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

[webfact]

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.

 

The court ruling dealt a further setback to Trump, who has denounced the judge in the state of Washington who blocked his Jan. 27 order on Friday. In tweets and comments to reporters, the president has insisted he will get the ban reinstated.

 

Trump says the temporary immigration restrictions on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and on all refugees, are necessary to protect the United States from Islamist militants. Critics say they are unjustified and discriminatory.

 

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.

 

Demonstrators in support of the immigration rules implemented by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, rally at Los Angeles international airport in Los Angeles, California, U.S., February 4, 2017. REUTERS/Ringo Chiu

 

The government's appeal says the decision by judge James Robart in Washington posed an immediate harm to the public, thwarted enforcement of an executive order and "second-guesses the president’s national security judgement about the quantum of risk posed by the admission of certain classes of (non-citizens) and the best means of minimizing that risk".

 

Trump denounced the "so-called" judge in a series of tweets on Saturday and told reporters: "We'll win. For the safety of the country, we'll win."

 

(Reporting by Chris Michaud, writing by Mark Trevelyan, editing by Philippa Fletcher)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-05

[jerojero]

Trump vs federal judges. Sure you're disappointed you can't sue them, Donny. And BTW, you are not above the Law.

[smotherb]

Yes, the US appeals court is majority liberal, but before you start that poor little mistreated conservative mantra again; the federal judge whose temporarily lifting of Trump's ban was appealed is James Robart, appointed by George W. Bush.  It seems not only die-hard liberals disagree with at least some of Trump's policies. So it appears, the opinion of the person who Trump called a "so-called judge" has overshadowed the "so-called president."

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This news post doesn't say exactly, but presumably the federal appellate court that declined to reverse the Washington state federal judge's ruling is the 9th Circuit Court, based in California, which is generally considered the most liberal of the various federal appeals courts, and whose jurisdiction includes Washington state.

 

The feds have the option, also not mentioned in this news article, to further appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court justice who hears emergency appeals from the 9th circuit, which would be Justice Anthony Kennedy, who's generally considered a moderate/middle vote on the high court.

 

Of course, in the wake of all this, if Trump happens to end up not self-destructing and stays President long enough, I'm sure this episode will further his and his Republican/conservative cronies crusade to rid the federal courts of as many moderates and liberal judges as possible, and replace them with like-minded Trump extremists.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, smotherb said:

 So it appears, the opinion of the person who Trump called a "so-called judge" has overshadowed the "so-called president."

The latest comments and tweets are just more childish, undignified, un-Presidential behavior from someone who doesn't belong being President of the U.S. in the first place -- were it not for the stupidity of too many Americans, illegal meddling from Russia under Vladimir Putin, and probably some element of misogyny against HRC.

 

It was kind of funny, dunno if it was posted in the news here, but Trump also has been having a running verbal fight with fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who took over for him on "Celebrity Apprentice." Trump's been publicly blaming Arnold, via tweets as president, for lower ratings on the show...

 

So the other day, Arnold responded to Trump's latest tweet with one of his own suggesting that since Trump sees himself as such a great television star, they ought to switch jobs: Trump could go back to hosting Celebrity Apprentice, and Arnold (the former Gov. of California) said he'd take over as President running the U.S.

 

I must say, I never thought the day would come when the prospect of Arnold as U.S. President (which he cannot be because he wasn't born in the U.S.) would look appealing in comparison to the current bozo holding the office.

 

BTW, that's my opinion coming from someone who actually supports the U.S. imposing greater restrictions and checks on Muslims entering the U.S. And that's the one, perhaps the biggest area, where I've always thought HRC and Obama were on the wrong road.

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Becker]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The latest comments and tweets are just more childish, undignified, un-Presidential behavior from someone who doesn't belong being President of the U.S. in the first place -- were it not for the stupidity of too many Americans, illegal meddling from Russia under Vladimir Putin, and probably some element of misogyny against HRC.

 

It was kind of funny, dunno if it was posted in the news here, but Trump also has been having a running verbal fight with fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who took over for him on "Celebrity Apprentice." Trump's been publicly blaming Arnold, via tweets as president, for lower ratings on the show...

 

So the other day, Arnold responded to Trump's latest tweet with one of his own suggesting that since Trump sees himself as such a great television star, they ought to switch jobs: Trump could go back to hosting Celebrity Apprentice, and Arnold (the former Gov. of California) said he'd take over as President running the U.S.

 

I must say, I never thought the day would come when the prospect of Arnold as U.S. President (which he cannot be because he wasn't born in the U.S.) would look appealing in comparison to the current bozo holding the office.

 

BTW, that's my opinion coming from someone who actually supports the U.S. imposing greater restrictions and checks on Muslims entering the U.S. And that's the one, perhaps the biggest area, where I've always thought HRC and Obama were on the wrong road.

 

Agree wholeheartedly. The Governator did a less than stellar job in California, but compared to the man-child he's a beacon of good governance, and if he was POTUS I wouldn't actually have to pinch myself on a regular basis to check if all this is just a bad dream.....seriously.

[boomerangutang]

           If the judge who made the ruling had ancestry from any brown or black skinned people, we would have heard about it with a tweet by Trump.  Same if the judge had any Latinos, Arabs, or Chinese in his ancestral lineage.  Because Trump hasn't put him down, the judge must be a white anglo saxon male.

 

Regarding the word 'ban';  Trump used it, as did his press secretary and everyone else for the days after the ban was imposed.  Then Trump's dumbass handler's decided it wasn't PC to use the word 'ban' so the press secretary came out yesterday and said it's not a ban and never was a ban.  What a bunch of losers!  The only good thing to come out of this is it's a civics lesson for the Dufus in Chief.

[craigt3365]

It's not looking good for this ban to last.  Which is a great thing.  If he loses McConnell, he's in trouble.

 

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

Quote

McConnell: Congress unlikely to step in if courts throw out Trump travel ban

 

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.

 

Such cruel things to say, especially coming from the POTUS.  An embarrassment for us all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-attacks-federal-judge-travel-ban/index.html

 

Quote

 

Unusual criticism

It is highly unusual for a President to publicly criticize a federal judge, but during the campaign, Trump memorably railed against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University. Trump said Curiel, who was born in Indiana, was unable to fairly preside over the lawsuit because of his "Mexican heritage." Trump had introduced plans to build a wall along the Mexican border and take a hard stance on immigration.

 

 

One of Trump's tweets.  He just doesn't get it.

Quote

Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision

 

 

[Srikcir]

16 hours ago, webfact said:

the temporary immigration restrictions on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and on all refugees, are necessary to protect the United States from Islamist militants.

Be careful Trump.

 

While this wishful mantra might play well with hardcore Trump supporters, it will likely be irrelevant before the Supreme Court that rules on constitutional issues and not on merit of government decisions.

 

And before the case is accepted by the Supreme Court for an emergency court decision, the USSC might require Trump to PROVE imminent Clear and Present Danger to the nation by revocation of his ban of travelers from the seven designated countries. Failure to do so (and the Court is eminently capable of evaluating information) will designate the government's appeal as a non-priority case in its schedule for a hearing, ie., late 2017 or 2018 depending on its current case load. A lot can happen between now and then that might "redirect Trump's priorities" to more legally viable Presidential Orders that would make the subject appeal unnecessary.

[Enoon]

 

47 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Be careful Trump.

 

While this wishful mantra might play well with hardcore Trump supporters, it will likely be irrelevant before the Supreme Court that rules on constitutional issues and not on merit of government decisions.

 

And before the case is accepted by the Supreme Court for an emergency court decision, the USSC might require Trump to PROVE imminent Clear and Present Danger to the nation by revocation of his ban of travelers from the seven designated countries. Failure to do so (and the Court is eminently capable of evaluating information) will designate the government's appeal as a non-priority case in its schedule for a hearing, ie., late 2017 or 2018 depending on its current case load. A lot can happen between now and then that might "redirect Trump's priorities" to more legally viable Presidential Orders that would make the subject appeal unnecessary.

 

"the USSC might require Trump to PROVE imminent Clear and Present Danger to the nation by revocation of his ban of travelers from the seven designated countries."

 

 A swift  "terrorist" attack on Trump Tower should fix that.

 

(Make it a Sunday Don, no need to kill everyone who works there.  And perhaps have it "Closed for Maintenance"?)

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Enoon

[timendres]

More evidence that the "Trump is the end of the world" mantra is overreactive nonsense. We have a fairly solid system with many checks and balances. The idea that one president can damage the US beyond repair, or bring about the end of the world, is pure hyperbole.

[dunroaming]

The people of the USA do need protection from serious threats.  The biggest threat at the moment is from Trump and they really do need protection from that moron, even though many don't realise it.

 

Actually I too agree with stronger vetting for people entering the USA from wherever they are coming from.  The ones that arguably need the closest scrutiny would be UAE and Egypt.  Countries that Trump won't put on the ban as he has business interests there.  Blanket bans are for the fairies, knee jerks that don't work and just penalise innocent people.

[boomerangutang]

       Trump is throwing out a lot of bad edicts now, but eventually there will be a court case which compels him show tax returns.  That's at least part of the reason why Trump is wasting so many peoples' time on issues which don't relate to his taxes and where he's invested.

 

       Yet, in an indirect way, the travel ban against the 7 countries does relate to Trump's finances. Trump has no investments in the 7 banned countries, whereas he does have investments in countries which are more involved with exporting Muslim terrorists.  Connect the dots.

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

The people of the USA do need protection from serious threats.  The biggest threat at the moment is from Trump and they really do need protection from that moron, even though many don't realise it.

 

Actually I too agree with stronger vetting for people entering the USA from wherever they are coming from.  The ones that arguably need the closest scrutiny would be UAE and Egypt.  Countries that Trump won't put on the ban as he has business interests there.  Blanket bans are for the fairies, knee jerks that don't work and just penalise innocent people.

....and Saudi Arabia, home to nearly all the 9-11 bombers and its mastermind.

[dunroaming]

Interesting new statement from Trump.  Interesting in his arrogance..  he is now saying that ALL negative polls are false news.  I assume that any positive polls are true news?  As all the polls show Trump negatively we won't hold our breath for any positive ones.

[Ulysses G.]

On 2/5/2017 at 3:27 AM, smotherb said:

Yes, the US appeals court is majority liberal, but before you start that poor little mistreated conservative mantra again; the federal judge whose temporarily lifting of Trump's ban was appealed is James Robart, appointed by George W. Bush.  It seems not only die-hard liberals disagree with at least some of Trump's policies.

 

He also works with refugees (he probably should have recused himself) and has publicly supported Black Lives Matter. Not exactly a typical conservative.

[Becker]

24 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He also works with refugees (he probably should have recused himself) and has publicly supported Black Lives Matter. Not exactly a typical conservative.

No, he actually sounds quite sensible.

 

PS. Said tongue in cheek. There are tons of conservatives that are sensible - the ones that are against the man-child.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Becker

[smotherb]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He also works with refugees (he probably should have recused himself) and has publicly supported Black Lives Matter. Not exactly a typical conservative.

Exactly, but what I would expect from a judge; decisions based upon the specific situation and the better good for all the people and not just his personal viewpoint