Ninth Circuit Court to announce their decision Today

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

And round and round we go.

He cannot be held in contempt as the court has no authority to hear the case they did, much less usurp the executive. Any 'charge' of contempt they levy is as meaningless as their present decision.

   That'll be up to Congress. They won't be too amused if Trump ignores judges. Believing anything else is just internet fantasyland.


But please continue with your little fantasy of Trump having court judges arrested and such.

[Norm Lenhart]

Read what the court said: they cited precedents dating back to 1866. 

And you're apparently another one of those who'd like to burn the Constitution in order to save it.

Sheesh.

What part of the constitution places the power of national security under court review?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes, because that is what happened to Andrew Jackson.

The courts..especially the 9th , have been given to much authority by the People.. time to start ignoring them a bit... methinks.

Trump is no Andrew Jackson. He's not even Michael Jackson.

[Bigun]

Read what the court said: they cited precedents dating back to 1866. 

And you're apparently another one of those who'd like to burn the Constitution in order to save it.

Sheesh.

And every single bit of the dicta they cited is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the question they were tasked to decide!

[r9etb]

He's not even Michael Jackson.

Don't be too hasty.  Didn't both Trump and MJ change to different colors?

[skeeter]

It's a bunch of keyboard warriors, like on Free Republic a bunch of old men sitting around in their underwear threatening "civil war" and talking big and bad.

It must be exasperating for someone of your intellect to have to constantly be setting we poor benighted fools straight all of the time.

Surely there're other ways for you to more profitably spend your valuable time.

[Fantom]

Trump is no Andrew Jackson. He's not even Michael Jackson.

Actually, President Trump reminds me of a Conservative Teddy Roosevelt. I am surprised by that, actually, as I never considered that Trump had a Conservative bone in his body... my bad.

[Norm Lenhart]

   That'll be up to Congress. They won't be too amused if Trump ignores judges. Believing anything else is just internet fantasyland.


But please continue with your little fantasy of Trump having court judges arrested and such.

What fantasy? Are you privy to what amuses them? Considering your last election week pingponging over your trump vote, you arent exactly a stable source of whats anything one way or the other. When the wind blows in a direction that you like at that exact moment, thats the way you argue. Until your emotions change and then you go the other way fast.

Tell me. What law can you cite that gives the judiciary power over the exec in matters of national security? Not an emotional outburst. A law. What is it?

And no, "Don't pop a vein" isn't an answer.

[DiogenesLamp]

See, it wouldn't be needed, but liberals unwilling to follow the law force stronger measures. So blame the people that fought against Trumps 100% legal EO to begin with when stronger actions happen.

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)  said something along the lines of  "first we tried "nice"  with Romney,   and nice didn't work.   So now we're making our point with Trump.   You won't like what happens if we can't get the message across with Trump."   


He also said something along the lines of "You don't want Trump?  This is how you get more Trump."   

[r9etb]

And every single bit of the dicta they cited is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the question they were tasked to decide!

Um.... the question they were asked to decide, was whether or not to grant an emergency stay to the temporary restraining order.

And to assess the grounds for granting a stay, they had to ask whether the court had standing to rule on matters that are alleged to be national security issues -- and they cited relevant precedents to show that they do. 

They also acknowledged that the court owes "substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches;" however, to grant an emergency stay, the government had to show evidence supporting the request.

Instead, the court said that "the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated."

Thus, no stay on grounds of national security.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Tell me. What law can you cite that gives the judiciary power over the exec in matters of national security? Not an emotional outburst. A law. What is it?

Trump can argue it before the USSC. Until then he'll have to follow the court's orders.


Most Congresscritters aren't like the nutjobs on this thread. They have elections, and reelection coming up, they know the Senate is hanging by a thread and even the house isn't guaranteed, and I'd bet most people (read voters) thought like your detractors in this thread:  that a President ignoring court orders would make the US resemble even more of a banana republic then even if we imported the third world through immigration.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

   That'll be up to Congress. They won't be too amused if Trump ignores judges. Believing anything else is just internet fantasyland.


But please continue with your little fantasy of Trump having court judges arrested and such.

Did anyone suggest Trump will arrest court judges?  I did not notice that.

If no one did, why place these type of suggestions into anyone's mind?  Good grief.

[Bigun]

Um.... the question they were asked to decide, was whether or not to grant an emergency stay to the temporary restraining order.

Correct!

And to assess the grounds for granting a stay, they had to ask whether the court had standing to rule on matters that are alleged to be national security issues -- and they cited relevant precedents to show that they do.

Bull Shit!

They also acknowledged that the court owes "substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches;" however, to grant an emergency stay, the government had to show evidence supporting the request. 


Instead, the court said that "the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated."

Thus, no stay on grounds of national security.

The president is nowhere required to provide ANY court with national security information he is privy to and no court is anywhere authorized to question his determinations in those matters!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Did anyone suggest Trump will arrest court judges?  I did not notice that.

If no one did, why place these type of suggestions into anyone's mind?  Good grief.

Some idgit suggested it upthread somewhere. might have been on another thread.

[JustPassinThru]

Trump just should go ahead with it anyway.

That's the trap that's being set.

This gives the Dems and the predictable RINOS, Collins, Murkowski, Goober Graham...cover to push Articles of Impeachment and a conviction vote.

This is a trap and a box that's been laid.  Any terrorist mass-slaughter now done will be laid at Trump's feet.  And if Trump ignores this kangaroo-kourt ruling...he'll be Impeached.

The country is coming apart.  The kangaroos on the Ninth Jerk-It Kourt are willing to see hundreds, maybe thousands, of citizens die for their own stupid neo-Marxist political games and objectives.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Trump can argue it before the USSC. Until then he'll have to follow the court's orders.

NO he doesn't anymore than Trump can order around Chuck Schumer or Paul Ryan can order around Ruth Ginsberg.

Where are you getting these fairy tales?

Judges are NOT absolute authorities.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, President Trump reminds me of a Conservative Teddy Roosevelt. I am surprised by that, actually, as I never considered that Trump had a Conservative bone in his body... my bad.

That is exactly the model I have been using to try and characterize Trump.  They are both from New York,  and both behaved in a manner very differently from what the New York machine expected.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

NO he doesn't anymore than Trump can order around Chuck Schumer or Paul Ryan can order around Ruth Ginsberg.

Where are you getting these fairy tales?

Judges are NOT absolute authorities.

   Tell it to Congress, broski. They'll be the ones to act if he ignores the courts.

[JustPassinThru]

I wonder who the President will tap to argue the administration's case before SCOTUS?

Unless Goresuch gets a lightning-fast confirmation, and I can't see that...what will happen is that the SCOTUS will vote whether to hear the case.  A tie vote will mean it will not take up the case.

And the Ninth Jerk-It ruling holds.  And unless there's another legal principle argued in a future ruling...what the SCOTUS does in rejecting the case, will hold once Goresuch is in.

This is a shockingly-dangerous game they're playing.

[JustPassinThru]

NO he doesn't anymore than Trump can order around Chuck Schumer or Paul Ryan can order around Ruth Ginsberg.

Where are you getting these fairy tales?

Judges are NOT absolute authorities.

Your argument for that is, what?

Do Presidents order judges to do things?

Or do JUDGES order PRESIDENTS to do, not do, not implement things?

Trump can ignore this ruling, a la Jackson.  He can also be Impeached for it, a la Johnson.  Or Bubba, if you like.

The Dems would LOVE to have a narrative that would justify Articles of Impeachment.  This is the bait to give them the shot.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Um.... the question they were asked to decide, was whether or not to grant an emergency stay to the temporary restraining order.

And to assess the grounds for granting a stay, they had to ask whether the court had standing to rule on matters that are alleged to be national security issues -- and they cited relevant precedents to show that they do. 

They also acknowledged that the court owes "substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches;" however, to grant an emergency stay, the government had to show evidence supporting the request.

Instead, the court said that "the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated."

Thus, no stay on grounds of national security.

I really do not know how to do this delicately, so I'll just throw it out.

The President has ultimate authority on our national security and does not need to submit his claim for national security to any court, Period.

Just let up on the driveling you continue doing that says he must submit to a court.

[Fantom]

NO he doesn't anymore than Trump can order around Chuck Schumer or Paul Ryan can order around Ruth Ginsberg.

Where are you getting these fairy tales?

Judges are NOT absolute authorities.

Correct, they are equal branches.

The law and SCOTUS decisions as well as Congress have placed this power in the hands of the Executive..specifically the President.

If Kennedy does not set aside a minor District Trial Judges illegal TRO. Then we are no longer a Nation of law. But a Black robed tyrannical oligarchy.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The country is coming apart.  The kangaroos on the Ninth Jerk-It Kourt are willing to see hundreds, maybe thousands, of citizens die for their own stupid neo-Marxist political games and objectives.

This is a bit of hyperbole isn't it?  How many people have been killed by people in this country from these countries?


I don't have a problem with the ban per se, but I don't think it's a deadly necessary as others see it.


Are you really this fearful about things? Yikes.

[skeeter]

Your argument for that is, what?

Do Presidents order judges to do things?

Or do JUDGES order PRESIDENTS to do, not do, not implement things?

Trump can ignore this ruling, a la Jackson.  He can also be Impeached for it, a la Johnson.  Or Bubba, if you like.

The Dems would LOVE to have a narrative that would justify Articles of Impeachment.  This is the bait to give them the shot.

The wild card in an impeachment scenario would be public opinion.

And I believe Trump, in this case, would have that in his corner.

Of course it would be a disaster if it got that far. The left has created quite a hash here as it is.

[Bigun]

Your argument for that is, what?

Do Presidents order judges to do things?

Or do JUDGES order PRESIDENTS to do, not do, not implement things?

Trump can ignore this ruling, a la Jackson.  He can also be Impeached for it, a la Johnson.  Or Bubba, if you like.

The Dems would LOVE to have a narrative that would justify Articles of Impeachment.  This is the bait to give them the shot.

Let them draw up articles of impeachment until their fingers are bloody stumps!  They will go exactly nowhere!