White house vows emergency stay of judicial order thwarting Presidents immigration order

[JimBowie1958]

For the record, I don't think anything is going to happen to your precious liberal judge. This case will go before the 9th on Monday or Tuesday and they will uphold the president's EO and that will be the end of it. The jihadists best be getting their asses here in a hurry.

I wouldnt be so sure.

This *is* the 9th circuit court we are talking about, the single most overturned circuit court int he nation by far.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Homeland Security is already acting as if the EO is non-existant.

I would order anyone not following the EO to be fired immediately.

He can't fire a judge, boss, and Congress won't impeach the judge. Half of the GOP in the House and more than half in the Senate won't stand behind Trump if becomes a shoving match between the Executive and the Judiciary.

I didn't say he could fire a judge. He can fire anyone in Homeland Security.

It's not a shoving match, it's a legal question of separation of powers. The court had no jurisdiction. The president is granted plenary power under statutory law. I've posted it several times. It's clear, concise and unambiguous. The judged acted out of political interest which is a direct violation of the oath they swear to uphold. Impeach his ass.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss, post 16498948

Furthermore, I am going to suggest that the president should instruct his AG to immediately file to have this judge removed. We cannot have judges interfering with presidential authority to protect the citizens of the United States, it could be a matter of grave national security. What if a president receives classified information that someone is going to try to sneak a nuclear bomb into the country? Does a judge have the right to interfere with his duty to try and prevent that? This is a potentially dangerous situation to be allowed and Trump needs to nip this in the bud right here and now.

Is it the entire population of seven majority Muslim Countries trying to sneak the bomb in?

Or is it a small group of individuals and the Intel is on it?

The former is implausible and the latter does not require an EO for the President to do what he needs to do.

There is nothing for a judge to review.

That is a moronic argument just about as moronic as your argument that the President has powers that Federal Judges in states can't check, halt and rescind.

Trump's Legal Team could not justify there was danger if vetted immigrants with approved visas entered the country. Trump failed. Get used to it.

Much more to come.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

DigitalDrifter, post: 16496826

In order to save the west, we must limit the growth of Islam.
If we fail, all is lost. If you cannot see that, you are the problem. Bigot.

What is lost? You are a religious bigot and intolerant human being.

The Federal Government cannot limit the growth of Islam by any practical or constitutional means.

It is a religion idiot. It is protected under our Constitution.

The only way to limit its growth would be by military force.

That would be legal of course against any terrorist organization that commit atrocities in the name of religion. We are doing that already. With much support from millions of Muslims who are potential victims or victims of terrorist acts themselves.

But glad to see you are open about your bigotry.

But we cannot have a President who thinks like you. That is dangerous and wrong.

If Christianity loses ground to peaceful non-violent Muslims that is Christianity's problem, not the US Federal Government or State Governnents.

You best be praying for divine intervention because you are not going to get it from a government where freedom of religion is written into the Constitution.

We have limited immigration before, we can do so again.
Try reading the 1924 Immigration Act for instance.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss, post: 16498923

I asked you to show me where you get the idea that the law allows the court to override the president's decision or have any oversight whatsoever?

Come on moron. The law you are referring to does not override the Judicial Review granted to Federal Judges by the Constitution and states rights against an overpowering Federal Government.

"Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself.

Source: Boundless. “Checks and Balances.” Boundless Political Science Boundless, 08 Aug. 2016. Retrieved 05 Feb. 2017 from Checks and Balances"

Trump lost this one already and is making it worse by attacking a Federal Judge doing his job .

 

[whutTHEYsay]

We have limited immigration before, we can do so again.

Why not respond to my post?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, post: 16498367

New definition: Bigot - n. Anyone who disagrees with anything said by an America-hating liberal!

No a religious bigot is one calling for the US Government to limit the growth of Islam in the entire Western world.

I notice you can't wrap your brain around the absurdity of that bigotry.

So I disagree with that bigoted view of the world.

So the question is do you agree that the US Government must embark on a campaign diplomaticky and militarily to limit the growth of Islam in the entire Western world?

Let me know so I can vehemently disagree with you too.

There's nothing absurd about that.
Islam and western culture do not coexist very well at all. Our future and the survival of the western world depend on our decisions today. We can either actively work to preserve that future by limiting immigration from those coming from an Islamic background, or we can plant the seeds that will doom our children and their children.

 

[Coyote]

Until the stay is granted, the Trump admin needs to obey the court order.

No, they don't need to obey the court order... it's unconstitutional.

It's no different than if the court issued a ruling saying you can't post on a message board!

Or maybe Trump's EO is unconstitutional. Just a thought.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And now we have conservative idiots on this board saying that trump should ignore the Lawful Order of a Federal Judge...
Does it get anymore ludicrous???

The belief that some judge in one district can "lawfully" extend his control over the entire nation is a lot more ludicrous.

 

[Political Junky]

Dimocrats do not care what our country turns into. They can't wait until the population of Muslims reaches a substantial percentage.

You go along with Bannon on this?

Bannon film outline warned U.S. could turn into ‘Islamic States of America’

The flag fluttering above the U.S. Capitol is emblazoned with a crescent and star. Chants of “Allahu Akbar” rise from inside the building.

That’s the provocative opening scene of a documentary-style movie outlined 10 years ago by Stephen K. Bannon that envisioned radical Muslims taking over the country and remaking it into the “Islamic States of America,” according to a document describing the project obtained by The Washington Post.

The outline shows how Bannon — years before he became a strategist for President Trump and helped draft last week’s order restricting travel from seven mostly Muslim countries — sought to issue a warning about the threat posed by radical Muslims and their “enablers among us.” Although driven by the “best intentions,” the outline says, institutions such as the media, the Jewish community and government agencies were appeasing jihadists aiming to create an Islamic republic.
<more>

 

[Cecilie1200]

Until the stay is granted, the Trump admin needs to obey the court order.

No, they don't need to obey the court order... it's unconstitutional.

It's no different than if the court issued a ruling saying you can't post on a message board!

Or maybe Trump's EO is unconstitutional. Just a thought.

Not much of a thought, unless you'd like to show us the section of the US Constitution that it violates.

And no, I don't mean some bullshit ruling some activist judge pulled out of his ass based on his personal political leanings. I mean the actual US Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Furthermore, I am going to suggest that the president should instruct his AG to immediately file to have this judge removed. We cannot have judges interfering with presidential authority to protect the citizens of the United States, it could be a matter of grave national security. What if a president receives classified information that someone is going to try to sneak a nuclear bomb into the country? Does a judge have the right to interfere with his duty to try and prevent that? This is a potentially dangerous situation to be allowed and Trump needs to nip this in the bud right here and now.

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

I believe you are correct about this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Boss, why are you wasting that magnificent legal education here on a message board, when you could be handing down decisions in D.C?

So basically, he's right, and you know he's right, and you're too big a partisan poltroon to honestly admit it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

It's a fairly moot point, anyway, since I believe the judge is in Washington state, which is unlikely to do anything about him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.

And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.

Sorry, but being partisan jackwads like you doesn't prove you or they are correct. It just proves that you're all partisan jackwads, and we already knew that.

Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

 

[reconmark]

And now we have conservative idiots on this board saying that trump should ignore the Lawful Order of a Federal Judge...
Does it get anymore ludicrous???

The belief that some judge in one district can "lawfully" extend his control over the entire nation is a lot more ludicrous.

So now you want to curtail the authority of the judiciary because he smacked trump in the mouth with the Constitution???...gtfoh...

 

[reconmark]

I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.

And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.

Sorry, but being partisan jackwads like you doesn't prove you or they are correct. It just proves that you're all partisan jackwads, and we already knew that.


Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Here you go....

Clear Violation
5.5k
1.5k
191
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution.

1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.

2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.

3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*

4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?

 

[reconmark]

If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?

Because it's a band on only Muslims from those seven areas..

 

[Camp]

The appeal to vacate the stay has been denied.