9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

originally posted by: TheRedneck

What I see happening is the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party as we know it. The near left will leave and probably form a new party, along with some moderate Independents. The far left will either recant their extremist views, be arrested, or spend the rest of their lives inconsequential to their radical causes. Similar transformations have happened before: the original parties in the United States were the Whigs and the Tories, not the Democrats and the Republicans.

They have let the radical left take a main stream lead in their party. Activist at all levels including the community organizer (another word for activist) Obama. It seemed to be cool at first, all grass roots and such, now it is just a rabid dog after "she that will not be named" lost the election she could never lose.

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
You do realize that one of the judges is a GWB appointee that also agreed with the other GWB appointee at the district court level. So they didn't make their opinions based on "party line." Again, right wing false narrative sticking its head out for BS again.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The first time around, Trump's DOJ wasn't hitting on all cylinders. Sessions is now completely involved, and if I know Jeff, he'll have the other side looking for a hasty escape before they get their opening statement out. The man is a bulldog with gator teeth in a courtroom.

The other dynamic is that people are realizing the tide has turned on public opinion. People are quietly but quickly running away from the Democratic platform as the actions of the Democratic leaders and a small group of violence-prone supporters are showing their true faces. Warren getting sat out during the Sessions hearings was a shot across the bow, and I think it got more negative attention than some give it credit for. The District 9 judges may be getting cold feet over pulling the party line.

TheRedneck

Hold on, are you trying to say that because Bush appointed them they are conservative judges? HahhahahhahahaH

Do you even understand how things work?

Those appointments, as all appointments go, come with strings attached or are the wrap up of a favor themselves, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Those judges were a gift to some Liberals in California, that's all. Bush appointing them has nothing to do with conservative viewpoints.

Bush appointees, lol.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: loam

It's pretty obvious to me that the far left (I don't know what else to call them)

The far right is the alt-right
The far left is the ctrl-left

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some way to simply ctrl-alt-del and start all over?

Waiting for the ensuing fascist allegations....

ETA:

Apple fanboys may not get that joke.

Oh, I've really done it now....

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Xcathdra

But they only need to address the standing issue, avoiding the need to address all of the rest...save any dicta the choose to provide. Don't you agree?

The states have no standing and that based on the info I provided. There is no 10th amendment issue since the states have absolutely nothing to do with immigration / refugees / foreign policy or national security.

The district judge and 9th circus ignored that and the law / constitution in question. Instead they chose to cite cases dealing with foreign nations already in the US, which did not support their ruling but actually undermined it.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some way to simply ctrl-alt-del and start all over?

Waiting for the ensuing fascist allegations....

Glad you got my joke and yes I wish their was a way.

Trump should not re write the EO and just let it go to the supreme court. It would make him look like less of a sneaky, law manipulator and allow the anticipation to build high enough that when the supreme court over turns it the fall for the left will be even greater and more spectacular. It would be a far more epic win.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If they reject the standing holding, none of the rest of it needs to be addressed.

a reply to: tribal

Rewriting it to specifically exclude green card holders ends the legal debate thats on going.

a reply to: loam

correct.. sorry I was not processing what you were saying.

a reply to: loam

If you're a fascist, then so am I. You stole my line.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

good point. However, will that help the overall image of the EO as far as the public is concerned or will it, as i suggested, simply make Trump appear to be a weasel trying to find any loophole in the law to get around the ruling?

Maybe there will be some judges who have common sense in a larger sampling.

Judges are not privy to national security briefings, and they do not need to be.
They keep demanding information to support the ban, but they have no right to that information.
That is why the Constitution gives the right to make decisions regarding national security to the President.

What is the DOJ lawyer supposed to do?
Is he supposed to go on the public record revealing their intelligence information, and thus risk investigations?

The Dems who judge shopped to find judges to take up their political mantle need to be removed from office.
Same for the judges who put politics before public safety.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Xcathdra

good point. However, will that help the overall image of the EO as far as the public is concerned or will it, as i suggested, simply make Trump appear to be a weasel trying to find any loophole in the law to get around the ruling?

No, it will show that Trump puts the safety of Americans before his pride or politics.
He will do what it takes to keep us safe.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No worries. For me, that is the most shocking holding. If left to stand, it introduces an entirely new world of litigation where states can sue for any foreign policy of the federal government as long as the state can assert it's injurious to its public universities.

Under the present circumstance, the state could challenge foreign sanctions, for example, because sanctions restrict the free flow of information, technology, funding and personnel to the university.

Trade agreements could be similarly challenged.

And perhaps the most absurd result yet, even foreign military actions or declarations of war could be challenged under this new standing theory.

Now, that is not to say any of those lawsuits would prevail. There certainly remain other roadblocks in our law that would cut against these types of lawsuits from succeeding- that is assuming of course those precedents are not equally ignored. But the tremendous waste of resources and uncertainty introduced by this new standing privilege is nothing short of revolutionary. If people thought we had gridlock before, this would be a whole new level of that.

I have to believe that if it goes to the full 9th or SCOTUS, they will kill this thing dead in its tracks.

a reply to: TheRedneck

How dare we wish for a reboot, BSOD notwithstanding. Lol

originally posted by: xuenchen
Could be a red herring to stall a final outcome.

Nah. The issue is that everybody didn't get their "day in the sun".

Every individual involved in this "ban" has gotten lots of "worldwide" attention, with their names in the news, and lots of good exposure.

We now know about these 1 + 3 judges, their biographies, what cases they heard before, and what kinds of positions they take.

That's all good for career advancement.

Unfortunately, that's also unfair, since lots of other very good judges remain "unknown", and haven't gotten any attention, nor light shown on their work. All because they weren't involved in this important case.

So, some judge figures its time to spread the fame around, let the others get some of this light on their careers too.

Everybody loves being part of a good thing.

And this is an excellent case to make your opinions known, advancement to Supreme Court being one of the outcomes for the best shining light that emerges, when there's an opening again.

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: buckwhizzle

CNN said after the 9th Court decision yesterday, that re-working and re-submitting the E.O. would be the WORST thing the Trump Administration could do. By saying that, CNN told the Trump Administration what Democrats think, which told him that re-working and re-submitting the E.O. is the BEST thing he could do at this point.

I don't recall anybody saying the EO mentioned religious
or other provisions that the judge(s) had purview over.

You must not have listened to the case, read the EO, read the ruling or frankly anything relevant to the discussion then?

Intent /Animus is a real legal concept that takes into account the public and private statements of those that architect an order or law.

"Muslim Ban"? Giuliani's fox interview on the EO, Trumps interview with the Christian Network saying it would prioritize Christians and the ACTUAL EO which is targeted at Muslim Majority Countries while also saying it would give preferential treatment to religious minorities in those countries. And just wait until "Discovery" is filed where all communications regarding the strategy and construction of the EO will be subpoenaed from the Trump Administration.

a reply to: AMPTAH

So you suspect some professional petty jealousies are in play ?

Very possible.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Xcathdra

good point. However, will that help the overall image of the EO as far as the public is concerned or will it, as i suggested, simply make Trump appear to be a weasel trying to find any loophole in the law to get around the ruling?

Considering the majority of the public still support the temporary block I would say its image is fine. The people see what the courts are doing.