Appeals court agrees with federal judge over Trump ban.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ms-so-called-judge-blocked-ban-vows-overturn/

So yet another setback for the president. 'We will win', he promised, but the appeals court rejected his demand for the travel ban to be reinstated. This looks set to become an ongoing legal battle which could continue for months. This doesn't look great for either Trump's credibility or, frankly, his micron-thin skin. Expect a blizzard of predictable outraged and attacking tweets.

 

As we have all seen..

President Trump will prevail...

Remember...

He who laughs last, laughs loudest..

Enjoy your fart in the wind.........

 

We already have won... say good-bye to 2018 and 2020.. liberals, the gift that keeps on giving

 

Remember - there is such a thing as the separation of powers

 

The court of appeals has not "agreed" with either Trump or the district judge. The COA merely said this:

"The court has received appellants' emergency motion (Docket Entry No. 14)," read the order from the appeals court. "Appellants' request for an immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."


That said, I concede that the appeal is lodged in the ninth circuit, an extremely liberal court that is out of step with the rest of the courts of appeal and often overruled by the Supreme Court. They are likely to affirm the district judge because Trump is "cruel and because "Black Lives Matter!" (God help us.)

The travel "ban" will probably be resolved by the President before the Supreme Court can weigh in on this, which it likely will if the Courts of Appeal issue conflicting rulings.

 

On that, we don't even get reasoning from the 9th Appeals Circuit. They just essentially said "Go pound sand, and give us another reply by Monday." But honestly, if I were Trump, I'd drop it. It's obvious that they're not going to get a fair and impartial hearing.(In fact, that's what I'd argue. Given the bias implicit in the case, that it's impossible for a fair and impartial hearing.)

I'm very disappointed in the 9th Appeals Circuit, but I've been disappointed in everything that's happened lately.

 

Trump should use the Obama Doctrine when arguing before the appeals court - you know "I won, they lost elections have consequences".

 

By not being 'fair and impartial' you of course mean 'not agreeing with Trump'. Judges are in business to give a judgement based upon their opinion, which is in turn based upon precedent and established laws and an interpretation of the Constitution, which has been argued over for centuries. You have no way of knowing whether a judge's political leaning has any influence on his decision. Naturally conservatives will accuse him of bias, but the evidence is lacking.

 

OP...Greatness is always on the edge of failure. Trump will have setbacks no doubt.

If Trump is too far out there the courts or other built-in safeguards wont go for it No use throwing violent temper tantrums fascist dems...you are protected by the many safeguards built into the USA government. Trump, if the highest courts wont go for it, you got your answer. You got a lot of executive orders to sign, move on!

 

When a judgment is given without even reasoning, then yes I can accuse them of 'bias'. It isn't even a 'ruling', it's just them saying "we're not even going to bother'. Why then, are they even an Appeals Court? Just like they told the Trump Administration to kick sand, I'm in my rights to tell them to kick sand. Taxpayer dollars wasted in propping up this part of the establishment.

 

Are you privy to the detail of the court's ruling other than what the press announced? I'm not, so perhaps you could help?

 

Le Chef made a quote, and what the Press announced seems to be as much as we've gotten. Unless we get more, I think we can safely and confidently say that the 9th Court of Appeals wasted OUR time and the Administration's time. What purpose does the Appeals Court exist for, if it's going to conduct its business like that?

While it's a 'victory against Trump', you should also be noting that the British Court system is probably superior. Have you recalled any other rulings that said 'Call back on Monday' in Britain?

 

Tell that to obama and the left...


They are the ones that legislate from the courts...

 

I'm not familiar with appeal procedure. Is it that dismissive? - make an appeal and they just say "no"?

If this does go to the SC, what stops the SC from simply doing likewise? Or going through a lengthy process and then doing likewise?

What happens is every Trump policy is blocked by the judiciary?

I think there's some radical abuse of power going on here.

 

Not unexpected from the liberal ninth court. This means it goes to the Supreme Court.

 

In a perfect world, judges would be politically neutral. We don't live in a perfect world.

 

It ain't over yet.

 

The Seattle decision provided little case law. The opposing Boston decision provided ample case law.

 

There's a big problem here, and the safety of the American people is at stake. The judges are not privy to the security risks that the President is aware of, so are they putting politics above American lives?

The president said that he had to act quickly with the ban because if he stated that the ban would start at a later date, it would have quickened the pace of the terrorists to enter the country before the ban could take affect.

All this makes me question the motive of the liberal court of appeals which is known to be out of touch with the rest of the country. If their ruling is not for political reasons, they why are they delaying the action... which they are bound to lose if it goes to the Supreme Court. This makes me suspicious. Are there certain people that they want to enter the country, and if so who are they and why?

 

So the terrorist rich countries can continue to flog our immigration system for months and send in "refugees"......Got it.

In your world (the English world, that is) does this "setback" also apply to Cuban Immigration?

Or does Raul still call the shots on that?

 

As for the rationale of the liberals that the ban is inhumane, they forget about the Yemeni American citizens who were ignored and left behind when the American Embassy packed up and left before the bombing. It was the Chinese and Russian jets that brought them to safety together with their own citizens.

 

Such a ban obviously can't be delayed.


The statutes seem contradictory:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

The first gives absolute, open-ended right to the President, and hammers home the point ("any", "all"). The second contradicts it.

Was the first repealed? Evidently not. They're plainly contradictory.

 

To my mind the first gives the President the power to limit travel from countries determined to be a danger, in this case countries identified by congress and the Obama admin.

The second relates to issuing visa's.

The Seattle case rests on financial damage to the state through universities based on limiting travel.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure that the word "visa" is particularly relevant though. I mean, to get into the US you need a Visa (or a visa-waiver form, like the UK has). 1182 and 1152 could both have been worded in a way that would avoid that objection, inserting "visa" into 1182 or leaving it out of 1152. In any event, everyone needs a visa.

And of course yes, the judge's ruling wasn't based on 1152, it was about "harm to institutions". But 1182 is a powerful enough statute to pretty much overturn the ruling, which seems to make 1152 relevant as it appears to contradict it (and was added later I believe, so might have precedence).

If it now can only go to the Supreme Court, and they are likely to vote "liberal" and maintain the restriction, that's pretty problematic. It makes the judiciary effectively the executive. Hell, if you don't like Trump, throw him out in 2020 - that's what elections are for. Things are highly polarised right now. If this restriction is forced to stand it'll ramp up the chaos to another level.

 

its a beautiful morning in America!!!!

No President is above the law!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

the 1965 law supercedes the 1952 law.