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

a reply to: carewemust

Top Secret is a particular classification. I wonder if such evidence can be admitted in a circuit court.

originally posted by: carewemust
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.

No, just a lot of "feels" from the usual mouth pieces and a lot of people smarter than them trying to educate.

a reply to: Caver78

The false argument coming from states who have no standing is the impact on university professors and students. If I am not mistaken the judge told the AG's for the states involved to provide a list of names of people affected.

This idiot judge needs to have his conduct and ruling reviewed and then disciplined.

a reply to: mrwiffler

Me thinks you should read the entire thread, entire posts made by people and then understand what is being said. That way you wont make the mistake you just did in your post.

regards

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Congress passed the law in question.
Obama signed the law in question.
Obama's administration created the list of countries in question.
The White House counsel reviewed and approved the EO.
The DOJ counsel reviewed and approved the EO.

The EO is lawful and constitutional.

The judge had no authority to do what he did, let alone base his decision on his own ignorance of the subject matter.


This action is not a check and balance. It is a judicial system overstepping its authority and usurping the constitutional authority of Congress and the President. Its why the US Supreme Court said cases involving immigration / refugees is nonjusticiabilty.

Here is the info.... again.

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 judge had no authority to do what he did.
The states have NO standing.
Non citizens outside the US have no rights inside the US / no standing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The DOJ counsel reviewed and approved the EO.

The acting AG dissented and was fired.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

He sure did -

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The DOJ counsel reviewed and approved the EO.

The acting AG dissented and was fired.

Yup I saw that news.. She should have been fired for failing to carry out the duties of her office, even more so when her own staff says its lawful. Her action was nothing more than a political stunt and nothing more.

Organization, Mission & Functions Manual: Attorney General, Deputy and Associate

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

Represent the United States in legal matters.

Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Top Secret is a particular classification. I wonder if such evidence can be admitted in a circuit court.

It can be admitted in closed court. The info is usually presented to the judge alone to see the info and to make a determination based off the info. I dont believe the people challenging get to see the info, having to rely on the judges judgement.

It still does not negate the fact the Judge overstepped his authority.

a reply to: Xcathdra
I wonder what Jeff thought about that. Has he commented?

a reply to: Phage

The left likes to bring that up however the issue is Trumps EO is lawful and constitutional. Her job as AAG is to represent the government in legal matters, to carry out the law and executive orders.

If she had ethical / personal disagreements she should have made them known to the President in private instead of the manner she chose.

A for effort on your part though.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If she had ethical / personal disagreements she should have made them known to the President in private instead of the manner she chose.

Why?
She did not say she had ethical / personal disagreements. Did she?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

If she had ethical / personal disagreements she should have made them known to the President in private instead of the manner she chose.

Why?
She did not say she had ethical / personal disagreements. Did she?

Apparently she did when she ignored her own legal counsels approval of the EO. She should have relayed her concerns to the President instead of publicly declaring she wont perform her job.

Had she acted in a professional manner instead of a political one she might have kept her job. Since she didnt she was fired... and rightfully so.

a reply to: Xcathdra

She should have relayed her concerns to the President instead of publicly declaring she wont perform her job.

She did not inform the president of her opinion prior?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

She should have relayed her concerns to the President instead of publicly declaring she wont perform her job.

She did not inform the president of her opinion prior?

If she did and still went through with her insubordination and refusal to do her job she was rightfully fired.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is it safe to assume that she understood the ramifications of her actions?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is it safe to assume that she understood the ramifications of her actions?

I think it is safe to assume she went down this road for media attention. she could have simply resigned, citing the reason being she did not agree with the EO. Instead she went public and announced she directed the DOJ not to defend the EO in court.

By forcing the President to fire her she created a political situation, giving the liberal left false ammunition to go after trump.

A political stunt and nothing more.

and people wonder why Trump is cleaning house in these executive agencies. People need to understand these people took an oath of office and not an oath of party. If you cant recognize the difference you should not be in the position.

i wonder if she had the same objections when Obama did the same with Iraq and if so why didnt she go to the media to voice her opposition while refusing to comply with the presidents directive?

oh... wait... nevermind.

a reply to: Xcathdra

i wonder if she had the same objections when Obama did the same with Iraq.

Probably not. Because he didn't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

i wonder if she had the same objections when Obama did the same with Iraq.

Probably not. Because he didn't.

Obama didnt block refugees from Iraq?

As a matter of fact he did.. for 6 months.

The Obama Administration Stopped Processing Iraq Refugee Requests For 6 Months In 2011


Schumer the liar... Yes what the AAG did was a political stunt and nothing more.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is a UK Express story says Obama did block. I can't link right cause I'm phone only.

Goggle (sic) hides results say he blocked and highlights stories that claim it was visa procedure issue.

If that helps.......