Appeals Court Rules Against Trump

[Frederick Foresight]

This is of course a frivolous suit brought by leftists to be ruled on by leftists. On that there is no need to debate. The whole thing is nothing more than a stalling tactic. The courts are all they have left and luckily for them they have filled the courts with radical leftists. Can't say they weren't thinking ahead. With crazy assed idealogy as they have even the democrats knew they would eventually lose all power to govern. They're now playing their hole card and frankly going to be very effective in bringing the most everything to a slow grind.

Thank you for providing a pristine example of a leftist legal opinion that has nothing to do with the actual law as it's written. All of what you state may be true depending on ones point of view and none of it is relevant to the case. As a member of the party of intellectuals you once again illustrate absolute and total ignorance of constitutional law, and this particular statute is brain dead easy to understand unlike much of law which is written to make your head swim.

If only the judges in this case had your legal training and background...

 

[Frederick Foresight]

You alternate between being the victim and declaring victory on every headline.

It is painful to watch.

 

[fhl]

Either congress agrees with this decision, or they have no backbone at all to do something about it.

Here is from Article 111, section 2 of the constitution:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Iow, congress could simply take away the appellate court's right to engage in this chicanery. I've read where they could just eliminate many courts completely if they want to. They don't want to. Even if their constituents get killed.

 

[Tom B]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

. Not a ban. Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat. The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.

How many Iraqi refugees were admitted during Obama's six month non-ban?

 

[wildchild]

You've nicely, and quite inadvertently, summarized the ups and downs of democracy -- maybe not your intention, but you've done it nevertheless.. We all know that the defect in democracy is that the majority doesn't always want what's best, but the majority always wants what they think is best. So an adjunct to democracy, and what makes it successful, is the loud voices of opposition, which sometimes takes to the street. The two elements together, i.e., majority rule and loud vociferous protest, result in the best form of government, once an adjustment for risk is included. What I man by that is that a benevolent dictatorship is, of course, the best, and certainly the most efficient, form of government, as long as risk doesn't enter into the picture. But risk does enter, so the best we can do is democracy combined with free speech.

For democracy, i.e. majority rule, to work well, it must be combined with free speech. Democracy and Free Speech in combination are not always wonderful, but always great! When a travesty results from majority rule, unfettered speech comes to the rescue, and vice versa.

We live in a Constitutional Republic, at least we did at one time.

 

[MoneyMatthew]

How dare you try to demonize other immigrants when you constantly declare yourself American yet reside in my country.

So you berate achilles28 for holding some perceived American Nationalistic viewpoint while living in Canada yet you defend those who wave Mexican Flags in the United States? To top it off you throw in the line "yet you reside in my country". Is this an attempt at humor or are you really this much of a broken logic hypocrite????

By the way, refugees/immigrants who have never set foot on U.S. soil do not have access to Constitutional Due Process. Go crack open another Molson, catch up on Women's Curling and leave the Constitutional discussions to those folks South of your border while we handle our Southern Border you maple leaf shaped snowflake!

 

[fhl]

 

[piezoe]

J Burton‏@JBurtonXP 11h11 hours ago


These people look at the Constitution and swear gay marriage is in there but the right to control our borders isn't. No reasoning with that.

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution but equal protection is! We do control our borders and the control is tighter than it has ever been. So the case is obviously not about whether the U.S. can control its borders. That's already settled. It can. This case is about something else. I'm not sure what it is about. I presume that will become clear as the case winds its way through the Court System. One possibility is that it's about whether executive orders must have a rational basis. Is whatever the President says true and unchallengeable, or may the President's decisions be challenged in court? Must those decisions have a rational basis, or can they be based on pandering to a political base without a rational basis underlying them? Can actual harm outweigh conjectural harm? Stay tuned, We will know the answers to these questions in good time. We don't elect Presidents democratically, and the courts don't make decisions based on opinion polls. If you want to change that, your going to need a different constitution.

 

[piezoe]

We live in a Constitutional Republic, at least we did at one time.

I think we still do, but despite all the wonderful progress made in the last 60 years or so, it is still not a perfect Constitutional Republic. It's just a very good one. Let's not do anything to screw it up.

 

[piezoe]

1. 
   Porter‏@porter14159 2h2 hours ago
   
   
   Laws and national policy are going to be set by someone. It shouldn't be someone who doesn't bother to get elected.
   
   

Would any kind of "election" be suitable here, or must the election be democratic?