PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: InTheSoup on February 09, 2017, 05:17:12 PM
-
I don't understand how they have that power in this case..
-
I don't understand how they have that power in this case..
It's important to have checks and balances.
-
It's important to have checks and balances.
This... The President is not a dictator.
-
It's important to have checks and balances.
Yes, it is.
But isn't also important not to countermand existing law just because someone now argues that law inconveniences folks? Because that is the gist of the 9th Circus's argument.
"And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."
That's it. They didn't quote law, they stated that their interest outweighs the law.
This... The President is not a dictator.
Correct he is not. A dictator would do what they wanted despite the law. The president was trying to work using the law.
-
The 9th Circuit has had 80+% of their decisions overturned by the Supreme court last year alone.
Here's an interesting article on the 9th.
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/373273/ninth-circuit-leading-pack-most-reversed-jonathan-keim
Although recent years have seen other circuits competing with the Ninth Circuit for the title of “Most Reversed,” the Ninth still appears to hold the unquestioned title. The Ninth Circuit’s best showing in recent years was October Term 2009, with a 60 percent reversal rate in the 15 cases on which certiorari was granted. The Sixth Circuit got the prize for highest reversal rate that year, with seven cases resulting in seven reversals, while the Seven Circuit came in a close second (91 percent reversal rate in eleven cases). But in 2010, perhaps seeking to reclaim its position at the top of the heap, the Ninth Circuit was reversed a startling 19 times (79 percent), three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. The same pattern continued in the 2011 (71 percent) and 2012 terms (86 percent), when the Ninth Circuit was reversed more than twice as many times as most circuits had cases before the Court.
-
It's important to have checks and balances.
Only insofar as the Court acting as a co-equal branch. With their latest ruling, the 9th Circus removed an enumerated National Defense responsibility that is empowered SOLELY in the office of the President - just as the original District Court Judge, they have replaced the President's judgement with their own, and failed to rule on the actual issue at law. This is a sign of things to come and is a decision of, I think, seriously underestimated danger for our Nation.
The Left, unable to win elections and having seen an unprecedented erosion of power at the Federal, State and Local level over the past 8 years will seek to use the subsurface levers of power (all the government employees and NGO's) and the courts and their willing accomplices in the radical alt-left-government-media complex to strip the office of the president of its' specifically enumerated powers, this is a far more dangerous judicial overreach than we have since Roe v Wade with potentially even more far-reaching impacts - and I would say that if this was President Obama trying to exercise a specifically enumerated power but in a direction I don't agree with.
Make no mistake, the original ruling, and the 9th Circus decision are placing the COMFORT and CONVENIENCE of foreigners who come to America, a PRIVILEGE, over the RIGHTS and SECURITY of citizens and completely ignoring the law.
Mark Levin has written extensively about the dangers posed by activist judges, this is as sure an example as there has been in quite some time.
'Gimp
-
I think in the mean time all refugees from the countries listed in the order that now will be allowed to come in should be relocated to the western US, the states covered by the 9th Circuit.
-
I think in the mean time all refugees from the countries listed in the order that now will be allowed to come in should be relocated to the western US, the states covered by the 9th Circuit.
Forget about the countries listed. If the president cannot name countries anymore, then I also demand that 9th court open immigration on demand from any country, including Cuba and North Korea. If we cannot keep Syria out then we cannot keep anyone else out.
By this same logic, the US would not have been able to keep German and Japanese citizens out of the US during WWII.
What a group of Maroons.
-
-
I still don't understand how this court can step in and control this matter. This is something that is clearly written and a power the president has without having to get any approval or court hearing. What am I missing?
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
"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. "
-
I still don't understand how this court can step in and control this matter. This is something that is clearly written and a power the president has without having to get any approval or court hearing. What am I missing?
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
"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. "
Very clear. The 9th Circus will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
-
I just cant understand how the court could stop him. Its seems like they should have had to fight it to the supreme court to stop the ban first. not the other way around.
-
"And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied.
"So, in conclusion FUCK YOU, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES"
-
The 9th Circuit has a long history of trying to make laws, and legislate from the bench in a far left manner. This is no check, and balance. This is judicial over reach.
-
The 9th Circuit now owns the protection of our citizens. Should someone come into the country and commit a terrorist act the 9th Circuit will have the blood on their hands.
-
The 9th Circuit now owns the protection of our citizens. Should someone come into the country and commit a terrorist act the 9th Circuit will have the blood on their hands.
Liberals NEVER accept any responsibility. They simply pretend it's all the fault of the TEA party and white supremacists like Jeff Seesions and Breitbart.
At no time would a liberal judge actually consider the constitution because that might inconvenience them from an integrity standpoint and liberal activist judges have no integrity.
-
There has been a history of acquiescence by congress and presidents to the courts. There are supposed to be three equal branches of the government. Apparently years ago a supreme court declared itself the authority and highest power on issues. The constitution grants broad power to congress to reel in activist courts and judges. There is also broad power for the people to remove these judges. I think it's getting time to act.
-
Full text of the 9th Circus ruling
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/02/09/read-ruling-president-donald-trump-travel-ban/9B2ClQWjKKOzh5459M3N1K/story.html
A first year law student would fall in the floor doubled up and laughing at such a poorly written judgment. This is such blatant Alt Left activism in action, hopefully it makes it to the Supreme Court.
-
Ahh, the Conservative chorus. Any court that rules against their pet rejects is "activist", or legislating from the bench. Any court that affirms conservative doctrine is just following the Constitution. If the POTUS is a Democrat he must be stopped at all costs. If the POTUS is a Republican he should be able to dictate from the White House.
Saddest thing is if the Short Fingered Vulgarian really believed this was urgent and important, he'd hustle to enact his "extreme vetting" (whatever that is) to not trigger a Constitutional challenge. Problem is if he did that, he'd have to admit he was wrong about the Ban. And if there's one thing the Tangerine Tornado isn't going to do, its admit his mistake.
To be honest, I thought the decision of the 9th was a bit sweeping for what they were supposed to be ruling. Their task was to determine if the law was Constitutional, not if it was justified by the facts at hand.
-
Ahh, the Conservative chorus. Any court that rules against their pet rejects is "activist", or legislating from the bench. Any court that affirms conservative doctrine is just following the Constitution. If the POTUS is a Democrat he must be stopped at all costs. If the POTUS is a Republican he should be able to dictate from the White House.
Saddest thing is if the Short Fingered Vulgarian really believed this was urgent and important, he'd hustle to enact his "extreme vetting" (whatever that is) to not trigger a Constitutional challenge. Problem is if he did that, he'd have to admit he was wrong about the Ban. And if there's one thing the Tangerine Tornado isn't going to do, its admit his mistake.
To be honest, I thought the decision of the 9th was a bit sweeping for what they were supposed to be ruling. Their task was to determine if the law was Constitutional, not if it was justified by the facts at hand.
Apparently with your triple digit IQ your reading comprehension is in the single digits. In your above diatribe you take potshots all around the subject making wild assertions with no basis in reality, just mindless blabbering.
Yet in your final paragraph you acknowledge the 9th Circus over reached. The law at the center of this is very simple plain language, and the President stayed within the law as written. The 9th Circus danced around and put out a ruling that is laughable at best, just demonstrating again why they are one of the worst courts in the nation.
What's at stake here is the rule of law. We have a judicial branch that is not acting as a check and balance, but as the superior branch in which they are legislating from the bench by completely rewriting laws they disagree with. This needs to go to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules with the 9th, then the rule of law is over in this country and we will be dictated by activist judges. If the Supreme Court rules against the 9th (most likely) then the rule of law is upheld.
-
What's at stake here is the rule of law. We have a judicial branch that is not acting as a check and balance, but as the superior branch in which they are legislating from the bench by completely rewriting laws they disagree with. This needs to go to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules with the 9th, then the rule of law is over in this country and we will be dictated by activist judges. If the Supreme Court rules against the 9th (most likely) then the rule of law is upheld.
^^^^^^This. The liberal/progressive hijacking of our judiciary has got to stop. Law schools put out more Democrats than anything else, and they carry that into the judiciary because more onerous laws, and regulations means more work, and fees for lawyers.
-
Any court that rules against their pet rejects is "activist", or legislating from the bench.
...
To be honest, I thought the decision of the 9th was a bit sweeping for what they were supposed to be ruling. Their task was to determine if the law was Constitutional, not if it was justified by the facts at hand.
So you have read the court's decision. They said "the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies... the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination." Would you characterize that as a legal opinion and if so, based on what law? I do not understand how anyone could call this a legal decision, it is a personal opinion. The judges themselves admit that they are not even trying to provide the color of law, they're hoping that their personal animosity toward the president carries over to a 4-4 supreme court and that the split decision renders their decision as law.
My problem with this is Law. The law states that president has the power to do what President Trump did. A judge suspended the law without any justification. Where does that leave the US as a Republic? In very, very sad shape. Law is our protection - mine and yours - against unexpected treatment by our government, against the government infringing on our rights. The judge just set the law aside and in doing so, set aside those protections.
Let me ask a direct question - if this judge can set aside this law for something you agree with, then why can't any judge set aside any law for something you despise. Can a Republican led appeals court set aside Obamacare in it's entirety? How about welfare, could they set aside welfare on the basis that it had negative externalities that the people have an interest in preventing? Could they start arresting people buying pot at "legal" stores because it's not legal at the federal level?
The law protects all of us and any compromise of the law compromises all of us. You are of course free to embrace that compromise, but don't expect me to join in a celebration of a loss of liberty.
-
Just let a court rule Roe v. Wade is un-Constitutional, and see what happens. Lib/Prog heads will explode. How dare we not be able to kill babies for convenience!
-
How Sweet...
Agent Double-Oh ZERO and his triple (000) IQ is still babbling in the dark about things of which he knows nothing...
It's a good thing he lives in the academic hothouse because a person with such limited insight would never make it in the real world.
-
Nobody should be surprised the 9th Circuit ruled this way. Gorsuch needs to be confirmed quickly and this case needs to get to the SCOTUS with a ruling made quickly as well. The other option is that Congress could quickly pass a bill and send it to President Trump that essentially mirrors his executive order. The 9th Circuit would likely overrule that immediately as well, but they'd have a much harder time justifying it because it would be a duly passed law at that point.
-
Nobody should be surprised the 9th Circuit ruled this way. Gorsuch needs to be confirmed quickly and this case needs to get to the SCOTUS with a ruling made quickly as well. The other option is that Congress could quickly pass a bill and send it to President Trump that essentially mirrors his executive order. The 9th Circuit would likely overrule that immediately as well, but they'd have a much harder time justifying it because it would be a duly passed law at that point.
Why would congress need to pass a bill when the existing law is very clear and concise?
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
"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. "
-
Why would congress need to pass a bill when the existing law is very clear and concise?
Why would the 9th Circuit strike down a law that is clearly written? If the 9th Circuit wants to play games then so should Congress to prove a point.
I agree that it's already a law.
-
Just let a court rule Roe v. Wade is un-Constitutional, and see what happens. Lib/Prog heads will explode. How dare we not be able to kill babies for convenience!
Roe v. Wade was a judicial decision, not a piece of legislation. It can be overturned by a different court, though courts usually don't like to overturn precedent. I really don't understand why this is an issue, in much of the US you really can't get an abortion as it is.
-
I really don't understand why this is an issue, in much of the US you really can't get an abortion as it is.
Really? From 1970 thru 2013 there were 51,888,303 done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
-
Really? From 1970 thru 2013 there were 51,888,303 done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
Maybe he's thinking that abortions don't happen if the Federal Government doesn't pay for it
-
States have been ramping up antiabortion ordinances for years. There are a number of states with only one abortion provider and several with none. All that said, the numbers I've seen suggest there are still north of one half million abortions annually in the US.
-
States have been ramping up antiabortion ordinances for years. There are a number of states with only one abortion provider and several with none. All that said, the numbers I've seen suggest there are still north of one half million abortions annually in the US.
So, you won't be upset if the courts override Roe v Wade then? I mean I know it's settled "law" since 1973 and all, but the 9th circus just overruled ignored actual law that has been around since 1952. Except Roe v Wade ISN'T law, it's a court decision. If the 9th circuit can override a 1948 case, then why can another court not override this?
And what does that say about us as a Republic?
-
Poor Michael.
With his owner and master, George Soros telling him what to think he can barely function.
Now he is trying to think himself, which is a fucking disaster.
Roe vs. Wade was another pathetic court decision made by courts trying not to make a decision. Just like the John Roberts led court and obamacare.
-
I think Trump is regrouping on this. I'm pretty sure that the guy has been around the block enough times that he understands that it is not important to win every little skirmish. Trump has been at a disadvantage as the dems have done everything in their power to slow his cabinet approval. Meanwhile he has been dealing with a leaderless state department interspersed with Obama flunkies. That has changed now. And now Trump understands what he is up against with the courts, so I think he will start dealing with that issue.
Trump has turned these clowns on their sides. They continually attempt to write the agenda, to set the goalposts and to take him down. He has been immune to this so far and I think he will continue to do what he wants and work toward his campaign promises. It is going to be fun to watch and before it is over it is probably going to require a forceful response to these commies who would rather anarchy than law and order. I'm not sure what that response will look like yet, but the democrats need to be stopped.
-
I think Trump is regrouping on this.
I heard a guy on NPR yesterday speculating that Trump would probably issue a new EO with wording that would exclude those that were already here legally, and that would probably be enough to get it through. Some people from those countries that have been here for a while are afraid to leave the country for legitimate purposes because they are afraid they won't be allowed back.
Yeah, I listen to NPR too.
-
I heard a guy on NPR yesterday speculating that Trump would probably issue a new EO with wording that would exclude those that were already here legally, and that would probably be enough to get it through. Some people from those countries that have been here for a while are afraid to leave the country for legitimate purposes because they are afraid they won't be allowed back.
Yeah, I listen to NPR too.
Even if he was to do that, some dipshit AG from a 9th Circus district would challenge it in court, and you would see the same result.
The decision of the 9th Circus didn't even bother to cite the law that gives the president the authority. And their decision was purely "we don't like what the president is doing", nothing more.
-
Even if he was to do that, some dipshit AG from a 9th Circus district would challenge it in court, and you would see the same result.
The decision of the 9th Circus didn't even bother to cite the law that gives the president the authority. And their decision was purely "we don't like what the president is doing", nothing more.
They didn't have to, and that wasn't their decision.. The Ninth Circuit Court involvement in this was only to determine if the stay in the implementation of the Presidents EO granted by the lower court through a temporary restraining order, was to continue. The Ninth Court in no way has determined whether the EO is legal/illegal or constitutional/unconstitutional.
So... the issue goes back to District Court where the two sides can present their case. This of course may all be moot, since rumor has it the President is writing a new order. Or, the government can appeal to a higher court - that is their call.
There is no doubt that Federal law gives the President wide latitude in immigration affairs, but even the President cannot do something illegal or unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is that the presidents EO was hurriedly and poorly written, no consultation with the agencies that had to implement it, no guidance on applying the EO, and all wrapped in the cloak of national security/safety when there isn't any solid evidence that the EO would truly make America one whit safer. So yes, the restraining order is back effect (as it should be) and the President/staff can try again. If the President wants to improve the vetting of immigrants, have at it, there are a lot of ways to do that, but in typical fashion the President decided to take the path of an "official tweet" that was quickly shot down. Suspect the President won't make that mistake again.
-
They didn't have to, and that wasn't their decision.. The Ninth Circuit Court involvement in this was only to determine if the stay in the implementation of the Presidents EO granted by the lower court through a temporary restraining order, was to continue. The Ninth Court in no way has determined whether the EO is legal/illegal or constitutional/unconstitutional.
So... the issue goes back to District Court where the two sides can present their case. This of course may all be moot, since rumor has it the President is writing a new order. Or, the government can appeal to a higher court - that is their call.
There is no doubt that Federal law gives the President wide latitude in immigration affairs, but even the President cannot do something illegal or unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is that the presidents EO was hurriedly and poorly written, no consultation with the agencies that had to implement it, no guidance on applying the EO, and all wrapped in the cloak of national security/safety when there isn't any solid evidence that the EO would truly make America one whit safer. So yes, the restraining order is back effect (as it should be) and the President/staff can try again. If the President wants to improve the vetting of immigrants, have at it, there are a lot of ways to do that, but in typical fashion the President decided to take the path of an "official tweet" that was quickly shot down. Suspect the President won't make that mistake again.
Your circular argument is liberal bullshit.
-
They didn't have to, and that wasn't their decision.. The Ninth Circuit Court involvement in this was only to determine if the stay in the implementation of the Presidents EO granted by the lower court through a temporary restraining order, was to continue. The Ninth Court in no way has determined whether the EO is legal/illegal or constitutional/unconstitutional.
So... the issue goes back to District Court where the two sides can present their case. This of course may all be moot, since rumor has it the President is writing a new order. Or, the government can appeal to a higher court - that is their call.
There is no doubt that Federal law gives the President wide latitude in immigration affairs, but even the President cannot do something illegal or unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is that the presidents EO was hurriedly and poorly written, no consultation with the agencies that had to implement it, no guidance on applying the EO, and all wrapped in the cloak of national security/safety when there isn't any solid evidence that the EO would truly make America one whit safer. So yes, the restraining order is back effect (as it should be) and the President/staff can try again. If the President wants to improve the vetting of immigrants, have at it, there are a lot of ways to do that, but in typical fashion the President decided to take the path of an "official tweet" that was quickly shot down. Suspect the President won't make that mistake again.
'Gimp
-
Your circular argument is liberal bullshit.
;D ;D LOL!!! ;D ;D
Then you should be able to logically refute the entire arguement!
Gimp beat me to it with the "Most Hilarious Laugh Ever".
-
I agree he needs to re-write the thing. I don't know why he needed and EO in the first place. The law is already clear. Clinton, and Obama did similar things.
-
;D ;D LOL!!! ;D ;D
Then you should be able to logically refute the entire arguement!
Gimp beat me to it with the "Most Hilarious Laugh Ever".
He was laughing at your inane diatribe. You have no argument because there is absolutely no basis in reality on anything you wrote.
-
I agree he needs to re-write the thing. I don't know why he needed and EO in the first place. The law is already clear. Clinton, and Obama did similar things.
The president could have directed the State Dept to clamp down on vetting and he could have also directed DHS to do the same. But the problem lies within all of the previous administrations appointees who would simply subvert the presidential directives, just like we saw in the justice department. The EO does carry weight in dealing with that.
We will soon find out whether we live under the rule of law or we live under dictatorial judges who legislate from the bench. Having judges write opinions that never address written laws and issue stays based upon "we just don't like that" is a slippery slope.
-
They didn't have to, and that wasn't their decision.. The Ninth Circuit Court involvement in this was only to determine if the stay in the implementation of the Presidents EO granted by the lower court through a temporary restraining order, was to continue. The Ninth Court in no way has determined whether the EO is legal/illegal or constitutional/unconstitutional.
So... the issue goes back to District Court where the two sides can present their case. This of course may all be moot, since rumor has it the President is writing a new order. Or, the government can appeal to a higher court - that is their call.
There is no doubt that Federal law gives the President wide latitude in immigration affairs, but even the President cannot do something illegal or unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is that the presidents EO was hurriedly and poorly written, no consultation with the agencies that had to implement it, no guidance on applying the EO, and all wrapped in the cloak of national security/safety when there isn't any solid evidence that the EO would truly make America one whit safer. So yes, the restraining order is back effect (as it should be) and the President/staff can try again. If the President wants to improve the vetting of immigrants, have at it, there are a lot of ways to do that, but in typical fashion the President decided to take the path of an "official tweet" that was quickly shot down. Suspect the President won't make that mistake again.
Gary, do you understand that the executive order was virtually a duplicate of the Obama EO from a few years ago??
The circle jerk left is out of their minds and even more hypocritical than normal (if that were possible) about this and amost everything else Turmp.
-
Since the Democrats don't have the executive or legislative branches now, their plan is to use the judicial branch wherever possible to try and stop Trump.
-
Since the Democrats don't have the executive or legislative branches now, their plan is to use the judicial branch wherever possible to try and stop Trump.
Yep. And given the goofy way they obstructed an EO, get ready for even more bizzare tactics.
Who knows, maybe once Gorsuch is confirmed they can get the 9th Circus to strike that down.
-
Since the Democrats don't have the executive or legislative branches now, their plan is to use the judicial branch wherever possible to try and stop Trump.
Since the Democrats have little other recourse, they are using the tactics left to them. The Republicans did pretty much the same thing under Obama. But when it was the Rs, the press jumped on the "Party of NO" bandwagon. I haven't heard them trot that out lately with regards to the Ds.
I just hope the Ds have as little luck as the Rs did when they resorted to those tactics. But even though the Rs control the executive branch and the legislative branch, the Ds still control much of the judiciary, and almost all of the media. So the Ds may have an easier time of it.
-
The Democrats are not being branded the party of No, but they are branding themselves as the party of Whaaaah.
-
I just hope the Ds have as little luck as the Rs did when they resorted to those tactics. But even though the Rs control the executive branch and the legislative branch, the Ds still control much of the judiciary, and almost all of the media. So the Ds may have an easier time of it.
It's sad that you had to make the statement that's bolded. It shouldn't be any party "controlling" the judiciary since they're supposed to be neutral. It's crucial to nominate and confirm judges that will uphold the Constitution, though. So if that means a judge is labeled as a "conservative" or even a "Republican" then so be it.