• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9th Circuit Court of Appeals deliberating Travel Ban Executive Order

Trippy Trekker

Trippy Trekker

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
14,058
Reaction score
8,733
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
Click to expand...

I listened to this. The judges beat the ever loving crap out of the lawyers for both the DOJ as well as Washington. While the lawyer representing Washington seemed kind of ill-prepared to me, the one for Trump was so embarrassingly unarmed for the event that I actually felt bad for him. It was clear from listening to the hearing that he didn't actually have an argument for reversing the stay. I'll be following this with interest and no small amount of apprehension. Not because I want the judges to rule for Washington (although obviously I do), but because of how Trump may react to the courts ruling against him.

I think your prediction is good.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
Click to expand...
No. I'm reasonably good, with yours.

And I don't mean that facetiously, either.

But there's a good chance it goes for Trump, too.

It will not go any more than 4-4 against Trump, IMO. That's the best the Dems can hope for.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
Click to expand...

I think this will happen, liberal justices will use their positions to play politics over enforce the law.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
Click to expand...

It's a shame that the law in this nation is now determined by political lean rather than actual jurisprudence.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
Click to expand...

I think Trump has the odds in his favor, and I fear the end result. It was interesting listening to the arguments, then I realized, the court cases on Law & Order go better than this.
 
Ikari said:
And I'm sure if Trump does similarly, you'll champion it. :roll:
Click to expand...

You are? So it's all right for me to say that you agreed with the Obama administration's illegality then, right? :roll:
 
I would like to add:

Before today's live-broadcast arguments, I felt there was little chance of Trump's ban being over-turned.

But now thanks to the possible argument of 'Trump's intent' coming into play, I believe there's a fair chance up to 50-50, but no more. It seems from the Justices' comments today, that Trump's intent is a valid legal component in determining a violation of the Establishment Clause. If so, the man has left a minefield of damning evidence in the debris of his campaign.

If he doesn't prevail, he can only blame himself. And with his screwed-up personality, I think there's going to be more instances of him sabotaging his-self as well. When you look at how his team is functioning, I see more of the same. CF KellyAnne & Spicer.

I believe Trump, KellyAnne, Bannon, Spicer, Giulianni, are all an echo chamber, drunk with power, feeding-off themselves, spiraling out of reality. The recent events may bring some sobriety (Bowling Green, Alt-Facts, Restraining Order, Spicer's first day, SNL, etc.). One can only hope, 'cuz we're stuck with this crew - unless Congress pulls the plug.
 
digsbe said:
I think this will happen, liberal justices will use their positions to play politics over enforce the law.
Click to expand...
Funny, you mention this. This is exactly what some of us are concerned the conservative Justices may do.
 
digsbe said:
I think this will happen, liberal justices will use their positions to play politics over enforce the law.
Click to expand...

Really? Please clarify. Do you suggest Liberal Judges tend to play politics and Conservative Judges tend to strictly enforce the law? Bush v. Gore comes to mind. Do you think bias played a role in that outcome?
 
Chomsky said:
I would like to add:

Before today's live-broadcast arguments, I felt there was little chance of Trump's ban being over-turned.

But now thanks to the possible argument of 'Trump's intent' coming into play, I believe there's a fair chance up to 50-50, but no more. It seems from the Justices' comments today, that Trump's intent is a valid legal component in determining a violation of the Establishment Clause. If so, the man has left a minefield of damning evidence in the debris of his campaign.

If he doesn't prevail, he can only blame himself. And with his screwed-up personality, I think there's going to be more instances of him sabotaging his-self as well. When you look at how his team is functioning, I see more of the same. CF KellyAnne & Spicer.

I believe Trump, KellyAnne, Bannon, Spicer, Giulianni, are all an echo chamber, drunk with power, feeding-off themselves, spiraling out of reality. The recent events may bring some sobriety (Bowling Green, Alt-Facts, Restraining Order, Spicer's first day, SNL, etc.). One can only hope, 'cuz we're stuck with this crew - unless Congress pulls the plug.
Click to expand...

The first thing they taught me in criminal law when I was going for forensic cyber crime? Intent is very hard, if not impossible to prove and with this guy... He makes it that much harder, because we can't tell if he's an idiot or a genius.
 
humbolt said:
Without doing a lot of looking, there's this: DHS broke judge's order, approved amnesty applications despite injunction - Washington Times

I hope Trump follows the court orders regardless of how they might eventually rule on the issue.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you and I can find common ground on this.

I'm surprised that some form of sanctions weren't handed out to the lawyers that defied the Hanen ruling. While that was clearly wrong, Trump's dismissal of the court system when it doesn't go his way is much more chilling because of its overarching tones.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm glad that you and I can find common ground on this.

I'm surprised that some form of sanctions weren't handed out to the lawyers that defied the Hanen ruling. While that was clearly wrong, Trump's dismissal of the court system when it doesn't go his way is much more chilling because of its overarching tones.
Click to expand...

Jeez, what do you want Cardinal?

If we don't ban these people... Temporarily... For no reason, then we could very well have another Bowling Green Massacre on our hands, can you live with that?
 
ModerateGOP said:
The first thing they taught me in criminal law when I was going for forensic cyber crime? Intent is very hard, if not impossible to prove and with this guy... He makes it that much harder, because we can't tell if he's an idiot or a genius.
Click to expand...
Well, I think I might be tempted to consider this 'prima facie' evidence of intent:


 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
Jeez, what do you want Cardinal?

If we don't ban these people... Temporarily... For no reason, then we could very well have another Bowling Green Massacre on our hands, can you live with that?
Click to expand...

15109498_10211592158541356_4733058322656021994_n.webp
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I think I might be tempted to consider this ''prima facie evidence of intent:


Click to expand...


The thing with that is at first no one actually believed him. Then, it's a question of does he realize the after-effects his policies have on people? I don't think he does and he plays the idiot and it gets passed. With an even court and a weak Democratic Party, the case is his to lose and and I don't want him to win. Because then that will only empower him to do more crap like this.
 
The funny thing is, this hearing wasn't even on the Constitutionality of the EO. Rather it was on if the Judge abused his discretion by issuing the restraining order. Regardless of what this court says, unless it also mentions the Constitutionality of the EO, that case will still come up later.
 
Lutherf said:
It's a shame that the law in this nation is now determined by political lean rather than actual jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

IMO, political lean factored into the 1857 7-2 Dred Scott Decision and the 1896 7-1 Plessy v. Ferguson Decision. I reckon some of the more knowledgeable DP posters can cite numerous other historical USSC cases where political lean factored into the decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom