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.
First you need to establish standing to proceed with a review.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy
First you need to establish standing to proceed with a review.
So, you read neither the decision of Robart or the appeals court.
That's been established. What else you got?
I suppose I should read them, huh.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Phage
The ruling is bs as it ignores the constitution, the immigration laws and the supreme court ruling. The states have NO standing. The 9th court affirmed that in Arizonas attempt to challenge federal immigration law.
...Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema has requested that the Government provide evidence that Trump's travel ban was necessary...
The day after a federal appellate court in San Francisco ruled against President Trump's immigration ban, a judge on the other end of the country appeared to approach a similar conclusion.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, sitting in Virginia, told government lawyers Friday they'd failed to show proof of any specific terrorism threats that made the order necessary.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra
What law does the TRO affect?
What law prevents a federal court from reviewing a presidential action?
What law prevents the court from asking for evidence to support the premise of an EO?
I guess, then, that means that what ever harm such an order may inflict is irrelevant? Did the Government present such an argument on standing? Maybe they should have?
Because the Constitution places refugees as the sole realm of the president and immigration as the sole realm of the Congress.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra
I guess, then, that means that what ever harm such an order may inflict is irrelevant? Did the Government present such an argument on standing? Maybe they should have?
Because the Constitution places refugees as the sole realm of the president and immigration as the sole realm of the Congress.
The President doesn't have to provide evidence to anyone for anything...It's a matter of law; the U.S. Code...
originally posted by: Phage
Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema has requested that the Government provide evidence that Trump's travel ban was necessary. She's not just any judge. She happens to be the judge who sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment saying, "You came here to be a martyr and to die in a great big bang of glory, but to paraphrase the poet T. S. Eliot, instead, you will die with a whimper. The rest of your life you will spend in prison."
The presidential order, she said, “has all kinds of defects” and “clearly is overreaching” when it comes to long-term residents of the United States. The White House has issued guidance that those residents are exempt from the ban, but that language is not actually in the order.
source
en.wikipedia.org...