Trump bid to reinstate travel ban fails following late night appeals court ruling

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, that's for the courts to decide. Not you. Not Trump.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, that's for the courts to decide. Not you. Not Trump.

and the Supreme Court already decided. The 9th circus chose to ignore that ruling, along with liberals / democrats / ctrl-left / I hate trump people on the planet.

Again ignoring facts does not make them invalid.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, that's for the courts to decide. Not you. Not Trump.

and the Supreme Court already decided. The 9th circus chose to ignore that ruling, along with liberals / democrats / ctrl-left / I hate trump people on the planet.

Again ignoring facts does not make them invalid.

No, the Supreme Court has not even been presented with this case. Or are you pleading the Mandela Effect?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, that's for the courts to decide. Not you. Not Trump.

and the Supreme Court already decided. The 9th circus chose to ignore that ruling, along with liberals / democrats / ctrl-left / I hate trump people on the planet.

Again ignoring facts does not make them invalid.

No, the Supreme Court has not even been presented with this case. Or are you pleading the Mandela Effect?

I see you didnt pay attention when you tried this failed argument the first time. The Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Carr in 1962 about the political question doctrine and separation of powers.

Look it up, read it, and dont use the failed excuse of the supreme court has not ruled again. You were corrected the first time you tried and failed. This is attempt #2 and the facts still have not changed.

Let me help -

The leading Supreme Court case in the area of political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr (1962).[4] In the opinion written for Baker, the Court outlined six characteristics of a political question. These include:

A "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or"
A "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or"
The "impossibility for a court's independent resolution without expressing a lack of respect for a coordinate branch of the government; or"
The "impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy decision, which is beyond the discretion of the court; or"
An "unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or"
The "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."

Yes - The US Supreme Court has already ruled.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Once again: it is unlikely they will overturn a precedent, but the stakes are different now.

The travel ban is going to the Supreme Court...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Now things get interesting. The supreme Court are faced with the decision to allow the travel ban OR forever instate a ruling that campaign speech (whether it was walked back or changed) materially changes the authority of the President of the United States.

a reply to: UKTruth

My guess is SCOTUS will go with their previous precedents and uphold the travel stop, overturning the federal courts / appeals courts.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Then why did trump need a new eo? If this issue has already been decided why are they hearing it again?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Then why did trump need a new eo? If this issue has already been decided why are they hearing it again?

Because judges decided to ignore precedent set by SCOTUS when it comes to presidential authority in these areas and are trying to undermine President Trump.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Then why did trump need a new eo? If this issue has already been decided why are they hearing it again?

?? Do you understand how your judicial system works?