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

a reply to: neo96

That does not count because it happened during the tenure of God and His Angels were running the government, in the minds of those who supported him then anyways.

OK...Minnesota I "get" it could cause economic harm as it's one of the States with jobs for lots of low skilled labor. What am I missing with Washington State?

Or did they just cherry pick that court due to the Judges past "soft" rulings?

It wasn't cause of all the immigrants that flood into the fishery industry was it?

It's fun and all to carry on about Trump but in ONLY doing that I think we're missing something right under our noses.
With all the poultry houses down south you'd of thought a southern State jumping into the suit would have made more sense?

Brainstorm time!!!

a reply to: Caver78

It's fun and all to carry on about Trump but in ONLY doing that I think we're missing something right under our noses.

What are we missing ?

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.

It is more dangerous to not describe the judicial branch in that way when it is the truth.

soulwaxer

The same people who declared victory when the Corps of Engineers briefly stopped the ND pipeline are now claiming this arbitrary setback from an activist judge is a final victory and Trumps immigration reform is dead.

It is not over.

It has barely begun.

Trump and the Americans will prevail.

I'd like to know how Judge Robards and the 9th circuit completely bypass constitution regarding original jurisdiction.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Text of Constitution says VERY clearly "and those in which a state shall be Party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction"

Folks doesn't matter what side of aisle one cannot get any plainer language than that. There is no misconstruing meaning.

9th should have dismissed on standing plain as day and told states to file in proper court.

This is total misuse of powers per constitution.

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.

But this is one of God-Emperor Trump's EO's....

So of course it should just be accepted, as Trump has signed it with his little hands!

Tech companies in Washington state want to pre-emotively curb immigration restrictions by EO because of their reliance on H1B visas for tech jobs. a reply to: Caver78

The President has spoken via twitter.

I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril.If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!
twitter.com...

a reply to: gortex

The buck stops...over there?



Seems, back when America used to be great, a president had a different take on it.

a reply to: Phage

We're not in Kansas anymore toto , we're off to see the wizard.

The globalists wants to flood terrorists into the west for balkenization. Trump must take this to the supreme court after his Nominee is passed.

a reply to: amfirst1

There is little doubt that the EO will go to SCOTUS. Taken there either by the administration or the opponents. That will be determined by lower courts.

Wait, has Trump tried insulting the legitimacy of a Federal judge? And that didn't work.... damn... has he tried saying "Sad!" ? Still no go? Really stumped on this one... Maybe Trump needs to recreate his Twitter account... or maybe try rebooting his computer.

Well, Trump did what he felt needed to protect the country. I don't think that he will get too worked up about the judges power.

Trump can now sleep with a clear conscience, even if something happens like a terrorist attack.

a reply to: Miracula2

Trump can now sleep with a clear conscience, even if something happens like a terrorist attack.

I doubt his conscience has ever troubled him. But yea, if there is an attack he can blame it on the judge. Even if it comes from, say, a Saudi.

The ban will be reinstated as per Trump EO, due to many factors that actually has been addressed no only by courts in the US before but the supreme court itself.

In the grounds that immigration laws and definitions of the law belong within the two branches of government and in the hands of law makers.

So already the laws are established, the judges are second guessing the law as no new laws has been created and passed.

The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing, the judges stopping the ban can not play law makers as they are not part of the legislative branches, the law also is very clean and by the Supreme court interpretation condemns such judges that tries to do such a thing.

They will be put in their place by the supreme court for overstepping their boundaries.

Is just a matter of time.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Reading you debate Faildra is like watching Mayweather sparring against a 5th grader. This is more entertaining than the Super Bowl.

a reply to: rollanotherone

A lot of people loves to argue the law, but by the media propaganda side, they forget that US supreme court has been there and done that.

Many, many times they have to step in and put judges in their places when they forget that they are not part of the legislative branch.

Was it mentioned in the last 5 pages that there is Top Secret information to be presented to the court on Monday? Info that bolsters the reason for the ban.