Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: UKTruth

And it'll be a tie and nothing will get done.

Something will get done...the lower court ruling on this particular issue will be upheld WITHOUT creating precedence.

Harkens back to the Scalia 'pillow' thread. People who love to find ways to circumvent the Constitution, without violating it, must be drooling over a tie on this issue.

Some faith in my country was restored today. Checks and balances actually stopped a "president" (and I use that term lightly) from ruling by decree.

Go America

Well, they don't call it the 9th "Circus" for nothing.

I propose an EO to send all refugees and immigrants from those seven countries to the west coast. Who would be against that kind of EO?

I'm just curious...what is to stop President Trump from issuing a slightly altered EO every day for this? Seriously

originally posted by: underwerks
Some faith in my country was restored today. Checks and balances actually stopped a "president" (and I use that term lightly) from ruling by decree.

Go America

Wow. Actually 'checks & balances' would mean we had a ninth SCOTUS justice and whatever ruling SCOTUS made on this EO would be made PRECEDENT.

This lingering vacancy is an opportunity to abuse the system. There's no 'CHECKS' because there's no 'PRECEDENCE' in the case of a tie. We are looking at a tie on this. Temporarily, SCOTUS tie decisions allow lower courts to make *bad* rulings on whatever (cherry-picked) issue they hear, while there is this vacancy. This allows *bad* law to rule the day without undoing the law, at all.

This is a loophole that needs to be closed, I think. If the SCOTUS is going to uphold the lower court in the case of a tie...then that should be PRECEDENT. They should be held to such a decision.

But 'they' don't want this to be precedence.

Surely opportunists know that now is the time to take advantage of the weaknesses in our judicial system. 'They' don't want to undo the powers of the Executive Office. They just want to temporarily suspend the law via a system which allows 'bad law' to slip through the cracks in times like now.

There are no checks or balances as long as there is this vacancy...no precedence is set by SCOTUS hearing this case. It can be crap-law and no permanent damage to existing law or Executive power has been done!

If Trump is genuine...a SCOTUS appeal needs to happen somehow AFTER the vacancy has been filled. The timing of it all is so weird to me.

www.yahoo.com...

But asked if some of those who fled are “aligned with terrorists,” Assad quickly replied, “Definitely.”

And here we have confirmation.Thanks 9th circuit for putting our national security at risk.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: queenofswords

Do you not understand the multi-level aspect we are dealing with?

Yes, I do.

Do you understand that Trump's EO would have had no effect on Malik?

What does that matter?

Last I checked security policies don't effect previous events.

I see your argument, no one from those 7 have committed acts of terror.

But it's a fruitless argument because you don't know what the future holds, we have to do everything possible to prevent a tragedy.

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.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
state university staff and students ability to travel>national security???

wow

crazy

THE MOST STUPID STANDING RULING EVER.

Under this holding the federal government would not be able to restrict entry of foreign nationals who come from countries we would be at official war with.

States also now have standing to sue the federal government to fight education and technology exchange restrictions with countries we have official sanctions against because it might hurt their public universities.

Amazing.

If allowed to stand, history will write the left killed federalism. How ironic is that?!!!

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. And the left is blissfully cheering the rise of plenary state power. Wait until it cuts against them on other issues they care about when Red States bring their own suits under this new standing theory.

I thought we already tried the whole confederacy thing???

originally posted by: buckwhizzle
www.yahoo.com...

But asked if some of those who fled are “aligned with terrorists,” Assad quickly replied, “Definitely.”

And here we have confirmation.Thanks 9th circuit for putting our national security at risk.

The worst part, besides the integrity of the system being destroyed, is that they did this to appease/rile their base. Anything for a vote, even if it puts lives at risk.

The Democrats in power and pulling strings behind the scene are two degrees removed from terrorism. They know there are terrorists inside those incoming refugees groups. They are briefed by the CIA on this, that's a fact. Then it gets handed down a few levels and action plans are set in place. Democrats are becoming party to terrorism.

Let that sink in. Now, tell me the war hasn't already started?

a reply to: loam

Let that sink in. Now, tell me the war hasn't already started?

War against what country? All of "the 7?"
Declared by Congress?

a reply to: Phage

If this stranding theory is allowed to stand, it will be applied as precedent in all kinds of new and novel ways.

So I wasn't talking about the seven. I was presenting a hypothetical. If we were actually in an official war with a country, this standing ruling would still allow states with public universities, which is all of them, to sue the federal government for any similar EO order applied to that nation.

This also works when the US has sanctions against countries like Iran or Russia. This new standing theory permits states to sue and challenge those sanctions.

I could come up with hypotheticals all day applying this new standing rule in ways that would produce an absurd outcome.

a reply to: loam

If this stranding theory is allowed to stand, it will be applied as precedent in all kinds of new and novel ways.

I'm not sure that's the case, since the Constitutionality of the EO was not directly addressed.

This also works when the US has sanctions against countries like Iran or Russia. This new standing theory permits states to sue and challenge those sanctions.

That's an interesting take. I shall cogitate.

a reply to: Phage

The standing issue was addressed. The flood gates have been opened. Now the federal government will be mired in state initiated lawsuits for any of its foreign actions, as long as the states can show a nexus to its economic or educational interest with its public universities.

That is about as significant a ruling that has ever taken place in my lifetime.

Read the standing portion of the court's decision: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov...

If that issue is upheld by SCOTUS, the relationship between the federal government and the states will have profoundly changed to something it has never been in its history.

a reply to: loam

And regardless of what many have said here its going to the supreme court.

a reply to: loam

Read the standing portion of the court's decision: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov...

I had read it. It still makes sense to me.

Is it your claim that a decision which may create a precedent should not be made? Should that be a judicial consideration when making a decision? I don't know, but it seems like not.

a reply to: marg6043

Hopefully they kill this standing issue dead in its tracks. Otherwise, all of those complaints about gridlock in Washington will look minor in comparison to what's coming.

a reply to: Phage

It is how the law functions in this country. Stare decisis is the bedrock of our legal system. Once a precedent is set, reversals are very rare and slow in the making because of that sacred judicial doctrine.

Dude, this is huge.

www.unz.com...

Didn't want to take credit for this.

But basically the guy is saying.

The court basically ruled that a president can bomb those 7 countries, but not ban people from coming here from there.

Insanity.

a reply to: loam

I am aware of that.

I said I am not sure that basing a decision on the precedent it may set is a valid judicial criterion.