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

a reply to: gortex
when other president did this exact ban you didn't see nary a judge say squat

a reply to: proteus33

when other president did this exact ban you didn't see nary a judge say squat

Which president? Which ban? Can you provide the EO number for clarification purposes?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The EO is lawful and constitutional.

People disagree :-)

In The Guardian, Norman L. Eisen and Richard W. Painter, who introduce themselves as “lawyers who counseled presidents and senior officials of both parties on their Constitutional and ethical duties,” wrote that “Yates demonstrated the independence that Sessions sought—‘you need to say no’—and she lost her job because of it.” They continued: “[W]e believe her actions were lawful and right.”

Pointing out that Yates took an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution,” including sometimes “from government attacks,” Eisen and Painter observe that Trump “repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would ban Muslims from entering the United States. [Once president, he] also said he would exempt Christian refugees from the order and, in fact, the order exempts persons of ‘minority religions’ within each of the seven countries.” Thus, Trump’s move violates the First Amendment prohibition on favoring or discriminating against any religion.

“The order is also arbitrary,” they continue. “Few terrorist attacks have been perpetrated inside the United States by nationals of the seven countries on the list, and none have resulted in deaths. By contrast, nationals of countries not on the list—including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—have perpetrated far more acts of terrorism in the United States, causing substantial fatalities, including in the attacks on September 11, 2001.”

“All of this flies in the face of the US Constitution,” they write. “Our founding legal document of course prohibits the government from denying the liberty of people to come and go from the United States without due process of law (at least with respect to persons protected under that document, many of whom are affected here).”

Yates’ firing ended her 27-year Justice Department career. Even a Wikipedia editor—for a brief moment, at least—exalted her as “a god damned American hero.”

Sitting on the edge of our seats!

TextThe next few days will be telling for the future of the president’s executive order. The appeals court asked those challenging the ban to file written arguments by 4 a.m. Eastern on Monday and asked Justice Department lawyers to reply by 6 p.m. Eastern. They could then schedule a hearing or rule whether the ban should remain on hold.

a reply to: Phage

12172

Jimmy Carters order to report, deport, cancel visas etc.

Ruled constitutional upon challenge, based on same law Trump cited.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That's nice OPINION piece posted, but we all have one don't we?

Constitution says very specifically in matters where a state is involved case is original jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

That Robards doesn't follow constitution is no surprise - same for 9th circus.

a reply to: Phage

fdr banned jewish refugees to us
jimmy carter banned iranians
ronald regan banned people infected with hiv
so yes buttercup other presidents have banned groups of people all trump said was he wanted to vet them to make sure they legit apparently you have been living under a rock or in a cave somewhere and have not seen the terror that the everyday people of europe is suffering because rich white people in power said come on over we welcome you and any who don't like it can get stuffed because we in charge. if not for merkel we would not have had the paris attacks remember that i am sure france does. how about the elderly priest who had his head cut off in front of his parishes in france by refugees? by the way these same refugees as they liked to be called are responsible for untold amounts of sexual violence in europe. don't believe everything you hear on msnbc or cnn deny the ignorance .

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Opinions of the law do not surpass established laws by the legislative branch, that is how the supreme court will shut the hell up all the dissenter judges scrabbling each other to play law makers.

When people are going to understand that the law is the law and only law makers make the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This whole issue is going all the way to the supreme court and is not really base on the EO but the stance that lower courts are taking, once in while the supreme court have to step in and tell the lower circuit judges that they are not the legislative branch and that they are not to brake laws that are already established because that is not their job

It happen before, if they do not do that our nation judicial system will over rule by opinion the congress.

a reply to: Phoenix

Jimmy Carters order to report, deport, cancel visas etc.

No.
Executive Order 12172

Delegation of Authority. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General are hereby designated and empowered to exercise in respect of Iranians the authority conferred upon the President by section 215(a)(1) of the Act of June 27, 1952 (8 USC 1185), to prescribe limitations and exceptions on the rules and regulations governing the entry of aliens into the United States.

a reply to: Phage

And just what was the result of limitations on Iranian passports and visas.

Sometimes you are obtuse unless the pretty picture is painted right in front your nose.

Maybe read news accounts from 79' and see how many sent packing, denied entry or had visas revoked.

Or carry blithely onwards in ignorance.

For gawd sake even Snopes agrees that Jimmy Carter indeed banned Iranians and even deported several thousand.

Lefty loving Snopes for gawd sake.

a reply to: Phoenix

Maybe read news accounts from 79' and see how many sent packing, denied entry or had visas revoked.

How many? All of them? All refugee processing was stopped? No one from Iraq could enter the US?

a reply to: marg6043

Opinions of the law do not surpass established laws by the legislative branch, that is how the supreme court will shut the hell up all the dissenter judges scrabbling each other to play law makers.

When people are going to understand that the law is the law and only law makers make the law.

Judges are separate from our legal system?

Funny Marg - opinions matter to SCOTUS

Opinions matter in law - and not everyone agrees

Laws change

Let's just see how this goes :-)

a reply to: Phoenix

That's nice OPINION piece posted, but we all have one don't we?

Yes - we do. But some opinions are worth more than others:

In The Guardian, Norman L. Eisen and Richard W. Painter, who introduce themselves as “lawyers who counseled presidents and senior officials of both parties on their Constitutional and ethical duties,” wrote that “Yates demonstrated the independence that Sessions sought—‘you need to say no’—and she lost her job because of it.” They continued: “[W]e believe her actions were lawful and right.”

Norman L Eisen, a fellow at Brookings, was chief White House ethics lawyer (2009-11) and U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic (2011-14). He is the chair of CREW.

Richard W Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, was chief White House ethics lawyer (2005-07) and is the Vice-Chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Certainly worth more than yours - and mine :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

People who have no clue what they are talking about.

Try again.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

And that's problem, you think laws change judicially whilst those who disagree believe law is made or changed legislatively.

I have opinion that if law is found unconstutional then it should be remanded back to legislative body.

Not diddled with by unelected judge.

I see and read 8 USC 1182 as granting authority for President to find any group for any reason he deems detrimental to be clear language.

I also see Robards and 9th having zero, zilch, nada jurisdiction by reading constitution where it plainly says a state in a legal dispute is original jurisdiction of Supreme Court, again very clear plain language.

That you all become blind in hate for all things Trump should not blind you to plain congressional law nor the constitution - seemingly that's what has happened in this case.

a reply to: Phoenix

And that's problem, you think laws change judicially whilst those who disagree believe law is made or changed legislatively.

Nah. The judicial system can't make or change laws. It can void them though.
Same for EOs. Though, in this case, neither has been done.

I also see Robards and 9th having zero, zilch, nada jurisdiction by reading constitution where it plainly says a state in a legal dispute is original jurisdiction of Supreme Court, again very clear plain language.

Thank you, Your Honor, for your opinion.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The supreme court do not take lightly interpretations of established laws by the legislative branch from lower circuit judges, they also do not take lightly second guessing the legislative branch.

The power of the legislative branch is not for any lower circuit court to second guess and, is believe it or not condemn under the law.

The reasoning for this is that lower courts do not have power over the legislative branch in the government to make, change or modify laws.

Only the supreme court can take cases against congress base on constitutionality.

Still lower courts can file law sues in behave of plaintiff against the government but most of the time if is an existing law they have not chance.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

First Google result on "who funds crew"

"CREWS left wing funders"

Crewexposed.Com

Nuff said when even Google isn't hiding result.

a reply to: Phage

Ah Phage,

When I see and read plain language in our Constitution it is stating fact, not my opinion.

I will however vehemently agree supplanting opinion regardless facts is big part of disfunctional legal system that promotes judicial fiat.

a reply to: Phoenix

And that's problem, you think laws change judicially whilst those who disagree believe law is made or changed legislatively.

You assume too much about what I think. Do you need for me to think that way to make your point?

I have opinion that if law is found unconstutional then it should be remanded back to legislative body.

If who finds it unconstitutional?

Not diddled with by unelected judge.

Wow... So, what is it judges should be diddling?

You know, it might just be an un-elected judge that will diddle things for your hero just the way you like

That you all become blind in hate for all things Trump should not blind you to plain congressional law nor the constitution - seemingly that's what has happened in this case.

So, let me see if I have this straight... the legal process should not concern either lawyers or judges - only law makers?

:-)

I think (and it's not just me) that it's worth discussing whether or not Trump wrote an executive order that's unconstitutional. This affects a lot of people, no matter which side of this you're on. Fortunately - that's exactly what's going to happen