Frauds on the Ninth Circuit Ignore Two SCOTUS Stays, or Insurrection From the Bench

[excalibur]

One a Clinton appointee the other two Biden insurrectionists.

Twice now SCOTUS stayed this matter pending their decision. Didn't matter to these liars.

At the outset, we address the Government’s argument that we are bound by
the Supreme Court’s twice determination that the Government is likely to succeed
on the merits. However, the Supreme Court’s emergency stay orders did not
expressly decide the issue of whether the Government was likely to succeed on the
merits of this case, so we reject the Government’s argument that the stay orders
control our determination of this case.

Also, the statute clearly says 'No Judicial Review' but the liars then said Congress intended judicial review.

A. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) – Judicial Review Bar
Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) provides: “There is no judicial review of any
determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or
extension of a designation, of a foreign state” for TPS. The Government argues
that this subsection forecloses judicial review of all of Plaintiffs’ APA challenges.
We rejected this argument in NTPSA I and do so again here. 150 F.4th at 1016–
1018.

We begin with the strong presumption “that Congress intends judicial
review of administrative actions.”

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/28/25-5724.pdf

 

[Rogue AI]

They created their 'presumption' out of thin air contrary to black letter law. How pathetic.

 

[Crepitus]

They created their 'presumption' out of thin air contrary to black letter law. How pathetic.

The law is clearly unconstitutional on this point.

 

[Bitterhook]

One a Clinton appointee the other two Biden insurrectionists.

Twice now SCOTUS stayed this matter pending their decision. Didn't matter to these liars.




Also, the statute clearly says 'No Judicial Review' but the liars then said Congress intended judicial review.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/28/25-5724.pdf

They are using "Legal Fiction" and precisely because the people they are talking to won't know any better.

 

[Rogue AI]

The law is clearly unconstitutional on this point.

As an unconstitutional impediment to Executive power perhaps. Go ahead and get rid of it. Let Trump and his administration make these decisions without limitations. It is a foreign policy issue, which belongs solely to the Executive.

 

[Bitterhook]

The law is clearly unconstitutional on this point.

If you took your opinion of the matter and the decision from the Ninth Circuit Court to the all the Justices on the Supreme Court, eight of the nine would just start laughing with the other one being Justice Brown Jackson (who still might laugh).

That's with the understanding that even Justice Sotomayor has taken the opportunity to write the Concurring Opinion when Justice Brown Jackson was the only hold out, and basically indicated that Justice Brown Jackson's Dissenting Opinion was "amateurish" and based more in opinion than any context in law (and has done it twice).

 

[Crepitus]

As an unconstitutional impediment to Executive power perhaps. Go ahead and get rid of it. Let Trump and his administration make these decisions without limitations. It is a foreign policy issue, which belongs solely to the Executive.

Amazing! That's almost exactly what I wasn't talking about!!

How do you manage to be so wrong so often?

 

[SeaMajor7]

They are using "Legal Fiction" and precisely because the people they are talking to won't know any better.

The Jack Smith strategy eh?

 

[Bitterhook]

The Jack Smith strategy eh?

The media employs it far more often, politicians come in a close second, but you are correct in the idea that as Special Counsel Jack Smith was no stranger to it.

 

[Rogue AI]

Amazing! That's almost exactly what I wasn't talking about!!

How do you manage to be so wrong so often?

The problem isn't me. Think it through, remove the law and you remove any limitations it set. That puts the whole issue squarely in the Executive's hands, without a law to even challenge any Executive action. Go for it, it only free up Trump to deport even more people.

 

[j-mac]

One a Clinton appointee the other two Biden insurrectionists.

Twice now SCOTUS stayed this matter pending their decision. Didn't matter to these liars.




Also, the statute clearly says 'No Judicial Review' but the liars then said Congress intended judicial review.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/28/25-5724.pdf

In nearly every case lately, these Democrat appointed Judges are using their own bias, and emotion to rule, in place of the law.

It is my opinion that these Judges that are letting their own political leanings effect their rulings should be removed from the bench, their license to practice law stripped, and they be barred from practicing law ever again.

 

[Bitterhook]

In nearly every case lately, these Democrat appointed Judges are using their own bias, and emotion to rule, in place of the law.

It is my opinion that these Judges that are letting their own political leanings effect their rulings should be removed from the bench, their license to practice law stripped, and they be barred from practicing law ever again.

It might be easier to understand that whatever they decided in this situation doesn't make a damn bit of difference and that any attempt to enforce their decision could be immediately thrown in the trash, without an appeal ever needing to see the light of day in a courtroom.

However, it would not be unreasonable for you to petition your Representatives in Congress to impeach the sorry bastards.

They are using "Legal Fiction" and pretending they have a case (or the power of authority) when they don't.
The only reason the stupidity exists, is because they are using it to produce the appearance they are still fighting, and to encourage people to keep fighting because the people they are talking to don't know any better, when they have already lost the fight more than once.

 

[d0gbreath]

Above my pay grade, but
"the Government is likely to succeed
on the merits." did crack me up!

 

[struth]

The law is clearly unconstitutional on this point.

What about it makes it unconstitutional at this point?