Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Yep, reminiscent of when the scotus looked at the ACA and changed the clear meaning of the word "State" to mean Federal Gov't. I lost faith back then in an "honest" judiciary.
Appeals Court Rules Against the Government!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Yep, reminiscent of when the scotus looked at the ACA and changed the clear meaning of the word "State" to mean Federal Gov't. I lost faith back then in an "honest" judiciary.
Most of their decision is also based on visa holders and green card holders. They specifically say they are ignoring the clarifications of the white house that this EO does not apply to them.
Best of all on page 25 they specifically claim that the only evidence they have for a muslim ban is campaign statements and giuliani and they have 0 evidence otherwise but they will be upholding it
I can't wait..... looking forward to the orange meltdown!
OldMercsRule
Verified User
These judges need to be impeached.
The ninth circus is a joke.
If harm cums from people who woud have been blocked entering during this period the blood will be on these pukes hands.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Exposing this kind of corruption in our judicial system is part of draining the swamp. But you call it want you want.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Exposing this kind of corruption in our judicial system is part of draining the swamp. But you call it want you want.
i just heard about that - that's an excellent point..Most of their decision is also based on visa holders and green card holders. They specifically say they are ignoring the clarifications of the white house that this EO does not apply to them.
Best of all on page 25 they specifically claim that the only evidence they have for a muslim ban is campaign statements and giuliani and they have 0 evidence otherwise but they will be upholding it
Clearly the 9th is acting in bad faith by not taking that clarification into effect,
but at the same time taking old campaign rhetoric and Guliani hearsay into consideration!!
Exposing this kind of corruption in our judicial system is part of draining the swamp. But you call it want you want.
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.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
And I've seen you claim these 3 judges will be reversed by the Scotus. So what are you trying to say? ... that my knowledge of the law is equal to, or surpasses yours?
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
And I've seen you claim these 3 judges will be reversed by the Scotus. So what are you trying to say? ... that my knowledge of the law is equal to, or surpasses yours?
This site keeps double posting. Hope it doesn't go down again.
christiefan915
Catalyst
The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches
—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g. , Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that
“the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell
430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches
with respect to national security and foreign relations).
Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable
even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the
judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one. There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental
structure of our constitutional democracy.
See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction
over enemy combatants,because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will
sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel.Zivotofsky v. Clinton 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)).
We are called upon to perform that duty in this case. Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security,
neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary,
the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when
policymaking in that context.
christiefan915
Catalyst
This seems pretty clear to me: "..neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary,
the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when
policymaking in that context."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the courts sided with the government over EO 9066 and Korematsu v. US. they should have done with this as well. this was purely political and nothing more than a flipping the bird gesture to the executive office.
the courts are wrong.
the courts are wrong.
I'm saying that there is not a clear right and wrong here and just because three judges ruled against the president does not mean they are corrupt.
christiefan915
Catalyst
And:
"while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that...
the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that
the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war.
see also United States v. Robel
389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967) (“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. .
It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”);
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (“imply because a statute deals with foreign relations [does not mean that] it can grant the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice.")
"while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that...
the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that
the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war.
see also United States v. Robel
389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967) (“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. .
It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”);
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (“
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
ah i see it now. that DoJ guy said "it's un-reviewable" during the Orals. what a hack
christiefan915
Catalyst
It's hopeless arguing with Damo once he digs his heels in. I and others have been there, too.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
It is clear and they are corrupt.