BREAKING: Appeals court denies Trump administration request to reinstate ban

[Reaganfan]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Remember, the national security of America is more important than the emotional security of foreign aliens.

Liberals are on the wrong side of history on this one, big time. 

[Reaganfan]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

[Reaganfan]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

I think it's why they are judges and not you.

They understand law, and you don't. It's simple as that.

Trump is free to ask Congress to pass laws or to start the process for a constituonnal amendment, however.

It's about activist judges trying like mad to find ways around the Constitution. It really seems to me, and maybe I'm not right, I don't know, but it seems to me that liberal judges are always frantic to find ways around the Constitution.

Why?

[Reaganfan]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

[Reaganfan]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

You're missing the point. This EO affected legal permanent residents, the sloppiness just undercuts Trumps argument.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."


I read this argument as an amateur liberal opinion. It feels like something written by a 20 year old college student at Berkeley. I do not believe that they have a legal case going forward on Constitutional grounds. At all.

The legality of his EO is sound. Period. The Constitution doesn't talk about discrimination against foreign travelers. A Syrian immigrant is not entitled to due process under United States laws.

[Reaganfan]

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

At worst, its a 4-4 ruling and the 9th circuit decision stands. At best and most likely, there will be defectors. Trump will not be happy.

It's not even a given that SCOTUS will choose to get involved at this stage. They'll probably decline to mess with the stay and will wait for the case to come up to SCOTUS on the merits.

There are many legal analysts saying Kagan would likely vote to uphold Trump's decision.

[Reaganfan]

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

At worst, its a 4-4 ruling and the 9th circuit decision stands. At best and most likely, there will be defectors. Trump will not be happy.

It's not even a given that SCOTUS will choose to get involved at this stage. They'll probably decline to mess with the stay and will wait for the case to come up to SCOTUS on the merits.

There are many legal analysts saying Kagan would likely vote to uphold Trump's decision.

Which analysts? Based on what?

I've heard a couple mention it online and interviews on the cable networks.

Here's one article discussing how the court may not be quite among party lines, especially if the order is modified slightly. Kagan and Breyer could conceivably vote to uphold the order.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-courts-trump-travel-20170209-story.html

[Reaganfan]

Thank you founding fathers!

Appeals court denies Trump administration request to immediately reinstate ban on travelers and refugees.

Bull.  The president has every right to stop foreigners from coming in to the country.  And soon, it will be done.

Of course he does. Carter did it, Obama did it. This is not a shocking thing, or against the law.

[Reaganfan]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

You're missing the point. This EO affected legal permanent residents, the sloppiness just undercuts Trumps argument.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."


I read this argument as an amateur liberal opinion. It feels like something written by a 20 year old college student at Berkeley. I do not believe that they have a legal case going forward on Constitutional grounds. At all.

The legality of his EO is sound. Period. The Constitution doesn't talk about discrimination against foreign travelers. A Syrian immigrant is not entitled to due process under United States laws.

What makes you qualified to make such definitive statements? Are you a judge? A lawyer? Did you go to law school? Do you do anything besides watch Fox News all day and parrot talking points?

I believe that this has much more to do with liberal identity politics than anything else. The Constitutionality of this executive order seems quite sound. What is the LEGAL argument, not political, not cultural, but the LEGAL argument against this executive order?

None of the arguments from the judges discussed the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Unless that legal provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law. PERIOD.

Nathaniel Gorton of the District Court in Massachusetts cited the law (8 U.SC. §1182 (f)) and said "the decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a fundamental sovereign attribute realized through the legislative and executive branches that is largely immune from judicial control."

Again, the law states:

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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


How can any person disagree with the President's authority on this?

[Reaganfan]

On the point of constitutionality, the US has banned immigration on similar grounds before many times. We banned Chinese coal workers for fear that they were stealing American jobs. We banned Jewish refugees (Judaism is a religion btw) from Germany during WWII. We've even banned Iranians before during the hostage crisis in the 70's. In all of these cases the constitutionality held. The 9th would be overturning quite the precedent in ruling this unconstitutional.

That's why I mentioned the liberals seem to be on the wrong side of history on this one.