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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

The court does not have jurisdiction and a supreme court ruling states as much. You still have to present an argument though because simply saying you have no jurisdiction will not prevent the court from acting nor will it prevent the court from continuing an unlawful order from a lower court.

Scotus would be the court where the no jurisdiction argument is made if the lower courts are going to ignore the constitution, law and the supreme court ruling.




posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.


I disagree..I think it runs afoul of the constitution, law and doesn't align with previous rulings.

And I actually think the SCOTUS is going to be the most unfriendly court to Trump.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I guess we will find out when the 9th gets off their asses and issues a ruling.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Historically the supreme court has been very good at interpreting the law, the reason is because even when they are appointed by different presidents, they are not there to punish anybody, but to interpret the law as it stands.

And to correct a possible constitutional crisis.

Examples of how they only interpret the law, well look at how many times states try to infringe on gun rights and also on abortion rights.

The court will always side with the law as it stands.

Unless congress pass a new bill into law, or amend the constitution and that is another topic that historically no congress likes to play with the constitution this day that is why not many changes has be done to it since it was written.


edit on 8-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


And that is the reason I think SCOTUS will not rule favorably to the POTUS in this case.


We agree..The SCOTUS respects the law...The SCOTUS respects the constitution..

We apparently disagree that the EO is an egregious over reach both in Legality and Constitutionality..

I actually think the EO is sufficiently out of bounds where Conservative Justices on SCOTUS will look to protect separation of powers and the constitution and rule against the EO. Justice Roberts will rule against it, Clarence Thomas will rule for it..I think a 5-3 decision striking it down.

We will see.




edit on 9-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

I guess we will find out when the 9th gets off their asses and issues a ruling.


I am glad they are taking the time to put together a well articulated ruling vs. rushing something of this importance. We should see something this afternoon.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043





supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch told a US senator Wednesday that President Donald Trump's tweets about the judiciary are "demoralizing" and "disheartening."



Just saying...SCOTUS might not rule the way you expect.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I dont think Ginsberg would be that hypocritical.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

I dont think Ginsberg would be that hypocritical.


Ginsberg is a little bit of mystery..Not sure why she didn't step down under Obama when it would be safe to assume a replacement in her mold. She might just love the work too much. She is 83 years old now. Her and Scalia were very close, travelling together etc.

Either way ...I think it will get kicked back to Robarts for review and decision to either drop the stay or convert the stay to full injunction...from there it will go to SCOTUS..

Could be wrong...we will see.
edit on 9-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

The court does not have jurisdiction and a supreme court ruling states as much. You still have to present an argument .


You should read the ruling...

www.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The courts are second guessing the President on national security, which is a no no. The states have no standing on several grounds, namely because its A. immigration which is federal and B. they cant bring a suit on behalf of people affected. The people affected must bring the suit directly.

Third the questions the judges asked were inappropriate and in no way relevant to the situation. They asked political questions, which should have been a clue to the judges that its a political question case, where the judicial branch does not have any jurisdiction.

There is a reason the 0th circuit is the most over turned appeals court in the US. They ignore the Constitution, the law and supreme court rulings and just make it up as they go, attempting to legislate from the bench.

The ruling is a gross violation of separation of powers.
edit on 9-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The courts are second guessing the President on national security, which is a no no.


The Supreme Court will slap this down harder than the 9th Circuit did.

Trump lost the moment he had his counsel declare the order "Unreviewable" by the Judicial Branch.

Conservative or Republican..all Judges still believe in three branches of government.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And on a side note:

James Clapper, The Director of National Intelligence for the past 16 years, up until just 3 weeks ago...says



The nation's former spy chief said he worries the Trump administration's recent travel ban targeting citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries is damaging to US interests and that he's not aware of any intelligence necessitating the ban.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The courts are second guessing the President on national security, which is a no no.


The Supreme Court will slap this down harder than the 9th Circuit did.

Trump lost the moment he had his counsel declare the order "Unreviewable" by the Judicial Branch.

Conservative or Republican..all Judges still believe in three branches of government.


The government is correct on the unreviewable part and scotus will reverse the 9ths ruling. Scotus has already ruled on this issue and the 9th disregarded that ruling.

As for 3 branches of government the judges ruling presents an injury to separation of powers.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

The guy who lied to Congress about spy programs and lied to the American people about all 17 intelligence agencies saying russia was behind the hack. You'll excuse me if I dont trust what he says.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The courts are second guessing the President on national security, which is a no no.


You missed this part of the ruling?

If you read the ruling itself (which I linked to above) you will find a long list of Supreme Court Cases where the judges consistently disagreed with yourself and Trump..



"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 actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections," the court wrote.

"There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy....The Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context."

www.politico.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The courts are second guessing the President on national security, which is a no no.


The Supreme Court will slap this down harder than the 9th Circuit did.

Trump lost the moment he had his counsel declare the order "Unreviewable" by the Judicial Branch.

Conservative or Republican..all Judges still believe in three branches of government.


The government is correct on the unreviewable part and scotus will reverse the 9ths ruling. Scotus has already ruled on this issue and the 9th disregarded that ruling..


No...DOJ idiotically cited a SCOTUS ruling that when fully examined actually re-affirmed the courts responsibility to review the constitutionality of immigration law, not invalidate it. That was just stupid of the DOJ counsel...Like the judges would not actually look up and fully read cases that were cited.

You should read the Ruling...It specifically debunks that nonsense..



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

There is a reason the 0th circuit is the most over turned appeals court in the US.


Most of your post is a summary of DOJs failed argument that was DENIED by the Court.

You obviously didn't read the ruling yet..

But the above part of your post...Can you provide citation?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Still reading it now. The issue with their citations is the fact they deal with citizens, visa holders within the US or enemy combatants in US custody.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court.


AND BTW...DOJ already knows they were given a turd EO to defend...

They are scared of appealing to SCOTUS


A Justice Department spokeswoman was noncommittal Thursday about a Supreme Court appeal. "The Justice Department is reviewing the decision and considering its options," the spokeswoman said.

www.politico.com...




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join