Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

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?

a reply to: Phage

Did they really ever act like the POTUS had constitutional grounds? They acted like the thing was without standing without merit.

a reply to: Logarock

Did they really ever act like the POTUS had constitutional grounds?

Since that was not an argument presented by the Government, no.

Seems you too are not familiar with either decision.

a reply to: Phage

Ok so the court wanted evidence as to the nations named in the stoppage of migrants from same but it looks like they have no real constitutional power to ask or suspend.....but did it anyway.

a reply to: Logarock
Where in the Constitution does it say that any presidential action is exempt from court review?

If you had read either decision, I would not have to repeat that.

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.

lol. I just haven't heard a solid argument that the EO was unconstitutional from anyone.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I suppose I should read them, huh.

Before you start saying stuff about them? That would be a good start.

a reply to: Phage

Power granted with no mention of review. Obvious block of political factionizim. Founders understood dangers of political court appointments but had to do it anyway.

This court review is ok where POTUS is not clearly granted power to take charge.....like Obama and his 2nd amendment restructuring. Trump hasn't engaged in out of bounds decisions.

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.

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?

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.

I don't understand how the states have zero standing in immigration considering that they take on the full weight of such things when done in mass. Just look at MI. Are they under federal power when dealing with Muslim acting out?

to my reasoning... the Judge over-stepped the bounds available to her position...

the contention is :

...Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema has requested that the Government provide evidence that Trump's travel ban was necessary...

a President's EO can surely be reviewed, opened to debate, commented upon, even proclaimed to be intellectually stupid...the OP ED pages of News-source-of-Record would be the proper way to contest the EO ---- that would be the extent of a Justices' 'oversight' and the long held acceptable way to engage the 'Checks-&-Balance' between the Judges and the Executive at the WH.

the nullification of the EO by Judge Robart...should have went through the normal channels...OP-ED, open letter, court-of-public-opinion, rather than be illegally stopped-in-its-tracks by a Seattle Judge with absolutely No background information for the temporary-travel-ban...
the 3 Judge Appeal hearing was itself beyond the authority of circuit Judges.....

the Supreme Court is the only legal party to stop the EO


this thread about Judge Brinkema requesting the Evidence that Trump had...to issue a temporary travel ban in the first place..... is just a try at fence mending because Judge Robart should have desired the same evidence before he made that hasty & ill-conceived decision to overthrow the EO issued by Trump...
we have a case of CYA by the anti-Trump black-robe gallery , and frantic efforts to muddy up the waters by a 'multitude' of activist Judges so as to appear as a 'ground-swell' of opposition instead of just a coven of anti-constitutionalists (all with a head-torso-ratio equivalent to the character 'Stewie' in the animated TV series 'Family Guy'




PS: www.nbcnews.com...

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.

a reply to: Logarock

Because the Constitution places refugees as the sole realm of the president and immigration as the sole realm of the Congress. Anything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states. Immigration and Refugees are the sole discretion of the Federal government (except judicial). The Supreme Court (and the 9th circuit) have also ruled foreign policy and national security are areas the states have no standing in.

A state is not responsible for and has no authority to conduct foreign policy nor make national security decisions.

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?

We have been over this.. Reread my posts and stop asking the same questions over and over.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Because the Constitution places refugees as the sole realm of the president and immigration as the sole realm of the Congress.

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?

a reply to: St Udio


The potus is shielded here from having to show cause? Besides let us not drag out the legal case precedents effecting immigration and POTUS EOs. The court acts as though Trump was violating more than just political fashion here. A look at immigration in the past.......it has been pure politics and a reflection of failed forging policy. Cuba, Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Somalia, ect on one hand and a host of others on the other side.

a reply to: Xcathdra

We have been over this..

I don't recall asking these questions. Can you refresh my memory?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

We have been over this..

I don't recall asking these questions. Can you refresh my memory?

No you can reread my posts in this thread and the other threads dealing with this exact same topic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Because the Constitution places refugees as the sole realm of the president and immigration as the sole realm of the Congress.

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?

Ok what harm? To citizens of other countries? Persons on green visas now take precedent to laws? Persons whos harm was not form US.

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...

The President doesn't have to provide evidence to anyone for anything...It's a matter of law; the U.S. Code...