72 people from countries on Trump's ban list

[Mitch Rapp]

A motivated immigrant could still have bad intentions. I don't discriminate. Lock all non-Americans out of the country. We have plenty of people here now. Keep everyone out until our country is great again. Once we are great again then open the doors back up. We shouldn't have to decide who is motivated and pure and who isn't? How can one truly know? It's impossible. I know plenty of people who could con the system. Lock the doors. We don't need them.

I would gladly trade 10 third generation welfare loafer meth-heads for one hard working Indian scientist. I don't know of any Indian Hindus who have committed terrorist acts on American soil. Maybe Trump can work out some trades after he repeals as much of Obama's agenda as possible.

[Mitch Rapp]

Cherry pick much? Let's quote the order (and for purposes of discussion let's assume the 9th Circuit is a real court even though the appeal involves "the most liberal federal District Court in the country (and the court whose decisions are most frequently overturned on appeal)"

 

Legal Standard - "Our decision is guided by four questions: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injury the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies""

 

Order - "We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."

 

We are literally at the point that we have posters arguing with a straight face that an order from a federal appellate court doesn't matter because they don't like the court. The real, true, actual facts are that the EO is not in effect because a federal district court found it unconstitutional. The government argued for a stay to let it apply before being reviewed and a federal appellate court found they are unlikely to win that argument.

The federal court did not find the law to be unconstitutional. Nothing you posted contradicts my summary. I understood what I posted.

[Hatz]

I don't think we should let anyone in for any reason. We should close the doors to everyone and heal our sick nation ourselves. Once we have accomplished that then and only then should we reopen the process of immigration.

 

What about spouses?

[Pioneer.Pride]

The right needs to match the passion and intensity of the left by protesting at Federal Court Houses, and , at the residences of these federal judges. Life for these judges needs to be made very uncomfortable. The law of the ballot box is higher than any law these judges think they are following!

[mcpapa]

Are these judges elected or appointed?

[LIPTON BASH]

Cherry pick much? Let's quote the order (and for purposes of discussion let's assume the 9th Circuit is a real court even though the appeal involves "the most liberal federal District Court in the country (and the court whose decisions are most frequently overturned on appeal)"

 

Legal Standard - "Our decision is guided by four questions: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injury the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies""

 

Order - "We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."

 

We are literally at the point that we have posters arguing with a straight face that an order from a federal appellate court doesn't matter because they don't like the court. The real, true, actual facts are that the EO is not in effect because a federal district court found it unconstitutional. The government argued for a stay to let it apply before being reviewed and a federal appellate court found they are unlikely to win that argument.

 

The problem is they found without citing any current law and ignoring all past precedence.

 

The supreme court has already ruled you can't take what a politican said on the campaign trail and apply it to a ruling on a new law or EO. They also ignored the law right now on the books where congress gave the president the power for such an EO. They didn't even challenge it they ignored it completley.

 

They also ignored all past precedence when it comes to states having the right to look out for Non US citizens who are not here yet.

 

They literally ignored all past precedence.

[Jesse James]

The right needs to match the passion and intensity of the left by protesting at Federal Court Houses, and , at the residences of these federal judges. Life for these judges needs to be made very uncomfortable. The law of the ballot box is higher than any law these judges think they are following!

 

When the right starts protesting like the left there will be bloodshed. Write it down.

[Bipsic]

The problem is they found without citing any current law and ignoring all past precedence.

 

The supreme court has already ruled you can't take what a politican said on the campaign trail and apply it to a ruling on a new law or EO. They also ignored the law right now on the books where congress gave the president the power for such an EO. They didn't even challenge it they ignored it completley.

 

They also ignored all past precedence when it comes to states having the right to look out for Non US citizens who are not here yet.

 

They literally ignored all past precedence.

 

I don't think that's necessarily the case from the text of the order. The Court didn't challenge or ignore the the president's power - it stated he has obviously has the power and deference must be given. The Court just said it doesn't by the Government's position that he has carte blanche, separation of powers or judicial rule be damned.

 

The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determination of the political branches - and uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence . . . Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President's decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those action potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

 

I'm not familiar with the case law for using a president's campaign speech as intent, but assuming the holding is extremely broad, the 9th Circuit still didn't differentiate the "Muslim ban" comments as being during the campaign or after inauguration and pre- or post-EO. Nevertheless, that evidence was only used for the First Amendment argument. Then it cites multiple Supreme Court cases in support of the contention that:

It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.

 

I'm not exactly sure what the precedence for states having the right to look out for non-US citizens who are not here yet says, but the Court cites a fair amount of case law is support of the procedural portions of the 5th Amendment are not or limited application to only citizens.

 

Frankly, from my reading of the Order, the Court seems to say that it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a completely legal order doing exactly what "President Bannon" wanted to accomplish but they did a pretty terrible job executing it.

[LIPTON BASH]

I don't think that's necessarily the case from the text of the order. The Court didn't challenge or ignore the the president's power - it stated he has obviously has the power and deference must be given. The Court just said it doesn't by the Government's position that he has carte blanche, separation of powers or judicial rule be damned.

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with the case law for using a president's campaign speech as intent, but assuming the holding is extremely broad, the 9th Circuit still didn't differentiate the "Muslim ban" comments as being during the campaign or after inauguration and pre- or post-EO. Nevertheless, that evidence was only used for the First Amendment argument. Then it cites multiple Supreme Court cases in support of the contention that:

 

I'm not exactly sure what the precedence for states having the right to look out for non-US citizens who are not here yet says, but the Court cites a fair amount of case law is support of the procedural portions of the 5th Amendment are not or limited application to only citizens.

 

Frankly, from my reading of the Order, the Court seems to say that it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a completely legal order doing exactly what "President Bannon" wanted to accomplish but they did a pretty terrible job executing it.

 

Except again it is established by the Supreme Court you can not take campaign speeches and apply them to a ruling .

 

They did completely ignore that law passed by Congress that gave the President this power. It isn't cited once nor do they dispute the rule. They ignore it.

 

Then you go and ruin your entire post by the President Bannon comment.

[LIPTON BASH]

I don't think that's necessarily the case from the text of the order. The Court didn't challenge or ignore the the president's power - it stated he has obviously has the power and deference must be given. The Court just said it doesn't by the Government's position that he has carte blanche, separation of powers or judicial rule be damned.

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with the case law for using a president's campaign speech as intent, but assuming the holding is extremely broad, the 9th Circuit still didn't differentiate the "Muslim ban" comments as being during the campaign or after inauguration and pre- or post-EO. Nevertheless, that evidence was only used for the First Amendment argument. Then it cites multiple Supreme Court cases in support of the contention that:

 

I'm not exactly sure what the precedence for states having the right to look out for non-US citizens who are not here yet says, but the Court cites a fair amount of case law is support of the procedural portions of the 5th Amendment are not or limited application to only citizens.

 

Frankly, from my reading of the Order, the Court seems to say that it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a completely legal order doing exactly what "President Bannon" wanted to accomplish but they did a pretty terrible job executing it.

 

On Trial: Five Signs Even The Ninth Circuit Knows Trump Will Win Travel Ban Fight In End | Law News

 

Since you said you didn't know about some of the past rulings they are cited in this article. Also we you say 4 judges have ruled did you ignore the judge in Boston who ruled in favor of the EO?

[BirdBrain]

The right needs to match the passion and intensity of the left by protesting at Federal Court Houses, and , at the residences of these federal judges. Life for these judges needs to be made very uncomfortable. The law of the ballot box is higher than any law these judges think they are following!

 

Good point....then there's that pesky "going to work" thing...:idunno:

[Bipsic]

Except again it is established by the Supreme Court you can not take campaign speeches and apply them to a ruling .

 

They did completely ignore that law passed by Congress that gave the President this power. It isn't cited once nor do they dispute the rule. They ignore it.

 

Then you go and ruin your entire post by the President Bannon comment.

 

On Trial: Five Signs Even The Ninth Circuit Knows Trump Will Win Travel Ban Fight In End | Law News

 

Since you said you didn't know about some of the past rulings they are cited in this article. Also we you say 4 judges have ruled did you ignore the judge in Boston who ruled in favor of the EO?

 

I'll try to address your points in order, and if I say I don't know something, I promise that is the case, I'm not just ignoring it.

 

I'll try to address your points in order

 

1. I don't know what case you are referring to, but I assume you are referring to an Executive Order and not an appellate order regarding campaign speech. I'm not privy to the details or the briefs or arguments, but the discussion about being a "Muslim ban" occurred during the campaign trial, but continued both before and after the issuance of the EO. Nevertheless, the 9th Circuit already weighed in on the due process argument before going to the States' 1st Amendment argument where there is a ton of precedence that facially neutral laws can be viewed as unconstitutional by considering additional evidence.

 

2. I can't say exactly why the law wasn't explicitly cite and I agree they didn't dispute it, but they definitely did not ignore it. The order as much as says the president has all the authority in the world when it comes to immigration and national security issues, but only that it is absurd to say that judicial review doesn't apply to constitutional issues.

 

3. I can't exactly ignore all the reports of Bannon poaching aids and writing the EO in secret. Additionally, President Trump doesn't exactly strike me as policy wonk in any way involved with the construction of any of the EO's he's signed.

 

4. You have no reason to trust me over your link, and I would never expect you too, but I disagree with a large amount of the editorial. For one, I've already discussed my opinion of the lack of citation to the law giving the president immigration power, but also, the text of the 5th and 14th Amendments refer to persons and not citizens in addition to the incredible amount of case law including the Supreme Court and additional literature that discusses application of different sections of the constitution to non-citizens. Further, from the 9th Circuit order, standing was granted primarily because of public universities and hospitals, not individual foreigners filing suit.

 

5. I really don't know why the Order was issued per curiam, but I highly doubt it is because the judges' were embarrassed. There are a number of more likely scenarios, not least of which is our Commander-in-Chief's propensity for calling out on his twitter account those who do anything he doesn't favor. We all know judges aren't immune to this (see Judge Curiel). The author argues that per curiam opinions are usually non-controversial, but look no further than Bush v. Gore. Perhaps the 3 judge panel wanted to make the opinion more of an issuance from the 9th Circuit as a whole as opposed to just the 3 which could have led the unnamed judge to argue for en banc review.

 

6. I honestly have not read the Boston order. I'm honestly sure it does a great job of putting forth an argument for allowing the EO to stay in place. This happens all the time with circuit splits that the Supreme Court later considers. At the end of the day, a Circuit Court holding is going to weigh heavier than a District Court.

 

7. As an extension of #6, this is what I was alluding to with my "President Bannon" comment. The outcome of the EO was always going to be controversial for the people in the streets, but it shouldn't have been difficult for the President to issue an EO related to immigration. The entire implementation was botched by trying to keep this a secret and trying to enact it too quickly and by surprise.