Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump's travel ban

[newwurldmn]

False analogy, even if your assumptions are accepted.

The Judicial Branch has no constitutional right to review immigration policy. His intent is irrelevant. In any case he has the inherent right to ban any group he wants for any reason. Foreigners do not have a constitutional right to immigrate here. All these cases involve elaborate ruses to get around that issue.

Trump has a clear constitutional right and duty to defend the country. That is what the court is attempting to interfere with. Trump might want to continue with the appeals, but whatever he decides he should announce that he is ignoring the decisions. Let the courts try to do something. He could have them arrested on sedition charges. He won the election on this issue, and I don't think any of his voters have changed their minds lately. Call the bluff of the congressional cuck republicans. Do they want to go into midterms fighting their president over muslim immigration?

Are you saying the courts don't have a right to judge the constitutionality of the Executive Branch's orders?

From what I have read, legal scholars aren't debating the court's right to look at this law. They are debating whether they should follow the "intent" or the "written letter" and that seems to be falling on ideological lines.

Trump can probably ignore their decision and have them arrested for not agreeing with him, but I think it will be a quick impeachment for violating the rules of our constitution.

 

[java]

Are you saying the courts don't have a right to judge the constitutionality of the Executive Branch's orders?

From what I have read, legal scholars aren't debating the court's right to look at this law. They are debating whether they should follow the "intent" or the "written letter" and that seems to be falling on ideological lines.

Trump can probably ignore their decision and have them arrested for not agreeing with him, but I think it will be a quick impeachment for violating the rules of our constitution.

The intent of the law is to make life safer for blacks and hispanics. Hawaiians are well known to be anti black because they don't like it when people think they are black, so that clearly is the intent of this challenge. The only way to know for sure would be to check for past statements made by the judges at their college frat parties.

 

[newwurldmn]

The intent of the law is to make life safer for blacks and hispanics. Hawaiians are well known to be anti black because they don't like it when people think they are black, so that clearly is the intent of this challenge. The only way to know for sure would be to check for past statements made by the judges at their college frat parties.

one of the arguments made by the court was that given the proximity of trumps statements and the law it was appropriate to connect the two.

 

[jem]

the dissent said it best...

Each of the three dissenting Judges filed separate dissenting opinions and joined in each others’. Judge Paul Niemeyer, relying on precedent that holds that the foreign affairs context in which the executive order operates is the apex of executive power, chatised the majority for its refusal to limit its inquiry to the text of the order itself:

In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...locked-again-possible-supreme-court-showdown/

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Are you saying the courts don't have a right to judge the constitutionality of the Executive Branch's orders?

It depends on the order. If he issued an order suspending habeas corpus, perhaps, depending on the circumstances.

Let's say the University of Washington sued him to stop a military attack on a town in Iraq, based on the argument that he was motivated by anti-muslim bias. Recognizing that they lacked standing, they tried to bootstrap themselves by claiming to be suing on behalf of students who were from the town and would be adversely affected. Do the courts have jurisdiction? Would Trump be obliged to defer action while the case plodded its way through the courts?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

A non-citizen outside the country has no rights under the Constitution. All these cases are attempts to disguise that simple fact.

 

[java]

one of the arguments made by the court was that given the proximity of trumps statements and the law it was appropriate to connect the two.

yes, and that is what common sense says, they are wrong, there would be no end to it, I can't believe how pragmatically people bypass the very principle of the constitution. The whole constitution is to protect the minority, the unpopular and the people like me. And you would just throw all that away to get back at Trump?

 

[CaptainObvious]

These are not difficult or ambiguous questions being addressed by the court. Either we have a border, or we don't? There is a definite distinction between legal and illegal immigration? The president has the constitutional authority to limit, prohibit and stop all immigration in the interest of national defense?
Yes, yes and yes. There is nothing to interpret. Nothing to discuss. The court is in violation of federal laws and constitution. Mayors, judges, law enforcement officials refusing to enforce the laws are in violation of the laws. Upon his return Trump needs to arrest, detain and prosecute all in violation. Should this lead to impeachment then we as a nation know just where we stand and can then take appropriate action. The election of Trump was to bring these issues to a head. Time to seize the moment, force the issue and make people choose a side. No more down the middle. This is our nation, the United States of America and we have these laws in place, or we don't. Choose. Now!

 

[newwurldmn]

yes, and that is what common sense says, they are wrong, there would be no end to it, I can't believe how pragmatically people bypass the very principle of the constitution. The whole constitution is to protect the minority, the unpopular and the people like me. And you would just throw all that away to get back at Trump?

The whole point of the constitution is to protect the balance of power so that the government can't take away individuals certain rights and to prevent one branch of the government from having unchecked power.

I somehow doubt you are the oppressed minority in this situation.

 

[Tony Stark]

The president has the constitutional authority to limit, prohibit and stop all immigration in the interest of national defense?

The law says visas cannot be denied due to race, nationality or place of birth and if Trumps motives were really national defense he'd be banning The Sunnis from Saudi Arabia rather than Shiites from Iran.