BREAKING: Appeals court denies Trump administration request to reinstate ban

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Note that this was only on denying an emergency stay of the stay. The Ninth will still be hearing on an expedited basis whether to revoke the stay.

Somehow I don't think that the 9th is going to find "because courts don't have any jurisdiction over the Executive" to have merit.

At this point, I almost want to see Gorsuch confirmed quickly, so he can join the rest of the Justices on slapping down Trump's appeal.  (Not that he's not problematic on a lot of issues, but he doesn't seem to have a history of kow-towing to the Executive.)

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Note that this was only on denying an emergency stay of the stay. The Ninth will still be hearing on an expedited basis whether to revoke the stay.

Somehow I don't think that the 9th is going to find "because courts don't have any jurisdiction over the Executive" to have merit.

At this point, I almost want to see Gorsuch confirmed quickly, so he can join the rest of the Justices on slapping down Trump's appeal.  (Not that he's not problematic on a lot of issues, but he doesn't seem to have a history of kow-towing to the Executive.)

I would hope that the actual lawyers who draft the appeal for Trump will be able to make a more cogent argument.  It's not that hard to do better than a tweet.  Still, as you point out Gorsuch has not been a fan of administrative deference

It doesn't look like they will. Make a more cogent argument, that is.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/nation-and-world/9th-circuit-court-denies-trump-administrations-bid-to-reinstate-travel-ban-20170205

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And while  it doesn't have any effect on the merits, I doubt that the so-called president's twitter flaming is going to *help* his subordinates' case any. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I have a sneaking suspicion a good part of Trump's first few months in office are going to be sent listening to people more intelligent than him telling him why he can't do the things he wants to do.

And the rest of it will be him ignoring them, firing them, and throwing tantrums at anyone who will listen to him.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump saying if anything happens to blame the judges because the terrorists are pouring in now.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin - a man who actually helped make American great.

Truck Fump.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Very nice to see. Sadly, so-called president Pussygrabber is now doubtless hoping for more dead Americans to use as rhetorical bludgeons for his regime.

Is there any doubt that if there is so-much as single attack, even one that could not possibly have been prevented by the ban, Pussygrabber will attempt to blame these judges? They showed true courage and dedication to their duty, unlike the stupid, greedy coward inhabiting the Oval Office.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"WHAAAAA! MY EGO! WHAAA!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

I am far more frightened of Trump than I am of any terrorists.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"WHAAAAA! MY EGO! WHAAA!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

I am far more frightened of Trump than I am of any terrorists.

Trump is not going to hijack planes into towers, or cause mayhem on subway stations and highways and school/nightlife shootings.

He's causing mayhem at the borders and killing women and kids abroad RIGHT NOW. He wants to destroy the country and turn it into some twisted parody of ourselves.

Terrorism is statistically insignificant. If you can't understand that, you're an idiot.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Does anyone have a link to the ruling? I want to see their reasoning to see why they ruled that the Administration would lose in SCOTUS. FF ruling, although I'm worried about SCOTUS.

Should be here:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"WHAAAAA! MY EGO! WHAAA!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

I am far more frightened of Trump than I am of any terrorists.

Trump is not going to hijack planes into towers, or cause mayhem on subway stations and highways and school/nightlife shootings.

Going to reply to this again, quoting the 9th Circuit's opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pussygrabber is a wanna-be autocrat, and a far bigger threat to the United States than any terrorists, foreign or domestic.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Bring back the camps

That's not a nice thing to say.

And whatever you're saying right now is any more intellectual? Snowflake feelings.

Snowflakes... you mean those things that are all white, basically identical, come apart if exposed to even slightly different environments, and if you get a bunch of them together they shut down schools?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

As I said numerous times, Trump is just plain incompetent. How on earth he made it in the real estate world is beyond me.

He didn't. He went bust, twice. Each time he found more and shadier suckers to back him, and by his third run he reinvented himself as a professional celebrity and focused on the one thing he is really good at: being a salesman / swindler.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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?

The legal argument is that while the statute you cite gives the president certain authority, that authority cannot be applied in a way that violates the Constitution. Surely you agree that no statute ever trumps the Constitution. The Constitutionality of the Executive order turns on two issues:

1. Due Process: Anyone lawful permanent resident or person who has already been granted a Visa is entitled by the 5th Amendment to due process of law. That means that once the government has granted such a person a benefit like a Visa, they are entitled to, at minimum, notice and the opportunity for some kind of hearing before it can be revoked. The president's statutory authority to suspend entry into the country cannot circumvent this Constitutional requirement of procedural due process. Does that apply to new aliens seeking entry to the country going forward? Maybe not, but...

2. Religious Discrimination: Both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit the government from discriminating against a group based on religion. Yes, that means immigrants too.  The statute you cite can't contravene this Constitutional requirement either. The Constitution plainly forbids a religious test for entry into the country. Does Trump's EO, on the face of the document, amount to that kind of religious discrimination? No. But the argument here is that a court can look behind the document to evidence of its purpose in order to determine if it was motivated by a desire to discriminate against a religious group. In other words, months of ranting and raving about how you want to discriminate against Muslims might turn an otherwise lawful executive order into an unconstitutional one.

To be clear, the 9th Circuit didn't rule definitively on either of these issues. The 9th Circuit held that the government was not likely to prevail on the due process issues. The 9th Circuit chose not to address the likelihood of success on the religious discrimination claim. Both of these issues will be developed by further evidence and legal argument when the case comes back up on the merits.

The ruling that came out of the 9th was on the legality the TRO that the Seattle judge had placed on Trump's ban. They ruled that it was legal for the ban to be suspended while the courts worked out the constitutionality of the bill.

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.

Then perhaps the Pussygrabber regime should have gone before the court on that basis, instead of "the president can do whatever he wants, period".