Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

a reply to: Phage

The current case is two fold. Action was brought against the EO, in response, the WA judge issued a TRO while the case works it's way up. Justice appealed the TRO to the 9th circuit. 9th circuit ruled only on the TRO. There has been no ruling on the EO that I'm aware of. Justice has said they won't appeal the TRO to the SC. Kennedy was ready to take it up if they decided to do so and would be making a decision tomorrow if they were moving forward. They'll move forward fighting for the EO with the TRO in place

a reply to: Dfairlite

No. It is one fold.
Washington requested a TRO.
The 9th Circuit granted the request.
The Government appealed.
The Government lost the appeal.


There is, however, the Virginia case. There has been no decision on that.

a reply to: Phage

You obviously don't understand how this works.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I think I do.
You seem to be the one who has trouble getting the facts straight.

a reply to: Phage

Sorry, you don't. The TRO is not part of a ruling for or against the EO. It's put in place so that the lawsuit against the EO can continue but the EO cannot be implemented. Your grasp of the mechanics is lacking, sorry.

a reply to: Phage

Oh, and no, the 9th didn't grant the TRO. They upheld it. Your ignorance is obvious.

a reply to: Phage

But it's neither here nor there as he will rescind and replace anyway. You'll just have to take my word for it, Mark it down. By next week the ban will be back on.

a reply to: Phage

There is a list of 72 terrorists from those countries. This is an easy google.

a reply to: amfirst1

But that won't matter because that's not the problem. Trump absolutely has the power to ban people from those countries. He doesn't have the power to disregard habeus corpus and there are other procedures that weren't accounted for in the EO.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's put in place so that the lawsuit against the EO can continue but the EO cannot be implemented.

There seem to be several lawsuits addressing the EO. Which one was Spicer referring to as "the current case?"

Which case did the TRO (which was ruled upon by Robart who sits on the 9th, and the 9th) specify?

There is a list of 72 terrorists from those countries. This is an easy google.

There is also a thread about it. I've seen the list. I wonder why the Government did not offer it as evidence.

He doesn't have the power to disregard habeus corpus and there are other procedures that weren't accounted for in the EO.

So it was a mess, like many have said. Maybe he'll get it right next time.

a reply to: Phage

Why would she be owed any evidence? As many have said the president has the last say as far as immigration..... I suppose 9/11 wouldn't have happened (if the official story is true) if we had proper vetting.

originally posted by: Phage
Which case did the TRO (which was ruled upon by Robart who sits on the 9th, and the 9th) specify?

Judge Robart is a federal district judge in Washington. He does not sit on the 9th circuit court of appeals. Judge Robart issued the TRO until the hearing date he set for both parties. The government appealed his TRO as overly broad and the 9th circuit upheld Robart's TRO order.

originally posted by: Phage There is also a thread about it. I've seen the list. I wonder why the Government did not offer it as evidence.

Because the courts have no jurisdiction on refugees, immigration, national security or foreign policy.
secondly why didnt Judge Robart research before using his personal opinion to justify his incorrect and unconstitutional ruling?

originally posted by: Phage So it was a mess, like many have said. Maybe he'll get it right next time.

It was a mess because people on the left lied about the EO. They kept repeating the muslim ban lie among other things. The EO as written is lawful and constitutional. The states have no standing and Robart's decision ignored the law, a supreme court ruling and the constitution.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Phage

I am sure that the judge will be invited to the presidents national security briefings and will seat in congress to help make and change laws.

What a joke this judges are becoming.

A joke because her rulings or opinions do not coincide with your political bias?

I would think we'd invite checks and balances to keep our elected officials from abusing power or acting without just cause.

Seems to me that process is now considered a liberal bias.

It is a joke because established statutory law calls for wide latitude and de minimus judicial scrutiny of the President's authority to regulate immigration including to halt immigration of any class of immigrant that the President determine determine tap to the country's interests. The statutory justification under which Trump issued his EO is call Justice Jackson's Youngston framework. That is why the 9th circuit court has essentially asked for a chance to review its ruling en banc and correct its #up.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Sillyolme

One of the reasons the travel ban was unconstitutional was because it gave priority to Christians and violated the Establishment Clause.

I don't see "Christians" (or "Muslims" either) referred to in the EO...

Maybe it's not there.

EO in question

It isn't explicitly stated, but is apparent in the way the EO is set up. Give me a bit to read the EO and see if I can find out exactly where it says it treats minority religions differently than majority religions in the regions.

The executive order, of course, does not say in express terms that it is favoring Christians and disfavoring Muslims. But Trump is the signatory, and he has said so explicitly. Moreover, even absent that evidence of Trump’s invidious intent, the order on its face favors refugees from “minority religions” over those from “majority religions” in any given country. That distinction independently violates the principle of denominational neutrality, even if in some countries it means we will be privileging Christians and in other countries Muslims.

The law struck down in Larson v. Valente did not name any particular denominations, but it simply imposed differential registration and reporting requirements on religions that received more than half of their total contributions from members and those that did not. Even though the law did not single out a specific religion by name, it failed to treat all denominations the same and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.

ACLU

a reply to: darkbake

It doesnt nor does it mention religion, religious test nor any wording that would violate the establishment clause of the constitution.

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

a reply to: Xcathdra

Section E of it makes exceptions for minority religions that gives the appearance of targeting the Muslim religion.

a reply to: Xcathdra

secondly why didnt Judge Robart research before using his personal opinion to justify his incorrect and unconstitutional ruling?

I thought a judge was supposed to listen to evidence presented.

In any case:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Brinkema has issued an injunction against the EO.

In the document, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said there is evidence that the president’s travel ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments and would cause “irreparable injury” to Virginia residents, Virginia institutions and persons connected to those persons and institutions.

www.nbcwashington.com...

The injunction applies to part 3(c) of the EO and only to Virginia.


Meanwhile, the Government will take the Seattle case back to the 9th Circuit.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another reason why the states have no standing and why Judge Robart / 9th circus are wrong. The claims made by washington state about potential students, employees and professors -

Not one of the 5 have Visas.

The Ninth Circuit’s Stay On Trump’s Immigration Order Is Legal Garbage

This is where you should begin to get angry. After the court found it likely that Trump’s executive order violated constitutional rights of people who have no constitutional rights, it put those make-believe “rights” ahead of the country’s national security, and your right to be safe in your home, workplace, and place of worship. The court put the rights of the following people ahead of your safety:

Two visiting scholars (one without a visa) who wanted to spend time at Washington State University;
Three “prospective employees” of the University of Washington who had no visas; and
Two medicine and science interns without visas.

Yes, the court found that the make-believe “rights” of seven people (only one of which actually had a visa, and none of which were in the country) trump your right to live free and without fear. Their “rights” trump the national security interests of the U.S. government and its 300 million citizens. This is 100 percent wrong.

When presented with the fact that all seven countries Trump’s executive order affected were labeled “countries of concern” by the Obama administration (more than 60 terrorism-related arrests have occurred since 9/11 involving citizens of these countries), the court essentially said it didn’t care. Unless it was presented with something really juicy, like intelligence it has no authority to view, it would give no deference to the government’s argument that national security concerns must be taken into account. It’s a shameful and sad outcome.

click link for entire article op-ed.

Maybe the judges should provide their evidence.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Section 5(b) and Section 5(f) talk about refugees and religious based persecution.

The only religion in those areas that would be considered to be of a persecuted class is the Christian religion although one could argue the whole sunni vs shia thing I guess too.