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: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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?




I don't know what to call it. But it's civil. And it's here.
edit on 9-2-2017 by Tempter because: Clarification




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

I read the interpretation done by the 9 circuit and is very funny, the wording read like an amalgam of mix match topics and actually is using the constitution to apply to foreign refuges that are not even here in the US, since when the US constitution protects foreigners in far away lands from other countries.

Is ridiculous.

Seems like they did it to infuriate Trump and to pass the burden to the supreme court.

It wasn't even professional written at least doesn't even sound like done by people with knowledge of constitutional laws.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

The Confederacy declared war on the United States.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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.


Stare Decisis is the foundation of our legal system. Of course, they think about it in EVERY judicial case.

Like I said, if SCOTUS upholds this standing ruling, it will be used in new and novel ways way beyond this narrow EO issue.
edit on 9-2-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




It wasn't even professional written at least doesn't even sound like done by people with knowledge of constitutional laws.


"Professional written"
Thanks for your opinion, Your Honor.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
Your source:

Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued.

Yes. I know. I said that I know that.

Now, read again what I wrote.



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



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



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well no really, see the constitution also limits the powers of the states on foreign immigration from outside the US, but the circuit made it sound like the States have control of foreign affairs beyond the borders of the states and the nation.

That makes the states took like they have power over congress law making and that their representatives have not powers at all.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


but the circuit made it sound like the States have control of foreign affairs beyond the borders of the states and the nation.
Where? I must have missed that part.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't think Marg's first language is English, although she can correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: loam

It wasn't even professional written at least doesn't even sound like done by people with knowledge of constitutional laws.



How many court briefs and cases have you read before?

It sounded pretty standard to me.

People that aren't used to court paperwork often say the same things like, "Wow, that's really not well written!" It's pretty standard actually.

You don't waste paper and time on flowery, flowing paragraphs in court -- and these types of documents aren't trying to win any literary awards.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I read what you wrote. The point I'm making is cutting against precedent is usually something courts don't do, precisely because they almost universally adhere to the doctrine. State standing is a well litigated issue where the constitution makes clear that certain powers reside in the executive or the legislature.

But this new standing ruling ignores all of that law, and assuming the special 4/4 condition of SCOTUS, and assuming they rule along ideological lines, the result will be a profound change.

Like I said, the flood gates will be opened.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: loam




But this new standing ruling ignores all of that law,

Seems they cited precedent in coming to the decision on standing. But, granted, I haven't checked on their citations.


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



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Meaning that The Constitution Limits States’ Immigration Policy, but the way the law was interpreted in the ruling by the circuit it seems like the judges were giving power to the states to take matters over their on borders to extent beyond our nation and to foreign countries.

The federalist system allow for states to do many things, but foreign immigration is not one of the them



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: [post=21877766]
Seems they cited precedent in coming to the decision on standing. But, granted, I haven't checked on their citations.



No. They completely avoided an entire line of state standing, federal powers and political question law that has remained consistent and affirmed for nearly 200 years.

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



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

I used to work for an immigration lawyer, for your information.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


The federalist system allow for states to do many things, but foreign immigration is not one of the them
Where in Washington's motion did they claim to have any right to determine rules on immigration?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

That only applies to American citizens, the constitution doesn't span to foreigners from other countries outside our borders.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

So, no citations on the standing of Washington to request a TRO.
Are we reading the same decision?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Their case was base on the damage they claim and immigration ban will do to their state but what they forgot is that the ban is on foreigners of none American citizenship and the constitution doesn't apply to that.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join