DEVASTATING loss for Trump....Appeals court UNANIMOUSLY strikes down the Muslim Ban

DiscoGary wrote:

Trump has every right to keep people out from those countries. It's as clear as day. He should just ignore them. This is a separation of powers issue. We are governed by our elected officials. We can not allow ourselves to be ruled by a few judges out west.

let me guess, you have Poli Sci undergrad, Law School grad?

It wouldn't be all that far fetched to think that Trump might pay a terrorists cell to attack the US just to prove a point. He is that much of a sociopath.

requiem for democracy wrote:

By ignoring the Constitution, by utterly dismissing statute 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), by responding to Trump in this irrational manner, devoid of all consideration of the possible long-term consequences, we are dooming the country to repeating exactly the same mistakes.

Obey your Lord or perish.

Correct.

If upheld by the Supreme Court later this year, the new declaration would allow overseas foreigners — including those hostile to the United States — to hire lawyers to persuade judges to grant them visas, residency permits and eventually citizenship. That courtroom route would bypass denials or approvals from the elected President’s administration and its subordinate agencies, including the intelligence, law-enforcement and national security agencies.

In practice, the decision would give foreigners the right to sue the federal government when they’re denied entry by the federal government. That right, when pressed by many migrants, will ensure that some gain entry to the United States despite opposition from the voters and their chosen government.

requiem for democracy wrote:

Most of that overreaction has been immeasurably more damaging than the attacks themselves. By ignoring the Constitution, by utterly dismissing statute 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), by responding to Trump in this irrational manner, devoid of all consideration of the possible long-term consequences, we are dooming the country to repeating exactly the same mistakes.

First of all, 8 U.S.C. § 1182f is "Denial of entry into United States of Chinese and other nationals engaged in coerced organ or bodily tissue" transplantation

What you are trying to cite is 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(3)(F)https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 which reads:

Association with terrorist organizations

Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

I don't think you can say all immigrants from entire nations are associated with a terrorist organization, much less determine that they all intend harm to the US.

Based on that selective misreading, you have obviously don't know other parts of Title 8, including § 1152, which reads in (a)(1)(A and B):

a)Per country level

(1)Nondiscrimination

(A)Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

(B)Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.

Note that you discriminate based on nationality, which the Executive Order does.

zzzz wrote:

Note that you discriminate based on nationality, which the Executive Order does.

cannot discriminate

Maybe the most insightful thing written here in a long time.

Most will dismiss it though.

requiem for democracy wrote:

As with the 9/11 attacks, the damage done by the hijackers was not so much the lost lives and the destroyed buildings, it was the reaction of the country to those attacks. We paid for that overreaction with two incredibly expensive and pointless wars, the Patriot Act, the intrusive surveillance, and other fundamental and permanent changes to the way we live our everyday lives.

So you're saying our decisions should be based on the fear that we might overreact if something bad happens? Well maybe this time we will avoid the Bush wars because we now have an administration that will not take advantage of our paranoia to further their own agenda. Oh wait, we have a jackass in charge now. All of a sudden its not so cute to have President Ego Trip at the helm.

requiem for democracy wrote:

The problem is not so much with this particular meaningless EO. The problems will start when something more serious happens – such as another terrorist attack on the US.

EOs are mostly meaningless but Trump has played them up as being his personal method of forcing Congress to do as he demands. One branch of government, in Trump's mind.

Trump will define a terrorist act be almost anything. If a Muslim gives him the evil eye --the same look that Trump give in nearly every photo--

-- then he will likely launch the nukes to solve the problem.

‪Historically speaking, the 9th Circuit is overturned more than any other court by far, averaging about a 79% failure rate. As I warned you Hillbots during the general election, don't take premature victory laps. This isn't over.‬

MAGA!!!

‪http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/scotus-for-law-students-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-scoring-the-circuits/‬

The Terror wrote:

requiem for a dictatator wrote:

The problem is not so much with this particular meaningless EO. The problems will start when something more serious happens – such as another troll attack on the US.

rojo's troll posts are mostly meaningless but Trump has played them up as being his personal method of forcing Congress to do as he demands. One branch of government, in rojo's mind.

wejo will define a terrorist act be almost anything. If a Muslim gives him the evil eye --the same look that Trump give in nearly every photo--

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg/1024px-Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg

-- then he will likely launch the nukes to solve the problem.

We knew that Allah would grant us victory in Merkel's Europe, but 9th Judge Robert Washington has given us USA too!

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

‪Historically speaking, the 9th Circuit is overturned more than any other court by far, averaging about a 79% failure rate. As I warned you Hillbots during the general election, don't take premature victory laps. This isn't over.‬

MAGA!!!

‪http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/scotus-for-law-students-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-scoring-the-circuits/‬

Although the Ninth Circuit is reversed more than other circuit courts, that's largely because it's the biggest circuit and issues the most decisions. Approximately 99% of its decisions aren't reversed; the 79% figure that you cite is based only upon the tiny number of cases that the Supreme Court takes for plenary review upon granting a petition for writ of certiorari. Also, the very article that you cite from scotusblog notes that the Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits had higher reversal rates in the Supreme Court on plenary review during the particular four-year stretch being examined, and the overall average was about 70%. Furthermore, as that article discusses briefly (and incompletely), a high reversal rate is often due to factors other than high error rates; in fact, the Supreme Court almost never grants a petition for writ of certiorari merely (or even primarily) to correct a lower court's errors.

The Ninth Circuit's reputation as a liberal court has some basis in truth, but the popular perception (based largely on statements by conservative commentators) is overblown, and the political leanings of the court at any given time depend significantly upon which president happens to be in office when vacancies on the court arise. Some of the Ninth Circuit judges are very conservative. In this particular case, the three-judge panel included an appointee of George W. Bush who has a quite conservative reputation. (The district court judge who issued the TRO on the travel ban is also a rather conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush.)

As to the merits of the panel opinion or the district court order, I don't have much to say right now. Unlike most people who have opinions, I find these matters to be quite difficult, and I'm not at all certain how I would have ruled. The executive order is a disgrace, but disgraceful orders aren't necessarily unlawful. The president and the DOJ lawyers, however, made it a lot easier for the judges to rule as they did.

The executive order is a disgrace, but disgraceful orders aren't necessarily unlawful.

Indeed, and judges aren't supposed to consider whether some find the orders to be a "disgrace". Here however, it seems clear that they did, inserting political into the legal. But there's nothing new about judges taking sides, despite what "Constitutional purists" might want to have us think. Many of the earlier pundits (1800s) though the courts would ultimately be the worst of the branches, because their power was only remotely derived from the people and often unchecked. Today that hour has arrived.

The alt-right is drumming up the theory that Robart is a child molester. Too many red flags for them.

While many decent people foster children from the Third World and take a keen interest in child welfare, it should also be noted that almost all cases of high profile pedophilia involve similar patterns of behavior.

For example Republican Dennis Hastert, the 51st Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, who was convicted of being a "serial child molester," was also heavily involved in child welfare projects.

Heartlanders wrote:

Which is how the red states sees it. Our president just wants to keep us safe from foreigners and liberals are standing in the way.

I'm more afraid of Mericans like yourself who shoot other Americans, FAR more than any terrorists do. You lot have got to be tamed first.

Just like people, countries also should first look at whats in the mirror.

Just another game of tic-tac-toe

https://media.giphy.com/media/QdYyqPw9K8z1S/giphy.gif

Last stand of the elites wrote:

The executive order is a disgrace, but disgraceful orders aren't necessarily unlawful.

Indeed, and judges aren't supposed to consider whether some find the orders to be a "disgrace". Here however, it seems clear that they did, inserting political into the legal. But there's nothing new about judges taking sides, despite what "Constitutional purists" might want to have us think. Many of the earlier pundits (1800s) though the courts would ultimately be the worst of the branches, because their power was only remotely derived from the people and often unchecked. Today that hour has arrived.

I think it's perfectly O.K. for judges to "consider whether some find the orders to be a 'disgrace,'" and certainly O.K. for judges to consider whether they themselves find the orders to be a disgrace. Contrary to what many people think, good judicial decisionmaking, even at the appellate level, is not a robotic application of settled law to settled facts, and good judges develop good instincts about what may be unlawful. It shouldn't surprise or trouble anyone that disgraceful acts are more likely to be found unlawful than apparently benign or laudatory acts. But good judges should be sufficiently analytical and self-aware to distinguish between that which is unlawful and that which is merely distasteful, offensive, immoral, or impolitic.

It's not at all clear to me that the panel here improperly "insert[ed] political into the legal." The analysis in the per curiam opinion isn't especially deep or comprehensive, but getting three very different judges to issue a unanimous 29-page opinion only two days after oral argument by ill-prepared lawyers and just three days after the parties have filed their rather rushed briefs is no easy task.

I'm not sure what you mean by judges "taking sides." Ultimately, judges have to take sides -- unlike, for example, law professors and analytic philosophers, who can write journal articles that simply provide various arguments, thoughts, and considerations without reaching a definite conclusion about anything.

I'm also not sure what Nineteenth Century "pundits" you're talking about. Alexander Hamilton famously said that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous branch" because it has "neither force nor will, but merely judgment." Far from having "unchecked" power, it had no power except to the extent that others were willing to acknowledge its authority, and that authority was not set out in the Constitution; it took Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Madison v. Marbury to effectively stake out the power of judicial review over acts of Congress and the President.

Finally, it is, at the very least, hyberbolic to say that, "Today that hour [of, I assume, bad judicial rulings and unchecked power] has arrived." In fact, it's disturbing to me that anyone would believe that now, precisely when the President is so intent on denigrating and delegitimizing judges ("so-called") and asserting his own power and authority to issue sweeping orders not subject to judicial review.