Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


dcnovice -> Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 5:25:59 PM)

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html




BoscoX -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 5:39:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html


The ninth circus has been comprised of alt left political hacks for a long time. Rarely rules according to the law or precedent, rather it toes the Democrat party line. This was widely expected. The real showdown will be in the SC

Whiny little Obama bitching and crying about the SC




Lucylastic -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 5:49:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html



I specially like this bit
The Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”).

Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[Resolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.




Musicmystery -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 5:56:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html

The Hysteric in Chief.




BoscoX -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:00:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html



I specially like this bit
The Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”).

Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[Resolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.

Except the law is very clear;

quote:

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.


The president has full authority to regulate immigration as he sees fit. This isn't a new law and this has been done before, so it is a political stunt by partisan hacks




jlf1961 -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:00:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html


The ninth circus has been comprised of alt left political hacks for a long time. Rarely rules according to the law or precedent, rather it toes the Democrat party line. This was widely expected. The real showdown will be in the SC

Whiny little Obama bitching and crying about the SC



Funny, the whole thing is about an executive order that basically violated the rules.

Of course, we are talking about a president that has vowed to destroy a Texas Senator source and who's own supreme court nominee has criticized

The simple fact is that President Trump has been playing fast and loose with the constitution as well as civil rights. His executive order which denied people access to lawyers while detained at airports is a clear demonstration of this.

Of course, when Obama did some things that were considered denial of basic rights, he was criticized.

Thus proving the hypocrisy of many on the right.




BoscoX -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:03:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html


The ninth circus has been comprised of alt left political hacks for a long time. Rarely rules according to the law or precedent, rather it toes the Democrat party line. This was widely expected. The real showdown will be in the SC

Whiny little Obama bitching and crying about the SC



Funny, the whole thing is about an executive order that basically violated the rules.


It's about a crystal clear law, 8 1182 USC which gives the president full authority over immigration. The Ninth Circus is making law here, taking power that is not rightfully theirs

quote:

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.




KenDckey -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:09:04 PM)

Since Posting this in the old thread someone creaqted a new one. Here is the order

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf




jlf1961 -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:11:47 PM)

I suggest you read the law, since it addresses who can be excluded, but requires proof of validity for the exclusion.

In other words, without proof, you cant exclude anyone.




dcnovice -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:13:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Since Posting this in the old thread someone creaqted a new one. Here is the order

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf


Thanks, Ken!

I wanted to link to the order, but all the sites I tried were glacial.




mnottertail -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:13:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The rule of law survives another day.

President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html


The ninth circus has been comprised of alt left political hacks for a long time. Rarely rules according to the law or precedent, rather it toes the Democrat party line. This was widely expected. The real showdown will be in the SC

Whiny little Obama bitching and crying about the SC



Funny, the whole thing is about an executive order that basically violated the rules.


It's about a crystal clear law, 8 1182 USC which gives the president full authority over immigration. The Ninth Circus is making law here, taking power that is not rightfully theirs

quote:

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.


Order of operations has always been constitution proper and each role defined by branch, the amendments, then USC. Those nutsucker judges that W put in there (two nutsuckers, two democratically appointed) both held up the stay.

Fuckin nutsuckers are legislating from the bench again you are telling me? Why is that suprising to nutsuckers who dont know the first thing about the constituion or the law?




mnottertail -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:14:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Since Posting this in the old thread someone creaqted a new one. Here is the order

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf


Thanks, Ken!

I wanted to link to the order, but all the sites I tried were glacial.

Which I take as a good thing, maybe some people are starting to get involved in the issues and their country, now they need to keep this up and get out and vote.




mnottertail -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:17:33 PM)

" Nor has the Government established that the White
House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is
binding on all executive branch officials responsible for
enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is
not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of
command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover,
in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the
Executive Order, we cannot say that the current
interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative
and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these
proceedings."

Ow. Thats gotta butthurt a nutsucker sommat.




BoscoX -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:22:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I suggest you read the law, since it addresses who can be excluded, but requires proof of validity for the exclusion.

In other words, without proof, you cant exclude anyone.


The law doesn't say anything of the sort, fool. More of you making shit up as you go along




Musicmystery -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:25:22 PM)

The court even cited the lack of evidence for the hysteria:

In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel said that the government had failed to explain the urgent need for the ban and had “pointed to no evidence” that citizens of the seven nations have “perpetrated a terror attack in the U.S.” Instead, “the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all,” wrote the judges. “We disagree.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/us-appeals-court-upholds-suspension-of-trumps-immigration-ban/article33973119/?click=sf_globefb




bounty44 -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:50:43 PM)

this was written before the ruling but provides some good back story about the whacked courts.

"The President and the Courts"

quote:

Last week, in a public courtroom in the federal courthouse in Seattle, the states of Washington and Minnesota -- after suing President Donald Trump, alleging injury caused by his executive order that suspended the immigration of all people from seven foreign countries -- asked a federal judge to compel the president and all those who work for him to cease enforcing the order immediately. After a brief emergency oral argument, the judge signed a temporary restraining order, which barred the enforcement of the president's order everywhere in the United States.

The president reacted with anger, referring to the judge as a "so-called judge," and immigrant rights groups praised the judicial intervention as a victory for the oppressed. The president meant, I think, that Judge James L. Robart had not acted properly as a judge by second-guessing him -- that he had acted more like a politician; and the immigrant rights groups felt, I think, that the United States was once again a beacon of hope for refugees.

Here is the back story.

A 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security. Trump exercised that authority in accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his Jan. 27 order banning all immigration from the seven named countries.

When the president exercises powers granted to him by the Constitution or federal statues or when Congress passes bills, one cannot simply sue the government in federal court because one does not like what has been done. That is so because the Constitution has preconditions for a lawsuit in federal court. One of those preconditions is what lawyers and judges call "standing." Standing means that the plaintiff has alleged and can most likely show that the defendant has caused the plaintiff an injury in fact, distinct from all others not in the case.

Hence, it is curious that the plaintiffs in the Seattle case were not people whose entry had been barred by Trump's order but rather the governments of two states, each claiming to sue in behalf of people and entities resident or about to be resident in them. The court should have dismissed the case as soon as it was filed because of long-standing Supreme Court policy that bars federal litigation alleging harm to another and permits it only for the actual injury or immediate likelihood of injury to the litigant.

Nevertheless, the Seattle federal judge heard oral argument on the two states' emergency application for a temporary restraining order against the president. During that oral argument, the judge asked a lawyer for the Department of Justice how many arrests of foreign nationals from the seven countries singled out by the president for immigration suspension there have been in the United States since 9/11. When the DOJ lawyer said she did not know, the judge answered his own question by saying, "None."

He was wrong.

There have been dozens of people arrested and convicted in the United States for terrorism-related crimes since 9/11 who were born in the seven countries. Yet even if the judge had been correct, his question was irrelevant -- and hence the answer meaningless -- because it does not matter to a court what evidence the president relied on in this type of order. This is the kind of judicial second-guessing -- substituting the judicial mind for the presidential mind -- that is impermissible in our system. It is impermissible because the Constitution assigns to the president alone nearly all decision-making authority on foreign policy and because Congress has assigned to the president the power of immigration suspension as a tool with which to implement foreign policy.

These rules and policies -- the requirement of standing before suing and the primacy of the president in making foreign policy -- stem directly from the Constitution. Were they not in place, then anyone could sue the government for anything and induce a federal judge to second-guess the president. That would convert the courts into a super-legislature -- albeit an unelected, unaccountable, opaque one.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the courts have no place here. Rather, they have a vital place. It is to say what the Constitution means, say what the statutes mean and determine whether the government has exercised its powers constitutionally and legally. It is not the job of judges to decide whether the government has been smart or prudent, though.

One of the arguments made by the state of Washington to explain why it had standing was laughable. Washington argued that corporations located in Washington would suffer the irreparable loss of available high-tech-qualified foreign employees if the ban were upheld. Even if this were likely and even if it were provable, it would not establish injury in fact to the government of Washington. When pressed to reveal what entity Washington was trying to protect, it enumerated a few familiar names, among which was Microsoft.

Microsoft? The government of the state of Washington is suing to protect Microsoft?! Microsoft could buy the state of Washington if Starbucks were willing to sell it.

I jest to make a point. The rule of law needs to be upheld. Carefully paying attention to constitutional procedure protects personal freedom. In similar environments, the late Justice Antonin Scalia often remarked that much of what the government does is stupid but constitutional and that the courts' only concern is with the latter.

The DOJ is now challenging the Seattle restraining order in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and this case may make its way to the Supreme Court. Will federal judges be faithful to the rule of law? We shall soon find out.


http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2017/02/09/the-president-and-the-courts-n2283225

oh no comrades, townhall AND judge nap!





BoscoX -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:53:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The court even cited the lack of evidence for the hysteria:

In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel said that the government had failed to explain the urgent need for the ban and had “pointed to no evidence” that citizens of the seven nations have “perpetrated a terror attack in the U.S.” Instead, “the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all,” wrote the judges. “We disagree.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/us-appeals-court-upholds-suspension-of-trumps-immigration-ban/article33973119/?click=sf_globefb


The hysteria is all yours, there is no evidence required under the law. The president has sole discretion, which the judge grabbed presidential power and authority that doesn't belong to the judiciary

Here is the relevant part of the law again - where does it say that any judge is ever the backseat driver

quote:

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.




Lucylastic -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 6:56:04 PM)

Maybe you should get in touch with the trump lawyers, they need your logic on display...

get to it, Im sure they never thought of using that....
[8|]




CreativeDominant -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 7:00:10 PM)

Before anyone gets too excited about the 9th's decision:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/scotus-for-law-students-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-scoring-the-circuits/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon





tamaka -> RE: Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban (2/9/2017 7:01:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The court even cited the lack of evidence for the hysteria:

In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel said that the government had failed to explain the urgent need for the ban and had “pointed to no evidence” that citizens of the seven nations have “perpetrated a terror attack in the U.S.” Instead, “the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all,” wrote the judges. “We disagree.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/us-appeals-court-upholds-suspension-of-trumps-immigration-ban/article33973119/?click=sf_globefb


The hysteria is all yours, there is no evidence required under the law. The president has sole discretion, which the judge grabbed presidential power and authority that doesn't belong to the judiciary

Here is the relevant part of the law again - where does it say that any judge is ever the backseat driver

quote:

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.



Where is that found? And if it is true, then how is it that this whole court thing is evening happening?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02