Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
I agree with you. I take the law as a strict constructionist. They also know how to twist the ruling to accomplish their agenda. Let's not rule on the constitutional questions about executive powers.
This was responding to freeman but I will just disagree with you Ron and you LL. No one is going to change their minds. You are both anti-Trump and that is all I need to know.
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Here's my question - according to SCOTUS archives, the 9th Circuit has 79% of its decisions over turned. The 6th and 11th Circuits have 85% (or more) of their decisions over turned. Does that suggest that 'bad law' is being practiced in these Circuit courts? The rest of the Circuits all have reversal rates around half (or less).
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Quote:
Quoting
budwad
I agree with you. I take the law as a strict constructionist. They also know how to twist the ruling to accomplish their agenda. Let's not rule on the constitutional questions about executive powers.
This was responding to freeman but I will just disagree with you Ron and you LL. No one is going to change their minds. You are both anti-Trump and that is all I need to know.
Nothing anti-trump in what I said. I directly read what the 9th circuit actually said. It's a dispassionate read on the case. The 9th circuit didn't rule at all on the constituationality. It just says that the Federal government's case is not apparenlty a sure win. The procedural issues (that the state have no standing to sue or that EO's aren't judiciarlly reviewable) were pretty obviously dismissed out of hand. They think the Constituationality points aren't sure wins for the Feds either, so then they have to decide whehter the injunction is with merit. Since there's much more harm in repealing it than retaining it, they have to keep it.
Either way the 9th decided, this isn't the end of it anyhow. The decision is only on whether the ban would be stayed while the case proceeds through the court.
People can throw all the rhetoric at it they want, but it's reading too much into it to claim that this is a WIN or LOSS for either side. It just gives some comfort for the anti-Trump side in the short term.
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
The 9th circuit didn't rule at all on the constitutionality. It just says that the Federal government's case is not apparenlty a sure win.
That is one of my points. They could have if they chose to. They didn't because it didn't fit the narrative.
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
The procedural issues (that the state have no standing to sue or that EO's aren't judiciarlly reviewable) were pretty obviously dismissed out of hand. They think the Constituationality points aren't sure wins for the Feds either, so then they have to decide whehter the injunction is with merit. Since there's much more harm in repealing it than retaining it, they have to keep it.
You don't find it a little troubling that standing was based on a state's harm because a professor or speaker couldn't get into the country? And it wasn't that they couldn't get into the country, it was that they had to be vetted. Really?
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
Either way the 9th decided, this isn't the end of it anyhow. The decision is only on whether the ban would be stayed while the case proceeds through the court.
People can throw all the rhetoric at it they want, but it's reading too much into it to claim that this is a WIN or LOSS for either side. It just gives some comfort for the anti-Trump side in the short term.
I agree with you on these points. You can be sure that the next executive order will be better crafted. It's only been 26 days. I suppose there is a learning curve here.
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
And you have no f'ing clue what you're talking abouit. The ninth circuit didn't say what you allege nor apparently were the politically motivated (by the way they were Republican appointees).
What they ruled was there was inndeed standing and reviewability. Trump's arguments were pretty farcical especially on the last argument.
What they have stated is that there's a likelihood that the states will prevail in their case and the impacts of upholding the injunction far outweight the impact of releasing it.
Note, in analyzing the likelihood of success, the first Constitutional issue they held up is the DUE PROCESS clause. It's pretty apparent that there's not only no due process BEFORE the action was taken, this is even being denied AFTERWARDS. After acknowledging that issue, they address the religious discrimination issue which is with two parts. The first is the assertion that the ban specifically targets Muslims. This one perhaps is arguable since while the countries listed are predomiently muslim, there are many other countries (middle east and elsewhere in the world) that are predominently muslim and not affected. The thing that damn's Trump here is his own public rhetoric in which he states to ban muslim entry. Note that the "motivation" can determine constitutionality even if the effect is not all encompassing.
So the 9th circuit DESPITE YOUR PROTESTATIONS has not ruled the ban is unconstitutional.
It just has ruled that it's not clearly constitutional to the point that would justify removing the stay, weighed against the impact against the affected parties if it were indeed found unconstitutional.
You can read it here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/17-35105.pdf
THANK you.
Quote:
Quoting
budwad
That is one of my points. They could have if they chose to. They didn't because it didn't fit the narrative.
You don't find it a little troubling that standing was based on a state's harm because a professor or speaker couldn't get into the country? And it wasn't that they couldn't get into the country, it was that they had to be vetted. Really?
I agree with you on these points. You can be sure that the next executive order will be better crafted. It's only been 26 days. I suppose there is a learning curve here.
Yes, it's only been 26 days and look at the utter chaos brought into and by the new White House.
Can't blame Obama for that, my friend.
Quote:
Quoting
budwad
The decision of the 9th Circuit was a political decision where they parsed the executive order to fit their political needs. It was not based on the law although plenty of law was cited. It was wrong on standing, it was wrong on religion, it was wrong on a travel ban.
When judges have no f'ing clue (to quote a member) what the law is and promote a personal agenda you lose the rule of law.
Bud, with all due respect, do you actually know what the original EO said? Your writing suggests otherwise, hence my confusion.
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Yes, I have read it. You can read it here if you like.
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Quote:
Quoting
budwad
That is one of my points. They could have if they chose to. They didn't because it didn't fit the narrative.
You persist in seeing some leftist conspiracy here. They'd have to be even more right wing than Trump to summarily argue there's no possibility of a constitutional issue. The due process issue is pretty persuasive. You can't be holding people in airports and denying them access to legal counsel and the courts. There was good reason why Bush and Obama left the "ememy combatants" at Gitmo.
Quote:
You don't find it a little troubling that standing was based on a state's harm because a professor or speaker couldn't get into the country? And it wasn't that they couldn't get into the country, it was that they had to be vetted. Really?
They can't get into the country, you seem to not understand what is going on. They have already been vetted. This happened when the visa was issued. Again, the courts found the impact of the stay remaining to be more persuasive than the impact of ending it.
Again, the only issue is:
1. Does the plaintiff have a chance at previaling (even at some level)?
2. Is there some serious harm that results from the stay.
The court pretty well answered that in a dispassionate manner in the answer. Again, this is not a "liberal" leaning panel.
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Quote:
Quoting
budwad
Yes, I have read it. You can read it
here if you like.
.. and you still think the way you do? I'm genuinely confused. I do not understand how you get from A to Z when B through Y don't actually exist.
Afterthought: Okay, let's see a show of hands. Who amongst us is actually familiar with and has a decent understanding of the current visa process?
o/
(That's me, in case it wasn't obvious)
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
I think I have a reasonable understanding, seeing that I used to be the one in the office who worked with the immigration attorney who helped our employees through the visa process.
Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
I think I have a reasonable understanding, seeing that I used to be the one in the office who worked with the immigration attorney who helped our employees through the visa process.
*sidebar* I just ordered UK birth cert. for strategic CYA purposes.