It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Emergency Stay Granted - Defeat for Trump's Right Wing Agenda

page: 59
89
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
It requires a special kind of partisan dissonance to not acknowledge the mass of factual evidence that continues to build.


The irony...




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

What there are, are facts...

This is the law, per U.S.C. 1182 (f), copied from www.gpo.gov... :

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


That was voted on and passed into law by the Congress of the United States, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and was signed into law by the President of the United States, all of which were duly and properly elected by the citizens of the United States. That is democracy. Judge Robart has made an initial decision to grant a stay, on an action performed exactly as specified in the law, a decision I and others think will place the population of the country in jeopardy. He has done so without regard to the law itself or long established Supreme Court decisions that deny legal standing on immigration matters to the states.

And you and others say Trump has no respect for the law? Robart has established himself as some sole arbitrator of the law. Even Supreme Court Justices do not have that kind of power! They operate on a majority opinion of 9, not unilaterally.

Want to see how a king works by decree? Look at your favorite judge.

TheRedneck

edit on 2/6/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

What there are, are facts...



Check which post of yours I was responding to Red...I wasn't discussing facts regarding this soon to be invalidated EO.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

What there are, are facts...


Check which post of yours I was responding to Red...I wasn't discussing facts regarding this soon to be invalidated EO.

I wouldn't bet money on that.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That's the whole problem... you're dismissing facts.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

If it isn't invalidated will you let it go?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

What there are, are facts...

This is the law, per U.S.C. 1182 (f), copied from www.gpo.gov... :

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.







(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.

www.law.cornell.edu...



But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could 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.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

www.nytimes.com...

McConnell: Congress unlikely to step in if courts throw out Trump travel ban
www.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That is about the issuing of Visa's and not stopping immigration. Correct? If that is the case there is no relevance here. The only reason this is being stopped is because of a revolt against Trump. Nothing else. These people could care less that are throwing up lawsuits to jam up the courts and have nothing get done. It is childish but it is a ploy that all sides have done in the past. I am not saying it is new nor excusing the RNC when they have done this.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

That's the whole problem... you're dismissing facts.

TheRedneck


Precisely the opposite..

You cited a code that was amended to/built up the Immigration and Nationality Act..

that act was passed in 1952..

The 1965 Immigration and nationality Act replaced it (passed in 1968)

And no amendment or rule has been passed by congress stripping it of it's original wording..

"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. "

You cite "class" without understanding that "class" can not include nationality..

Even President Obama did not "Ban" Visa's...He paused the processing of Visa Applications. And he did it for persons travelling to terrorist regions in the previous 6 months.

If Trump had put a temporary hold on the processing of "APPLICATIONS" that would be a different equation than stripping the validity of Visa's granted from entire nations carte blanche.

Ya did it again...made me talk to you as if you were cognating on the issue rather than fishing for an ideological angle to keep repeating what you want to be true.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Here is the breakdown of the initial DOJ legal argument from Saturday -

The DOJ took the states case and the judges position point by point and destroyed them.

* - Judge Robart's ruling violated the Constitutions separation of powers by interjecting himself into a situation where the legislative branch delegated their immigration authority to the President.
* - The judge's statements about how many people have been arrested and his conclusion of none presumes the judge knows more about the situation than the President even though the President gets classified info and the judge does not.
* - The judge has no legal right / authority to stop a presidential action when that action is based on the Presidents constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy as well as immigration as delegated to him by Congress.
* - The courts are ill equipped to second guess the Presidents prospective judgement about future risks because they do not receive classified info and the President does.
* - In the realm of immigration SCOTUS has ruled "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.' "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."
* - The states have no legal standing to bring a case on behalf of others affected by the EO.
* - The EO largely affects foreign nationals outside of the US.
* - States cannot bring a lawsuit to stop a presidential national security directive to satisfy a corporation in their state.


As for constitutionality of the order - 4 key points made by the government
* - it is "clear" that "an unadmitted and nonresident alien" "had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise."
* - foreign national in a foreign country has no U.S. constitutional rights to violate.
* - the executive order covers countries previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as terrorist hot spots and is therefore not based on Trump's alleged animus toward a particular religion.
* - the order does not target Muslims specifically.
* - it is not the role of a U.S. district judge to divine the president's motives.
* - "Judicial intrusion on the political branches' exclusive authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in itself constitutes irreparable injury," the Department argued.
* - Judge Robart's order violated a court order issued in Boston "that sustained the executive order against parallel challenges."

States standing
* - the state itself, as a state, is not subject to the executive order, and therefore does not have standing to challenge it.


The article concludes with -
By the end of the Justice Department's 24-page brief, Judge Robart's, and the state of Washington's, argument lay in tatters.

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order


Most importantly -

Also the reason the appeals court rejected the governments initial request to stop judge Robart's order immediately was because they did not have enough information to make a ruling. That's why the appeals court ordered both parties to submit their arguments in the manner they did.

Given the 24 page argument the DOJ gave I dont see the 9th circuit ruling in favor of the states / judge Robart's ruling.

The Constitution and the law are clear on this issue.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Indigo5

That is about the issuing of Visa's and not stopping immigration. Correct? If that is the case there is no relevance here. The only reason this is being stopped is because of a revolt against Trump. Nothing else.


The law speaks to the criteria of the transaction (visa/no visa)..Amusing angle, but not a legitimate argument in court, except for perhaps brief chuckles.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheRedneck

Here is the breakdown of the initial DOJ legal argument from Saturday -

The DOJ took the states case and the judges position point by point and destroyed them.



Whatever you do...

Keep citing partisan political articles to make your case...

maybe you should ask why the Trump Admin failed to get the Stay overturned with that argument?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


By the end of the Justice Department's 24-page brief, Judge Robart's, and the state of Washington's, argument lay in tatters

It sure does.
Robart isn't a judge, he's a politician in robes.
I can only hope their are some kind of consequences to his actions.


a reply to: Indigo5


maybe you should ask why the Trump Admin failed to get the Stay overturned with that argument?

asked and answered, scroll up once in a while.



Also the reason the appeals court rejected the governments initial request to stop judge Robart's order immediately was because they did not have enough information to make a ruling. That's why the appeals court ordered both parties to submit their arguments in the manner they did.

edit on 6-2-2017 by D8Tee because:
edit on 6-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That question has been answered... Apparently you missed it.

The appeals court wanted more information before making a decision. Hence the reason the plaintiffs had until Sunday to present their info and the government had until monday to present theirs.

As raymundoko asked -
"If it isn't invalidated will you let it go?"
edit on 6-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheRedneck

Here is the breakdown of the initial DOJ legal argument from Saturday -

The DOJ took the states case and the judges position point by point and destroyed them.

* - Judge Robart's ruling violated the Constitutions separation of powers by interjecting himself into a situation where the legislative branch delegated their immigration authority to the President.
* - The judge's statements about how many people have been arrested and his conclusion of none presumes the judge knows more about the situation than the President even though the President gets classified info and the judge does not.
* - The judge has no legal right / authority to stop a presidential action when that action is based on the Presidents constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy as well as immigration as delegated to him by Congress.
* - The courts are ill equipped to second guess the Presidents prospective judgement about future risks because they do not receive classified info and the President does.
* - In the realm of immigration SCOTUS has ruled "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.' "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."
* - The states have no legal standing to bring a case on behalf of others affected by the EO.
* - The EO largely affects foreign nationals outside of the US.
* - States cannot bring a lawsuit to stop a presidential national security directive to satisfy a corporation in their state.


As for constitutionality of the order - 4 key points made by the government
* - it is "clear" that "an unadmitted and nonresident alien" "had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise."
* - foreign national in a foreign country has no U.S. constitutional rights to violate.
* - the executive order covers countries previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as terrorist hot spots and is therefore not based on Trump's alleged animus toward a particular religion.
* - the order does not target Muslims specifically.
* - it is not the role of a U.S. district judge to divine the president's motives.
* - "Judicial intrusion on the political branches' exclusive authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in itself constitutes irreparable injury," the Department argued.
* - Judge Robart's order violated a court order issued in Boston "that sustained the executive order against parallel challenges."

States standing
* - the state itself, as a state, is not subject to the executive order, and therefore does not have standing to challenge it.


The article concludes with -
By the end of the Justice Department's 24-page brief, Judge Robart's, and the state of Washington's, argument lay in tatters.

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order


Most importantly -

Also the reason the appeals court rejected the governments initial request to stop judge Robart's order immediately was because they did not have enough information to make a ruling. That's why the appeals court ordered both parties to submit their arguments in the manner they did.

Given the 24 page argument the DOJ gave I dont see the 9th circuit ruling in favor of the states / judge Robart's ruling.

The Constitution and the law are clear on this issue.


Excellent summary.
It's clear that this judge has over stepped his remit.
I think this will take a while to untangle to political motivation of the 'judge', but I suspect Trump will win this case. The judge will need to come up with more than the vague damages to the state he referenced.

This is what you get when you put political partisans on the bench.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Are you suggesting that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act removed the President's powers under 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f) ?
The NYT seems to be suggesting such.


edit on 6/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheRedneck

Here is the breakdown of the initial DOJ legal argument from Saturday -

The DOJ took the states case and the judges position point by point and destroyed them.

* - Judge Robart's ruling violated the Constitutions separation of powers by interjecting himself into a situation where the legislative branch delegated their immigration authority to the President.
* - The judge's statements about how many people have been arrested and his conclusion of none presumes the judge knows more about the situation than the President even though the President gets classified info and the judge does not.
* - The judge has no legal right / authority to stop a presidential action when that action is based on the Presidents constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy as well as immigration as delegated to him by Congress.
* - The courts are ill equipped to second guess the Presidents prospective judgement about future risks because they do not receive classified info and the President does.
* - In the realm of immigration SCOTUS has ruled "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.' "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."
* - The states have no legal standing to bring a case on behalf of others affected by the EO.
* - The EO largely affects foreign nationals outside of the US.
* - States cannot bring a lawsuit to stop a presidential national security directive to satisfy a corporation in their state.


As for constitutionality of the order - 4 key points made by the government
* - it is "clear" that "an unadmitted and nonresident alien" "had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise."
* - foreign national in a foreign country has no U.S. constitutional rights to violate.
* - the executive order covers countries previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as terrorist hot spots and is therefore not based on Trump's alleged animus toward a particular religion.
* - the order does not target Muslims specifically.
* - it is not the role of a U.S. district judge to divine the president's motives.
* - "Judicial intrusion on the political branches' exclusive authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in itself constitutes irreparable injury," the Department argued.
* - Judge Robart's order violated a court order issued in Boston "that sustained the executive order against parallel challenges."

States standing
* - the state itself, as a state, is not subject to the executive order, and therefore does not have standing to challenge it.


The article concludes with -
By the end of the Justice Department's 24-page brief, Judge Robart's, and the state of Washington's, argument lay in tatters.

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order


Most importantly -

Also the reason the appeals court rejected the governments initial request to stop judge Robart's order immediately was because they did not have enough information to make a ruling. That's why the appeals court ordered both parties to submit their arguments in the manner they did.

Given the 24 page argument the DOJ gave I dont see the 9th circuit ruling in favor of the states / judge Robart's ruling.

The Constitution and the law are clear on this issue.



This is what you get when you put political partisans on the bench.


Yes...that damn liberal Pres. Bush appointed him!



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheRedneck

Here is the breakdown of the initial DOJ legal argument from Saturday -

The DOJ took the states case and the judges position point by point and destroyed them.

* - Judge Robart's ruling violated the Constitutions separation of powers by interjecting himself into a situation where the legislative branch delegated their immigration authority to the President.
* - The judge's statements about how many people have been arrested and his conclusion of none presumes the judge knows more about the situation than the President even though the President gets classified info and the judge does not.
* - The judge has no legal right / authority to stop a presidential action when that action is based on the Presidents constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy as well as immigration as delegated to him by Congress.
* - The courts are ill equipped to second guess the Presidents prospective judgement about future risks because they do not receive classified info and the President does.
* - In the realm of immigration SCOTUS has ruled "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.' "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."
* - The states have no legal standing to bring a case on behalf of others affected by the EO.
* - The EO largely affects foreign nationals outside of the US.
* - States cannot bring a lawsuit to stop a presidential national security directive to satisfy a corporation in their state.


As for constitutionality of the order - 4 key points made by the government
* - it is "clear" that "an unadmitted and nonresident alien" "had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise."
* - foreign national in a foreign country has no U.S. constitutional rights to violate.
* - the executive order covers countries previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as terrorist hot spots and is therefore not based on Trump's alleged animus toward a particular religion.
* - the order does not target Muslims specifically.
* - it is not the role of a U.S. district judge to divine the president's motives.
* - "Judicial intrusion on the political branches' exclusive authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in itself constitutes irreparable injury," the Department argued.
* - Judge Robart's order violated a court order issued in Boston "that sustained the executive order against parallel challenges."

States standing
* - the state itself, as a state, is not subject to the executive order, and therefore does not have standing to challenge it.


The article concludes with -
By the end of the Justice Department's 24-page brief, Judge Robart's, and the state of Washington's, argument lay in tatters.

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order


Most importantly -

Also the reason the appeals court rejected the governments initial request to stop judge Robart's order immediately was because they did not have enough information to make a ruling. That's why the appeals court ordered both parties to submit their arguments in the manner they did.

Given the 24 page argument the DOJ gave I dont see the 9th circuit ruling in favor of the states / judge Robart's ruling.

The Constitution and the law are clear on this issue.



This is what you get when you put political partisans on the bench.


Yes...that damn liberal Pres. Bush appointed him!


Exactly.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Are you suggesting that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act removed the President's powers underC(f) ?
Can you provide citations please...


I am suggesting that when it comes to US Code and law you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

US Code is based on US Law...The 1965 Immigration Act is the premise of the US Code you cite..That's why the code cites it.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Are you suggesting that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act removed the President's powers underC(f) ?
Can you provide citations please...


I am suggesting that when it comes to US Code and law you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

US Code is based on US Law...The 1965 Immigration Act is the premise of the US Code you cite..That's why the code cites it.


Or maybe you have read to many liberal newspapers and are under the illusion that the 1965 Act took away the President's powers. Sure seems like it from the mess of a case you have put forward. One hopes that the judge in question is as slap dash in his approach.

Are you sure the 1965 code is the premise of the law that gives the President the powers cited by Redkneck and others? Are you sure that was not the 1952 Act?
Maybe you could provide the specifics of the 1965 Act?






edit on 6/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join