Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 18, 2017, 11:46:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Checks and Balances  (Read 2047 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« on: February 09, 2017, 04:45:00 PM »

President Trump checked x 2.  Will see what happens at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Trump's immigration order
Published February 09, 2017
FoxNews.com

BREAKING: A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the suspension of President Trump's controversial immigration order Thursday -- a decision that could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

The panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the order after a federal judge had issued a halt to the order last week.

Trump issued the executive order, which placed a 90-day pause on immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, on Jan. 27, causing chaos and outrage at airports across the country. The order also imposed a 120-day pause on all refugees, and an indefinite pause on refugees from Syria.

The case was given to the appeals court after a Seattle federal judge last week ordered a halt to Trump’s order. Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order after Washington state and Minnesota both sued. Attorneys from the Justice Department appealed Robart’s ruling, arguing that the president’s executive power gives him the authority to place restrictions on people coming into the country.

It is possible the case will next be reviewed by the Supreme Court, although Trump’s nominee for its vacant seat, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is unlikely to be in place by the time it would reach the court. It is also possible that if it goes to the high court, by that time the temporary restrictions would have expired.

Supporters of Trump's order argue it will help keep America safe from terrorists looking to infiltrate the United States from terror hotspots that often have inadequate vetting procedures. Opponents have argued it is unconstitutional and discriminatory – claiming that it is a “Muslim ban” and that it has harmed individuals and businesses.

During arguments before the court, Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued that Trump campaign statements about a Muslim ban showed discriminatory intent.

"There are statements that we've quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims, given that we haven't even had any discovery yet to find out what else might have been said in private," Purcell said.

Trump had been outspoken in his criticism of the case, calling Robart a “so-called judge” on Twitter, and on Wednesday warning that “if the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/appeals-court-upholds-ruling-blocking-trumps-immigration-order.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 8379


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2017, 05:02:53 PM »

In the meantime:

Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’

As judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trump’s immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states (Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington) out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.

They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2017, 05:22:18 PM »

Link to the decision:  http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3457942-Travel-Ban-9th-Circuit&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170209
Report to moderator   Logged
mazrim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2908



« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2017, 06:26:49 PM »

In the meantime:

Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’

As judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trump’s immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states (Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington) out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.

They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html
Thats pretty bad if even McCain thinks they are too liberal.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2017, 12:18:26 PM »

Trump seizes on omission in court's travel ban ruling, plots next move
By  Judson Berger   
Published February 10, 2017
FoxNews.com

President Trump got to work early Friday picking apart a federal court’s decision not to reinstate his controversial travel ban, noting that the detailed 29-page order did not include one mention of the statute he claims gives him broad authority on immigration.

“A disgraceful decision!” Trump tweeted, while quoting an analyst who flagged the omission in a Lawfare blog post.
 
The writer, Brookings fellow and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, had noted the order skipped over a key part of the U.S. code on “inadmissible aliens” which Trump had publicly recited on Wednesday in defense of his immigration restrictions.

READ THE COURT ORDER

The statute reads in part: “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.”

Wittes wrote that this statute speaks to one of two “big questions” on which the case will turn.

He said the statute indeed gives Trump “sweeping power” to restrict entry, writing: “Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.”

The Trump administration has pointed to that statute for days in defending the controversial move to suspend refugee admissions as well as travel and immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries.

CLINTON TROLLS TRUMP

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, though, declined to lift a lower-court ruling that suspended the policy on other grounds.

In their unanimous decision, the judges generally referred to the government’s position that such presidential decisions on immigration policy are “unreviewable” – but rejected that argument. 

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the judges wrote. “…Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.”

The ruling did address what Wittes said was the other “big” question at play: How statements from the president and his campaign team could “render an otherwise valid exercise of this power invalid.”

This aspect pertains to past statements by Trump and his advisers that they were looking at ways to suspend immigration to the U.S. for Muslims. While the administration now insists this is not a “Muslim” ban, the states challenging the order say it violates the establishment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution because it was meant to target Muslims – pointing to the president’s past statements and other factors.

The court wrote: “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.”

The Justice Department is now reviewing its options -- which include the possibility of appealing the matter to the Supreme Court, asking for a review from a broader panel of judges or taking the dispute back to the lower court. Or the White House could issue a revised order.

Trump tweeted overnight, “SEE YOU IN COURT,” without specifying which court.

Wittes argued that the 9th Circuit was right to leave the restraining order in place, “for the simple reason that there is no cause to plunge the country into turmoil again while the courts address the merits of these matters over the next few weeks.”

Before the measure was put on hold, Trump’s order caused chaos at airports amid confusion over which travelers were affected. Green-card holders initially were thought to be included in the freeze, though the Homeland Security Department later made clear they were exempt.

Wittes cautioned in his post that the fight over the merits is different than the battle that just played out in San Francisco: “Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/10/trump-seizes-on-omission-in-courts-travel-ban-ruling-plots-next-move.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2017, 02:02:01 PM »

Andrew Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’
by Pam Key
9 Feb 2017
 
Thursday on the Fox News Channel, in reacting to the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”

Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”

“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/napolitano-9th-circuit-ruling-intellectually-dishonest/
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 8379


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2017, 02:05:21 PM »

Andrew Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’
by Pam Key
9 Feb 2017
 
Thursday on the Fox News Channel, in reacting to the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”

Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”

“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/napolitano-9th-circuit-ruling-intellectually-dishonest/

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of the most sensible voices on Fox News.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2017, 02:25:46 PM »

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of the most sensible voices on Fox News.

Yeah I like him. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2017, 04:26:20 PM »

Trump administration appeals Hawaii judge's order against travel ban
Jaweed Kaleem
March 30, 2017

The Department of Justice has appealed a Hawaii court order that brought President Trump's travel ban to a national halt.

The government has argued that the president was well within his authority to restrict travel from six Muslim-majority countries and put a pause on refugee resettlement.

The appeal Thursday to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals came a day after U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu refused to dismiss his temporary block of the travel ban that he issued on March 15.

With the appeal, the government is now fighting to reinstate the travel ban in two appeals courts on opposite ends of the country. That increases the likelihood that one of the cases will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice appealed a Maryland district judge's order against the travel ban to the U.S. 4th District Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

Both rulings in Hawaii and Maryland said Trump's executive order discriminated against Muslims. Watson and U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland cited Trump's campaign promises to suspend Muslim travel to the U.S. as proof of his order's anti-Muslim bias.

The Hawaii ruling is broader than the Maryland one. It blocks a 90-day pause on travel to the U.S. from nationals of six majority-Muslim countries and a 120-day moratorium on new refugee resettlement. The Maryland ruling only halted the ban on travel into the U.S. by citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states, is the same court where a panel of three judges denied a government request last month to reverse ruling against the first travel ban by a federal judge in Washington state.

Trump, in turn, lambasted the "bad court" and signed a new executive order on travel on March 6 that was modified in an attempt to survive court challenges.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-appeals-hawaii-judge-s-order-1490914861-htmlstory.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2017, 01:22:45 PM »

Trump travel ban blocked by Va.-based federal appeals court
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published May 25, 2017
Fox News

A Virginia-based federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration's controversial travel ban, becoming the second circuit court to uphold lower court rulings against the policy.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond issued the ruling Thursday, following arguments May 8.

The ruling means the Trump administration still cannot enforce its travel ban which affects six Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Sudan.

“We remain unconvinced [the ban] has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban," the court said.

The ruling was issued by the full, or en banc, court, in a 10-3 ruling with two abstentions.

"Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation," the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory wrote.

Judge Paul Niemeyer sharply dissented from the decision, saying it will make the U.S. more dangerous.

“Regrettably, at the end of the day, the real losers in this case are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm," Judge Dennis Shedd wrote in a separate dissent.

Trump issued his first executive order creating a travel ban on Jan. 27. That order, which included Iraq, sparked protests at airports around the country and brief detentions of hundreds of travelers. It was met with immediate resistance from the courts, with several federal district judges issuing orders blocking aspects of the order.

On March 6, Trump issued a revised travel ban striking Iraq and excluding existing visa and green card holders.

Another federal appeals court is considering a similar appeal of a Hawaii-based judge’s ruling blocking the visa ban. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in that case May 15.

Both cases are likely headed to the U.S. Supreme court, according to legal experts.

The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.

The new version made it clear the 90-day ban covering those six countries doesn't apply to those who already have valid visas. It got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities and removed Iraq from the list of banned countries.

Critics said the changes don't erase the legal problems with the ban.

The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of organizations as well as people who live in the U.S. and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.

"President Trump's Muslim ban violates the Constitution, as this decision strongly reaffirms," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued the case. "The Constitution's prohibition on actions disfavoring or condemning any religion is a fundamental protection for all of us, and we can all be glad that the court today rejected the government's request to set that principle aside."

Fox News' Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/25/trump-travel-ban-blocked-by-va-based-federal-appeals-court.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 38335


Obama is a coke sniffing ball washing homo


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2017, 01:44:48 PM »

So once again they're still calling it a "Muslim ban" and ruled on feelings instead of the actual law. This will get obliterated in the Supreme Court
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2017, 11:14:14 AM »

9th Circuit rules against Trump travel ban
Published June 12, 2017
Fox News
 
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled in part against President Trump’s so-called travel ban, upholding an injunction that prevents the administration from enforcing a suspension on travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the opinion said.

The ruling Monday from a unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deals the administration another legal defeat as the Supreme Court considers a separate case on the issue.

The judges say the president violated U.S. immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality and that Trump failed to show their entry into the country would hurt American interests.

They didn't rule on whether the travel ban violated the Constitution's ban on the government officially favoring or disfavoring any religion. The 9th Circuit, considered among the most liberal circuits in the country, did side with the administration Monday in allowing the government to review vetting procedures. The judges directed a lower court to re-issue its preliminary injunction following the new guidance.

The 9th Circuit opinion represents just one development in the fast-moving legal battle.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia also ruled against the travel ban May 25. The administration has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Earlier Monday, lawyers for Hawaii also told the Supreme Court that letting the Trump administration enforce the ban would "thrust the country back into the chaos and confusion" that resulted when the policy was first announced in January.

The state urged the justices to deny the administration plea to reinstate the policy after lower courts blocked it. The high court is considering the administration's request and could act before the justices wind up their work at the end of June.

Under the Trump policy, immigration officials would have 90 days to decide what changes are necessary before people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen may resume applying for visas. The U.S. refugee program would be halted for 120 days.

It would take a majority of the Supreme Court, at least five justices, to put the policy into effect.

The 9th Circuit weighed in Monday after a federal judge in Hawaii already blocked the ban.

Trump signed his first executive order on travel a week after he took office in January. It applied to travelers from the six countries as well as Iraq and took effect immediately, leading to commotion at U.S. airports as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out who the order covered and how it was to be implemented.

A federal judge blocked it eight days later.

In March, Trump issued a narrower order, but federal courts that have examined it so far have blocked it as well.

On Twitter last week, Trump said the "courts are slow and political" and he said the government already is "EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/12/9th-circuit-rules-against-trump-travel-ban.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Howard
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 12667



« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2017, 02:00:07 PM »

Thats pretty bad if even McCain thinks they are too liberal.

LOL, but seriously a guy like McCain is closer to my politics then most out there.

Report to moderator   Logged
Howard
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 12667



« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2017, 02:02:33 PM »

In the meantime:

Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’

As judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trump’s immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states (Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington) out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.

They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html

" judicial fiefdom" made me spit out my drink.

This circuit court shake up appears to have some merit.
BUT, I honestly don't know enough on this issue to make an informed comment.

If McCain thinks it's good, I'll go with that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2017, 04:42:46 PM »

White House Takes Muslim Travel Ban To Supreme Court
06/21/2017

Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said the lower courts had wrongly second-guessed the president.

The Trump administration on Wednesday made its final plea to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow its proposed ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect as the justices weigh how to handle the hotly contested dispute.

The court papers filed by President Donald Trump’s administration complete the briefing on the government’s emergency application asking the justices to block lower court injunctions in favor of challengers to the ban. The Supreme Court could now act at any time.

The lower court rulings blocked the 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to give the government time to implement stronger vetting procedures.

In the court papers, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said the lower courts had wrongly second-guessed the president on national security policy when reviewing the March 6 executive order.

“The president expressly determined that the order’s provisions are needed to promote national security, but the lower courts here ... nullified that judgment,” he wrote.

In court papers filed on Tuesday, lawyers for the state of Hawaii and individual plaintiffs in Maryland urged the high court not to allow the ban go into effect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-takes-muslim-travel-ban-to-supreme-court_us_594aaf23e4b01cdedeffc912?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Report to moderator   Logged
Irongrip400
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14097


Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica


« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2017, 05:12:57 PM »

It's not a "muslim" ban. Anyways, if it deters people coming from terrorist havens, even if it's just the fact that it shows that this country is not a good place for them to come, I'm okay with it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 38335


Obama is a coke sniffing ball washing homo


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2017, 06:33:20 PM »

It's not a "muslim" ban. Anyways, if it deters people coming from terrorist havens, even if it's just the fact that it shows that this populace is not a good place for them to come, I'm okay with it.

Sshhhhhh..don't tell Strawman. He still thinks it's an actual "Muslim ban".
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2017, 03:53:54 PM »

Supreme Court decision shifts momentum in Trump travel ban case
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published June 26, 2017
Fox News
 
After successive rulings by numerous federal courts against President Trump’s controversial travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered what Trump is touting as a clear victory – allowing most of the policy to be enforced and teeing up a high-stakes court battle for the fall in which the administration may have the upper hand.

Monday’s ruling effectively allows part of Trump’s executive order to go into effect, including a 90-day ban on people entering the United States from six mostly-Muslim countries who “lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” such as a spouse, close relative, employer or enrollment in an American university.

It also allows a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect.

The ruling, though, sets up further litigation in the courts over the coming weeks on just how far the “bona fide” exemptions can go and whether emergency exceptions will be granted.

“I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. “The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid §2(c)’ of Executive Order No. 13780.”

Reaz Jafri, head of the global immigration practice at Withers Bergman law firm, told Fox News he expects a significant uptick in cases and protests. Jafri advises clients on how to navigate the U.S.’s changes in immigration policies.

“It is still unclear if a national from one of the banned countries will get a visa to visit a family member, participate in a conference, visit schools or come for a job interview,” Jafri said. “Will these be considered bona fide reasons to visit the U.S.? My sense is ‘no’ and the implication is that U.S. businesses, universities and families will be negatively impacted.”

All nine justices agreed in the 13-page decision to take up the case in the fall, setting up a showdown over the legality of the order.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito Jr. and Thomas wrote a three-page opinion saying they would have allowed Trump’s travel ban to take effect fully, without regard to a foreign national’s connection to the United States. Their dissent could foreshadow a tough road ahead for opponents of the travel ban.

The justices agreed to hear oral arguments on the merits of the executive order – whether the ban is lawful or exceeds the president’s powers - during the Court's next term, which begins in October. 

Though Monday’s decision wasn’t the final word on the travel ban, Trump touted it as “a clear victory for our national security.”

“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” he said in a written statement. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.

He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is broken!"

In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order -- which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.

Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.

Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died.

Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, called the travel ban unconstitutional, saying, "Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-decision-shifts-momentum-in-trump-travel-ban-case.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2017, 05:46:12 PM »

US Appeals Court Denies Hawaii Bid to Narrow Trump Travel Ban
Friday, 07 Jul 2017

A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected Hawaii's request to issue an emergency order blocking parts of President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban while the state sought clarification over what groups of people would be barred from travel.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month let the ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries go forward with a limited scope, saying it could not apply to anyone with a credible "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity.

The Trump administration then decided that spouses, parents, children, fiancés and siblings would be exempt from the ban, while grandparents and other family members traveling from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be barred.

Trump said the measure was necessary to prevent attacks. However, opponents including states and refugee advocacy groups sued to stop it, disputing its security rationale and saying it discriminated against Muslims.

A Honolulu judge this week rejected Hawaii's request to clarify the Supreme Court ruling and narrow the government's implementation of the ban.

Hawaii appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying in a filing on Friday that the appeals court has the power to narrow the travel ban while it decides how to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling.

A three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Friday rejected that argument and said it did not have jurisdiction to hear Hawaii's appeal.

The 9th Circuit said the Honolulu judge could issue an injunction against the government in the future, if he believed it misapplied the Supreme Court's ruling to a particular person harmed by the travel ban.

But the judge did not have the authority to simply clarify the Supreme Court's instructions now, the appeals court said.

The Justice Department declined to comment. Hawaii's attorney general could not immediately be reached for comment.

Justice Department lawyers have argued that its definition of close family "hews closely" to language found in U.S. immigration law, while Hawaii's attorney general's office said other parts of immigration law include grandparents in that group.

The roll-out of the narrowed version of the ban was more subdued last week than in January when Trump first signed a more expansive version of the order. That sparked protests and chaos at airports around the country and the world.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/us-appeals-court-hawaii/2017/07/07/id/800499/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2017, 04:13:34 PM »

Blue states sue Trump over DACA
By Tal Kopan, CNN
September 6, 2017

Washington (CNN)Conservative states may have boxed President Donald Trump into announcing an end for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- but Democratic state attorneys general are already fighting back.

A coalition of 16 Democratic and nonpartisan state attorneys general filed suit in New York federal court on Wednesday to stop Trump's sunset of DACA -- the Obama-era program that protected young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from being deported -- and they say Trump's comments about Mexicans should be used against him.

The groups laid out five different constitutional arguments against Trump's move, saying it was motivated by discriminatory reasons, that it violated due process by being "fundamentally unfair," and that it violated laws that dictate procedures for federal regulations.

The lawyers note that most DACA recipients are of Mexican origin and devote a whole section to inflammatory statements Trump has made about Mexicans, including his attacks on a federal judge of Mexican descent.

"As President Trump's statements about Mexico and those with Mexican roots show, the President has demonstrated a willingness to disparage Mexicans in a misguided attempt to secure support from his constituency, even when such impulses are impermissible motives for directing governmental policy," the attorneys general wrote.

Trump's statements as a candidate and President have been used against him in previous lawsuits, most notably challenges against his travel ban earlier this year.

The lawsuit also devotes a section to Texas, the state that pushed Trump to end the program, using a section to describe Texas as "a state found to have discriminated against Latinos/Hispanics nine times since 2012."

Trump on Tuesday moved to sunset the DACA program, acting in response to a threat from 10 states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent in late June, threatening Trump that they'd sue in an unfriendly court if the President didn't end the program by September 5.
The President said his administration would not accept any new DACA applications from Tuesday onward and that any two-year DACA permits expiring after March 5, 2018, would not be renewed.

Now, those state officials' Democratic counterparts are hoping they can have the opposite effect on the administration, succeeding in the courts to reinstate the program that has protected nearly 800,000 young people in its time and currently has nearly 700,000 people enrolled.

"Immigration is the lifeblood of New York State," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "The Trump administration's decision to end DACA is cruel, inhumane, and devastating to the 42,000 New Yorkers who have been able to come out of the shadows and live a full life as a result of the program."

"I filed suit against President Trump and his administration to protect DACA because Dreamers are just as American as first lady Melania Trump," New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said the department is ready to defend itself.

"As the attorney general said yesterday: 'No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law,'" O'Malley said. "While the plaintiffs in today's lawsuits may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this administration's position."

Difficult road to success

Legal experts say attorneys general have a long road ahead of them.

Trump is not prematurely revoking any permits, choosing instead to let them expire on their normal two-year cycle but not offer any renewals. That may help the administration skirt a challenge based on the revocation of permits, as expirations were allowed for in the original implementation.

The biggest legal argument against rescinding DACA, scholars say, hinges on the federal law that dictates how agencies can make regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, which lays out a lengthy process that requires ample notice and time for the public to comment on substantive federal rulemaking.

Ironically, the main argument for that line of legal challenge comes from the former biggest threat to DACA: Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen. In his court decision forestalling an expansion of DACA and a similar program for parents, which formed the legal basis of Paxton and the other attorneys general's threats, Hanen cited the APA's regulatory requirements.

Hanen determined that move needed formal rulemaking to be put in place. Now, supporters of DACA are poised to argue formal rulemaking is necessary to unwind the program. That would open the Trump administration to a politically painful, lengthy process of getting comment on the impact of the move.

"I wouldn't say it's a long shot, (but) I would say it is challenging, just because of the tradition against reviewing prosecutorial discretion," said Washington University law professor and Obama administration alum Stephen Legomsky. "On the other hand, they do now have this precedent that establishing it requires APA procedure. ... It's a challenging issue."
Cornell law professor and immigration attorney Steve Yale-Loehr gave the lawsuit even longer odds, saying other arguments, like due process rights being violated, are similarly difficult to prove given that DACA was explicitly set up as a reprieve from deportation, not a right.

"Given the general deference that most courts provide to executive branch decisions on immigration, because immigration touches on national security and national sovereignty issues, they're going to have an uphill battle in court," Yale-Loehr said. "I wish them well, but as far as I can tell, I think they've got a less than 50% chance of winning in court."

Still, cities and states have succeeded in the courts against the Trump administration since early in his presidency, getting courts to block policies including the travel ban and sanctuary cities threats.

There is already at least one lawsuit on the books against Trump's move: An undocumented immigrant and DACA recipient filed a suit on Tuesday, largely on the same grounds discussed by Legomsky and Yale-Loehr.

The states challenging the move are New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/daca-trump-states-lawsuits/index.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmortal
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5661


« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2017, 05:48:53 PM »

9th Circiuit is filled with liberal c unts so it's not surprising, they've continuously upheld the Stalinist gun agenda here in California.

And lol at people suing over an executive order.  Even Obama admitted when he did it that it could be struck down and rightfully so.  Congress has to pass legislation to make it official which with all on their plate and the historic ineptitude of the last 20 years, don't hold your breath.

Personally I think they should give a path to citizenship for everyone who is registered under DACA, it doesn't take months of negotiations to figure that one out, it's pretty clear cut IMO.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17003


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2017, 05:59:51 PM »

3 days ago no one ever FNG knew about this

Blue states sue Trump over DACA
By Tal Kopan, CNN
September 6, 2017

Washington (CNN)Conservative states may have boxed President Donald Trump into announcing an end for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- but Democratic state attorneys general are already fighting back.

A coalition of 16 Democratic and nonpartisan state attorneys general filed suit in New York federal court on Wednesday to stop Trump's sunset of DACA -- the Obama-era program that protected young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from being deported -- and they say Trump's comments about Mexicans should be used against him.

The groups laid out five different constitutional arguments against Trump's move, saying it was motivated by discriminatory reasons, that it violated due process by being "fundamentally unfair," and that it violated laws that dictate procedures for federal regulations.

The lawyers note that most DACA recipients are of Mexican origin and devote a whole section to inflammatory statements Trump has made about Mexicans, including his attacks on a federal judge of Mexican descent.

"As President Trump's statements about Mexico and those with Mexican roots show, the President has demonstrated a willingness to disparage Mexicans in a misguided attempt to secure support from his constituency, even when such impulses are impermissible motives for directing governmental policy," the attorneys general wrote.

Trump's statements as a candidate and President have been used against him in previous lawsuits, most notably challenges against his travel ban earlier this year.

The lawsuit also devotes a section to Texas, the state that pushed Trump to end the program, using a section to describe Texas as "a state found to have discriminated against Latinos/Hispanics nine times since 2012."

Trump on Tuesday moved to sunset the DACA program, acting in response to a threat from 10 states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent in late June, threatening Trump that they'd sue in an unfriendly court if the President didn't end the program by September 5.
The President said his administration would not accept any new DACA applications from Tuesday onward and that any two-year DACA permits expiring after March 5, 2018, would not be renewed.

Now, those state officials' Democratic counterparts are hoping they can have the opposite effect on the administration, succeeding in the courts to reinstate the program that has protected nearly 800,000 young people in its time and currently has nearly 700,000 people enrolled.

"Immigration is the lifeblood of New York State," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "The Trump administration's decision to end DACA is cruel, inhumane, and devastating to the 42,000 New Yorkers who have been able to come out of the shadows and live a full life as a result of the program."

"I filed suit against President Trump and his administration to protect DACA because Dreamers are just as American as first lady Melania Trump," New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said the department is ready to defend itself.

"As the attorney general said yesterday: 'No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law,'" O'Malley said. "While the plaintiffs in today's lawsuits may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this administration's position."

Difficult road to success

Legal experts say attorneys general have a long road ahead of them.

Trump is not prematurely revoking any permits, choosing instead to let them expire on their normal two-year cycle but not offer any renewals. That may help the administration skirt a challenge based on the revocation of permits, as expirations were allowed for in the original implementation.

The biggest legal argument against rescinding DACA, scholars say, hinges on the federal law that dictates how agencies can make regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, which lays out a lengthy process that requires ample notice and time for the public to comment on substantive federal rulemaking.

Ironically, the main argument for that line of legal challenge comes from the former biggest threat to DACA: Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen. In his court decision forestalling an expansion of DACA and a similar program for parents, which formed the legal basis of Paxton and the other attorneys general's threats, Hanen cited the APA's regulatory requirements.

Hanen determined that move needed formal rulemaking to be put in place. Now, supporters of DACA are poised to argue formal rulemaking is necessary to unwind the program. That would open the Trump administration to a politically painful, lengthy process of getting comment on the impact of the move.

"I wouldn't say it's a long shot, (but) I would say it is challenging, just because of the tradition against reviewing prosecutorial discretion," said Washington University law professor and Obama administration alum Stephen Legomsky. "On the other hand, they do now have this precedent that establishing it requires APA procedure. ... It's a challenging issue."
Cornell law professor and immigration attorney Steve Yale-Loehr gave the lawsuit even longer odds, saying other arguments, like due process rights being violated, are similarly difficult to prove given that DACA was explicitly set up as a reprieve from deportation, not a right.

"Given the general deference that most courts provide to executive branch decisions on immigration, because immigration touches on national security and national sovereignty issues, they're going to have an uphill battle in court," Yale-Loehr said. "I wish them well, but as far as I can tell, I think they've got a less than 50% chance of winning in court."

Still, cities and states have succeeded in the courts against the Trump administration since early in his presidency, getting courts to block policies including the travel ban and sanctuary cities threats.

There is already at least one lawsuit on the books against Trump's move: An undocumented immigrant and DACA recipient filed a suit on Tuesday, largely on the same grounds discussed by Legomsky and Yale-Loehr.

The states challenging the move are New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/daca-trump-states-lawsuits/index.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2017, 06:11:39 PM »

9th Circiuit is filled with liberal c unts so it's not surprising, they've continuously upheld the Stalinist gun agenda here in California.

And lol at people suing over an executive order.  Even Obama admitted when he did it that it could be struck down and rightfully so.  Congress has to pass legislation to make it official which with all on their plate and the historic ineptitude of the last 20 years, don't hold your breath.

Personally I think they should give a path to citizenship for everyone who is registered under DACA, it doesn't take months of negotiations to figure that one out, it's pretty clear cut IMO.

Agree.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2017, 06:12:30 PM »

3 days ago no one ever FNG knew about this


Probably headed to the supreme court. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51823

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2017, 12:04:23 PM »

Supreme Court issues temporary refugee ban order
Associated Press
September 11, 2017
   
WASHINGTON >> Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has issued a temporary order allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees for the time being.

The order is in response to the administration’s request for the high court to block a lower court ruling that could allow up to 24,000 refugees to enter the United States.

Kennedy ordered challengers to the administration’s refugee ban to submit written arguments in support of the lower court ruling by midday Tuesday.

The appellate ruling would allow refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the U.S. had agreed to take them in. The ruling would have taken effect Tuesday without the high court’s intervention.

The Trump administration earlier today had asked the justices to continue to allow strict enforcement of a temporary ban on refugees from around the world.

The Justice Department’s high court filing today follows an appeals court ruling last week that would allow refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the U.S. had agreed to take them in. The appellate ruling could take effect as soon as Tuesday and could apply to up to 24,000 refugees.

The administration is not challenging the part of the ruling that applies to a temporary ban on visitors from six mostly Muslim countries. The appeals court ruled that grandparents and cousins of people already in the U.S. can’t be excluded from the country under the travel ban.

The Supreme Court already has weighed in twice on lower court rulings striking down or limiting the travel and refugee bans, though it has to rule on their validity.

In June, the high court said the administration could not enforce the bans against people who have a “bona fide” relationship with people or entities in the United States. The justices declined to define the required relationships more precisely.

In July, the justices issued an order that temporarily allowed strict enforcement of the exclusion of refugees. But the Supreme Court refused to go along with the administration’s view that it could keep out grandparents, cousins and some other family members.

The 90-day travel ban affects visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The high court is scheduled to hear arguments about the legality of the travel and refugee bans in October. By that point, the original 90-day travel ban will have lapsed and the 120-day refugee ban will have just a few weeks to run. The administration has yet to say whether it plans to renew the exclusions, expand them or make them permanent.

The administration told the court today said that changing the way it enforces the policy on refugees would allow “admission of refugees who have no connection to the United States independent of the refugee-admission process itself.”

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/09/11/breaking-news/supreme-court-issues-temporary-refugee-ban-order/
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!