Appeals Court Rules Against the Government!

christiefan915 said:
The three-judge panel hearing the case included Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.

"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," they wrote.

"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."


http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/318327-appeals-court-rejects-trump-on-travel-ban
Click to expand...

interesting.....

are you saying they didn't rule on the merits of the order but only on whether the federal judiciary has the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.\ ?

I thought that was a given.
 
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."
Click to expand...
what's the Constitutional challenge -that the TRO's Constitutional reasoning is valid?
Robards specifically challenged the effectivity of the temporary travel ban-which is NOT what any judge has any say on -specifically when the Stuatory language is clear this is an exclusive executive purview.

This is a judicial embarassment. I can't wait to read the bogus "decision"behind it.
 
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."
Click to expand...
what's the Constitutional challenge -that the TRO's Constitutional reasoning is valid?
Robards specifically challenged the effectivity of the temporary travel ban-which is NOT what any judge has any say on -specifically when the Stuatory language is clear this is an exclusive executive purview.

This is a judicial embarassment. I can't wait to read the bogus "decision"behind it.
 
anatta said:
what's the Constitutional challenge -that the TRO's Constitutional reasoning is valid?
Robards specifically challenged the effectivity of the temporary travel ban-which is NOT what any judge has any say on -specifically when the Stuatory language is clear this is an exclusive executive purview.

This is a judicial embarassment. I can't wait to read the bogus "decision"behind it.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the question was only on " if the state of WA. had standing to question Trumps order "....
 
You don't have to be a lawyer to know that judges protect other judges like the way cops protect other cops. Calling judges biased because of their ethnicity or "so-called judge" not to mention accusing the courts of being "political" is a really dumb idea if you are a lawyer, a plaintiff or a defendant. You can bet your sweet gavel that Chief Justice Roberts is following Trump's insulting Tweets closely and he ain't smiling. Our prez is so dumb!
 
lol. So they did not lift the TRO because they said the stance of the government was that the action was "unreviewable" and proceeded to judge based on that. They did not bother to look at it from the current standard of substanial deference to the elected branches as they admit too in their own decision. (around page 12-14)

This is the very definition of a strawman :D About what you would expect from the ninth circuit.
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top