Ninth Circuit Court to announce their decision Today

[Norm Lenhart]

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!

Notice how that simple fact gets talked around and not addressed?

[Fantom]

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

More than reasonable in my opine.

[Bigun]

Notice how that simple fact gets talked around and not addressed?

OH yeah!  Very much so!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

And therein is the problem:  The Executive is not subservient to the Judicial.  It has power vested to it by virtue of the Constitution.  Nothing done as yet by the Federal judge or the Appellate Judges can overturn Presidential prerogative.

So Trump will just ignore the ruling.  In doing so, we begin a tenuous journey that takes us to ignoring other parts of the Constitution.

Precedence has already been set in situations like the sanctuary cities that ignore the federal prerogative to make and enforce laws on immigration.

The end-game is whether we wish to remain a nation abiding by the rule of law or not.

A Seattle federal judge who decided to take on the President of the US began the path we take.

At the least, Sessions should investigate the breach of Constitutional authority by the judge in his ruling, and report to Congress on the need to impeach and remove this individual.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

And therein is the problem:  The Executive is not subservient to the Judicial.  It has power vested to it by virtue of the Constitution.  Nothing done as yet by the Federal judge or the Appellate Judges can overturn Presidential prerogative.

So Trump will just ignore the ruling.  In doing so, we begin a tenuous journey that takes us to ignoring other parts of the Constitution.

Precedence has already been set in situations like the sanctuary cities that ignore the federal prerogative to make and enforce laws on immigration.

The end-game is whether we wish to remain a nation abiding by the rule of law or not.

A Seattle federal judge who decided to take on the President of the US began the path we take.

At the least, Sessions should investigate the breach of Constitutional authority by the judge in his ruling, and report to Congress on the need to impeach and remove this individual.

Last Supreme Court Judge to be impeached for an overly "partisan" ruler was Samuel Chase back around the beginning of the 19th century sometime.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

[r9etb]

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!

It's a moot point, because apparently the Gov't didn't argue that way in any case. 

They devote a lot of discussion to the question of the court's standing to rule on national security issues -- look it up.

What the decision does say, is this: "Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, 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."

IOW, the gov't didn't make the case for an emergency stay.

[Fantom]

Notice how that simple fact gets talked around and not addressed?

Indeed, and seeing as how the Judicial branch is only equal to the Executive branch ..or Legislative for that matter, as plenipotentiary is the SCOTUS.

That is a minor functionary, as is a District trial judge, does not have the power to overrule a President or Congress.

That would be like letting Barnie Fife arrest a SCOTUS judge for what he believes to be treason.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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 Executive does not have to submit his declaration of a national emergency to any court. It must take his word on it.

Unconstitutional.

[Bigun]

It's a moot point, because apparently the Gov't didn't argue that way in any case. 

They devote a lot of discussion to the question of the court's standing to rule on national security issues -- look it up.

What the decision does say, is this: "Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, 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."

IOW, the gov't didn't make the case for an emergency stay.

And what you don't seem to understand is that they don't need to offer any evidence!  The president and the president alone has the duty to make that determination and to act accordingly!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

If the Executive declares there is a national security matter, no court has the authority to say otherwise.

It is ended when the national security is declared.

Courts are assuming way too much authority that they do not possess.

Watch DT ignore them.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If the Executive declares there is a national security matter, no court has the authority to say otherwise.

It is ended when the national security is declared.

Courts are assuming way too much authority that they do not possess.

Watch DT ignore them.

Well then watch Trump get his dumb ass impeached.

[skeeter]

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!

Excellent point needing repeating: one judge in Seattle, much less three oft-overturned wacko judges in SF, who have no clue whats happening internationally with regards to nation'l security (a good part based upon classified info) don't get to define whats a clear & present danger to the nation.

[skeeter]

I'm pretty sure that Assad's definition of 'terrorist' is much different than the rest of the world's definition of the word 'terrorist'.

His is a "if they don't support my reign, they are a terrorist".

So a Seattle judge knows better.

[Norm Lenhart]

Sooo...

... no imports/exports, no one allowed into or out of the country (US citizen or not).

Completely sealing the border.


Geez.

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Last Supreme Court Judge to be impeached for an overly "partisan" ruler was Samuel Chase back around the beginning of the 19th century sometime.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

Yeah, but wasn't old Alcee Hastings impeached and removed back in 1989 as a federal judge for bribery and perjury?

Folks back in Florida forgave him as he is a sitting US Representative.

[Fantom]

I'm pretty sure that Assad's definition of 'terrorist' is much different than the rest of the world's definition of the word 'terrorist'.

His is a "if they don't support my reign, they are a terrorist".

Ah, the obama definition.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That would be like letting Barnie Fife arrest a SCOTUS judge for what he believes to be treason.

I think I saw that episode.  Didn't Andy find a way to convince Barney to send Otis to the tank instead?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well then watch Trump get his dumb ass impeached.

By who?  We have a GOP Congress.

Are you serious?

[alicewonders]

Yea but I prefer the fantasy where constitutional law still governs America. Good old Mitch. Thank god smart pragmarists won the day and kept sending him to DC along with the other surrender monkeys.

Thanks RINO voters! Wonder who ends up dead and on your consciences over it this month. You are 100% responsible.

Don't blame me.  I live in KY - didn't vote for Mitch in the primary, or in the general election.  His opponent put up a good fight, and is now our Governor, and we have a Republican state controlled gov't for the first time in 75 years now. 

But, you don't understand the Mitch Machine - Bevin came the closest to beating him, but McConnell is a dirty worm.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

By who?  We have a GOP Congress.

Are you serious?

Yeah, they were ready to impeach Nixon. Trump isn't all that popular or well liked. Democrats would certainly not object. And they'd get Pence.


Not much downside to it. And if Trump is ignoring courts, his popularity would be even lower then.


No brainer.

[Norm Lenhart]

By who?  We have a GOP Congress.

Are you serious?

I want to see congress impeach a president that has the majority of america suporting him over a matter of national security.

The problem here is some people hate Trump more than they love their country. Thus all the idiocy we see about impeachment and judges usurping the exec in matters of national security, the feelings bases nonsense over poor widdle muslims inconvenienced and more.

[Fantom]

I think I saw that episode.  Didn't Andy find a way to convince Barney to send Otis to the tank instead?

Get with the times..."Barney" is transgendered now...I.E. Barnie.   

[Norm Lenhart]

Don't blame me.  I live in KY - didn't vote for Mitch in the primary, or in the general election.  His opponent put up a good fight, and is now our Governor, and we have a Republican state controlled gov't for the first time in 75 years now. 

But, you don't understand the Mitch Machine - Bevin came the closest to beating him, but McConnell is a dirty worm.

Oh but I do understand. The problem isn't mitch or his machine. the problem is unprincipled cowards in a voting booth.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I want to see congress impeach a president that has the majority of america suporting him over a matter of national security.

The problem here is some people hate Trump more than they love their country. Thus all the idiocy we see about impeachment and judges usurping the exec in matters of national security, the feelings bases nonsense over poor widdle muslims inconvenienced and more.

They impeached Clinton. clinton was popular at the time, which is probably the only reason he kept his seat.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm going to read this absurdity of an opinion again later, but it seems to me that the 9th Circuit Court has established that anyone alive anywhere on Earth now has rights under the US Constitution.