{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/12/2017 11:54:51 PM
26
Trump Loses Travel Ban Ruling in Appeals Court
[quote]WASHINGTON — A second federal appeals court has ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban, delivering on Monday the latest in a string of defeats for the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.
The administration has already sought a Supreme Court review of a similar decision issued last month by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. Monday’s decision came from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.
The two courts employed different reasoning to arrive at the same basic conclusion. The Fourth Circuit said the revised executive order violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.
The Ninth Circuit, by contrast, rested its conclusions on statutory grounds. It said Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority Congress granted him in making national security judgments in the realm of immigration without adequate justification.
“The order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality,” the Ninth Circuit’s opinion said. “National security is not a ‘talismanic incantation’ that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power.”
The decision, from a three-judge panel, was unanimous. It was issued jointly by Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard A. Paez. All three were appointed by President Bill Clinton.
The ruling affirmed most of a March decision from Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the Federal District Court in Hawaii. But the appeals court narrowed the injunction issued by Judge Watson in a significant way.
The appeals court said Judge Watson had erred in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward.[/quote]
Oh man, maybe Trump was right - we *are* doing a lot of winning!
-
1 답변People ITT: "I know the law better than a bunch of stupid judges, who have literally no idea what they're doing beyond trying to destroy Trump's presidency at whatever cost"
-
1 답변
-
40 답변[quote]“National security is not a ‘talismanic incantation’ that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power.”[/quote] This is proof that Trump is making America great again. Conservatives should rejoice at the ruling. For years we've heard how the power of the executive branch has been growing and how Obama abused his authority. Trump went so far with it that he reminded the other branches of government about checks and balances so they would shut him down. I'm sure its all by design. He does have a good brain. Maybe even the best brain. Congratulations on all the winning Mr. President.
-
20 답변Lol. I'd really like to ship all the travel ban supporters to Syria to meet with the fleeing children and families personally. I'd like them to look the dying, starving, poor Syrians in the face and say to them, "we don't want [i]you[/i] in our country. You are not wanted. America doesn't want you...even though our country was founded on immigration." I doubt any of them would have the balls to do it. And if they did, they'd be considered the biggest @$$*****.
-
17 답변
-
1 답변
-
National security is not a justifiable excuse for the president to exercise his powers in promoting national security? Dubious. I thought courts ruled on the legality of actions as opposes to the prudence of actions. What are the oversight powers given to the SCOTUS regarding our Commander in Chief? I wasn't aware they had any. Can the court block an airstrike? What if it's a racist airstrike(directed at Muslims?)
-
1 답변The courts are a disgrace in the US. They play by party lines, Even the Supreme Court. It was unconstitutional because of the part of the order were it had Trump's name. I bet that if bush or Obama wanted to do the same they would have no problem. Oh and INB4 "hurr Durr you used Obama as a example" It's true that Obama would have no problems. The 9th circuit are just a bunch of blue States that want to ruin these next four years. That's why when more supreme court justices die, Trump will just pick more conservative justices instead of moderates. I wouldn't blame him do to how Democrats behave these days. Oh and the whole staveing reffuges case is flawed. The case is about if the president has the authority to control the borders. Many of the Democrats arguments against the travel ban is flawed. So come the day of when the Supreme Court looks at it, if they use logic instead of party lines I predict they would rule in favor of the ban in a landslide 8-1 or 7-2. The winning will come soon.
-
2 답변Here is a thought: the arguments on both sides center around the US Constitution, whether Trump has the Constitutional authority to restrict access to America to foreign nationals based on religion. First, we must ask ourselves, who does the Constitution apply to? Naturally the Articles apply to the government itself as they outline its frame work. What about the Bill of Rights? Well, obviously US citizens. But what about other folks? Does it apply to non-citizens who reside here? Perhaps. The Constitution is the law of our land. People who reside in our land should not be immune to the law, especially the supreme law. Now, does the Bill of Rights apply to foreign nationals? The answer may not be so easy. On the one hand, if they do not, then Trump is most certainly within his rights to deny Muslims entry if they are perceived as a threat to National security. What if we decide they do, though? If the Bill of Rights extends to all people, regardless of their location in the world, is that not the US imposing our views on others? Is that not imperialism? Also, would that give America the right to punish nations found in violation? For example, should the US impose sanctions on the Vatican, a recognized foreign nation that imposes a religion on its citizens? Where do we draw limits? Are there limits? I feel like these are questions that must be answered before we can even begin to answer whether or not President Trump has the legal right to do what he is trying to do. What are your thoughts?
-
9 답변작성자: Spartan 22O 6/13/2017 7:11:31 AMWe'll see what the supreme court says. The law says the president can suspend any aliens from coming in if he would deem them to be detrimental to the US (AKA stopping terrorists from blowing up our kids), and he can do so for such period as he shall deem necessary. It's in here (8 U.S.C. §1182(f)) The "Muslim Ban," dub is totally illogical. If it really was a muslim ban, then why isn't Indonesia on the list? It has the most muslims in the world. Not on the list. That's a bullshit name barfed out of CNN's malicious mouth.
-
10 답변It's a bullshit ruling. They're not making this call off what the ban states, they're ruling off what they think it's purpose is. It's political reasoning, not legal reasoning.
-
1 답변So they won't except it because it is prejudice against certain nationalities? I'm sure there's an easy loophole around that.
-
8 답변
-
2 답변
-
I think at this point its pretty obvious that Trump is trying to sabotage the bill. Even the dumbest guy to ever become president must realise that its his constant tweeting that's hamstrung it, but he just can't keep his mouth shut.
-
2 답변
-
12 답변
