Has anyone Trumper here actually READ the court's ruling?

Has any Trumper here read all twenty-nine pages of the federal appeals court ruling against Trump's travel ban?

Because I get the impression that you guys are just rehashing right-wing talking points. The judges lay out the reasoning for their ruling and nobody on the right seems to comprehend.


Two relevant passages:

The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has "unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens"... The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one... There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

***

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree...

 

And this is why SCOTUS, even a right-wing leaning SCOTUS, would strike this down in a liberal New York minute.

It's a broad overreach of executive power that will dramatically affect US citizens, permanent residents, students, and anyone else traveling to the US.

 

I love what Morning Joe said today.

He said this ruling doesn't even mention the law that gives the president authority to issue orders such as this, which is like hearing a case on free speech and not mentioning the first amendment.

The judges got into areas that were completely irrelevant. It's just liberal fantasyland.

 

yeah. all that has to do is whether or not the court has the right to review. Marbury does give them the right. In fact it says so in that part that the executive gets a very wide leeway. It has nothing to do with the decision itself.

Its actually 4-5 pages of the decision which sets up a strawman and proceeds to attack it lol.

 

It's funny how judges are called "activist" when they rule in an inconvenient way.

 

1. In other words they think they have the right to second guess presidential decisions on matters of national security
2. Absurd strawman, the EO was not hinged on aliens from those countries having committed a terrorist attack. It was based on the government belief that aliens from those countries aren't sufficiently vetted and given the chaos, lawlessness, anarchy, the spread of ISIS, AL-QAEDA in those countries some of them may be terrorists.... Lest we forget that aliens from those countries have committed multiple terrorist attacks in Europe so the government concerns are not even remotely hypothetical

Last but not the least, even if those two clauses are valid (and they are not), they don't even begin to address the constitutionality of the EO, they don't claim that any part of the EO was unconstitutional, which at the end of day is the only thing that matters.

 

Actually it seems rather odd legally that they struck down the Order without striking down the federal law under which the order was issued. That statute very clearly, for better or worse, leaves it at the discretion of the POTUS alone.

 

the most dangerous thing for me is they are asking the government to show a need for the EO.

Whether an EO is needed or not has no bearing on its constitutionality. It either is or isnt.

- - - Updated - - -

the most dangerous thing for me is they are asking the government to show a need for the EO.

Whether an EO is needed or not has no bearing on its constitutionality. It either is or isnt.

 

You are of the flawed view that if the President does it, it can't be illegal or unConstitutional.

sorry, but you're wrong.

every action taken by the President must conform to Federal law and the Constitution.

 

They did not mention illegality or unconstitutionality of the EO, they can't evaluate matters of national security, they don't have appropriate security clearance. Duh.

Anyway, my second argument, that these aliens are coming from war zones infested by terrorists, that they have committed terror attacks in Europe and that according to the government they are not sufficiently vetted is far more damaging. Can these 3 judges really make a judgement of the adequacy of vetting? How is it possibly within their competency?

 

One of the first things Hitler did when he became dictator, was to get rid of the independent judiciary.

he established new courts that had to swear allegiance to Hitler.

just sayin'

 

Well that seems to depend on who the President is or represents. Funny how the one judge that would stand in the way of Obama's executive orders was found dead in his bed thou huh. No one said a word when Clinton and Obama banned immigration. Trump does it and he's Hitler...lol. I cant take you Americans seriously any more. Your nothing but a sideshow at a circus.

 

Well then, please partake of this list of 24 terrorists caught and convicted before they could carry out their attacks.

ALL of them from those countries listed in the travel ban.

How many people need to die in terrorist attacks before the courts think it's a problem?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...s-list-of-terror-suspects-admitted-to-us-from

 

One of the first things Trump did was to comply with the court's ruling, wrong and misguided as it may be. Duh

 

I did and it doesn't even reference the US Code giving presidents plenary power over immigration. I am also not surprised they went outside the four corners of the document to consider campaign statements which is not something courts have ever done and even the Seattle court wouldn't consider but then it is the liberal ninth.

 

Tell that to Jackson and Lincoln . Trump could simply ignore their decision and tell homeland security to keep enforcing the EO

Like Jackson said Marshall made the ruling let him enforce it

 

if Trump ignores the Courts, he will be impeached.

Or removed via the 25th Amendment. or be the victim of a peaceful coup.

 

Good luck on that. Did Jackson or Lincoln get impeached ? The reps wont let it happen

 

i dont expect Trump to go full Hitler and actually ignore the Courts.

he's not that stupid.

not yet.

 

Hell he could threaten to throw all of SCOTUS that disagrees with him in jail. It was good enough for honest Abe. Then again he could threaten to stack the court with more judges who agree with him like FDR

 

Yes, that's what I gathered. His big hangup is naming those seven countries. I stated in another thread Trump needs to go back to the table. Jack4Freedom added he better let the slimy lawyers draft the next EO. I agree with Jack. EO's are above Trump's skill level as a non-politician.

 

If Trump chooses to ignore the Courts, all the ICE, Border Patrol and State Dept. personnel can simply decide to ignore Trump's orders.

tit for tat.

 

They could but they wont they love Trump in ICE and the border patrol

 

Which, of course he hasn't much to your dismay.

 

State Department hates Trump.

as do many Border agents at the airports