Ninth Circuit Court to announce their decision Today

[Bigun]

I don't understand how they can rule the way they do when the constitution and law are so clear on this matter   Then again they are the 9 th circus.  It shows how leftist our country has become  I'm  not sure there is any turning back at this point

Oh that's easy.  They can do so because no one will ever hold them accountable for their chicanery!

They get overturned 86% of the time yet they keep their seats on the court and the pay checks keep coming!

[ABX]

It need not be that complicated.   Just revoke all Visas from the nations in question,  and order State not to issue any more.   

The rules at the port of entry are "No Visa,  no stay."   

All orders are carried out in the foreign nations where none of these courts have any jurisdiction. 


Same result,  and the courts can't do anything but roll around on the floor in a temper tantrum.

Here is the process for visa revocation under the current law. -- 22 CFR 41.122
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122

Didn't read it yet, just posting to be reviewed to see if this can be a viable option.

[don-o]

Shutdown US Customs at all points of entry.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Congress should immeadiately drop everything and get to work dismantling the current liberal controlled federal courts and reestablishing them as fair arbiters of the law. AKA Fire the most leftist of the judges/those with records of judicial advocacy.

Congress doesn't have the balls.   At least not the Republican side of it anyway. 

[Norm Lenhart]

I don't understand how they can rule the way they do when the constitution and law are so clear on this matter   Then again they are the 9 th circus.  It shows how leftist our country has become  I'm  not sure there is any turning back at this point

Because they don't care about actual law and have had 8 years of ignoring it to govern from the bench.

[jpsb]

No, they won't get it until G is seated.

Neil Gorsuch is fine with a political court rewriting the constitution. I hope Trump pulls his nomination. He is not fit to be on the Supreme Court.

[Norm Lenhart]

Congress doesn't have the balls.   At least not the Republican side of it anyway.

No they don't. Because people chose to elect the ballless 'no matter what'.

Well some of us tried explaining why RINOS should be cast aside even if we lost a couple seats, but no. Now here we are with a FULLY ballless congress.

Someone remind me how a Dem is worse than a RINO when they both serve the left.

[DiogenesLamp]

Here is the process for visa revocation under the current law. -- 22 CFR 41.122
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122

Didn't read it yet, just posting to be reviewed to see if this can be a viable option.

I think you only have to read the first portion.   Unless it does some backpeddling later in the text,  this pretty much clinches it.

(a)Grounds for revocation by consular officers.
A consular officer, the Secretary, or a Department official to whom the Secretary has delegated this authority is authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in his or her discretion.

Bam!   Put that in your pipe and smoke it 9th circus! 

[r9etb]

As I  posted upthread, this opinion contains no reference to either the law or fact.  Just a bunch of emotional BS.

I wonder how many on this thread realize what this ruling was even about?

Note: this decision is not about the EO itself; it's a ruling about whether or not to issue a stay on the District Court's Temporary Restraining Order.

They conclude briefly, as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

[Silver Pines]

The Tweet from Trump indicates that Jeff Sessions, the new Atty. General is going to bring this case to the Supreme Court.

I'm afraid it will be either a 4-4 or 5-3 decision ( Justice Kennedy might side with the left side of the court ).

I won't say I'm optimistic.  National sovereignty...who cares?  /s

[DiogenesLamp]

I wonder how many on this thread realize what this ruling was even about?

Note: this decision is not about the EO itself; it's a ruling about whether or not to issue a stay on the District Court's Temporary Restraining Order.

They conclude briefly, as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

You keep trying to turn simple things into three dimensional chess.   This ruling was about who was going to run Barter Town.   Nothing more complicated than that. 


The Ninth circus is going to find out that Trump runs Barter Town. 

[mrclose]

Seems pretty clear to me ....

Title 8 § 12 US Code Part II 1182 (f):
- - -
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 non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

[don-o]

New eo adding 7 more countries.

Now

[r9etb]

You keep trying to turn simple things into three dimensional chess.   This ruling was about who was going to run Barter Town.   Nothing more complicated than that. 


The Ninth circus is going to find out that Trump runs Barter Town.

I guess that makes sense to somebody.  I must not be drunk enough to understand it.

[Norm Lenhart]

You keep trying to turn simple things into three dimensional chess.   This ruling was about who was going to run Barter Town.   Nothing more complicated than that. 


The Ninth circus is going to find out that Trump runs Barter Town.

Since he seems to be taking it to the Supreme court, he should temporarily reassign every immigration agent to Needles CA., close the offices at all points of entry and station ICE at the airports. With no one to process them, they become illegal aliens and as they were never 'checked in' to American soil, they can be put right back on the plane they arrived on.

I'd give the originating airports a heads up to minimize problems on both ends. Let the courts try to stop THAT without grossly exceeding their authority and pissing off the public.

[Bigun]

I wonder how many on this thread realize what this ruling was even about?

Note: this decision is not about the EO itself; it's a ruling about whether or not to issue a stay on the District Court's Temporary Restraining Order.

They conclude briefly, as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

This case is about only one thing.  Does the president have the authority to do what he did or not.

[DiogenesLamp]

I guess that makes sense to somebody.  I must not be drunk enough to understand it.

Must not be a "Mad Max"  fan.

[INVAR]

This ruling was about who was going to run Barter Town.   Nothing more complicated than that. 


The Ninth circus is going to find out that Trump runs Barter Town.

No one under 35 is going to get that reference.

[mystery-ak]

After listening to Jay Sekulow last night on Tucker Carlson's show,,he should argue this case before the courts

[montanajoe]

Likely will be a 4-4 tie at the Supreme Court...

Maybe a little payback for leaving Scalia's seat unfilled??

[DiogenesLamp]

No one under 35 is going to get that reference.

That could be the problem, though I find it hard to believe because "The Road Warrior"  was such a great movies,  and that point about "Who Runs Barter Town?"  (in the sequel) was profound. 


All my kids loved those movies. 

[Norm Lenhart]

That could be the problem, though I find it hard to believe because "The Road Warrior"  was such a great movies,  and that point about "Who Runs Barter Town?"  (in the sequel) was profound. 


All my kids loved those movies.

Thats fortunate as they will be living in them before long.

Well not exactly fortunate, but on the positive side, they'll understand the world they will be in better than any liberal.

[r9etb]

This case is about only one thing.  Does the president have the authority to do what he did or not.

Maybe so.  However, this decision does not resolve that question. 

The ruling handed down today addresses the following: "The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds."

The decision handed down today denies the emergency stay.  It is not a ruling on the appeal itself.

[skeeter]

Maybe so.  However, this decision does not resolve that question. 

The ruling handed down today addresses the following: "The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds."

The decision handed down today denies the emergency stay.  It is not a ruling on the appeal itself.

On what basis did it deny the administrations request?

[Norm Lenhart]

Maybe so.  However, this decision does not resolve that question. 

The ruling handed down today addresses the following: "The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds."

The decision handed down today denies the emergency stay.  It is not a ruling on the appeal itself.

The court has no standing to rule at all. the law is clear. The power rests in the executive. This is like a girl that tells her parents she's going to the prom with the local drug lord, her parents telling her no and her asking what time they expect her home.

She ain't going so it don't matter.