Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

[lostlink]

1 hour ago, lostlink said:

The judge's ruling will be kicked to the curb...........

 

 

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

 

 The quote is from : 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

[Credo]

28 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You deleted the most important part of the rule: that "he may deem to be appropriate". It is up to the President.

No first he has to 'find' something.   

[Ulysses G.]

Trump will prevail. This article explains why.

 

Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns. In the ultimate outcome of these decisions, memories of Super Bowls past will prove prescient: Like the Patriots, Boston will best Seattle once again.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

 

 

[Scott]

Another off-topic post has been removed.   This will be the final warning for discussion of taxes and whatever else happens to strike a persons fancy that doesn't pertain to this topic.  

[whaleboneman]

16 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

Watch and learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think that may be your problem. You should try reading to learn and watching for entertainment.

[mtls2005]

The "so-called judge" is a Bush2 appointee, confirmed by the Senate in a vote of 99:0.

 

Guess he's not "Mexican", cause that would have been tweet-worthy?

[Traveler19491]

20 hours ago, Grouse said:

Question for you as I am not American. I understand that 60 senate votes are required to appoint a new Supreme Court judge; can Trump change this law?

 

No, Trump has no say in this. This falls under the rules of the Senate and only the Senate can change it. However, voiding this rule is what is referred to as the "nuclear option" as it would bring massive opposition from the minority party, in this case, the Democrats. The majority party is always hesitant to engage a rule change that would have such a huge effect on the minority party, knowing that they will not always be in the majority. Voiding the "super-majority", or "filibuster" rule, as this is known, would carry over when the majority loses and the minority party (Democrats) becomes the majority. The Democrats would simply keep the new rule and use it to punish the Republicans. The Democrats changed the super-majority rule as pertains to cabinet nominations and are now paying for it as they can no longer filibuster cabinet nominations to keep them from taking effect.

[Traveler19491]

6 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

The "so-called judge" is a Bush2 appointee, confirmed by the Senate in a vote of 99:0.

 

Guess he's not "Mexican", cause that would have been tweet-worthy?

 

Trump did Tweet about him, referring to him as a "so-called" judge. Trump's tiny handed Tweets are going to wind up coming back to bite him in the ass, as his staff already realizes. That's why the DoJ message about the judge's "outrageous" ruling was deleted moments after it was sent out, then replaced with a new message with the word "outrageous" removed. Judges tend to take a dim view of anyone disrespecting them, regardless their political leanings.

[Traveler19491]

9 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Trump will prevail. This article explains why.

 

Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns. In the ultimate outcome of these decisions, memories of Super Bowls past will prove prescient: Like the Patriots, Boston will best Seattle once again.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

 

 

 

You are again citing an opinion by someone not directly related to the case. This seems to you to solidify the administration's position. It does nothing of the sort. It is one person's opinion with no more weight than yours or mine, but you are expecting this individual's opinion to clinch your position. Granted, the person stating the opinion has considerable experience in the field, however, his opinion has zero bearing on whether or not the EO will stand up in court. The difference between the two judges in this case is that the Seattle judge accepted a new legal theory, which, if an appellate court accepts that theory, will increase the likelihood of the case winding up before the Supreme Court. I think instead of relying on your legal expertise, I'll wait to hear what the Federal courts have to say. And my two cents is that Trump/Bannon, et al, will lose.

[stevenl]

The White House has lost the appeal, better has lost the motion to stay.

sent using Tapatalk

[craigt3365]

I bet the pout on his face is worse than ever. LOL

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/doj-appeals-travel-ban-ruling/index.html

Quote

Appeals court: No travel ban for now

 

[webfact]

UPDATE: 

 

U.S. court denies request to immediately restore travel ban

By Yeganeh Torbati and Tom Perry

 

Protesters in U.S. cities rally against the travel ban President Donald Trump had imposed, while impacted travelers finally enter the U.S. after a judge lifts the restrictions. Jillian Kitchener reports.

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeal court late on Saturday denied a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to immediately restore a immigration order from President Donald Trump barring citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries and temporarily banning refugees.

 

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/967353-us-appeals-court-denies-request-to-immediately-restore-travel-ban/

[onthesoi]

20 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

Nope. This judgement is the result of a democrat attorney general taking the case to a friendly court.

It's politics and won't stand.

As for your hope that the CEO if your employer can subvert a democratically elected leader. Good luck with that...
 

 

 

What say ye now?

[Dagnabbit]

5 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

What say ye now?

 

I say you will see the ban reinstated before the week is out.

[onthesoi]

23 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

I say you will see the ban reinstated before the week is out.

Will Trump be appealing his failed appeal?

[Dagnabbit]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

The White House has lost the appeal, better has lost the motion to stay.

sent using Tapatalk
 

 

They have not lost an appeal. The appeal is on Monday.

 

Why they will win in the end:

 

 

[Dagnabbit]

23 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

Will Trump be appealing his failed appeal?

The appeal has not happened - they are waiting for further submissions on Monday.

 

What the appeal court did was to not make a decision either way.

 

Just one more liberal 'prediction' going down the toilet.

[onthesoi]

1 minute ago, Dagnabbit said:

The appeal has not happened - they are waiting for further submissions on Monday.

 

What the appeal court did was to not make a decision either way.

 

Just one more liberal 'prediction' going down the toilet.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeal court late on Saturday denied a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to immediately restore a immigration order from President Donald Trump barring citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries and temporarily banning refugees.

----

 

Who to believe Reuters or Dagnabbit?????

[Opl]

"The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy," Trump tweeted ... (The level of geo-political analysis is impressive.)

The problem lies in the unpreparedness of Trump's ( or rather Bannon's)  decisions that paves the way for an immense legal disorder;
Frankly, do you have to be  a super-intellectual to think before taking a ban "that it could" pose a problem for green cards, spouses, binationals? And settle the matter in advance?

 

( So did it gappen in 2015 when Obama  decreed a regularization of illegal immigrants: a federal judge suspended his decree and a court of appeal refused to restore it. The suspension is still pending a decision of the Supreme Court.
Why then what would be just justice applied to Obama would become a scandal applied to Trump?
The two judges concerned were appointed by G.W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.)

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Opl

[Dagnabbit]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeal court late on Saturday denied a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to immediately restore a immigration order from President Donald Trump barring citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries and temporarily banning refugees.

----

 

Who to believe Reuters or Dagnabbit?????

That's the trouble with having a short attention span - you only read headlines...

 

Here from CNBC...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/us-appeals-court-denies-request-to-restore-trumps-immigration-ban.html

 

Quote

 

The judge's order and the appeal ruling have created what may be a short-lived opportunity for travellers from the seven affected countries to get into the United States while the legal uncertainty continues.

In a brief order, the appeals court said the government's request for an immediate administrative stay on the Washington judge's decision had been denied. It was awaiting further submissions from Washington and Minnesota states on Sunday, and from the government on Monday.

 

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

[onthesoi]

6 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

That's the trouble with having a short attention span - you only read headlines...

 

Here from CNBC...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/us-appeals-court-denies-request-to-restore-trumps-immigration-ban.html

 

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

lolz ..confused much? The quote I provided was from the content of the actual article posted by the TV news team on this thread! ..not that headline or any headline from elsewhere.

 

In response to your post:

1 hour ago, Dagnabbit said:

The appeal has not happened

 

Let me know if you require any further assistance using the internet, I will drop everything and come running!

[Dagnabbit]

1 minute ago, onthesoi said:

lolz ..confused much? The quote I provided was from the content of the actual article posted by the TV news team on this thread! ..not that headline or any headline from elsewhere.

 

In response to your post:

 

Let me know if you require any further assistance using the internet, I will drop everything and come running!

 

As I said - if you can take the time to read an entire article - you will know that the appeals court merely failed to take any action and want to see more docs on Monday.

 

Liberals are having a bad year - so you can have your little short-lived win. 

[onthesoi]

16 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

you will know that the appeals court merely failed to take any action and want to see more docs on Monday.

 

 

That's just some nonsense you made up!

 

The appeals court reviewed the government arguments last night and forcibly rejected Trump's request to have the ban re-instated.

 

However, the court told Trump if he has any new arguments he can submit them for review next week.

 

1) The appeals court has already happened.

2) The appeals court rejected Trump's appeal.

3) The appeals court said they would review further arguments from Trump...if submitted!

 

Do you understand now?

------

 

oh my, these little Trump snowflakes are going into meltdown over this!!!!

Edited February 5, 2017 by onthesoi

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

They have not lost an appeal. The appeal is on Monday.

 

Why they will win in the end:

 

 

Judge Jeanine Pirro just makes the situation worse for Trump. Here we have a fellow 'Judge' acting in the worst possible professional manner. She is a disgrace and is simply on Fox to give her fire brand message to all the intellectually challenged watching Fox (including Trump), I guess she is trying for one of the next Supreme court slots.

 

Sorry to pee on your bonfire Dagnabbit (a popular pastime in Trumps house) but Trump DID lose this appeal. More information will be collected and presented Monday/Tues but yesterday the lawyers FAILED to convince the judges that the ban should be uplifted. This will go to the Supreme court and Judge Pirro and Trump (and some TV members) can spend a few days gorging themselves on humble pie!

[Pib]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

 

That's just some nonsense you made up!

 

The appeals court reviewed the government arguments last night and forcibly rejected Trump's request to have the ban re-instated.

 

However, the court told Trump if he has any new arguments he can submit them for review next week.

 

1) The appeals court has already happened.

2) The appeals court rejected Trump's appeal.

3) The appeals court said they would review further arguments from Trump...if submitted!

 

Do you understand now?

------

 

oh my, these little Trump snowflakes are going into meltdown over this!!!!

 

Well, actually the court asked both sides to submit legal briefs before they make their final decision.   Therefore, suspension of the ban remains in place.  Once both parties submit their briefs (or fail to submit) by whatever the deadline is the court will review and  make it's final decision.   This means the Trump crew will need to make up some Alternative Facts while Donald continues to tweet away.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/doj-appeals-travel-ban-ruling/index.html

 

Quote

 

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court early Sunday morning denied the US government's emergency request to resume President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makes its final decision after a federal judge halted the program on Friday.

What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart, who suspended the ban, will remain in place -- for now.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Pib

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

I say you will see the ban reinstated before the week is out.

Maybe not.  McConnell is backing away from this.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/05/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-travel-ban/index.html

Quote

 

But McConnell said: "I think it's best not to single out judges for criticism. We all get disappointed from time to time."

 

The Kentucky Republican added about the ban: "We need to be careful about this."

 

"There's a fine line here between proper vetting and interfering with the kind of travel or suggesting some kind of religious test, and we need to avoid doing that kind of thing," he said.

 

 

[Pib]

17 hours ago, Pib said:

 

Well, actually the court asked both sides to submit legal briefs before they make their final decision.   Therefore, suspension of the ban remains in place.  Once both parties submit their briefs (or fail to submit) by whatever the deadline is the court will review and  make it's final decision.   This means the Trump crew will need to make up some Alternative Facts while Donald continues to tweet away.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/doj-appeals-travel-ban-ruling/index.html

 

 

 

And from a 6 Feb Bloomberg article that deadline for submission of legal briefs is Monday/6 Feb 17.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-06/trump-immigration-ban-bound-for-supreme-court-later-if-not-now

Quote

The states face a deadline early Monday morning to file their argument against that request, while the U.S. Justice Department has until 3 p.m. Monday to make its final argument.