Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Xcathdra

Except there are people on record including the President stating that it does indeed target Muslims.

and yet the EO doesnt make any of those claims.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Courts should NEVER set precedent, period. Their job is purely to interpret the law and settle disputes over said law. 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. If the laws are inconvenient to politics, challenge them in Congress and change them... 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.

Um...our entire legal system is based on precedent. That's what courts do, they set precedents. New precedents are made, based on existing case law and previous precedents.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."[1] Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and Delegated legislation (in U.K. parlance) or regulatory law (in U.S. parlance) (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).

Wikipedia - Precedent

Courts have been "legislating from the bench" since common law legal systems have been in practice. This is one of the reasons why we have three branches of government, and why judges are appointed and elected by the people. You seem to have some misunderstandings of how the judicial, executive and legislative branches of the government work. There is a synergy between them. They don't just check one another, but balance one another.

You seem to be under the impression that courts only exist in a black/white, right/wrong kind of system. Part of the courts function is to further flesh out and establish precedents on top of legislation passed by congress.

There are huge grey areas in the legal system. I hate to break that to you.

There have been many cases where a battered woman killed her husband. The proof is irrefutable that she committed the murder. There may even be an admission of guilt. In some cases that woman isn't convicted of 1st degree murder, but instead given the minimum sentence. Because there's typically no bond on a murder case, the woman will get time served (she may have been in jail during trial for 6 months to a year already) and be free to go that very day. She clearly broke a law, the evidence supported it, yet she did not get the conviction for it. There are no facts in law, only evidence.

In closing, "Legislating from the bench" doesn't even exist -- it's a pejorative phrase used when people don't agree (and don't understand) why or how a court could come to a certain decision. People using the phrase "legislating from the bench" seem to think that judges just disregard prior case law, precedents, statues, and rule solely on their "feelings". It's seen as "legislating" because it often times strikes down unconstitutional or discriminatory laws that their own political party passed.

a reply to: Kettu

legislating from the bench occurs when the courts decide to assume the role of the legislature instead of sending a law back to the legislature to be reveiwed and fixed.

Legislating from the bench occurs when the 9th circuit ignores the Constitution, law and a supreme court ruling on matters that are nonjusticable.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kettu

legislating from the bench occurs when the courts decide to assume the role of the legislature instead of sending a law back to the legislature to be reveiwed and fixed.

Legislating from the bench occurs when the 9th circuit ignores the Constitution, law and a supreme court ruling on matters that are nonjusticable.

It's a pejorative term. It's a way to throw a temper tantrum when someone doesn't like the decision of the court.

You don't seem to understand that what you are complaining about is an actual function of what the courts are supposed to do.

Laws and statues that are passed by legislative branches aren't static. They aren't set in stone-like tablets and black and white. How these statutes and laws get applied in our daily lives often times comes about due to being challenged in court.

Those previous decisions on how the law is to be applied then go on to influence the decisions of other future court cases that involve said statute or law. It's how the legal system has always worked since we adopted our version of common law from the UK.

originally posted by: seeker1963

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.

Screw the law, it's about political ideology and feelings!

80% of the 9th circuit has been overturned by the supreme court! Anyone else see a problem but me?

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!

Sounds like you're feeling a little butthurt that someone disagrees with you and so you want them to be arrested you gigantic snowflake.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Actually the number I've seen about this is 86%

Flipping a coin would give better results .That number is not only terrible ,it looks almost impossible .14% correct or right .That is a crime in its self .

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kettu

legislating from the bench occurs when the courts decide to assume the role of the legislature instead of sending a law back to the legislature to be reveiwed and fixed.

Legislating from the bench occurs when the 9th circuit ignores the Constitution, law and a supreme court ruling on matters that are nonjusticable.

Exactly . Also , the Executive Powers of the President when it comes to National Security are Immune from Judicial Scrutiny .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kettu

legislating from the bench occurs when the courts decide to assume the role of the legislature instead of sending a law back to the legislature to be reveiwed and fixed.

Legislating from the bench occurs when the 9th circuit ignores the Constitution, law and a supreme court ruling on matters that are nonjusticable.

I don't think that makes any sense.



Exactly . Also , the Executive Powers of the President when it comes to National Security are Immune from Judicial Scrutiny .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That is why he can declare martial law .I would think .

a reply to: Kettu

No, when the Supreme Court and constitution says its not, its not.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kettu

legislating from the bench occurs when the courts decide to assume the role of the legislature instead of sending a law back to the legislature to be reveiwed and fixed.

Legislating from the bench occurs when the 9th circuit ignores the Constitution, law and a supreme court ruling on matters that are nonjusticable.

I don't think that makes any sense.






Exactly . Also , the Executive Powers of the President when it comes to National Security are Immune from Judicial Scrutiny .

No , it Makes Perfect Sense to a Sensible Person .

originally posted by: Annee

I don't think that makes any sense.

It makes perfect sense when you read the Supreme Court ruling n the matter and the political question doctrine it used.

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).

Makes perfect sense.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kettu

legislating from the bench occurs when the courts decide to assume the role of the legislature instead of sending a law back to the legislature to be reveiwed and fixed.

Legislating from the bench occurs when the 9th circuit ignores the Constitution, law and a supreme court ruling on matters that are nonjusticable.

I don't think that makes any sense.






Exactly . Also , the Executive Powers of the President when it comes to National Security are Immune from Judicial Scrutiny .

No , it Makes Perfect Sense to a Sensible Person .

Explain it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kettu

legislating from the bench occurs when the courts decide to assume the role of the legislature instead of sending a law back to the legislature to be reveiwed and fixed.

Legislating from the bench occurs when the 9th circuit ignores the Constitution, law and a supreme court ruling on matters that are nonjusticable.

I don't think that makes any sense.






Exactly . Also , the Executive Powers of the President when it comes to National Security are Immune from Judicial Scrutiny .

No , it Makes Perfect Sense to a Sensible Person .

Explain it.

I have

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also - 9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GreyScale

Yeah, it says that.
Where does it say that the EO is unreviewable?
Where is it said that any EO, no matter what the scope, is unreviewable?

Well it quite clearly tells you how to repeal an EO. In fact it has been done twice so far. Problem we have is everyone is busy trying to muddy the waters. Its very clear that this falls within Trumps jurisdiction and not the courts. They only have two decisions to make is his actions legal under the constitution. Obviously they are and final question did he violate an exiting law with his EO? I have yet to hear an argument he did. If he has jurisdiction and no laws are violated the courts are way overstepping there authority by restricting the executive branch.

If i was Trump id just rewrite the EO since it didn't seem it was planned very well anyway. But just wait until congress decides to enter the fight. They can actually remove a judge and dont think this isnt being discussed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Intent is in play regardless.

originally posted by: GreyScale

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Phage

Is there any source to the report? As in the judges full statement via text or video?

I can't blame her for wanting more evidence but does she have the authority to stop the EO if there is nothing unconstitutional or law breaking in it?

She has no authority period in matters of immigration or national security.

The judicial system has no standing in either of those matters and it has already been decided in the Supreme court in 1948.

This is all Liberal posturing.

This is the case.


Napolitano on 9th Circuit ruling: 'Intellectually dishonest'

This was a short lived judicial coup. Short lived because I believe the 9th Circuit Court won't survive this, they'll be booted! And the President will be rewriting another ban. Or even just make a proclamation. Hope Saudi and Pakistan is on the next ban.

a reply to: dragonridr

Obviously they are and final question did he violate an exiting law with his EO?

That was not the issue which was put before the 9th Circuit.

If he has jurisdiction and no laws are violated the courts are way overstepping there authority by restricting the executive branch.

One does not have to violate a law in order to violate the rights of a State, its citizens, or its residents. A fact which has been upheld more than once. That is the issue upon which the 9th Circuit ruled.

a reply to: Phage

The 10th amendment has no application in matters of immigration, refugees, foreign policy or national security = states have no standing.


The district judge and 9th circuit ruled incorrectly.

a reply to: Xcathdra

By your interpretation, no entity does.
All hail the Trump!