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.

 

17-35105 State of Washington v. Trump 3:00 PM 2/7 Oral arguments to the 9th circuit

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

No, the 9th would want it to go to the Supreme Court ASAP, before Gorsuch is on the bench. It would result in a tie, and the 9th's decision would stand.




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Thanks for that one I always wanted to bring this quote in.


The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.

"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.


That is why the supreme court do not take opinions very well, as they rule by letter of the law

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



ANIMUS...Its a real legal concept and one being employed here...neither of which is my doing or creation...


You guys suck for attacking folks simply sharing info...


Seriously..Enjoy the circle jerk..at least no one will challenge your own echo chamber.


edit on 7-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I am very sorry Indigo I didn't mean to sound angry, actually I am not, is just that soo many people here keeps arguing with that topic that I kind of went off on it.

No, I am not angry at you.

I apologized.

I will take it back.


edit on 7-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96



ANIMUS...Its a real legal concept and one being employed here...neither of which is my doing or creation...


You guys suck for attacking folks simply sharing info...


Seriously..Enjoy the circle jerk..at least no one will challenge your own echo chamber.



But they must prove intent 100%.




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

In the academy they touched on this topic. The example they gave is yes, the speed limit on the highway is 55 however the car you stopped doing 70 is on their way to the hospital because a loved one was in an accident and is not expected to survive and its 3 oclock in the morning.

The letter of the law says to write a citation for speeding regardless of circumstance and the spirit of the law says to consider all factors, even those outside of law, for consideration.

I can see why Scotus doesnt like the spirit verse letter argument.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

No.

Do you know what the word means animus ?

If you are saying it's at play.

The INTENT is.

To stop people from getting blown up at marathons and night clubs and offices and everywhere else.

That is the INTENT of the law.

IF it was relevant to begin with.

The problem is.

The only language that counts here is what is in that EO.

No matter how much some people don't want it to matter.

Going outside an a executive order from a political campaign.

Does NOT make their case against Trump.

What it does show is a woefully inadequate case against it.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96



ANIMUS...Its a real legal concept and one being employed here...neither of which is my doing or creation...


You guys suck for attacking folks simply sharing info...


Seriously..Enjoy the circle jerk..at least no one will challenge your own echo chamber.



But they must prove intent 100%.





and the fact the judge pointed out the majority of muslim countries and muslims in total are not affected by the ban that argument went out the window.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It also depends of who is doing the listening to the spirit rather than the letter.



Supreme court most of the time are very good at taking the law first.
edit on 7-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


What are the constitutional limitations that the government acknowledges...followed by long silence and bad answer..


Politics aside..DOJ sent a poor man to make their case. Just my opinion.


Listening now..



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

No.

Do you know what the word means animus ?

If you are saying it's at play.

The INTENT is.



ANIMUS. The intent; the mind with which a thing is done, as animus cancellandi, the intention of cancelling; animus farandi, the intention of stealing; animus maiaendi, the intention of remaining; animus morandi, the intention or purpose of delaying.
    2. Whether the act of a man, when in appearance criminal, be so or not, depends upon the intention with which it was done. Vide Intention.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

One more time animus does not exist in the text of the EO.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Doesn't matter what Guliani said. Hes not president.

He didn't write the EO.

Doesn't matter what a private citizen said out on the campaign trail they were not a president at that time.

Keep beating a dead horse.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Alien Abduct

No, the 9th would want it to go to the Supreme Court ASAP, before Gorsuch is on the bench. It would result in a tie, and the 9th's decision would stand.



No way in hell. You'll see soon enough. The supreme court judges don't just rule over mountains of law and constitutional basis because of their bias leaning, there has to be much much more than their bias leaning for something like that.

This is a no brainer, easy win for Trump.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

One more time animus does not exist in the text of the EO.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

.


Yes...and THE VERY DEFINITION OF ANIMUS means it DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EO or law!

That is why it is called Animus.

It is an argument that the INTENT is unlawful...And a law was built to support it.

Whilst considering Animus, public statements by the authors and architects of the EO or law are taken into consideration.

Animus is NEVER explicit in text in legal context..thats why it is called Animus.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

The issue with the comments is Judge Robart already ruled that he would not consider statements made during the primaries / general election.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you!

I hate technology sometimes... this tablet is not exactly a loudspeaker, and these old ears need one. Folks tried to tell me when I was young that listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd at 140 db would damage my hearing, but I couldn't hear them over the Lynyrd Skynyrd at 140 db... anyway, I managed to get it on the TV with my Firestick...

Firstly, I was disappointed with the administration's attorney. He came off as ill-prepared. Washington's attorney just came off as grasping at straws.

That said, his case still seemed stronger that Washington's. The ideas of religious discrimination were pretty much dismissed, as was the applicability of 8 USC 1152 (Clifton's question (statement?) concerning the extreme number of precedents by previous administrations).

If the administration prevails, it will likely be on the basis of either the original restraining order being too broad, or the standing issue. Either would effectively lift the restraining order, the former by narrowing it to the point the administration had already done, and the latter by removing it entirely (as well as throwing out the District Court challenge until brought by someone with standing).

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

The issue with the comments is Judge Robart already ruled that he would not consider statements made during the primaries / general election.


Specifically..."Judge Robart already ruled "

No. Judge Roberts did not "rule" on that. He said he was not convinced that statements made by a candidate while campaigning were fully credible. No ruling one way or another on it's admissibility. That was not in Robarts purview for granting a stay. He just assesses the "potential" of those arguments...and rightly explained that candidates for office often say stuff.

When the ninth circuit repeated that reservation regarding animus...a Judge said something to the effect of "candidates don't always mean what they say"...

State's counsel cited Pres. Trumps interview (as president) where he said Christian refugees would be given preferential treatment. This speaks to an "Establishment Clause" challenge. States counsel also cited Giuliani's public statements on the intent being to translate Trump's concept of a "Muslim Ban" into something legal.

States counsel does not need to PROVE those things true...and the 9th circuit does not need to rule that unlawful Intent or Animus exists...States counsel just needed to convince the 9th circuit that they had a viable case with potential to win.

Another Note:

DOJ's counsel seemed to rapidly waffle between the claim that it was not the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the President regarding Immigration...and when pressed there by the judges, DOJ Counsel would flip to debating the merits of State Counsel's claims...and when pressed on the merits of the claims...DOJ would flip back to essentially "it doesn't matter because the courts can't interfere"...and so on. It made it appear that he was struggling to defend either position, since he would not hold either ground without retreat.

Put another way...If DOJ had simply said, we are not going to bother to defend the merits of the case, cuz the case can not be brought in these circumstances and left it there...it would have been stronger...but by also defending the specific particulars of the States claims...they actually tacitly acknowledged those claims were legitimate and warranted a detailed response.

ALSO...They discussed kicking this back to Robart for review for a formal Injunction (vs. stay) and that might be the next step.
edit on 8-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You going to make a prediction?



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I could be but as we know the courts can do soo much, specially in constitutional matters, they have to follow the law.

Still I am very sure that this whole case will go all the way to the Supreme court.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Xcathdra

You going to make a prediction?



In the end the EO will be upheld and reinstated. It has the constitution, law and supreme court rulings on its side.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join