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

a reply to: marg6043

When it comes to immigration Federal courts do have a very narrow area of authority. That area solely deals with a constitutional rights violation of an immigrant / refugee and only when in the US.

Outside of that the court has no jurisdiction.

Also after reading the 9ths ruling this goes back to Judge Robart. He ordered both side to present their evidence so its entirely possible the judge can amend his ruling, bypassing the 9ths ruling.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I found more on how the supreme court may rule, as base on previous interpretations, using the supreme clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court, citing the supremacy clause of the Constitution, has held that

the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, “the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.” And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation … states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

www.fff.org...

The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.

Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause
The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.

immigration.findlaw.com...

a reply to: queenofswords

It's playing with statistics for political rhetorical purposes, if not outright making stuff up..

best to stick to objective analysis by folks who have an interest in non-political facts...Like the American Bar Association, who have an objective interest in understanding the courts. Put another way...everyone in that hearing, the Justices, and lawyers on both sides were members of the ABA.

When the subject of Supreme Court reversal rates arises, two common perceptions usually come to mind.
First, the Ninth Circuit is the “rogue circuit.”
Second, the Supreme Court only takes cases that it intends to reverse.

An empirical study of Supreme Court dispositions of cases from the courts of appeals during the last 10 Terms reveals that neither of these common perceptions is true.

Each year the federal courts of appeals collectively terminate an average of 60,467 cases,

However, the Supreme Court only reviews an average of 64 cases per year, which is about 0.106% of all decisions by the
federal courts of appeals.

So right off the bat...you need to pause and ask what your 80% number means...At best, it is not cases ruled on that were over-turned, but cases that were appealed. If that 80% number is correct.

the Supreme Court, in the past 10 Terms, has decided only 30 cases appealed from the Federal Circuit and 175
cases from the Ninth Circuit.4 Thus, the Supreme Court only reviewed 0.177% of the total number of appeals terminated by the Federal Circuit and only 0.151% of the total number of appeals terminated by the Ninth Circuit.

So SCOTUS only ruled on ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT of all the 9th Circuit's Appellate Rulings, meaning 99.9% of their rulings of appeals were not even taken up by the Supreme Court for Review.

So how did the Ninth Circuit get the reputation for being the “rogue circuit”? Well, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
One measure of a circuit’s success “is the extent to which its decisions have been reviewed and reversed or vacated by the Supreme Court.”

Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as
the total number of cases reversed8 over the total number of appeals terminated by that court.

Conversely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically. So, in the big picture, i.e.,
considering all of the appeals terminated by each circuit, reversal rates for all courts of appeals could be very low, if
calculated by the former method, or very high, if calculated by the latter method.
For the purpose of comparing one court’s “performance” against another’s, it makes more sense to compare reversal
rate calculated as the ratio of cases reversed over cases reviewed.

There are 13 Federal Appellate courts..

For SCOTUS overturning Rulings that it does hear: .106% of those rulings, .151% of the Ninth Circuit Rulings (Notice the Decimal Points) And the Ninth Circuit has more rullings than any other court by a long shot..so they start with a huge number of rulings..

And OF THAT .151% (less than 2% of 9th Circuit Court Rulings) that are reviewed by SCOTUS...roughly 60% are reversed..and 20% Vacated....For a total of 80% OF .151% of their rulings.

You can cling to that number as "Rogue"...until you read that the MEDIAN rate of reversal for Federal Courts is 70%..
And there is a relationship between number of cases heard ..and the Ninth hears the most..
But even the best performing federal appellate court has had over half their rulings reversed by the Supreme Court.

You can drill on numbers here...

www.americanbar.org...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: marg6043

When it comes to immigration Federal courts do have a very narrow area of authority. That area solely deals with a constitutional rights violation of an immigrant / refugee and only when in the US.

Outside of that the court has no jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them, those rights are "endowed by our creator"..The constitution limits governments infringement on those rights making it unlawful for them pass law or policy that violates those protections.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: marg6043

When it comes to immigration Federal courts do have a very narrow area of authority. That area solely deals with a constitutional rights violation of an immigrant / refugee and only when in the US.

Outside of that the court has no jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them, those rights are "endowed by our creator"..The constitution limits governments infringement on those rights making it unlawful for them pass law or policy that violates those protections.

Yup and people outside the US do not have any Constitutional Rights.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: marg6043

When it comes to immigration Federal courts do have a very narrow area of authority. That area solely deals with a constitutional rights violation of an immigrant / refugee and only when in the US.

Outside of that the court has no jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them, those rights are "endowed by our creator"..The constitution limits governments infringement on those rights making it unlawful for them pass law or policy that violates those protections.

Yup and people outside the US do not have any Constitutional Rights.

In the district court, the States argued that the Executive
Order violates the procedural due process rights of various
aliens in at least three independent ways.

First, section 3(c)
denies re-entry to certain lawful permanent residents and
non-immigrant visaholders without constitutionally
sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond.

Second, section 3(c) prohibits certain lawful permanent residents and
non-immigrant visaholders from exercising their separate
and independent constitutionally protected liberty interests
in travelling abroad and thereafter re-entering the United
States.

Third, section 5 contravenes the procedures provided
by federal statute for refugees seeking asylum and related
relief in the United States.

The district court held generally
in the TRO that the States were likely to prevail on the merits
of their due process claims, without discussing or offering
analysis as to any specific alleged violation.

At this stage of the proceedings, it is the Government’s
burden to make “a strong showing that [it] is likely to”
prevail against the States’ procedural due process claims.
Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). We are
not persuaded that the Government has carried its burden for
a stay pending appeal.

The procedural protections provided by the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to
citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the
United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their
also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United
States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S.
21, 33-34 (1982).

The Government has provided no
affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural
due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens.

For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful
permanent residents have no due process rights when
seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he
returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process
to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to
exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449,
460 (1963))).

Nor has the Government established that the
Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with
constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial
of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the
particular circumstances and determine what procedures
would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on
the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).

a reply to: Indigo5

and the 9ths ruling will be struck down by the Supreme Court. People outside the US have no constitutional rights.

a reply to: Indigo5

The constitution only give rights to citizens in the US. The constitution also gives the rights to congress to make the laws and the executive branch to enforce them.

And you can see on my poste earlier I posted the views that the Supreme court have on matters concerning immigration.

ATS - President Donald Trump Says New Immigration Executive Order Is Coming Soon

a reply to: marg6043

Incorrect ...the constitution protects the rights of non citizens on us soil. By inhibiting visa holders ability to freely travel or return to the us, their constitutional rights are also violated.

a reply to: Indigo5

Visa holders were excluded. This is why the President will issue a new EO on Monday or Tuesday reinstating the ban and specifically excluding visa holders / refugees with valid paperwork already in the US. The 9th circuit were idiots in that regard to question the change so they get a new EO that removes the court case standing of Washington and Minnesota.

That's the worst argument ever made about this case.

Although people outside of the US are not protected by the constitution, the US govt still has to make constitutional laws which this EO is not. When are you right wingers going to get it through your thick skulls.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: marg6043

When it comes to immigration Federal courts do have a very narrow area of authority. That area solely deals with a constitutional rights violation of an immigrant / refugee and only when in the US.

Outside of that the court has no jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them, those rights are "endowed by our creator"..The constitution limits governments infringement on those rights making it unlawful for them pass law or policy that violates those protections.

Yup and people outside the US do not have any Constitutional Rights.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

and yet no court ruling, not even the 9ths, says the EO is illegal or unconstitutional.

You left wingers need to stop making stuff up.

9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

a reply to: Xcathdra


If the EO was well written and fully legal and constitutional and the courts will agree, then why would he write a new executive order?

a reply to: Indigo5

To exclude green card holders, which is the basis for Washington states legal challenge. Remove green card holders and Judge Robart's / 9th circuits ruling is null and void.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

To exclude green card holders, which is the basis for Washington states legal challenge. Remove green card holders and Judge Robart's / 9th circuits ruling is null and void.

Harm to the states also derives from university academic exchanges, visiting professors and researchers, may of which are on student, research, visiting scholar and other academic research Visa's. Prohibiting their ability to freely travel without being forbidden from returning to the US once they leave. A student attending university is unable to return home for the summer and then re-enter the country.

It also harms state medical institutions as doctors not yet on green card are unable to return home to visit family or will leave knowing they no longer have a route to green card.

It also effects several thousand employees at private corporations MS, FB, Google, GM, Uber etc. etc. who are on H1-B and other visa's. Prohibiting their liberty to freely travel.

This is not just greencard...But I agree, Trump failed and got slapped down and rather than embarrass himself further with the SCOTUS rebuking him, he will try and rewrite the EO. It is utter incompetence...Asking Federal Judges to point out where you run afoul of the constitution and then trying again.

a reply to: Indigo5

None of which is a concern to the case overall, just to Washington's challenge of the EO and only for green card holders inside the US.

The EO as its written is valid, lawful and constitutional. Absolutely no judge has ruled its not. The TRO was a delay granted before the arguments are heard in front of Judge Robart.

Like the provisions in the EO, the TRO is temporary.

a reply to: Indigo5

It sounds to me like you want anyone to be able to walk right through Customs with no questions asked.

Except for Americans of course. They're who the TSA is for, right?

TheRedneck