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: 62
89
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
.....Links? Info? Source? something?

I dont know that random "information" and a hastily strung together "paragraph" with no context really counts as a thread......

What are you talking about?


You kidding? It deserves 89 flags and 1200 replies. No wonder I'm so compelled to write threads anymore.




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Not getting enough flags?
Poor baby.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If you ever work a month on a masterpiece and it doesn't even make the front page, you'd get it. But three sentences of what might as well be assumed to be conjecture, hell that ought to get 5 Applause and instant Cosmic Contributor status.




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


If you ever work a month on a masterpiece and it doesn't even make the front page, you'd get it.

Are you saying that Trump is just like me? That he isn't the only one who can solve all our problems?


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



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Anyone can parrot CNN. I didn't realize CNN knows how to solve our problems?!?




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
CNN? Oh hell no. Only our president can do that. That's always the way it's been. Even when America used to be great.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
How our judicial system works at the federal level for those who are lost.

You have federal district courts. These courts are where a challenge at the federal level starts.
From there it goes to a US Circuit Court of appeals. The US has 11 circuits, with the 9th circuit being the largest.
After the appeals court you have the US Supreme Court.

If you lose at the district court level an appeal goes to the circuit appeals court. That is determined by what state you are in.

The appeals court ruling can result in the case being appealed to the SCOTUS or it can be sent back to the original court for review with guidelines issued by the circuit court.

If 2 circuits issue conflicting rulings it goes to SCOTUS.

Scotus can issue a ruling or (if no conflicting rulings exist) can send it back down to lower courts for review with guidelines.

If Scotus has a tie then the lower court ruling / appeals court ruling stands.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Phage



Anyone can parrot CNN. I didn't realize CNN knows how to solve our problems?!?



Of course they can... Remember how just prior to the election CNN informed everyone that its against the law for individuals to read the hacked emails but because CNN was a "media outlet" they could lawfully read them and that the viewers should just take CNN's word.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for clearing that up.
What about the Boston courts ruling, why is it not mentioned?



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

It was mentioned in the brief the DOJ submitted in the 9th. That is going to be an issue for the appeals circuit as well since the courts are in different circuits (Robart in the 9th and Boston in the 1st). I dont believe any rulings in the district courts in the 1st have made it to the appeals level.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Other things to keep in mind...

If the Stay is upheld in the 9th circuit court..

Then the most likely result if he immediately appeals to SCOTUS is a 4-4 ruling along party lines or a 5-3 or 6-3 ruling, since Justice Roberts has proven himself willing to Join the more liberal justices on important rulings.

Trump can WAIT for his SCOTUS Nominee to take the bench, but that wont happen until APRIL...at which time making the case that a 90 Day "temporary" ban was necessary during a review of "extreme vetting" a whole lot less arguable..because at that time only a few weeks will be left on the amount of time they said the review would demand.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Indigo5


If the Trump admin loses tomorrow, they can appeal the temporary "stay" to Scotus...or let it sit and engage in trial on the legality of the order in one of the other courts where it is being challenged (perhaps a friendlier court) and if they succeed there, the stay is lifted by default.
So by "lower" you mean lower than the Supreme Court. With the Court lacking a justice at the moment that could be a strategic move.

I don't know if a "horizontal" appeal is a thing though.


Two things..(If the stay is upheld)

As XCand noted they can return to Robarts for review post circuit court ruling asking Robart to rethink his Original Stay (unlikely)

OR They can immediately appeal to SCOTUS with the 4-4 split and a risk Justice Roberts will join the liberals.

OR They can wait on appealing to SCOTUS until Trumps Nominee is appointed..but that is April...and making the case that the Stay is both temporary (90 days for most immigrants) and urgent...while a review of vetting happens...Is a bad argument to make and ask for when 90 days have nearly completely passed by the time it gets to SCOTUS...
In short SCOTUS can say...Well the 90 days to review vetting is pretty much done, so what do you need the pause for again? By your own timeline the "review" should be complete.

OR they can drop the appeal on the Stay to SCOTUS altogether and hope to win on one of the other court challenges on the legality of the ban and if they win there, the Stay is lifted by default. In essense...not fight the stay, but quickly fight the legality of the EO, cuz if they win that case, the stay goes away immediately anyways..

At least that is how I understand it.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Just curious, what was your stance on supremacy when Brewer wanted AZ law enforcement check immigration status.

I'm betting you were all for it, but now you're against it.

That AZ brouhaha set precedent that immigration was sole responsibility of the federal government.

I don't see courts reversing that precedent and think it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise notwithstanding reasons well stated regarding jurisdiction, congressional law and Constitution itself.

Even liberal justices actually rule constitutionally when ruling on existing law.

What I do believe is that lower inferior courts know how incendiary this is and will kick the ball out of their court fast as they can.

Justice Kennedy is not lockstep liberal so I'd not count on him or automatically assume he will rule against constitution, congressional law, precedent, executive powers.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Just curious, what was your stance on supremacy when Brewer wanted AZ law enforcement check immigration status.

I'm betting you were all for it, but now you're against it.



If you want real answers to real questions...then don't answer your own questions..

Don't be asinine and tell people what they are thinking.


In AZ? Law enforcement had 100% authority to check people's immigration status.

They could not pull people over because they were brown and demand papers.

That is how I felt, that is how the SCOTUS ruled.




What I do believe is that lower inferior courts know how incendiary this is and will kick the ball out of their court fast as they can.

Justice Kennedy is not lockstep liberal so I'd not count on him or automatically assume he will rule against constitution, congressional law, precedent, executive powers.


My position is that the EO is not aligned with "constitution, congressional law, precedent, executive powers"..

And I don't think any Justice is looking to outright rule against those things.

Whether the EO falls within "constitution, congressional law, precedent, executive powers" is the exact question the courts will ask and answer.







posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
My position is that the EO is not aligned with "constitution, congressional law, precedent, executive powers"..


Except it is... Just because you dont understand those things doesnt mean they are invalid simply because you hate Trump.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Like I said "punt" "drop kick" whatever you may call it I actually doubt they'll rule about constitutional issues, rather it'll be about keep the stay or not.

Kitchen may be to hot for them on the 9th, we'll soon know.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Here are the oral arguments made to the 9th circuit. ATS thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...



A ruling should come quickly according to the judges.
edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Having listened to the oral arguments, I am surprised there is not much more concern about the state of the legal system in the US. The 3 judges seemed to be more interested in what was said in the campaign rather than what is in the EO. They sounded like partisans emotionally engaged in a media narrative.

The fact is that Trump altered the approach from a Muslim ban to a country ban long before he won the election, but the partisan narrative has not changed. If they are going to use campaign comments to determine motive, they should be using all campaign comments, not cherry picking comments from early in the campaign to suit a narrative. That is not judging, that is engaging in politics. Very shoddy.

This one is going to the Supreme Court in my view, and I think they will judge this based on the constitution, which is clearly on Trump's side.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




This one is going to the Supreme Court in my view,

Congratulations on stating the obvious.


and I think they will judge this based on the constitution, which is clearly on Trump's side.
Thank you for your opinion, Your Honor. Note that it will take 5.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




This one is going to the Supreme Court in my view,

Congratulations on stating the obvious.


and I think they will judge this based on the constitution, which is clearly on Trump's side.
Thank you for your opinion, Your Honor. Note that it will take 5.


It's not obvious.
I said 'I think' and that, the last time I checked, is allowed whether one is a judge or not.
Thank you for your input, though.

edit on 8/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
89
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join