Ninth Circuit Denounces Donald Trump’s Refugee Orders, Says Not Justified

The 9th Circuit Court has "decided" Trump's EO part(s) about reducing refugees is unconstitutional !!

Not just unconstitutional mind you, they say it's "unconstitutionally vague".

They made a whole 86-page decision to show it !!

All kinds of questions in this "decision" I imagine.

Well now WHAT !

Ninth Circuit Denounces Donald Trump’s Refugee Orders, Says Not Justified

The far-left U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said Monday that President Donald Trump’s March 9 executive immigration order on refugees is unconstitutionally vague.

The three-judge decision declared that President Trump must justify his policies in court by citing agency recommendations and that he cannot unilaterally curb the annual inflow of refugees from 100,000 to 50,000 even though prior presidents have raised and lowered the annual inflow of refugees without interference from the judges.

“Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show,” the judges declared in their 86-page decision, tiled continuing:

a reply to: xuenchen

It will fast track now to review of the Supreme Court.

IMO, the administration saw this coning.

mg

Before this derails into "Trumps a idiot" meme-fest, this was a HUGE concern that Judges could, would and are making laws via court rulings. IIRC the Ninth Circuit was the worst for this. Think it was back in the 80's-90's when it was a of real concern.

That concern is just as valid today as it was back then.

a reply to: xuenchen


Take the Judges homes... assign a male Syrian Refugee to reside in Each of those 6 or 10 extra bedrooms...

those twerps will change their tune PDQ (that's some Irish Catholic lingo I learnt as a kid in Harrisburg PA ~ PDQ equals pretty-dam-quick)

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the funny thing is this:

The EO, and the "temporary" ban, was supposed to last for, what 120 days? And it was supposed to "keep America safe," right?

How many attacks have we had by people from the countries on the list during that time?

Yeah.

You guys with those politically appointed judges...

The 9th circuit decided against it?

Big shock, that. Not.

Well, that means the Supreme's are on stage next.

a reply to: Liquesence

Good thing they stepped up the vetting despite the "rulings".

That was the whole point to begin with.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Liquesence

Good thing they stepped up the vetting despite the "rulings".

That was the whole point to begin with.

So then why the "ban," if the supposed vetting process (which is little different than it has been) is working?

And how many people from the countries on the ban list have committed an attack here (of the attacks we've had in recent years)?

Yeah...that.

a reply to: Liquesence

The vetting process isn't working. You can't properly vet people from those war torn countries, records simply don't exist for them. Keep them over there, set up safe zones for them, let them fix their own countries.

SCOTUS will rule on this in favor of the administration, it will be made clear the vetting process can't be fixed, and the ban will be extended.

You want ISIS fighters over here? How can anyone be in favor of that?

Go move over there if you like them so much.

a reply to: D8Tee

The vetting process isn't working.

Le sigh.

How many attacks have we had by people from those countries ever?

Edit to your edit:

Go move over there if you like them so much.

You like autocracy so much move to a country other than the US.

a reply to: Liquesence

Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research shows no Americans have been killed in the U.S. at the hands of people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — since Sept. 11. But it’s not quite right to say no one from those nations has been arrested or accused in an extremist-related plot while living in the U.S.

In addition to the cases from last fall, for instance, two men from Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2011 and convicted on charges that they plotted to send money and weapons to al-Qaida.

All told, Kurzman said, 23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.

source

a reply to: D8Tee

Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research shows no Americans have been killed in the U.S. at the hands of people from the seven countries

Your source.

Thanks for proving my point.

a reply to: Liquesence

How many Americans must die Liquesence? You progressives will have blood on your hands.

Since the 9/11 attacks, 72 people coming from the seven Middle Eastern countries named in President Donald Trump's executive order on travel and refugees have been convicted on terrorism charges, according to a new report released Saturday.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies, the report stands "in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president's order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in."

Source

Gee, I wonder if they will attack us for banning them out of spite?
-Said no Republican ever.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

If your logic is true and they will attack a nation out of 'spite' for not being allowed in, all the more reason to keep them out, not?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the funny thing is this:

The EO, and the "temporary" ban, was supposed to last for, what 120 days? And it was supposed to "keep America safe," right?

How many attacks have we had by people from the countries on the list during that time?

Yeah.

Just because one EO isn't passed doesn't mean those charged with the security of this nation just stop doing their jobs.

What a dumb comment.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Progressives seem to be a reactive bunch. You'd think a progressive would be proactive, but nope, they want to see dead Americans on their own soil before any action is taken. I just don't get it.

a reply to: Liquesence

Because at the time you did not have the luxury of hindsight. Let me guess, you KNEW Buster Douglas was going to beat Tyson too right?