Trump bid to reinstate travel ban fails following late night appeals court ruling

After a late night sitting the US federal appeals court has rejected the emergency motion filed by the Trump administration to overrule the decision made by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle on Friday , the appeals court has ruled the travel ban will remain suspended until a full hearing after the administration lodged its appeal yesterday.

The court has told the Trump administration it has a deadline of Monday to present more information to support its case for the reinstatement of the ban.

"Appellants' request for an immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied," the late-night appeals court order stated.
www.aljazeera.com...

I doubt this tweet from the President made his case any stronger.

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

Followed by.

The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!
twitter.com...

Not sure how much more evidence the administration could have other than what was already presented but it seems the Trump vs the Constitution case is set to rumble on for at least the next few days , I suspect the appeal will fail unless the administration redraft the EO with more care.

a reply to: gortex

I knew this would not be easy for Trump, thankfully. It is very difficult to overturn a TRO. The burden of proof is high and must prove that removing it causes a clear and immediate danger.

Calling a judge a 'so called' judge did not help him. They did remove the word 'outragous' from the description of the order minutes later, but the damage had already been done. It is dangerous and authoritarian for the executive branch to describe the judicial branch in that way.

a reply to: gortex

How about this. The federal judge whose ruling is being appealed based his ruling (and his own personal ignorant opinion) on not one citizen from any of the 7 nations being involved in a crime / terror act here in the US when, had he done his due diligence, would have known that citizens from those 7 nations have been involved.

Secondly the states have no standing.

Third the only aspect of immigration / refugees issues courts can get involved with deal only with a violation of an individuals rights who are already in the US.

Congress passed the law Trump (and Obama) used. They delegated their immigration authority to the President. The President is solely responsible for refugees.

Since their is no conflict between those 2 branches of government and with this executive order being challenged solely on political grounds by the minority, the federal courts have no jurisdiction to get involved.

The 9th circuit has 2 options - revoke the lower judges ruling and reinstate the executive order in its entirety or deny the governments case and have the US Supreme Court once again overturn the 9th circuses ruling.

The judge acted improperly and overstepped his authority and his ruling is unconstitutional as it interferes with clearly established constitutional requirements for the 2 branches in question.

I am all for the rule of law... I am not for a court that throws the constitution and a supreme court ruling out the window because of their own willful ignorance.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Much of that made no sense. The constitution was actually followed in the ruling. Robart is a Federal judge.

I see, states have 'no standing' only when convenient? That is not the case. The singular states absolutely do have standing, it effects people who reside or work in their state.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Xcathdra
Much of that made no sense. The constitution was actually followed in the ruling. Robart is a Federal judge.

I see, states have 'no standing' only when convenient? That is not the case. The singular states absolutely do have standing, it effects people who reside or work in their state.

Then you should educate yourself on the law, including immigration laws, before responding to my post. The judge violated the Constitution by depriving the US Congress and the President from carrying out their constitutional duties.

I know he is a federal judge. He has no authority to get involved with the sole exception of an individual who is affected by the executive order and whose constitutional rights were violated (which has not occurred).

Immigration is reserved to the federal government (Congress for immigration / President for refugees) so the states have no standing to challenge an executive order when that executive order deals with immigration and refugees. We saw this over the last 8 years with Obama and his dumb ass antics on immigration.

From another thread dealing with the same topic -

That travel-ban lifting judge said what? Claimed in courtroom none arrested from 7 designated countries since 9/11

Ed Straker, an attorney wo attended law school with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, says Judge Robart “has clearly usurped his authority.”

“The case clearly has no plaintiffs with standing or any kind of validity,” he wrote in American Thinker. “At most, Judge Robart should have stayed his decision pending appeal to circuit courts. His radical injunction smacks of a judicial coup, of a single federal district judge asserting his authority over the entire executive branch. His arguments for doing so are unconstitutional, as is his manner of issuing the order. We are living in a time when judicial ayatollahs are usurping the power of our elected officials, and it is very much like a judicial coup.”

Read more at www.wnd.com...

click link for entire article...

The rulings make no sense to me as the federal courts have no jurisdiction in this realm with the exception of a person in the US who is affected by the order and who claims a constitutional violation occurred. Even then the court is limited to that persons claim specifically.

Congress, in passing the 2015 law that delegated its authority to the President to execute the law and the President, who is solely responsible for refugees, creates whats called a nonjusticiable issue on the topic.

Justiciability

Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.

Political Question Doctrine

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Congress has authority over immigration.
The President has authority over Refugees (and immigration via law delegating to the President - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015).
The states have NO standing.

the judge overstepped his authority and in the process violated the Constitution.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's my understanding the court is acting to protect the Constitution , the EO has been deemed unconstitutional because it discriminates against people due to their religion.

If this was about stopping bad hombres from entering the country why has the largest producer and supporter of them not been included on the list ?
Saudi Arabia has known links to terrorist groups but it is too politically sensitive to protect your country from them , there seems to be a hole in the EO that Trump chooses to ignore for personal and political reasons which to me makes the EO more of an appeal to his supporters than a genuine attempt to stop "bad guys" entering.

Nobody should be above the law of the land , especially not the President who is supposed to uphold the Constitution.
The courts must have primacy.

President Trump makes me kind of nervous. Im a middle of the roader with a lean to the right. He is moving too fast for me. He is like a workaholic with an agenda. I do not disagree with much of what he has said, but I want slow change

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is riduculous. He can hear a case brought by a state AG.

Mentioning a quote from a friend of Gorsuch does not help your proving this. The plaintiff does have standing. It is justiciable.

This does not fall under the political question doctrine. You are reaching.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
President Trump makes me kind of nervous. Im a middle of the roader with a lean to the right. He is moving too fast for me. He is like a workaholic with an agenda. I do not disagree with much of what he has said, but I want slow change

Just kind of? The rate he is going, your state of nervousness will rise quickly.

a reply to: visitedbythem

He's Jesus Christ incarnate. Thus the J. in Donald Trump.

I think he's doing fine though seriously.

People aren't used to guys like trump, he's 70's and he's kicking ass, that's not normal to most people. He's like ... a Miracle on Steroids. But he's good, and he's honest and he will get the job done.

Relax have some purple and sing.

It's all good.

a reply to: gortex

Not one ruling by any of the judges stated / ruled the EO as unconstitutional. Secondly individuals outside of the US (citizens of other countries) have no protections from the US constitution. You, and a lot of others, are making an argument from an individuals rights standpoint which is incorrect when dealing with immigration.

The correct way to look at it is from a sovereign states right to defend itself from individuals from outside the US wanting entry into the US. Its why when people come into the US border patrol is allowed to search a person, their belongings, cell phones, computers, cars, boats, planes, etc without probable cause or warrant.

Border search exception doctrine -

This doctrine is not actually an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather to the Amendment's requirement for a warrant or probable cause.[1][2] Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of entrants. Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior,[2][3] the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the Government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the Government at the border.[4] This balance at international borders means that routine searches are "reasonable" there, and therefore do not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

This is also why states have no standing in this case.

a reply to: visitedbythem

If it's any consolation VBT, he has not created any new laws, only working within the framework already established. It goes to show how far and away we as a country have fallen from the "nation of laws."

I don't think this travel ban is unconstitutional at all and well within his right as POTUS and deemed upon him from Congress.

originally posted by: LuXTeN
a reply to: visitedbythem

He's Jesus Christ incarnate. Thus the J. in Donald Trump.

I think he's doing fine though seriously.

People aren't used to guys like trump, he's 70's and he's kicking ass, that's not normal to most people. He's like ... a Miracle on Steroids. But he's good, and he's honest and he will get the job done.

Relax have some purple and sing.

It's all good.

No, he is a nightmare on steroids. His own party is turning on him. His team throws out EOs that are poorly written at a rapid pace. He put a crazy man in the Security Council. It is not going well. No matter what the pace.

a reply to: gortex

Honestly gortex, i don't know why you don't like Your own President Trump!

He's going to pave the way for something INCREDIBLE and you guys are sitting around whining about it, no offense i like you, but seriously you need to give him a chance. You gave Obama a chance and he didnt deserve squat.

a reply to: reldra

It absolutely does fall under that doctrine. There is no dispute between the 2 branches of government with regards to the law or EO. The "unconstitutional" argument has failed in every ruling. Judges already addressed the one area in question, people already in the US and provided relief.

All thats left is the political correctness of the EO which is a political question.

The courts have no jurisdiction.

a reply to: reldra

Feeling and stuff will not win the day nor hold up in court.

The fact that a very large contingent within the political spectrum wants nothing to do with him was and should still be an indicator that this guy has good intentions.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: visitedbythem



I don't think this travel ban is unconstitutional at all and well within his right as POTUS and deemed upon him from Congress.

Thinking it and actually looking it up to see are 2 very different things. He has been giving some very serious EOs at a rapid pace and many require procedure and examination.

a reply to: reldra

That's just your programming it too shall pass, lol.

He's weeding out the baddies, can't you tell? I can.

He's giving them the benefit of the doubt,

the Art of War is at play here an no one is even noticing! I'm appauled! He's being smart. I would do the same, cyphen out the assholes and just weed the fark out of them.

a reply to: reldra

I'm sure it will face every possible scrutinization imaginable. Don't you?

Do you see anyone complaining about his EO on using American Steel for the DAPL project despite how you feel about the pipeline itself?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: visitedbythem



I don't think this travel ban is unconstitutional at all and well within his right as POTUS and deemed upon him from Congress.

Thinking it and actually looking it up to see are 2 very different things. He has been giving some very serious EOs at a rapid pace and many require procedure and examination.

Like which ones?

you do know EO's are run through the White House counsels office in addition to the DOJs legal staff before the EO's are issued.

Which ones werent?