The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mrclose on February 12, 2019, 01:05:02 am
-
The infamously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just sided with
the Trump Administration on a border wall case, as The Hill reports:
A California-based federal appeals court on Monday sided with the Trump
administration in lawsuits brought by states and environmental groups
challenging the U.S. government’s authority to expedite construction of
barriers along the border with Mexico.
The 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals in a 2-1 ruling said the Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 gives the Department of Homeland Security
broad authority to construct the border barriers and waive environmental
laws in the process.
The ruling affirms a district court’s
decision that allowed the federal government to construct wall
“prototypes†and replace 14 miles of primary fencing near San Diego and
replace similar fencing along a three-mile strip near Calexico, Calif.
The appeals court decision also narrows the path for environmental groups to launch legal challenges to President Trump’s proposed border wall.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/ninth-circuit-sides-trump-border-wall
-
Shocking.
-
Shocking.
I smell a rat in Sacramento.
-
I have tried, and failed to find the reason for the lines running through part of my quoted post!?
I didn't put them there and they don't show anywhere else!? :shrug:
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRAâ€), the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHSâ€) has long had the
authority “to install additional physical barriers and roads
. . . in the vicinity of the United States border . . . .†IIRIRA
§ 102(a).1 The Secretary also “ha the authority to waive
all legal requirements†that, in the “Secretary’s sole
discretion,†are “necessary to ensure expeditious
construction†of those barriers and roads. Id. § 102(c)(1).
Having determined that the border barrier projects were
authorized under section 102(a), we have little trouble
concluding that the environmental claims were also properly
dismissed.
(1) In general.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall have the authority to waive all
legal requirements such Secretary, in such
Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
Any such decision by the Secretary shall be
effective upon being published in the Federal
Register.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/02/11/18-55474.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/02/11/18-55474.pdf)
-
You may recall that during the Obama years there were some groups promoting Vigilantism at the border. And the Courts were very quick to rule that Border Security is a Federal matter.
As usual, the left wanted to ignore the SC and take a chance with their favorite ... The ninth circuit!
The following is from Dec. 2018 and contains all the usual snide remarks from the source. 8)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would not hear a challenge to the Trump administration's proposed border wall brought by environmental groups who say construction could threaten endangered animals and violate environmental laws.
The groups asked the court to reject a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that provides the executive branch with sweeping powers to waive environmental laws if those laws impede construction of barriers and roads near the border.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would decline to hear a challenge to the Trump administration's proposed border wall brought by environmental groups who say construction could threaten endangered animals and violate environmental laws.
The groups asked the court to reject a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that provides the executive branch with authority to waive environmental laws if those laws impede construction of barriers and roads near the border.
The law was expanded by Congress in 2005 to give the Department of Homeland Security authority to waive "all legal requirements" that could stand in the way of border construction.
But because they will not hear the case, a February ruling by a federal judge in San Diego will remain in place.
That ruling in favor of the government was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump said the Indiana-born judge could not be impartial in a case concerning Trump University because he was "Mexican." But, in February, Trump cheered Curiel's ruling as a legal victory.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/supreme-court-lets-dhs-ignore-environmental-laws-to-build-border-wall.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/supreme-court-lets-dhs-ignore-environmental-laws-to-build-border-wall.html)
-
I have tried, and failed to find the reason for the lines running through part of my quoted post!?
I didn't put them there and they don't show anywhere else!? :shrug:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/02/11/18-55474.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/02/11/18-55474.pdf)
I think it's because somewhere in there is a pair of square brackets that contain a single letter 's' - that is the bbc code for strikethrough.
-
I have tried, and failed to find the reason for the lines running through part of my quoted post!?
I didn't put them there and they don't show anywhere else!? :shrug:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/02/11/18-55474.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/02/11/18-55474.pdf)
My bet is that if you look you will find [ s ] without the spaces right after ha. likely the word "has" had the 's' added in brackets and this board software interprets that as a 'strike' command and put the line through. Just put spaces between the 's' and the brackets and it should work.
-
My bet is that if you look you will find [ s ] without the spaces right after ha. likely the word "has" had the 's' added in brackets and this board software interprets that as a 'strike' command and put the line through. Just put spaces between the 's' and the brackets and it should work.
@Bill Cipher
@Smokin Joe
Thank You both.
That was the reason!
-
@Bill Cipher
@Smokin Joe
Thank You both.
That was the reason!
You're Welcome!
-
The 9th?
Maybe the end is near, after all.
-
Have I entered the Twilight zone?
-
Interesting in two ways. There was an article posted not too long ago that the 9th circus was heading for reformation. So maybe those judges made this ruling out of fear for their jobs. Then I put on my tinfoil hat and decided the court reporter intentionally added the brackets because their little lib head was exploding.
Anyway, I took a look at the pdf and it was written with the bracketed s.
A screenshot of my reply box with the quoted text. I highlighted the s.
(https://i.imgur.com/yd6W3y5.png)
Removed the brackets.
8 IN RE BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE ENVTL.LITIG. § 102(a).1 The Secretary also “has the authority to waive all legal requirements†that, in the “Secretary’s sole discretion,†are “necessary to ensure expeditious construction†of those barriers and roads. Id. § 102(c)(1).