Ninth Circuit Court to announce their decision Today

[Norm Lenhart]

You had me several posts ago when I was still quite naive...

I probably thought those posts were about you.

[Rivergirl]

If the president believed the security of our nation was at stake he would have consulted with attornies, before he jumped without thinking of the consequences.
DO IT RIGHT, OR DO IT OVER

[skeeter]

You had me several posts ago when I was still quite naive...

Well you and Norm did make a pretty pair.

[Frank Cannon]

If the president believed the security of our nation was at stake he would have consulted with attorneys, before he jumped without thinking of the consequences.
DO IT RIGHT, OR DO IT OVER

He did it right. It is totally legal and covered under section 1182 of Federal law.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[skeeter]

If the president believed the security of our nation was at stake he would have consulted with attornies, before he jumped without thinking of the consequences.
DO IT RIGHT, OR DO IT OVER

As long as leftwing ideologues sit on courts there will only be one way to 'do it right'. Their's.

[Rivergirl]

So the defenders are agreeing that people with legal permanent residency, legal green card holders, have no rights at all?  Just declare the all undesirable, no matter if they have been here for a long period of time, have broken no laws, and have exhibited no threat to our country?

[Frank Cannon]

I completely agree with you Frank but it's not going to happen because we have been conditioned to accept Judges as our Kings!

If there was ever a President that would be able to knock these judges down to size and get Congress to start doing their job again by legislating, it's Donny.

[Bigun]

The interests of the snowflakes that teach and attend classes at the universities in Washington State DO NOT outweigh the  security of those who populate all 50 states!

The people on that court need to be dealt with and dealt with severely! They are a much bigger threat to us than ISIS or Al Qaeda!

[jpsb]

The court has zero authority to deal in matters vested exclusively in the Executive branch concerning national security.

Zero. If you can find one word of constitutional law stating that any court can obstruct a President/CIC from carrying out his constitutionally manded job to keep the country safe, please share. Because the laws that give the president carte blanche to restrict A N Y immigration have been posted repeatedly. No where at all in them is there a judicial review provision or judicial oversight.

Bump!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So the defenders are agreeing that people with legal permanent residency, legal green card holders, have no rights at all?  Just declare the all undesirable, no matter if they have been here for a long period of time, have broken no laws, and have exhibited no threat to our country?

Trump wanted a 180 day ban and then "extreme vetting". Wasn't unreasonable imo.

[Frank Cannon]

So the defenders are agreeing that people with legal permanent residency, legal green card holders, have no rights at all?  Just declare the all undesirable, no matter if they have been here for a long period of time, have broken no laws, and have exhibited no threat to our country?

You obviously do not have any idea what you are talking about. The EO specifically had language in it covering exemptions.

As for rights, they do have some, but they can be thrown the hell out if they break any rules.

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident

[Wingnut]

Bump!

TTT  Courtesy flush for jpsb

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You obviously do not have any idea what you are talking about. The EO specifically had language in it covering exemptions.

As for rights, they do have some, but they can be thrown the hell out if they break any rules.

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident

The original eo had no exemptions I believe.

[txradioguy]

Obviously didn't work either time.

But to reiterate: this was just a denial of a stay; the appeal itself hasn't happened yet.  The decision does show where the gov't falls short, in the view of the 9th Circus, so presumably a better and stronger argument could be made at that time.

Note that, had Trump simply taken a couple of extra weeks to give people and agencies time to prepare, the "due process" argument would not have anything like the weight it has now.

If I had to make an educated guess...I bet one of the questions asked by the three judge panel was "can you show a clear and present danger from the refugees entering the country"?

[skeeter]

If I had to make an educated guess...I bet one of the questions asked by the three judge panel was "can you show a clear and present danger from the refugees entering the country"?

The AG could then show this video...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-syrias-assad-tells-yahoo-news-some-refugees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html

[jpsb]

The original eo had no exemptions I believe.

Not true the DHS was authorized to grant exceptions as they saw fit.

[SirLinksALot]

If I had to make an educated guess...I bet one of the questions asked by the three judge panel was "can you show a clear and present danger from the refugees entering the country"?

Irrelevant question if it were asked at all. If they think there is none and they believe the policy is to do nothing, then make them ran for office and set this policy.

The issue is and always has been -- does the President have the power vested in him to suspend immigration from selected countries if (rightly or wrongly ) he deems these countries to be dangerous to America?

The answer clearly is "Yes" and THAT is the issue that they should address.

[Norm Lenhart]

The AG could then show this video...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-syrias-assad-tells-yahoo-news-some-refugees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html

Or any AQ/ISIS vid saying they put terrorists into the refugee exodus specifically for infiltration. Of which there are many.

[Frank Cannon]

The original eo had no exemptions I believe.

It did. Section 3 Part G was a full paragraph basically saying that Homeland Security had authority to override the ban if they saw fit without any other approval.

[Norm Lenhart]

It did. Section 3 Part G was a full paragraph basically saying that Homeland Security had authority to override the ban if they saw fit without any other approval.

You can tell how many people are taking a position against the ban because 'Trump' and not because they actually thought it through. Some refuse not read the order. some refuse to accept the law that clearly authorities his action.

Neither type should argue anything from ignorance but oh well. That's 'conservatism' in 2017.

[Frank Cannon]

You can tell how many people are taking a position against the ban because 'Trump' and not because they actually thought it through. Some refuse not read the order. some refuse to accept the law that clearly authorities his action.

Neither type should argue anything from ignorance but oh well. That's 'conservatism' in 2017.

Hell, that LA Judge who put the stay on this thing didn't even read it if you read through his ruling. He didn't cite one law that the Administration was breaking.

[r9etb]

Irrelevant question if it were asked at all. If they think there is none and they believe the policy is to do nothing, then make them ran for office and set this policy.

It's not at all irrelevant.  If the gov't cannot show a clear and present danger, then it's difficult to make a compelling claim that "national security" merits granting an emergency stay to the temporary restraining order.

And, after all, this decision is ONLY about a stay.  It's not the appeal itself.

[Norm Lenhart]

Hell, that LA Judge who put the stay on this thing didn't even read it if you read through his ruling. He didn't cite one law that the Administration was breaking.

How could he? None got broken. But after 8 years of feel good and no blowback from the GOP and certainly none from the Dems, they just wave their hands, rule and limo off to the DNC fundraiser as a matter of course.

And even those supposedly on the right are gonna play along because Trump? They are accomplishing one thing. I'm getting closer to ordering a trucker hat by the hour.

[Bigun]

It's not at all irrelevant.  If the gov't cannot show a clear and present danger, then it's difficult to make a compelling claim that "national security" merits granting an emergency stay to the temporary restraining order.

And, after all, this decision is ONLY about a stay.  It's not the appeal itself.

The law is quite clear as to who get's to decide what is or is not a clear and present danger and it ain't the courts!

[Fantom]

So the defenders are agreeing that people with legal permanent residency, legal green card holders, have no rights at all?  Just declare the all undesirable, no matter if they have been here for a long period of time, have broken no laws, and have exhibited no threat to our country?

The few who were stopped, detained for a short while were vetted, then let in... less than 150 people.

Likewise Trump quickly adjusted his order to allow...right or wrong for that. Life and orders are not perfect. I remember something about Tarawa..... "Perfect is the enemy of the good."

And yes, to your last point...... non-citizens have no rights under our Constitution. It is "We The People... of the United States".  Who are protected. Very little is provided for non-Citizens under our Constitution.