Appeals Court Rules Against the Government!

There's one for Damo.... that's exactly the opposite of what he claimed when he said that I didn't understand constitutional law. Guess I understood a little better than him
the statute IS "unreviewable"- in that the plain clear language of the statue itself is irrefutable.
Unreviewable is a loaded word and should not have been used.
 
The judges probably didn't mean for this to be snarky but I laughed when I read it.

Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for
enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments.

Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative
and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings. On this record, therefore, we cannot conclude that the Government has shown that it is “
absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be
expected to recur.”
 
the statute IS "unreviewable"- in that the plain clear language of the statue itself is irrefutable.
Unreviewable is a loaded word and should not have been used.

It appears to have been reviewed! 3-0!
 
The one thing I love about this ruling is that one of the three Ninth Circus justices in the ruling is a Carter appointee. Jimmy's been out of office for 36 years, but his decisions are still harming America nonetheless!

:fuckyeah:
 
the statute IS "unreviewable"- in that the plain clear language of the statue itself is irrefutable.
Unreviewable is a loaded word and should not have been used.

Given that it is a national security issue, in which the judges are unqualified to make a detertimination of the threat, it should have been ruled unreviewable.
 
And yet you agree with me that it is clear that it will be reversed.

:rofl2:

No I don't think it's clear, it's just my guess.

Also the Supreme Court will not be deciding a TRO but the actual issue... thus a more difficult standard for the appellants.
 
Last edited:
Given that it is a national security issue, in which the judges are unqualified to make a detertimination of the threat, it should have been ruled unreviewable.
the guy who dd the Orals was terrible.
He was directly asked if the XO is un-reviewable, and he conflated the irrefutable (my words) language
of the statute (you know what refer- i don't feel like looking it up- it's that "proclamation power")
to a larger point that POTUS has unreviewable powers by the courts.

The need staff.
they just got an AG today,and they don't have a solicitor general who would normally handle the Orals.
The Dems are gonna use "lawfare" ( meaning law-warfare),and they better get ready for lawfare obstructionism
 
Given that it is a national security issue, in which the judges are unqualified to make a detertimination of the threat, it should have been ruled unreviewable.

Be honest. The government made a lousy case.

The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. [Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.]
Although
we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,”
[Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010)], the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.
Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be
placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district
court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any
alien from any of the countries named in the Order has
perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive
Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.

We disagree, as explained above.
 
Be honest. The government made a lousy case.

The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. [Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.]
Although
we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,”
[Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010)], the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.
Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be
placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district
court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any
alien from any of the countries named in the Order has
perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive
Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.

We disagree, as explained above.

The government made a good case. The justices are corrupt. Drain the swamp!
 
my gawd..i glanced thru the opion ( see it at WaPo) and the 9th upholds the TRO in part along the Establishment as a "Muslim ban" -disproportionate effect on Muslims..

It goes on to say the XO is reviewable despite the claims of POTUS hat it has exclusive authority on"proclamation"
according to the well quoted statute.

Unreal..
I've come to the conclusion 1/2 the country is bonkers,and the judiciary is hopelessly politicized..
Our checks and balances by the courts are now skewed by politics

9th Circuit has always been hopelessly politicized......
 
3-0! But yeah, you know a whole lot more about the law then the three judges of the ninth circuit court of appeals in this opinion.

actually yes.....or at least we don't ignore it......they may know it, they simply choose to disregard it......the sad thing is, Gorloch thinks they shouldn't be disparaged.....
 
Back
Top