Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

a reply to: Riffrafter

It's another similar case, filed in Virginia. The judge made the request during the hearing.

originally posted by: seeker1963
Time to arrest those whom have taken an oath to uphold the law, yet choose to allow their "feelings" to supersede the oath they took!

The people are getting fed up with these a-holes. That's _exactly_ why the US Marshals Service has a protective detail on some of 'em now.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Courts should NEVER set precedent, period.

Actually, that's what they do. Court rulings are used as precedent all the time on later cases.

Their job is purely to interpret the law and settle disputes over said law.

And in the process they set precedence.

In this case, they're challenging laws which have been tested repeatedly and it has been ruled that the president has ultimate authority over immigration and unquestioned authority when National Security is cited to the court... veering from that is absolutely legislating from the bench and falls outside of the legal authority of the court.

Have some cases to cite as precedence?

oh, that's right, the majority of lawmakers right now don't align with the politics of those suddenly offended by immigration policies that have been enacted by virtually every prior POTUS, so they'll just bitch about it until a judge oversteps their place.

Seems to me that your judgement is more clouded by politics than any judge.

The law clearly states that the President has ultimate and final authority concerning immigration. These rulings are not going to stop it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Phage

The answer "National Security" to that question has NEVER been questioned by any judge at the federal level in the history of this country... the fact that it now being questioned shows exactly what type of scum we presently have sitting on the benches.

David Brock and their ilk have been planning these kind of things for a while. All part of their game. It was judge shopping.

Democrats must be planning to never win the presidency again. They are setting a precedent that will upset the balance of the 3 branches.
It's desperation.

The 9th circuit's overturn rate speaks volumes.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter

It's another similar case, filed in Virginia. The judge made the request during the hearing.

Thanks.

It's become a god damn circus...

ETA - So this is still about the initial immigration EO?

If that's the case, if I were in the Trump administration I would withdraw the EO instead of just letting it die. That leaves nothing for these activist judges to feed on unless/until a new EO is issued. And the new EO should be bullet-proof based on the constitution.

If not, they're morons and deserve everything they get...

a reply to: watchitburn

There have been a number of laws which have been found to be Unconstitutional. Does the term "Jim Crow" ring a bell?

In the decision by the 9th Circuit, the judges provide precedent against the idea that the president's authority cannot be questioned. I know Trump doesn't like it, but it's a fact.

a reply to: Phage

Fox says they are going to fight it in the U.S. District court in Seattle and I would imagine provide evidence then. Given that they would not let much out as evidence one would think so a leak could of been retracted or un verified but the White house could deny it or say they can't give that information maybe or maybe not.

FoxFox

Speculation for now.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: seeker1963
Time to arrest those whom have taken an oath to uphold the law, yet choose to allow their "feelings" to supersede the oath they took!

The people are getting fed up with these a-holes. That's _exactly_ why the US Marshals Service has a protective detail on some of 'em now.

That in itself is a problem don't you think?

Instead of protecting them arrest them for treason! I know that may sound harsh, but how much farther are we willing to take this unlawfull BS?

Soros is slobbering spittle down his droopy chin at the chaos he has created! Time to refresh the tree of liberty if you ask me......

originally posted by: watchitburn
The law clearly states that the President has ultimate and final authority concerning immigration. These rulings are not going to stop it.

That is incorrect.

President Obama enraged Republicans by announcing he'd take unilateral action on illegal immigrants by allowing millions of them to stay in this country without fear of being deported. And even though the President himself disclaimed constitutional authority for such a move as recently as a year ago, U.S. Supreme Court precedents give him broad powers over who to allow into the country and who to kick out. Where the President's analysis may have gone astray is in what happens next.

Under those same precedents, the Supreme Court has made it clear that Congress holds the ultimate authority over immigration policy. The legislature has repeatedly stepped in to adjust or restrict presidential actions, such as the large-scale amnesties granted Haitian and Cuban immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s, even overriding treaties that prohibited the government from deporting non-citizens.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: seeker1963

Instead of protecting them arrest them for treason!

I take it you don't know what the word means.
www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Question: What other EO's regarding national security have been legally challenged and found it's way in front of a federal-level judge?

Bush had a number of them over Habeas Corpus of enemy combatants, wireless wiretapping, even detention of foreign combatants on US soil, and while not an EO per se, he cited executive privilege (as did Obama) to avoid FOIA requests and then called it National Security when court cases arose, which the courts immediately sided with him on every single time and swiftly closed the cases.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: seeker1963

Instead of protecting them arrest them for treason!

I take it you don't know what the word means.

I know exactly what the word means, and I also know your tactics!

Cheers mate!

This judge is attempting to suggest to somebody to challenge the existing laws.

Part of the plan.



The laws cited in the EO are very clear.

Mini Coup d'tat in progress.

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: Phage

Sorry what I saw seems to be deleted and must be fake. All I can find is stuff saying there is a list of 23 or 24 terrorist that should suffice and was givin to fox news. Now it seems as to either been retracted or fake or verifications. Could have been a list someone else compiled as to people being charged with terrorism coming in from the refugee program.

I saw it with my own eyes and had not made any opinion so was asking your take. I did learn a lesson though.

I saw it too.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd like some specifics in order to find the small details. My question was a serious inquiry and I'd like to learn if they are actually comparable.

Links if you could.

originally posted by: introvert
Seems to me that your judgement is more clouded by politics than any judge.

I'm just an asshole spouting off on an internet forum whereas a judge's words, opinions, and status as an ass which must always be kissed lest contempt charges be levied carry actual weight... it should be sort of a big deal that our judges' vision isn't clouded in any way by politics.

a reply to: seeker1963

I still want to believe in a system of checks & balances.

Admittedly ... that is getting harder to do with all these adults behaving like drama queens.

a reply to: introvert

Title 8 US Code Ch. 12

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."

Which part isn't clear?

a reply to: Riffrafter

How about this court?
en.wikipedia.org...

Or how about you wait to see how she rules before jumping the gun? All she did was ask for some evidence from the Government. Is that bad?