US files appeal challenging a judge's block of Trump's travel ban: report

a reply to: odzeandennz

Anybody want to weigh in on when this case will next be in front of the courts?
I'm thinking quickly...

Trey Gowdy / Jason Chaffetz Prove Why Travel Ban Is Needed (Refugees Can't Be Vetted)

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: odzeandennz

Anybody want to weigh in on when this case will next be in front of the courts?
I'm thinking quickly...

I don't know WHEN, but the entire saga is like a crazy traffic signal...changing from RED to GREEN to YELLOW to RED to GREEN to RED..

These Judges and their rulings are going to cause a lot of havoc with people being turned away, not being able to land, told they have to leave after they land, not being allowed to board...on and on..

Would global protests erupt if IRAN stopped Americans from coming there? Why the hell do so many people in those 7 countries want to visit the USA so badly that they're willing to protest over a 90 day travel ban??? It's CRAZY.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Doubtful.. The judge acted improperly and overstepped his authority in the case.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The administration said it was taking the case to the U.S. court of appeals based in San Francisco, hours after it was promised by the White House. Ironically, as Bloomberg notes, that court is considered far more liberal than most other federal appellate courts, which means that after this action, the next move will be an almost certain escalation to the Supreme Court. This legal fight will now shift to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – an appellate court with a long legal history that shades to the liberal side, guaranteeing weeks of increasingly more angry Trump tweets, before Trump ultimately ends up at the Supreme Court.

www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: D8Tee

Yeah the 9th circus court of appeals is a joke. They have a bad habit of ignoring the Constitution and just happen to be the most over turned appeals circuit in the US (last I checked).

Wouldn't it be the ultimate in irony if they strike down all the rulings thus far and side with the law / constitution?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah. Ironic.
But at least some people are able to get back into the country, after being suddenly shut out unexpectedly and for no reason.

"Your visa was good yesterday but...surprise!" That's cool. It's your fault you're from Syria. You should have been born someplace else. Saudi Arabia would have been good.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Didn't take long. As expected....

The Trump administration's emergency motion for a stay of a Washington federal court's restraining order of President Trump's immigration executive order was denied.
BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner was among the first to report the ruling by the Ninth District Court of Appeals:

Source: www.weeklystandard.com...

a reply to: Phage

A reason does not have to be given as to why visas / green cards / etc are revoked.

As for the rest if people took the time to understand the law in question and the EO, they would know its temporary for new procedures to be put in place. Anyone affected could appeal the decision for review before the hold expires.

a reply to: carewemust

Its the 9th circus.. Not surprised. Lets see if they actually make a correct decision when the full panel meets.


That travel-ban lifting judge said what? Claimed in courtroom none arrested from 7 designated countries since 9/11

Ed Straker, an attorney wo attended law school with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, says Judge Robart “has clearly usurped his authority.”

“The case clearly has no plaintiffs with standing or any kind of validity,” he wrote in American Thinker. “At most, Judge Robart should have stayed his decision pending appeal to circuit courts. His radical injunction smacks of a judicial coup, of a single federal district judge asserting his authority over the entire executive branch. His arguments for doing so are unconstitutional, as is his manner of issuing the order. We are living in a time when judicial ayatollahs are usurping the power of our elected officials, and it is very much like a judicial coup.”

Read more at www.wnd.com...

click link for entire article...

The rulings make no sense to me as the federal courts have no jurisdiction in this realm with the exception of a person in the US who is affected by the order and who claims a constitutional violation occurred. Even then the court is limited to that persons claim specifically.

Congress, in passing the 2015 law that delegated its authority to the President to execute the law and the President, who is solely responsible for refugees, creates whats called a nonjusticiable issue on the topic.

Justiciability

Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.

Political Question Doctrine

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Congress has authority over immigration.
The President has authority over Refugees (and immigration via law delegating to the President - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015).
The states have NO standing.

This judge needs to be reviewed and censured. Not having knowledge of citizens from the affected countries being involved in criminal actions / terrorist actions in the US and then to use his own personal opinion that no crimes have been committed by citizens of the affected countries via extreme ignorance / stupidity betrays the very basis of how our legal system is suppose to work.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, when he was mentioning no one from the seven countries had caused any problems, I was thinking, oh no, he should have been on ATS, he would know that is not true!
At the same time, you can't expect to let 100's of thousands of people into your country each year and not have some issues, no matter who they are.

a reply to: Phage

The real difference is Obama was pretending for public appeal...
Trump actually wants this and will fight hard for it...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Doubtful.. The judge acted improperly and overstepped his authority in the case.

According to who exactly?

a reply to: hellobruce

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Doubtful.. The judge acted improperly and overstepped his authority in the case.

According to who exactly?

The constitution, the law, a Supreme Court ruling and anyone with a basic understanding of the legal issue involved.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

If it is a threat to national security,then the Patriot act should take effect,that is securing all borders,all these laws are already on books,this is a coup by liberals

a reply to: Hazardous1408

If it is a threat to national security,then the Patriot act should take effect,that is securing all borders,all these laws are already on books,this is a coup by liberals

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's ironic, seeing as the people with actual working experience in the applicable laws, the Constitution, various historical rulings, and a more than basic understanding of the legal issue keep shooting this down. Funny how that works...