Trump loses appeal
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
"Dangering of America"?
You are precious.
You know we already have a vetting process? You know there have been zero murders on US soil since 1975 by immigrants from the 7 Muslim-majority countries on the list?
I'm just hopeful that the President can now get back to the important issues at hand-like who's slighting ivanka's line of apparel.
I just hope that all the butthurt doesnt hurt your swing. You pics from your last trip were great.
Whether you agree with the EO or not...you have to be concerned about the court over ruling the Presidents power to handle these types of issues - my understanding is that the President has always had this type of authority.
This doesn't make you just a liitle uneasy from a Constitutional stand point? Oh well.It could be dismissed as early as tonight or a new Order can be issued. Many options can be used. IMO, a new and cleaner Order would be a good option. That way, the 9th could save face. I believe they let emotions, not necessarily their own, make their decision to placate. Ban = Mean; No Ban = Nice.
Do you, countryroad or anybody else on this forum feel certain this is a victory for the US?
Wrong. I am pleased that the judicial system slapped down this pos president when he attempts to do something unconstitutional. You nuts have for years have proclaimed that is what you want and now you whine like the babies everyone knows you are.
What happens now is for the time being the policy that Trump inherited which is vetting these people is still in place. Nothing has changed unless Trump tells his state dept not to perform. This country has been safe from this type of threat so far and hopefully the professionals can continue keeping the country safe while following the law and the constitution. If Trump was smart, he would rewrite the EO if he wants to do something like this and make it constitutional.
It makes me feel that much better about the Constitution. The process worked the way it is supposed to.
9th save face? That is a bizzare comment.
I most certainly feel it is a victory for the US, our democracy and form of government, even if it is appealed to the USSC.
The President has the power to pass an EO on immigration but it has to be done within the framework of all of our other laws.
Federal immigration law gives the president authority to bar people from coming into the U.S.
Within the framework of all other laws. Section 202 of the INA makes it clear that you can't discriminate by country.
Honestly, I didn't mind the travel restrictions. However, my take on it was that we were NOT targeting locations that we should be....that is IF Trump was truly "protecting" America.
The hijackers from 9/11 were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, correct? I don't see those nations on the ban list. Is there a reason? The Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt, correct? Wonder why they are not on the list?
The hijackers from 9/11 were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, correct? I don't see those nations on the ban list. Is there a reason? The Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt, correct? Wonder why they are not on the list?
Dangering? Did you make that up? I haven't heard that in Donnie's usual cry wolf/I'm a winner shtick. You should tweet that to him.
If you need to have the reason why those countries are on the list, then it's no wonder why you're asking your question. It has NOTHING to do with where Hijackers come from.
I never expected one.
The funny flaw in the court's logic. "Well you can't ban people from a certain country if no people from that certain country have committed a terrorist attack yet." Guess they want to wait until AFTER an attack before approving such a ban.
And zero mention in the ruling about the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" law.Not surprised by the ruling however... it is the 9th afterall.
They are the most over-turned Circuit in the country...I believe I read/heard 86% of their decisions have been over-turned...can that be correct?I never expected one.
The funny flaw in the court's logic. "Well you can't ban people from a certain country if no people from that certain country have committed a terrorist attack yet." Guess they want to wait until AFTER an attack before approving such a ban.
Not surprised by the ruling however... it is the 9th afterall.
No. As usual, you have either heard a too simple discussion of the fact or your simple mind can't understand the fact and you have misstated it. Which one is it? You've already over simplified the responsibility of the president in his role of immigration this evening.
The three-judge panel hearing the case included:
Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee;
Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and
Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.
lol... a kangaroo court...
Here are five key passages from the full-throated rebuke.
Courts assert right to review order
"Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree," the judges wrote.
"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, there is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
The administration had argued that the courts did not have the right to review an executive order related to national security threats, saying it was under the president's broad authority to act on such issues.
But the panel, in vehemently repudiating that notion, cited a Supreme Court case that ruled U.S. courts could hear Guantanamo Bay cases.
Judges raise religious discrimination issue
While the judges declined to weigh in on whether they think the policy is a form of religious discrimination, they did acknowledge that there were “significant” questions that needed to be explored further.
"The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions," the opinion said.
The plaintiffs in the case, Washington and Minnesota, maintain that the order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.
One of the judges, a George W. Bush appointee, said he wasn’t entirely convinced of that assertion during a hearing on Tuesday.
But the states argued that they just needed to prove that the order was motivated by a desire to discriminate against Muslims, citing Trump's remark in December 2015 about a "total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States."
Both sides have merits
“Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages,” the decision stated.
Judges pointed to valid arguments on each side of the passionate debate.
They said there is a “powerful interest” in protecting national security and preserving the the president’s authority.
But on the other, the public also has an interest in the free flow of travel, avoiding the separation of families and the freedom from discrimination.
The judges also argued that the states have shown sufficient legal standing to bring the case — at least at this stage — because of the harm inflicted on public universities in the state.
Panel finds no evidence of terrorism risk
“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the ruling stated.
Trump has said his immigration policy is necessary to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the country, citing the September 11 terrorist attacks and other criminal acts committed by foreign-born individuals.
But when pressed by the judges to provide hard evidence that the countries targeted in the ban — Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — posed a real risk for terrorism, the administration said there was no evidence in the record of federal offenses from visa holders of those nations.
The White House’s attorney maintained that those nations were previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as “countries of concern.”
The right to ‘life, liberty, or property’
When it comes to an individual's right to “life, liberty, or property,” the Trump administration was unable to convince the court that the ban did not violate due process rights — such as providing notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.
“The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel,” the opinion said.
The government had argued that due process rights were not violated because the White House counsel, several days after the ban was implemented, issued guidance stating that the order did not apply to green card holders — and that other individuals were not citizens and therefore had no due process rights.
The protections provided by the Fifth Amendment are not limited to citizens, the court insisted.
“We cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings,” they wrote.
Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee;
Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and
Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.
lol... a kangaroo court...
Here are five key passages from the full-throated rebuke.
Courts assert right to review order
"Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree," the judges wrote.
"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, there is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
The administration had argued that the courts did not have the right to review an executive order related to national security threats, saying it was under the president's broad authority to act on such issues.
But the panel, in vehemently repudiating that notion, cited a Supreme Court case that ruled U.S. courts could hear Guantanamo Bay cases.
Judges raise religious discrimination issue
While the judges declined to weigh in on whether they think the policy is a form of religious discrimination, they did acknowledge that there were “significant” questions that needed to be explored further.
"The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions," the opinion said.
The plaintiffs in the case, Washington and Minnesota, maintain that the order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.
One of the judges, a George W. Bush appointee, said he wasn’t entirely convinced of that assertion during a hearing on Tuesday.
But the states argued that they just needed to prove that the order was motivated by a desire to discriminate against Muslims, citing Trump's remark in December 2015 about a "total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States."
Both sides have merits
“Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages,” the decision stated.
Judges pointed to valid arguments on each side of the passionate debate.
They said there is a “powerful interest” in protecting national security and preserving the the president’s authority.
But on the other, the public also has an interest in the free flow of travel, avoiding the separation of families and the freedom from discrimination.
The judges also argued that the states have shown sufficient legal standing to bring the case — at least at this stage — because of the harm inflicted on public universities in the state.
Panel finds no evidence of terrorism risk
“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the ruling stated.
Trump has said his immigration policy is necessary to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the country, citing the September 11 terrorist attacks and other criminal acts committed by foreign-born individuals.
But when pressed by the judges to provide hard evidence that the countries targeted in the ban — Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — posed a real risk for terrorism, the administration said there was no evidence in the record of federal offenses from visa holders of those nations.
The White House’s attorney maintained that those nations were previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as “countries of concern.”
The right to ‘life, liberty, or property’
When it comes to an individual's right to “life, liberty, or property,” the Trump administration was unable to convince the court that the ban did not violate due process rights — such as providing notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.
“The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel,” the opinion said.
The government had argued that due process rights were not violated because the White House counsel, several days after the ban was implemented, issued guidance stating that the order did not apply to green card holders — and that other individuals were not citizens and therefore had no due process rights.
The protections provided by the Fifth Amendment are not limited to citizens, the court insisted.
“We cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings,” they wrote.
I'm not saying take these nations off, but add Saudi Arabia and Egypt......I mean they throw out "radical Islam" a lot these days in the White House. Where do these radical originate from? Their Holy Land and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.......hmmm.......
The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution and lesser laws, not to make them. It was to protect the integrity of the Constitution, not to add to it or subtract from it—certainly not to rewrite it. For as the framers knew, unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges. And if that happens, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite. —President Ronald Reagan
http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples
Judicial activism can take a number of different forms. These include importing foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, elevating policy considerations above the requirements of law, discovering new “rights” not found in the text, and bending the text of the Constitution or a law to comport with the judge’s own sensibilities, to name just a few. Rather than succumb to these temptations, judges should strive to put aside their personal views and policy preferences in order to maintain impartiality and render sound judgments according to the laws as written.
The concept of judicial activism is much easier to demonstrate with real cases than to describe in the abstract. Reasonable people may disagree about whether judges have properly carried out their duty in difficult cases, but some instances of activism are plain. When judges impose their own views instead of attempting to determine the original public meaning of a statute or constitutional provision, the Framers’ vision of our republican democracy—famously, a government of laws and not of men—is compromised.
The term “judicial activism” refers to errors in a judge’s method of analysis and is not simply a criticism of a case’s outcome. When a judge puts policy considerations above the requirements of law, bends the text of the Constitution or laws to comport with his or her own sensibilities, or otherwise angles for particular results in a case, that judge has stepped outside the proper constitutional role of policing the structural limits on government and neutrally interpreting the laws and the Constitution.
Striving to interpret laws in light of their original public meaning is not necessarily an easy task, but it is the surest way for judges to resist the temptation to stray from the text and resort to judicial activism. The Framers of the Constitution intended that the United States would be a government of laws, not of men, but each “activist” decision chips away at this design, bringing us closer to a robed oligarchy.
Judicial activism can take a number of different forms. These include importing foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, elevating policy considerations above the requirements of law, discovering new “rights” not found in the text, and bending the text of the Constitution or a law to comport with the judge’s own sensibilities, to name just a few. Rather than succumb to these temptations, judges should strive to put aside their personal views and policy preferences in order to maintain impartiality and render sound judgments according to the laws as written.
The concept of judicial activism is much easier to demonstrate with real cases than to describe in the abstract. Reasonable people may disagree about whether judges have properly carried out their duty in difficult cases, but some instances of activism are plain. When judges impose their own views instead of attempting to determine the original public meaning of a statute or constitutional provision, the Framers’ vision of our republican democracy—famously, a government of laws and not of men—is compromised.
The term “judicial activism” refers to errors in a judge’s method of analysis and is not simply a criticism of a case’s outcome. When a judge puts policy considerations above the requirements of law, bends the text of the Constitution or laws to comport with his or her own sensibilities, or otherwise angles for particular results in a case, that judge has stepped outside the proper constitutional role of policing the structural limits on government and neutrally interpreting the laws and the Constitution.
Striving to interpret laws in light of their original public meaning is not necessarily an easy task, but it is the surest way for judges to resist the temptation to stray from the text and resort to judicial activism. The Framers of the Constitution intended that the United States would be a government of laws, not of men, but each “activist” decision chips away at this design, bringing us closer to a robed oligarchy.
Sorry but you appear to wrong...the 9th is considered the most liberal (the Federal Circuit does give them a run for this title)...and when they're decisions go to SCOTUS they're decisions are overturned the most.
Uh ... no ... it has never worked like that. We have 3 branches of government for a reason. Checks and balances and all of that specifically so a president can't come in and act like an elected dictator
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Key word .... FINDS ... not "feels"
And he is being challenged to show what findings lead him to this and he has no answer