U.S. judge grants bid to narrow Trump travel ban

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

sessions politicized the office?  you're acting like it's not been happening for the last half century, at least... wake up, man.  the usa federal courts are independent?  have you ever heard of a grand jury?  you're living in a fantasy world.  

A grand jury only has powers to bring charges. It doesn't judge guilt or innocence. And grand juries aren't only federal.

"A grand jury (12 to 23 people) is a body that investigates criminal conduct. Federal, state and county prosecutors utilize grand juries to decide whether probable cause exists to support criminal charges. A regular jury (6 to 12 people) – aka a petit jury– hears only trial cases. "

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/6-your-questions-about-grand-juries-answered

 

[mrwebb8825]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:01 AM, webfact said:

Hawaii and refugee groups argue that resettlement agencies have a "bona fide" relationship with the refugees they help, sometimes over the course of years.

Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court itself said agencies don't qualify as a bona fide relationship. Now comes that bassackwards hawaii again overturning a portion of a SC ruling? Trump needs to fire and replace that asshat judge.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court itself said agencies don't qualify as a bona fide relationship. Now comes that bassackwards hawaii again overturning a portion of a SC ruling? Trump needs to fire and replace that asshat judge.

All Trump needs to do is come with some clear orders that will sustain legal challenges. Or even better, come with laws via the standard channel of Senate and Congress.

 

He has been unable to do so thus far.

[lovelomsak]

On 7/14/2017 at 5:33 PM, KenKadz said:

Courts of Appeals

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals.  The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Learn more about the courts of appeals. 

That is all very good. But appeals is all after the fact that a judge makes a ruling and effects each and every Americans. 

 A judge can be bought make a ruling then fight it in appeals is totally ass back wards.  Before the ruling is enforced it should be endorsed by a panel of judges. this would illeminate such rash rulings.

 And lets not forget Judges can be bought. Who is to say judges will not do this despicable kind of action for money or loyalty? Judges should  not be give power over elected government sorry.

Edited July 17, 2017 by lovelomsak

[iReason]

10 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

That is all very good.

But appeals is all after the fact that a judge makes a ruling and effects each and every Americans. 

A judge can be bought make a ruling then fight it in appeals is totally ass back wards.  

Before the ruling is enforced it should be endorsed by a panel of judges. this would illeminate such rash rulings.

And lets not forget Judges can be bought.

Who is to say judges will not do this despicable kind of action for money or loyalty?

Judges should  not be give power over elected government sorry.

 

Is english your first language?

[Srikcir]

39 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Judges should  not be give power over elected government sorry

Yes they should and do. It's called check & balance authority given by the US Constitution to protect the people from a potentially an abusive government. Sorry - no dictators allowed.

 

[Jingthing]

If grandparents aren't very close family members, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Jingthing

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court itself said agencies don't qualify as a bona fide relationship. Now comes that bassackwards hawaii again overturning a portion of a SC ruling? Trump needs to fire and replace that asshat judge.

I'm not so sure the SC said that, as it's been ruled otherwise by those fine judges in Hawaii.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-grandparents.html

Quote

“An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones,” he wrote. “It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security.”

Trump needs to do these things properly.  Not implement them like he does on Twitter.  He doesn't seem to understand he's no longer a CEO.

[Srikcir]

17 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm not so sure the SC said that

It didn't.

"As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the executive order].” It gave as an example where an entity relationship would not qualify example an immigration-rights nonprofit group that simply added a foreign national to its client list just so that person could travel to the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-the-supreme-courts-travel-ban-ruling-means/2017/06/26/5e86e1cc-5a7e-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.fee58671bd98

[WaywardWind]

2 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

That is all very good. But appeals is all after the fact that a judge makes a ruling and effects each and every Americans. 

 A judge can be bought make a ruling then fight it in appeals is totally ass back wards.  Before the ruling is enforced it should be endorsed by a panel of judges. this would illeminate such rash rulings.

 And lets not forget Judges can be bought. Who is to say judges will not do this despicable kind of action for money or loyalty? Judges should  not be give power over elected government sorry.

Do you have the slightest clue as to the level of standing of individuals selected to be Federal district court judges, or the screening that they have to undergo before they are vetted by the US Senate? I can assure you it is extraordinary and it is simply wrong to say that they "can be bought."

 

In all of the US history, there have been three judges impeached for bribery - out of 2,758 individuals who have been appointed.

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

This is 99% about democrats still feeling the sting of big loses and the fact that ONLY democratically appointed judges in Democratic states are doing it. It's just bias. 

 

"Close Family Ties" comes under the heading of The Nuclear Family and doesn't include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. They fall under the extended family.

You don't seem to understand the nature of federal judges.

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.  

 

[mrwebb8825]

On 7/18/2017 at 0:02 PM, craigt3365 said:

You don't seem to understand the nature of federal judges.

What I DO understand is that until a Washington Outsider was finally elected because Americans are so sick and tired of the same 'ol crap, there have been "Federal Judges" coming out of the woodwork to try and run the executive branch of the government in an unprecedented fashion and number.

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

What I DO understand is that until a Washington Outsider was finally elected because Americans are so sick and tired of the same 'ol crap, there have been "Federal Judges" coming out of the woodwork to try and run the executive branch of the government in an unprecedented fashion and number.

A Washington outsider who crafted a flawed EO. Which was put on hold due to potential conflicts with the constitution. A huge mistake only an outsider would do.

 

P.S. it was contested by many different organizations. And many different judges. We're lucky they jumped in.

[mrwebb8825]

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

it was contested by many different organizations. And many different judges. We're lucky they jumped in.

All Democratic, but that fact never seems to matter.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

All Democratic, but that fact never seems to matter.

Please show a link that proves every judge that ruled against the EO was a democrat.  Impossible to find and prove. 

 

Net? It was a terrible EO that couldn't be implemented nor defended legally.  Thus the backlash, and Trump agreeing to change it.  2 times.  And maybe another after the upcoming SC ruling.

 

What a waste of our money.  But hey, MAGA! LOL

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

What I DO understand is that until a Washington Outsider was finally elected because Americans are so sick and tired of the same 'ol crap, there have been "Federal Judges" coming out of the woodwork to try and run the executive branch of the government in an unprecedented fashion and number.

And those those partisan Democratic judges on the Supreme Court just supported the judge who narrowed Trump's travel ban:

Supreme Court Allows Broader Family Exceptions to Trump Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday cleared the way for a broader list of family exceptions to President Trump's ban on issuing visas to people in six Muslim-majority countries.

The justices declined to put a halt to a ruling by a federal judge in Hawaii who said grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and siblings-in-law must be added to the list of close family members who can still get visas to travel to the U.S. during the 90 days while Trump's executive order is in force...

The Supreme Court ruled June 26 that while portions of the travel ban could be enforced, people overseas "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship" with a relative or organization in the U.S. would be exempt.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-allows-broader-family-exceptions-trump-travel-ban-n784466

[Credo]

Basically Trump is an incredible loser.   He is unable to implement anything and what he is trying to implement here is overseen by the Courts.   Fortunately the Judicial Branch is better equipped to make policy than the Executive Branch.

[iReason]

3 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

All Democratic, but that fact never seems to matter.

 

It doesn't.

A big nothing burger. And false.

 

Perhaps you should focus on the Republicans who appear to put party before country.

And the constitution.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by iReason

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

All Democratic, but that fact never seems to matter.

Didnt know the SC consists of all Democratic judges.