Breaking: 9th Circuit Issues Ruling Not To Protect America's Sovereignty

[danielpalos]

Those idiot judges in the 9th Circus Court must have been absent the day in law school where the professors discussed the facts that Syrian refugees don't have Constitutional rights and that the President of the US has been granted the authority by Congress to grant visas.

It is too bad we allow uneducated Moon Bats like that making immigration policy for the US. They were not elected to do that. Trump was.

simply appealing to ignorance of the law instead of reason?

 

[Flash]

Pink ***** Hat Wearing Libtard Moon Bats think Muslim terrorists have a Constitutional right to come into this country.

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much for their stupidity.

 

[danielpalos]

Pink ***** Hat Wearing Libtard Moon Bats think Muslim terrorists have a Constitutional right to come into this country.

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much for their stupidity.

natural rights and a Statue of Liberty; or is that Only for national socialists.

 

[toomuchtime_]

the 9th was only ruling on whether the lower court's STAY, could stand....

by ruling it could stand until the actual case could have a trial, implies that there are reasons to believe, those suing have a good chance of winning in court, once the 'fat lady sings'.

HOWEVER, this appellate court was ONLY deciding whether the STAY could stay in place while the lower court hears the case in trial on whether it is or is not, constitutional....so Trump lost the part about rescinding the STAY, but not on the merits of the case yet.

Close but not quite right. The Appellate Court ruled on whether the judge who issued the original stay acted properly, not whether the argument against the ban had merit.

But if there was NO STANDING for the State to even sue, then the Stay would have been reversed by the 9th..... No?????

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

The "Seattle Court" was a GW Bush nominee for the bench. LMAO @ you.

Clearly another Bush mistake.

 

[toomuchtime_]

the 9th was only ruling on whether the lower court's STAY, could stand....

by ruling it could stand until the actual case could have a trial, implies that there are reasons to believe, those suing have a good chance of winning in court, once the 'fat lady sings'.

HOWEVER, this appellate court was ONLY deciding whether the STAY could stay in place while the lower court hears the case in trial on whether it is or is not, constitutional....so Trump lost the part about rescinding the STAY, but not on the merits of the case yet.

Close but not quite right. The Appellate Court ruled on whether the judge who issued the original stay acted properly, not whether the argument against the ban had merit.

But if there was NO STANDING for the State to even sue, then the Stay would have been reversed by the 9th..... No?????

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

 

[Dragonlady]

the 9th was only ruling on whether the lower court's STAY, could stand....

by ruling it could stand until the actual case could have a trial, implies that there are reasons to believe, those suing have a good chance of winning in court, once the 'fat lady sings'.

HOWEVER, this appellate court was ONLY deciding whether the STAY could stay in place while the lower court hears the case in trial on whether it is or is not, constitutional....so Trump lost the part about rescinding the STAY, but not on the merits of the case yet.

Close but not quite right. The Appellate Court ruled on whether the judge who issued the original stay acted properly, not whether the argument against the ban had merit.

But if there was NO STANDING for the State to even sue, then the Stay would have been reversed by the 9th..... No?????

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Close but not quite right. The Appellate Court ruled on whether the judge who issued the original stay acted properly, not whether the argument against the ban had merit.

But if there was NO STANDING for the State to even sue, then the Stay would have been reversed by the 9th..... No?????

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.

Under the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.

 

[bendog]

But if there was NO STANDING for the State to even sue, then the Stay would have been reversed by the 9th..... No?????

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.

Under the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.

God JESUS we've dumbed ourselves down. LOL

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

9th Circuit rules against reinstating travel ban - CNNPolitics.com

I know. I know. Fake news website, but still...

OMG, really? The most liberal, most overturned court in the country ruled for the left? Stunning, simply stunning ...

Its still a decision that Trump will have to live with

Not likely. Trump just needs to restructure the EO allowing for prior citizens with visas who have frequently traveled to those regions, expose the left to another list of excuses as they try to stop it while also building a stronger case towards "politicizing over judicial legal interpretation" for Trump. The left will have so many changing opinions, they will lose ground for any consistently strong legal case against it.

 

[beagle9]

9th Circuit rules against reinstating travel ban - CNNPolitics.com

I know. I know. Fake news website, but still...

This gives the GOP great material for the mid terms. The left still cares more about being PC than they do about national security.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The court ruled on legality, not your personal opinion

Can wait to see how this flies in the court of popular opinion come midterms.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

This is something every American needs to remember going into the voting booth.
We have one side that wants open borders, and wants anyone to be able to come in the country at any time, and we have one side that stands for borders and sovereinty as well as a managed immigration system that includes keeping those out who mean harm to the west and America.

which side actually Invaded the Middle East, wasted our Tax monies, and didn't actually solve Any problems? let's remember that, at the polling booth.

. As I recall, umm it was Sadam who invaded Kuwait, and sadly in response to it all (the gulf war), we then let Sadam crawl back to his nest without finishing him at that point there afterwards. Then here comes the terrorist to our soil from the middle East (killing thousands), so here we go back to the middle East to get at Bin Laden, and in the process finish the problem of Sadam in the region. Afghanistan is a nightmare for us, and we need to get the hell out of that place.

 

[beagle9]

Those idiot judges in the 9th Circus Court must have been absent the day in law school where the professors discussed the facts that Syrian refugees don't have Constitutional rights and that the President of the US has been granted the authority by Congress to grant visas.

It is too bad we allow uneducated Moon Bats like that making immigration policy for the US. They were not elected to do that. Trump was.

The uneducated lawyers are the ones who drafted the EO. And defended it. They presented a steaming pile of monkey dirt to the judges and the judges said, "Hey, that's a steaming pile of monkey dirt!" And you're blaming the judges. All the administration needs to do is reissue the order in a lawful manner and we have an order in place within forty eight hours.

. Got to be on the leftist terms eh ??? Uhh NO.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

U.S. appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban



SCOTUS is the likely final word, and I can't imagine they'll get the 5-3 margin they need to overturn the 9th circuit.

9th Circus Court is overturned 80% of the time by SCOTUS; Trump will likely go for it.

This is such a clear case of the President doing what the Constitution and the legal code give him express authority to do, and the judiciary system has ZERO jurisdiction of foreign affairs by the constitution.

The 9th Circus Court needs to be broken up and plowed under and salt sewn across the rubble.

You would think the Supreme Court would get tired of seeing yet another case come down from this court. When you see three judges who, in their 21 page document decision, can't even site a single piece of legislation to back their interpretation of the case ... it speaks volumes to their judicial integrity and ability. Who could take their judicial role seriously with that kind of record?

 

[GaryDog]

U.S. appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban



SCOTUS is the likely final word, and I can't imagine they'll get the 5-3 margin they need to overturn the 9th circuit.

9th Circus Court is overturned 80% of the time by SCOTUS; Trump will likely go for it.

This is such a clear case of the President doing what the Constitution and the legal code give him express authority to do, and the judiciary system has ZERO jurisdiction of foreign affairs by the constitution.

The 9th Circus Court needs to be broken up and plowed under and salt sewn across the rubble.

You would think the Supreme Court would get tired of seeing yet another case come down from this court. When you see three judges who, in their 21 page document decision, can't even site a single piece of legislation to back their interpretation of the case ... it speaks volumes to their judicial integrity and ability. Who could take their judicial role seriously with that kind of record?

Uh, the Supreme Court is almost GUARANTEED to affirm the 9th circuit. Blame the shitty executive order by your incompetent president.

 

[GaryDog]

But if there was NO STANDING for the State to even sue, then the Stay would have been reversed by the 9th..... No?????

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.

Under the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.

So you're for suspending judicial review whenever the prez feels like it?

LMAO, move to North Korea, asshole.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.

Under the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.

So you're for suspending judicial review whenever the prez feels like it?

LMAO, move to North Korea, asshole.

The law is clear and these judges had no legal authority to to interfere.

 

[beagle9]

the 9th was only ruling on whether the lower court's STAY, could stand....

by ruling it could stand until the actual case could have a trial, implies that there are reasons to believe, those suing have a good chance of winning in court, once the 'fat lady sings'.

HOWEVER, this appellate court was ONLY deciding whether the STAY could stay in place while the lower court hears the case in trial on whether it is or is not, constitutional....so Trump lost the part about rescinding the STAY, but not on the merits of the case yet.

Close but not quite right. The Appellate Court ruled on whether the judge who issued the original stay acted properly, not whether the argument against the ban had merit.

But if there was NO STANDING for the State to even sue, then the Stay would have been reversed by the 9th..... No?????

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

. Legislating from the bench has been a leftist tactic for years now, and no one has tried to fight this tactic for far to long now. It is why this country has gotten so screwed up over the years. The dam Republicans sold this country out, and now the left is showing them just how bad they have done this over time.

 

[jc456]

just remember, anything bad happens from a refugee, blame the the three 9th Circuit puppets.

 

[beagle9]

There were several grounds for the Court to dismiss the stay, most glaringly that nowhere in the opinion does this Court deal with the statute that gives the president the authority to issue this ban, but this is the most liberal Court in the US, read most anti Trump, and both the Seattle Court and the Appellate Court made rulings based on politics rather than standing law.

Look like the evidence you claim is missing. I suggest you do some research, start here:

U.S. Visa Law, Regulation, and Policy Basics

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

Read carefully, and consider how the trump nominees can and likely will act politically, and not in the best interest of our nation or those non citizens in harms way.

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.

Under the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.

So you're for suspending judicial review whenever the prez feels like it?

LMAO, move to North Korea, asshole.

. Nothing wrong with judicial review as long as it is the right judicial review.. Hell Trump may have faired better with North Korean judges, because what we have on the 9th are worse than the North Korean judges are while in their activist roles. Does anyone recognize their country anymore ?





.

 

[Flopper]

That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.

It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.

There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.

The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.

The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.

However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.

 

[beagle9]

U.S. appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban



SCOTUS is the likely final word, and I can't imagine they'll get the 5-3 margin they need to overturn the 9th circuit.

9th Circus Court is overturned 80% of the time by SCOTUS; Trump will likely go for it.

This is such a clear case of the President doing what the Constitution and the legal code give him express authority to do, and the judiciary system has ZERO jurisdiction of foreign affairs by the constitution.

The 9th Circus Court needs to be broken up and plowed under and salt sewn across the rubble.

You would think the Supreme Court would get tired of seeing yet another case come down from this court. When you see three judges who, in their 21 page document decision, can't even site a single piece of legislation to back their interpretation of the case ... it speaks volumes to their judicial integrity and ability. Who could take their judicial role seriously with that kind of record?

Uh, the Supreme Court is almost GUARANTEED to affirm the 9th circuit. Blame the shitty executive order by your incompetent president.

. I don't know, they might just throw the ruling up on the trash pile with the other 86% of cases in which the court had been turned around on in it's idiocy.