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.

 

Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Exactly. Most of the complainers think it is a ruling, but it isn't. Trumps team didn't present a worthy case to reverse the stay. That is all. This case still has to go to court.

As far as SCOTUS I think that is their last chance to reverse the stay and even if they accomplish that it will still have its day in court.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043
Washington's complaint was several. One aspect was that parts of the EO caused direct harm to the State of Washington. All of the judges (including a Bush appointee) agreed.
edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Watch Trump simply tell the State Department to limit visas now.

Been going on since the stay order anyway.





Will it matter? This whole thing is much ado about nothing. A temporary 90 day ban. That means Trump was saying that within 90 days of giving that order, he would have a new really terrific, huge, great, really great extreme vetting system to keep all the bad people out. He's got what, 80 more days to do it? Does it matter if people come in or not in the meantime?

How is vetting going to change? That's what matters.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


A temporary 90 day
Actually, that's not entirely true.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And that is why is going to the supreme court as the supreme court is the only court that can settle matters of the United states and a grieving state.

Under 28 U.S. Code § 1251 - Original jurisdiction

The circuit court was just doing what they were asked to do, stop the ban, but the definition of who is right and wrong is up to the US supreme court to settle.

Is interesting that the state wanted to use damages to the state to make a case and not base on unconstitutionality.

Funny.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Damages to the State were mostly to establish standing.
Constitutionality was addressed in the motion.


The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits of Its Claim that the
Executive Order Violates the Establishment Clause



The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits of Its Claim that the
Executive Order Violates Due Process


edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I found an interpretation of the Supreme Court on the matters of immigration,


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...

Is going to be very interesting.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
This is the question, how long would it take to reach the Supreme Court? A week? A year? Would there be a new supreme court justice by then?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043

Is interesting that the state wanted to use damages to the state to make a case and not base on unconstitutionality.

Funny.



The reason for this is that if the state had no damages, they would not have had any standing to sue. They had to claim damages or they wouldn't have a case.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If we have a terror attack, it will be on the heads of that liberal court.

In the meantime, they need to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and get this thing settled.



Don't be so obtuse. It's more likely to be a result of trump's constant divisive rhetoric.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Claiming damages before they even know what's been damaged.

Kinda of reminds me of the frivolous lawsuits filed by people that spill coffee on themselves..



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Yeah. Trump did that. Didn't he.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

False.


Apples and oranges. Technically. Which are the best kind. But you knew that didn't you.

Now I have to clean my hands after typing like that.
edit on 10-2-2017 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: muse7

Foreign Nationals Do Not Have Constitutional Rights in the United States . CASE CLOSED .


Everyone has a right to due process even if they are in the country illegally.


Do they also earn due process in another country, even if they've never been here before (no visa)?

Think man, these aren't citizens.


This case, and the opinion, had nothing to do with the rights of aliens. Read the opinion! It centered on the due process rights of the states, and primarily the state universities. The schools had teachers returning to teach classes for whom visa applicatiion fees had already been paid. They were banned and there was no provision in the EO for notice and a hearing, which is required by 5th Amendment due process. The states filed the suit on behalf of their own interests, not on behalf of any individuals.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I may have read this wrong....
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov...
And I have no formal legal training, but I'm fairly certain that the only thing ruled upon was the the request for a Stay, and it is addressed fairly adequately in the closing statement...



Finally, in evaluating the need for a stay, we must consider the public interest generally. See Nken , 556 U.S. at 434. Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justif y a stay


Most of it seems reasonable to me, except the whole Muslim tangent and Trump's campaign promises. That was ridiculous and unnecessary, as the stay would have been denied without going there. This does nothing about the EO. This was not a ruling for or against that, and that will be left to SCOTUS.



This may be the most accurate and germane post in this whole thread. You have hit the crucial point. There has been absolutely no final ruling on the propriety or constitutionality of the executive order. All rulings to date have been limited to temporary equitable relief under FRCP 65.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Most are not saying the judges are wrong. Most are saying trump is wrong. That's what this while thing is about.
Everyone is saying trumps eo is wrong. Except his minions of course to them he can do no wrong.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

I don't see the Supreme Court being partisan about this, like the CA judges were.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Please, the people scheduled to come have already been vetted over the last two years. What's wrong with just taking some time to get this right to really protect people and not to exclude any particular group or make it look exactly like it does now, like a ban on Muslims.
Immigration reform has been on the burner for a long time. Surely there's a way to do this that doesn't make us look like north Korea..
The vetting system in place right now is pretty efficient.

This is really a good thing. It shows that despite the idiot in the white house at least there are still grown ups running the show. This gives me hope actually.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If one occurred right now you can be sure the plans are older than two weeks and probably has been more thought out too.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Seems to have legs to me. Ban is stopped for now.




top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join