CDZ Ninth Circuit Hijinx re Immigration Order

[jwoodie]

Consider this scenario:

1. District Court Judge issues TSO.

2. Appeals Court upholds TSO.

3. District Court dismisses case for lack of standing by States.

Result:

1. Power of District Court Judge to issue TSO upheld.

2. No case left for the Government to appeal.

3. Any individual plaintiff can now get any federal judge to halt any of Trump's Executive Orders.

Once again, Democrat/Leftists playing with fire?

 

[Fishlore]

What is a TSO? Is it the same as a TRO?
The power of the District Court Judge to issue TSO has never been at issue.
That there is no case left for the Government to appeal merely proves that the EO was badly drawn in the first place. That any individual plaintiff can now get any federal judge to halt any of Trump's Executive Orders is nothing new, although the plaintiff would have to have standing. Once again, Democrat/Leftists have successfully asserted the constitutional limitations on executive power when individual rights are violated. The American fascist movement is collapsing as we speak.

 

[jwoodie]

What is a TSO? Is it the same as a TRO?
The power of the District Court Judge to issue TSO has never been at issue.
That there is no case left for the Government to appeal merely proves that the EO was badly drawn in the first place. That any individual plaintiff can now get any federal judge to halt any of Trump's Executive Orders is nothing new, although the plaintiff would have to have standing. Once again, Democrat/Leftists have successfully asserted the constitutional limitations on executive power when individual rights are violated. The American fascist movement is collapsing as we speak.

1. TSO/TRO are essentially the same.

2. The power of a District Court Judge to issue a National TRO is at issue here, especially because the plaintiffs are only two States and the same action has been denied in other States.

3. Besides, the State of Minnesota is not a proper plaintiff within the Ninth District's jurisdiction.

4. Foreign nationals do not have U.S. Constitutional rights.

5. Once again, Democrat/Leftists are subverting our Constitutional government under the false pretense of fighting "fascism."

 

[Fishlore]

District judges have been issuing nation-wide orders for years. The precedent is well established up to SCOTUS and isn't being challenged.

The plaintiff in the IX court cited irreparable harm to the U. of Washington. Similar suits with similar claims to harm have been filed all over the country and Minnesota was cited as an example only

Foreign nationals due have (limited) constitutional rights. This position has been established for some time by SCOTUS

Your wild political accusations weaken your argument which is already pretty wobbly. Can you make a legal case without personal slanders and attacks or are you handicapped like your orange messiah? (how do you like your sort of rhetoric bounced back at you in this example?)

 

[jwoodie]

District judges have been issuing nation-wide orders for years. The precedent is well established up to SCOTUS and isn't being challenged.

The plaintiff in the IX court cited irreparable harm to the U. of Washington. Similar suits with similar claims to harm have been filed all over the country and Minnesota was cited as an example only

Foreign nationals due have (limited) constitutional rights. This position has been established for some time by SCOTUS

Your wild political accusations weaken your argument which is already pretty wobbly. Can you make a legal case without personal slanders and attacks or are you handicapped like your orange messiah? (how do you like your sort of rhetoric bounced back at you in this example?)

The University of Washington is not a plaintiff in this case. Foreign nationals living outside the U.S. do not have a right to being granted a visa or entering this country.

SCOTUS will throw this case out when it has a chance to do so. In the meantime, the courts will be tied up with hundreds of complaints against every action Trump takes. Will you consider this constructive or destructive to our judicial system?

What "personal slanders" are you referring to? Please be specific.

 

[Fishlore]

"Democrat/Leftists are subverting our Constitutional government under the false pretense of fighting "fascism.'" is a slanderous assertion without substance.

The U of W is cited by the plaintiff, the AG of WA, as a state agency suffering irreparable harm from the EO. The court ruling cites harm done to a state agency (U of W) as giving the AG standing.

The constitutional rights of non-resident aliens do not include the right to a visa. No such claim was made. Straw man.

 

[jwoodie]

"Democrat/Leftists are subverting our Constitutional government under the false pretense of fighting "fascism.'" is a slanderous assertion without substance.

The U of W is cited by the plaintiff, the AG of WA, as a state agency suffering irreparable harm from the EO. The court ruling cites harm done to a state agency (U of W) as giving the AG standing.

The constitutional rights of non-resident aliens do not include the right to a visa. No such claim was made. Straw man.

1. Do you not believe that rioting and employing meritless legal procedures for the purpose of obstructing the functioning of a duly elected government is a subversion of our Constitution? Do you not believe that accusing such government of "fascism" is itself a slanderous assertion without substance?

2. Do you have a copy or citation for the actual complaint and ruling? If so, please post this information.

3. You are the one who asserted that foreign nationals have constitutional rights. Please specify what rights they have been denied by the Executive Order at issue.