9th Circuit Court

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I've read the high points of this decision. Anybody defending this ruling is a fool.

The Pretzel job they went through to make this ruling will be laughed at in law schools in the future.

This court has extended the protections of at least two amendments of the constitution to every single person on the planet.

No matter where they reside, whether they have ever stepped into our country. If this specific ruling would stand, then children born tonight in any country of the world now have 1st and 5th amendment rights in the United States.

The 9Th circus....getting it wrong for decades......

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politi...ing-full-text/

Show me a major campaign for the Presidency that did not have setbacks and you will see a failed campaign. The same logic applies to administrations that make it all the way. During his campaign he spelled out how he would treat people from those areas, the 9Th circuit took that into consideration. While correct in your assessment, the court used what was said during the campaign. If the President suspended all immigration for the same period the court would not have much to go on right, or would they have more? Yes our laws need updating, what we spend on welfare and food stamps, and subsidized housing for people coming in can we afford? At some point we as a people have to cut back to what we can afford, connect it to the 20 Trillion we owe and see the sparks fly.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

This court has extended the protections of at least two amendments of the constitution to every single person on the planet.

No matter where they reside, whether they have ever stepped into our country. If this specific ruling would stand, then children born tonight in any country of the world now have 1st and 5th amendment rights in the United States.

Agree. Our Constitution should apply universally. What's good enough for us is good for all mankind.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by chadk66

it's just amazing to me that these liberals are this dumb to continually poke the bear. how stupid are these people. Gorsuch will now be nucleared into his seat. I don't think they will enjoy the ramifications of this. But I sure will

I was thinking along the same lines. Just a few days ago, I opined that Mitchka should stay his finger from the button unless it is needed. I was thinking at that time that if Kennedy, for example, was to retire that could potentially shift power in the SC to the right, and the dems would stall forever. But now...I believe the moonbats on the 9th Circus haven't given Mitch an option here. They have forced his hand. Knowing how the Dems operate in the Senate, they would drag their feet right now before confirming Gorsuch because that would allow even more radical Muslims into the country, and tens of thousands if not millions of potential illegal voters for 2020. I don't see how Mitch has an option here. I'm betting that Trump will really ratchet up the pressure on him now, also.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Agree. Our Constitution should apply universally. What's good enough for us is good for all mankind.

The problem with that is the language in the Constitution itself. Read the preamble. The Constitution was written by and for the People of these United States. This is a limited, qualifying clause. The people of the world are not the People of these United States, anymore than the the people of the U.S. are the People of China Republic.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by barn32

Why aren't you banned for such a remark?

He didn't say he wanted a terrorist attack. If a terrorist attack does happen, should I get banned for saying I am glad it didn't happen in Missouri, where I live?

[davew]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Agree. Our Constitution should apply universally. What's good enough for us is good for all mankind.

what about the followers of sharia law?


Can you get a 'rush job' for the supreme court? I thought they were on the docket at least a half of a year in advance... if that is the case, there will be 9 on supreme court, unless Ruth goes to New Zealand, retires or mysteriously dies.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I've read the high points of this decision. Anybody defending this ruling is a fool.

The Pretzel job they went through to make this ruling will be laughed at in law schools in the future.

This court has extended the protections of at least two amendments of the constitution to every single person on the planet.

No matter where they reside, whether they have ever stepped into our country. If this specific ruling would stand, then children born tonight in any country of the world now have 1st and 5th amendment rights in the United States.

You clearly should have read the whole decision. They absolutely eviscerated the government's argument. If you want the definition of fool, you'd be thinking of the government's arguments.

If you read the decision, what the court did was essentially say the law firm of Bozo, Bozo and Blinky who drafted the EO did an incredibly poor job. You totally missed the point if you thought the decision was about Trump's authority under the law. It wasn't. In fact the court said it was clear he had broad authority to regulate immigration. Basically, what he did was cause demonstrable harm to the states and strip the constitutional rights from people who have been clearly given those rights previously by the Supreme Court. The reasoning Trump used to justify the need for an EO pretty much fell down on every level.

The point was that had Trump thought through the EO, had he made sure he wasn't going to violate the Constitutional rights of people he included in the EO, had he recognized the need to account for the public interest, had he been able to list the harm that would be done by not implementing the EO, had he avoided constructing the EO in such a way that it caused substantial harm to the states - something the states were able to easily demonstrate, had he not tried to pass himself off as Emperor instead of the President subject to the Constitution, had he thought this out with some experts, had he not huffed and puffed and threatened to blow the Muslim religion out of the country during his campaign, maybe he could have gotten a legal ban on the people whom it made sense to keep out of the country.

I read the decision. It was quite easy to understand. And if you think the next court is going to laugh at it, it is only a reflection of your jaundiced opinion of the law, the Constitution, and justice. You know who they extended protections to? The existing group of people who have been granted rights by the Supreme Court in compliance with the Constitution, not everyone in the world. Read the decision, not the alt-right condensed version. Then make an informed analysis.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by _______

It would be greater if the administration simply withdrew a deeply flawed EO and ran a new one through the regular process of review by our national security agencies for an alleged national security decision.

But if you're afraid the answer won't be one you like, then you press on.

And a brilliant waste of political capital.

He's a smart guy surrounded by great people... the best people.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by _______

I guess this is how relying on a candidates words that he'll have the "best people" begins.

Crap didn't get this far before posting my above comment.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by davew

what about the followers of sharia law?

What about them?

[TBD]

Too many people fighting on either side. Too many people missing the politics of the situation. The President has made a two horse win wager on a Match Race. He wins either way.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

99% of the people covered by the EO didn't have Constitutional protection and could have been kept out of the country by the President. The problem was not the President's authority under the law to control the borders, it was the ham-handed way he "forgot" that he couldn't exclude those with Constitutional protection and rolled out the EO. If he had done it right the first time, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They can't be the "best people" if they make rookie mistakes.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Charles Krauthammer described the EO succinctly. Stupid but legal.

"Not a single American has ever been killed in a terror attack in this country by a citizen from the notorious seven. The killers have come from precisely those countries not listed - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAW, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Kyrgyzstan (the Tsarnaev brothers). The notion that we had to act immediately because hordes of jihadists in these seven countries were about to board airplanes to blow up America is absurd."

[Tom]

The court got it wrong. Again.

Re-write the order today and exclude those with green cards.
Stop playing around with this useless bunch and re-district them ASAP.

[Tom]

"Not a single American has ever been killed in a terror attack in this country by a citizen from the notorious seven.

So Chucky, how many do we need to die before we act?