyatt earp]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

 

[Wyatt earp]

What the President needs to do now is address the issue on 2 fronts.

1) Create a new EO and have it implemented immediately.

2) Continue the appellate process to the SCOTUS after Gorsuch is seated for the current EO. The current finding of the 9th circuit needs to be vacated for several reasons. States have no standing in a suit brought by non-citizens against the Federal government. Such jurisdiction rests solely with the Federal government as per the Constitution.

Non-citizens of the US, regardless of visa status, have no inherent right of entry or re-entry into the US as per statute.

legal immigrants who live here, do have all constitutional rights designated for ''persons'' under the State gvt's jurisdiction.... I believe he can still evict them, but only with due process, is my understanding.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to kick out legal immigrants?

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

What the President needs to do now is address the issue on 2 fronts.

1) Create a new EO and have it implemented immediately.

2) Continue the appellate process to the SCOTUS after Gorsuch is seated for the current EO. The current finding of the 9th circuit needs to be vacated for several reasons. States have no standing in a suit brought by non-citizens against the Federal government. Such jurisdiction rests solely with the Federal government as per the Constitution.

Non-citizens of the US, regardless of visa status, have no inherent right of entry or re-entry into the US as per statute.

legal immigrants who live here, do have all constitutional rights designated for ''persons'' under the State gvt's jurisdiction.... I believe he can still evict them, but only with due process, is my understanding.

That's not what Pupps said. Read it again. The issue is entry and that is what the EO pertains to. Leave and you're no longer legally within the US and have no right to enter at your whim. Once adjudicated correctly, the original EO will stand and the 9th's ruling will be vacated.

 

[Timmy]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

 

[Wyatt earp]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

They are 7 terrorists worn torn messed up countries..

And he is not doing it on race/religion..

Let me guess if this was 1944 you would have no problem letting in Germans and Japanese?

Are we at war with these places ? Then you'd have a point .

Where's are drones at killing people right now?