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

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

I Believe everything will work itself out. It won't be nearly as insane as we think, should the world go off to left field. That, I am sure of.

a reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The constitution, the law, a Supreme Court ruling and anyone with a basic understanding of the legal issue involved.

Like the Judge who stopped Trump's badly drafted EO....

Says you.. White House Counsel and DOJ counsel say otherwise.

Actually, it wasn't hellobruce who made the ruling. It was a federal judge. I think you may have missed that bit. You may also have missed the bit involving the Attorney general and Solicitor general of Washington state. You might want to take up your arguments with them. I'm sure they'd be interested in some random ATS members opinion.

a reply to: gortex


Not taking sides here.....but now is good opportunity for some bad guys may slip through. This sudden reversal is just as bad as the sudden implementation of the EO cluster**** that the libs flapped their gums about.

originally posted by: mrwiffler
a reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The constitution, the law, a Supreme Court ruling and anyone with a basic understanding of the legal issue involved.

Like the Judge who stopped Trump's badly drafted EO....

Says you.. White House Counsel and DOJ counsel say otherwise.

Actually, it wasn't hellobruce who made the ruling. It was a federal judge. I think you may have missed that bit. You may also have missed the bit involving the Attorney general and Solicitor general of Washington state. You might want to take up your arguments with them. I'm sure they'd be interested in some random ATS members opinion.

Soon to be overturned. Period. The President has every right under the Constitution and powers of office to consider National Security . Look at the state . Washington. Ring a bell ? Every Liberal in the country takes up the issue in either Cali or Washington . Know why ? With the extreme liberal bias of that circuit , they always win. But only temporarily . Makes em feel good about themselves and gives the weak minded a feeling of power .

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

So 'none' arrested since 911 from those seven countries ?

LOL what a lie.

The Infamous Bowling Green incident.

The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints.

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

abcnews.go.com...

And I do believe Iraq was include in that list of seven countries.

Those that are not blinded by political ideology will agree with you.

A massive overstep of his authority.

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.

Are you kidding me??? Did the Judge not see the 2-3 vehicles plow through crowds and the multiple stabbing rampages around the world, etc etc??? Fire this judge because I have a hard time believing that he does not know this, therefore he is working with the "enemy'.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

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.

Are you kidding me??? Did the Judge not see the 2-3 vehicles plow through crowds and the multiple stabbing rampages, etc etc??? Fire this judge because I have a hard time believing that he does not know this, therefore he is working with the "enemy'.

Does this EO prevent terrorists from Belgium and France entering the country?

a reply to: DJW001

No but it would prevent some terrorist attack like that have happened in France.

Where they are from YEMEN.

Saudi Arabia may be the number one financer of terrorism around the globe.

But Yemen is the number one country for useful idiots waging jihad.

7 things to know about Yemen.

www.cnn.com...

But ain't it great ?

Free and open travel with them.

Good lord, the beloved American system is doing it's job here in making sure s# isn't in violation of the Constitution.

FFS, I never bitched ONCE about any of Obama's EOs going through the same. NOT ONCE. Because it's supposed to work like this to catch unconstitutional, BS EOs when they're brought to attention. Grow up and quit crying about it. Fekking snowflakes to beat all others, my god.

a reply to: visitedbythem

Moving too fast, eh? Reminds me of the narcissist who quickly tries to court you with Love Bombing. Seeing a pattern yet?


Christ.

originally posted by: reldra
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.

I have to ask Reldra, why are you so insistent on letting potential terrorists into your country and not ensuring the safety of the American people, via proper vetting and secure processing?

I honestly cannot fathom your reasoning against everything about this.

Honest question.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: LuXTeN
He's going to pave the way for something INCREDIBLE

He is going to go down in history as the maddest a POTUS ever.
He will provide years of material for comedians.

tinyurl.com...

Yes. Can't argue it, so let the comedians run riot and tell the populace what is what.

*waves lefty socialist flag, screams truck fump, et al*

Solid argument brah...

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

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.

Are you kidding me??? Did the Judge not see the 2-3 vehicles plow through crowds and the multiple stabbing rampages, etc etc??? Fire this judge because I have a hard time believing that he does not know this, therefore he is working with the "enemy'.

Does this EO prevent terrorists from Belgium and France entering the country?

No, they had no such EO and just let people in en masse.

I see you fail to see the point.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Good lord, the beloved American system is doing it's job here in making sure s# isn't in violation of the Constitution.

FFS, I never bitched ONCE about any of Obama's EOs going through the same. NOT ONCE. Because it's supposed to work like this to catch unconstitutional, BS EOs when they're brought to attention. Grow up and quit crying about it. Fekking snowflakes to beat all others, my god.

so true.

a reply to: LuXTeN

I can see what the scum of the earth have done to our Democracy. And I am not happy about it. I find it dispicable and reprehensive. I am appauled that people have fallen so far that they won't even acknowlege or give their own President a chance to prove he's for them!

If you're a fan of our democracy, then this week must have been especially meaningful to you. Democracy in action - not even our president is above the law. This is how it works. He is not our king

He doesn't get a free pass. People keep saying give him a chance. To do what? If he can't even write an EO properly, or foresee all the possible ramifications from said EO - his incompetency doesn't deserve a pass. He doesn't get any training wheels - he ran on the idea that he was up to the job

So far? Nope

Here is what Trump is going to do. Make another EO an dthis one will say NO ONE except americans and people with proper papers will be allowwed in for 6 months. each Eo is a Individual unto itself. So just go around the Judge with a new one.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If you're a fan of our democracy, then this week must have been especially meaningful to you. Democracy in action - not even our president is above the law. This is how it works. He is not our king

Try again.

Democracy in action was the election of Trump that told people what he was going to do.

The minority in both instances think they are above the LAW.

The LAW put Trump in Office.

The LAW cited in the EO was created by democratic process by the House and Senate, and made in to LAW signed by past presidents.

What's going on right now is not democracy, but an abomination of it.

a reply to: KEACHI

It's the constitution vs over reaching, out of line Judge

If that were true why did the appeals court not find in favour of the administration ?

a reply to: neo96

Sorry neophyte - we're a country of checks and balances. If Bannon had any smarts about him at all - he would have taken the time to make that EO bulletproof. So, he either wanted the controversy more than the actual order, or he quite obviously doesn't know how to do - well, any of this. Let's quit pretending that Trump knows anything about any of this to start with. He relies on people around him with backgrounds in government and law. If he doesn't use those resources wisely - the buck stops with him

The LAW put Trump in Office.

It doesn't make him above the law. He's not our infallible prince - he's an elected official. He's only an elected official

The LAW cited in the EO was created by democratic process by the House and Senate, and made in to LAW signed by past presidents.

Hill staffers secretly worked on Trump's immigration order

GOP leaders received no advance warning or briefings from the White House or Judiciary staff on what the executive order would do or how it would be implemented — briefings they still had not received as of Sunday night. Leaders including Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) only saw the final language when reporters received it Friday night, according to multiple Hill sources.

Rather, Republicans on the Hill spent the entire weekend scrambling to find out what was going on, who was involved and how it was that they were caught so flat-footed.

"Their coordination with the Hill was terrible," said one senior GOP source on the Hill, who seemed flabbergasted that congressional Republicans didn’t receive talking points from the White House on the executive order until late Saturday night, about 24 hours after President Donald Trump signed it. “We didn't see the final language until it was actually out.”

The fumbled roll-out serves as a cautionary tale to Trump officials who decide to go it alone in enacting controversial policies without help from Congress. Indeed, the lack of consultation has set off a wave of resentment on Capitol Hill. GOP insiders believe that the White House and Goodlatte staffers could have avoided the drama that unfolded over the weekend had they looped in relevant lawmakers on the front end.

The episode also has instilled a wariness among GOP aides about the White House.

“These executive orders were very rushed and drafted by a very tight-knit group of individuals who did not run it by the people who have to execute the policy. And because that’s the case, they probably didn’t think of or care about how this would be executed in the real world,” said another congressional source familiar with the situation. “No one was given a heads-up and no one had a chance to weigh in on it.”

Then, when he doesn't understand what it is he's done, or why it won't fly, and more importantly - why he can't have his way (or get any respect) - he fires our Attorney General

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: KEACHI

It's the constitution vs over reaching, out of line Judge

If that were true why did the appeals court not find in favour of the administration ?

Because judges are not impartial,and are jerks from time to time. Judges need to be monitored more than anyone else.