Judicial Tyranny and the Ninth Circuit
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
OldMercsRule
Verified User
You are so fucking stupid it is hard to understand how you can breathe without assistance: gay Viking. If 7 billion people are granted due process under the US Constitution, we no longer have a country.
OldMercsRule
Verified User
Bill Fishlore
New member
Trump and his dupes have severed the balance between executive and judicial. Congress, including an ever-growing majority of Republicans regards Donald J. Trump as a turd in the federal swimming pool. Trump is pretty much out of lies and out of running room. At this rate, he will be gone before the next elections.
the balance between executive and judicial has been blown wide open and its the ninth circuit who did it. There is a reason why some doors stay closed. If you open them even a little bit they get blown wide open and the mexican rape gang gets you.
This is what I dont understand about liberals. The courts should have nowhere near this much power and you are giving it to them. KNOWING FULL WELL TRUMP WILL GET 1-3 PICKS AND YOU WILL NOT GET A MAJORITY IN THIS LIFETIME. not to mention the 100's of leftover judges obama hasnt nominated. The only way you will get back the judiciary is if you pull a TR and increase the number of seats and you want to make it the most powerful branch.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
You screaming it doesn't make it true.
It looks like you have decided to fill the void of Deshtard
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Whatever happened to your RW "natural rights" argument, bitch?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Trump = stumped
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Awww is your butt hurt tsuke?
uh no. I just pointed out that it will be hilarious if this is controlling law as the right will be controlling the SC. Just as the left can get anything it wants thru the 9th the right can get anything it wants thru the 5th.
natural rights are universal - "endowed by the Creator"- due process is a legal construct.
If you are going to write something on this don't you think you should give people access to the source? No, why make it easier to check your work, huh? You did not even bother to quote relevant passages.
I assume you are talking about the more recent ruling on the motion for a stay and not the tro.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
Your analysis is all garbage. They denied a motion for a stay. It's a preliminary ruling and can not set any precedent on anything but other motions for a stay.
We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.
The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.
Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an applicant satisfies the first two factors,” id. at 435. We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay.
Liar. They said it was just a directive from White House counsel who has no legal authority. Contradictory to your claim they said even excluding the green card holders would not change their ruling.
The Government has argued that, even if lawful permanent residents have due process rights, the States’ challenge to section 3(c) based on its application to lawful permanent residents is moot because several days after the Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.
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.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added).
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33-34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order. Indeed, the existence of such persons is obvious.
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993)
I have no idea what you are referencing. Maybe from the background section?
Nope and there was nothing new on that either.
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).
I assume you are talking about the more recent ruling on the motion for a stay and not the tro.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
Your analysis is all garbage. They denied a motion for a stay. It's a preliminary ruling and can not set any precedent on anything but other motions for a stay.
We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.
The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.
Nope. Need determines whether a stay will be granted not Constitutionality.
Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an applicant satisfies the first two factors,” id. at 435. We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay.
Liar. They said it was just a directive from White House counsel who has no legal authority. Contradictory to your claim they said even excluding the green card holders would not change their ruling.
The Government has argued that, even if lawful permanent residents have due process rights, the States’ challenge to section 3(c) based on its application to lawful permanent residents is moot because several days after the Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.
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.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added).
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33-34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order. Indeed, the existence of such persons is obvious.
Nothing new here.
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993)
I have no idea what you are referencing. Maybe from the background section?
Nope and there was nothing new on that either.
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).
Your creator dropped the ball on these refugees, didn't he/she/it?
I rarely quote the original article as it is widely available.
First off if the issuing entity itself cannot issue rules regarding its implementation then who can? The government itself was arguing to the court that it did not mean for visa holders to be hit.
There is an exemption clause as well so they can exempt the people who have visas. But no the court wants it in writing.
Next even if the courts deem that the law is discriminatory to muslims because of the christian exemption then they strike down that christian exemption.
Now compare the EO to lukumi. In Lukumi the law created an exception for every single other thing under the sun for animal sacrifices in their jurisdiction. There were other laws and exemptions accompanying the original one to hit the worshippers. AND THAT WAS USED TO DERIVE INTENT. The city had a long history of other legislation doing this. In the case of Trump it was just public utterances on the campaign trail most of which HE HAD ALREADY CHANGED. This clearly sets a standard over and above lukumi.
Read your own definition of due process. It applies to all people inside the united states. Not to people from outside the country some of which may not even have expressed the intention to go to the US. This clearly is a new standard.
Lastly I stand by the fact that a court should have no business determining the constitutionality of a certain thing by its need. Notice they did not even discuss #1 despite clearly stating there is a strong deference to the elected branches as stated in their own decision. Their only justification is they did not see a need for it. As if anyone ever elected them to do that.
This is why you do not take the court decisions , even the Supreme Court, as gospel truth. They will and always do get stuff wrong.
The way they applied other laws in this case clearly sets a much higher standard than there ever was and sets new ones in some cases.
You offered no support for your assertions. I mean, I was able to guess at what you were referring to in most cases but it is still a shitty and lazy job on your part.
Arguments in a legal hearing are not law. Neither is the guidance of White House counsel.
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.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added).
The guidance from counsel could change.
That's not the reason they gave and they did not even make a conclusion on the religious discrimination.
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
Did you read the ruling?
None of your comments are relevant or accurate. In the case cited the court considered taped excerpts of the Hialeah City Council Meeting and not just the law itself. That's the part that is relevant.
You did not include my entire definition, apparently did not read the section of the ruling cited very well and the the part about the refugees is established by US law as cited. Here it is again...
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33-34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive.
Here is the law that I believe they are referring to in regard to the refugees.
Policy. - It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States. - See more at:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IV/1231/notes#sthash.DVKdw2DP.dpuf
You have no clue what you are talking about. They did not determine the constitutionality based on need. In order for the court to grant a stay the government has to show there is a pressing need. Otherwise, the matter will wait for a full hearing. It was not about constitutionality.
#1??? What?
You are clueless. It's preliminary ruling, a motion for a stay. It does not establish any precedent and the points you raised are based on preexisting statutory and case law.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
The 9th Circus has been bitchslapped so many times by the SCOTUS that it's almost laughable. This'll get overturned also and Law & Order will rule the day.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Rights are a legal construct.