Appeals court judge wants vote on whether to reconsider travel ban ruling

[Right_in_Virginia]

Appeals court judge wants vote on whether to reconsider travel ban ruling
The Hill, Feb 10, 2017, Melanie Zanona

A judge on a San Francisco-based appeals court has requested that the entire court vote on whether to review a three-judge panel’s decision to not reinstate President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructed the administration and the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota, to file legal briefs by next Thursday with their opinions about whether the ruling should be reviewed “en banc.”

That process would task the entire 11-judge appeals court at the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case. The three-judge panel unanimously declined to lift a temporary restraining order on Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees on Thursday evening.

More:  http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/319047-appeals-court-judge-wants-vote-on-whether-to-review-travel-ban

[beandog]

I've never heard of this happening.  Do anybody know if it has and why it has?

[Norm Lenhart]

I've never heard of this happening.  Do anybody know if it has and why it has?

Because one realized how badly they screwed up and the bit about breaking up the 9th is being taken seriously.

Protecting their meal ticket.

Or they want an 11-0 decision to rub it in.

[beandog]

Because one realized how badly they screwed up and the bit about breaking up the 9th is being taken seriously.

Protecting their meal ticket.

Or they want an 11-0 decision to rub it in.

I'm going to go with the 11-0 decision to rub it in.  They are so arrogant that they really don't worry about the other stuff.

[Bigun]

I've never heard of this happening.  Do anybody know if it has and why it has?

IIRC our current  SCOTUS  nominee  did it on the 10th fairly recently.

[beandog]

IIRC our current  SCOTUS  nominee  did it on the 10th fairly recently.

That's interesting.  Did it change the outcome?  Maybe somebody just wants to have their say so we don't think they're all dummies.

[libertybele]

That's interesting.  Did it change the outcome?  Maybe somebody just wants to have their say so we don't think they're all dummies. liberals.

 

[Bigun]

That's interesting.  Did it change the outcome?  Maybe somebody just wants to have their say so we don't think they're all dummies.

My recollection was apparently somewhat faulty on this.  Cannot find the case.

[DCPatriot]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html

Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THIS may be why they're doing this.   Trying to save their stupid a$$es.

[massadvj]

I think it is more about getting a unanimous ruling to add credibility.  Trump refusing to back down when he is wrong on the law pisses them off.  I doubt the court would have  upheld if the order excluded green card holders.  But the case can be made that legal residents have constitutional rights, and the constitution says you can't discriminate based on national origin.  Trump's exec order was thus unconstitutional on its face.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Appeals court judge wants vote on whether to reconsider travel ban ruling
The Hill, Feb 10, 2017, Melanie Zanona

A judge on a San Francisco-based appeals court has requested that the entire court vote on whether to review a three-judge panel’s decision to not reinstate President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructed the administration and the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota, to file legal briefs by next Thursday with their opinions about whether the ruling should be reviewed “en banc.”

That process would task the entire 11-judge appeals court at the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case. The three-judge panel unanimously declined to lift a temporary restraining order on Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees on Thursday evening.

More:  http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/319047-appeals-court-judge-wants-vote-on-whether-to-review-travel-ban

Maybe the word 'impeachment' has reached the ears of the three stooges who ruled on this, and they decided to seek refuge in numbers.

Most likely, it was a call from Kennedy for them do it the right way.

[Emjay]

I believe that the Trump administration is working on a new executive order that would clarify some of the issues that are bothering some people.

That's probably the way to go.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I believe that the Trump administration is working on a new executive order that would clarify some of the issues that are bothering some people.

That's probably the way to go.

 


I will say it would be better to get Congress involved.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe that the Trump administration is working on a new executive order that would clarify some of the issues that are bothering some people.

That's probably the way to go.

Not too sure of that.

While a new EO may be ok, the most obvious attempt to usurp Congress's and Executive's Constitutional powers needs a strong rebuke.

Leaving the 9th and the outlaw Seattle judge without one emboldens them and others further.

It needs to be shut down and hard.

[Bigun]

Not too sure of that.

While a new EO may be ok, the most obvious attempt to usurp Congress's and Executive's Constitutional powers needs a strong rebuke.

Leaving the 9th and the outlaw Seattle judge without one emboldens them and others further.

It needs to be shut down and hard.

I couldn't agree more! 

[DiogenesLamp]

Because one realized how badly they screwed up and the bit about breaking up the 9th is being taken seriously.

Protecting their meal ticket.

Or they want an 11-0 decision to rub it in.

They want to get in on the "virtue signaling" to show how caring they are.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think it is more about getting a unanimous ruling to add credibility.  Trump refusing to back down when he is wrong on the law pisses them off.

When they ASSERT he is wrong on the law.  He is absolutely correct on the law.  They are absolutely incorrect on the law.   Yes,  that he just doesn't accept their babble as true,  pisses them off.

  I doubt the court would have  upheld if the order excluded green card holders.  But the case can be made that legal residents have constitutional rights, and the constitution says you can't discriminate based on national origin.

And where does the constitution say this?  What Article,  what clause is that under? 

Trump's exec order was thus unconstitutional on its face.

Incorrect.   The President can ban anyone for any reason that suits him from coming into the nation.    Period.  Exclamation point.  Drop Mike.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Not too sure of that.

While a new EO may be ok, the most obvious attempt to usurp Congress's and Executive's Constitutional powers needs a strong rebuke.

Leaving the 9th and the outlaw Seattle judge without one emboldens them and others further.

It needs to be shut down and hard.

This.  That Judge,  and the ninth circuit needs to be figuratively smashed across the mouth with a political baseball bat.   They are out of  line, and they need to be out of their jobs. 

[DCPatriot]

They want to get in on the "virtue signaling" to show how caring they are.

At this time, for me, it's like choosing black or red at the roulette wheel table.

I'm going with the hunch, several of the 9th Circuit judges are concerned that the world now knows up to 80% of their decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court....just one floor above theirs, btw.

They all don't want to hang together. 

Let's face it.  It's a fact the State and Federal courts have been stocked with leftist ideologues, and need to be removed in favor of true Constitutionalists first and foremost.

I hope the bill introduced to break them up is taken seriously, and gets coverage by the media.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Michael Delauzon ‏@MichaelDelauzon 1h1 hour ago More
>>>WHITE HOUSE CONFIRMED it will fight in court and issue a new 'bullet proof' executive order soon.

[Bigun]

Excellent news if true!

[massadvj]

And where does the constitution say this?  What Article,  what clause is that under? 

Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People with green cards are legal residents and therefore entitled to equal protection.  National origin has long been held by common law under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to apply as a basis of possible discrimination.  The government can take away an individual's green card for cause, but it can't take away green cards or otherwise deny holders equal protection based on national origin.  That is pretty fundamental in the law, and why no federal judge, including all of those on the SCOTUS, would vote to uphold this order.

If Trump pursues this, it will be unanimous in the 9th Circus, and again unanimous against him in the SCOTUS.