Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

[Grim17]

Yer "argument" would have some standing...if the ban did not exempt Christians from those countries.

How can so many liberals like yourself, pretend that terrorism isn't synonymous with radical Islam?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the left puts politics before national security.

I just wonder when yull comment on the fact that the countries where the terrorists that had the highest US body counts were not on the list.

I just wonder when y'all will stop creating phony arguments to justify your warped political beliefs...

You know as well as I do, the reason those countries were picked was because they are failed states with no real centralized government that we can count on, when it comes to the legitimacy of the documents they issue to those traveling to the US.

 

[Linc]

What is moronic to me is that the court is conferring due process and constitutional rights onto a class of individuals that don’t have it.

2 of 4 republican appointed judges wish to disagree with you

 

[Visbek]

You don't understand - there are terrorist organizations like ISIS who are willing to carry out attacks on US soil by whatever means. This court order will allow them that opportunity, and they will likely take full advantage of it.

Or, in the real world:

• The federal government made a huge mistake by declaring that their actions were "unreviewable"

• The federal government utterly failed to make the case that there was any sort of imminent threat -- because... there is no evidence of any imminent threat

• The states showed that there is enough harm to justify continuing the case

• We cannot justify unconstitutional actions by claiming there is a potential threat

 

[Henrin]

2 of 4 republican appointed judges wish to disagree with you

Who cares? She is right. Why would anyone even imagine that constitutional rights apply to people from other countries?

 

[Mithros]

You don't understand - there are terrorist organizations like ISIS who are willing to carry out attacks on US soil by whatever means. This court order will allow them that opportunity, and they will likely take full advantage of it.

If that's the case I'd be really upset at Trump if I were you. The reason the ban wasn't reinstated is because Trump couldn't show how not having it makes us less safe.

 

[Chomsky]

And furthermore he will have to declare why we need this ban due to some immediate threat (Yes courts hear classified information all the time and are allowed to.) But there's the rub for Trump: Most likely he has nothing as that is another one of his lies.

Exactly.

During the verbal arguments before the 9th, Trump's lawyer could not explain what was the urgency beyond that of the safety precautions already in place, that a ban was required. There was no DOJ reply to this. In all honesty, I thought the DOJ lawyer absolutely sucked in his arguing before the court. He seemed to think Trump's EOs were not even subject to judicial review, which *really* seemed to flip the court, though it took the guy a few seconds to figure it out! 'Fast on his feet', he was not!

 

[Praxas]

Fletch asked a great question, prior to 9/11 how many terrorists attacked this country? I asked another, at what point would you support being proactive vs. reactive? Apparently 3000 is the number of Americans who have to die before you would react

You don't care about the tens of thousands who are killed by firearms. You don't care about Americans as fact.

 

[Henrin]

You don't care about the tens of thousands who are killed by firearms. You don't care about Americans as fact.

facepalm. Caring about their second amendment rights IS caring about them.

 

[truthatallcost]

Oh, man. This is really hard for you. Whatever some unnamed "ACLU members" tell some unnamed people still isnt' proof of your claim.

None of which addresses what I said or proves your nutjob claim. They're STILL not citizens, no matter how angry you get.

What else have you got?

I realize I'm not exactly conversing with an open minded person on the issue here. In fact, Antifa may be holding a meeting tonight, so that may interrupt your ability to continue.

 

[vesper]

2 of 4 republican appointed judges wish to disagree with you

You mean the two Republican jurists that sit on the bench in sanctuary cities? One Seattle and the address for the 9th Circus is San Diego. That equates to kids in a talent show and the parents are the judges.

 

[Chomsky]

You don't understand - there are terrorist organizations like ISIS who are willing to carry out attacks on US soil by whatever means. This court order will allow them that opportunity, and they will likely take full advantage of it.

Then Trump better get to work immediately, to put out a revised EO that can pass Constitutional muster.

Is he going to do it?

 

[Praxas]

facepalm. Caring about their second amendment rights IS caring about them.

Yeah I bet those killed by firearms are so gratetful they died.

 

[eohrnberger]

How can so many liberals like yourself, pretend that terrorism isn't synonymous with radical Islam?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the left puts politics before national security.




I just wonder when y'all will stop creating phony arguments to justify your warped political beliefs...

You know as well as I do, the reason those countries were picked was because they are failed states with no real centralized government that we can count on, when it comes to the legitimacy of the documents they issue to those traveling to the US.

All I'd add to "left puts politics before national security", I'd call it what it is. It is little more than identity politics. Yes, that politics that serves to divide and create division and derision rather than to unite.

 

[Henrin]

Yeah I bet those killed by firearms are so gratetful they died.

So basically people can come into the country whenever they please and for some stupid reason the equal protection clause applies to foreigners that are not even in the country yet, but the second amendment is wrong and must be done away with. It's like you guys are working on some made up gibberish understanding of the Constitution.

 

[vesper]

Exactly.

During the verbal arguments before the 9th, Trump's lawyer could not explain what was the urgency beyond that of the safety precautions already in place, that a ban was required. There was no DOJ reply to this. In all honesty, I thought the DOJ lawyer absolutely sucked in his arguing before the court. He seemed to think Trump's EOs were not even subject to judicial review, which *really* seemed to flip the court, though it took the guy a few seconds to figure it out! 'Fast on his feet', he was not!

I agree the government attorney was not ready for prime time.
But that does not change the fact the ruling still had no standing on constitutional law .

 

[TheGoverness]

Exactly.

During the verbal arguments before the 9th, Trump's lawyer could not explain what was the urgency beyond that of the safety precautions already in place, that a ban was required. There was no DOJ reply to this. In all honesty, I thought the DOJ lawyer absolutely sucked in his arguing before the court. He seemed to think Trump's EOs were not even subject to judicial review, which *really* seemed to flip the court, though it took the guy a few seconds to figure it out! 'Fast on his feet', he was not!

Well hey now, Trump only hires the best of the best!

 

[Visbek]

How can so many liberals like yourself, pretend that terrorism isn't synonymous with radical Islam?

lol

Was the Irish Republican Army made up of Muslims?

Is FARC made up of Muslims? How about Shining Path? Tim McVeigh? The Unabomber? Baader Meinhof? Weather Underground?

Wake up. Terrorism is a tactic, not a religion.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the left puts politics before national security.

I'm a little bit surprised that some conservatives are willing to tear up the Constitution and support an autocrat.

You know as well as I do, the reason those countries were picked was because they are failed states with no real centralized government that we can count on, when it comes to the legitimacy of the documents they issue to those traveling to the US.

:roll:

There is no evidence that any nationals of those nations have actually killed any Americans in terrorist attacks.

Several nations that have had nationals who attacked the US were conveniently left off the list, notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Several states that are just as problematic to determine any background info (like Nigeria or Mali) also mysteriously got left off the list.

Sudan has been working with the US on anti-terrorism efforts. They're supposed to be our ally.

Iraq is not a "failed state." We're supposed to treat them like an ally. We aren't supposed to strand the Iraqis who helped the US military, at risk to their own life.

Oddly enough, while the government of Iran funds terrorism, Iranian nationals -- the ones who want to migrate to the US -- don't actually participate in terrorism.

The list goes on. The EO was poorly though out, insulting, counterproductive, harmful to American interests, and very likely unconstitutional.

 

[eohrnberger]

Who cares? She is right. Why would anyone even imagine that constitutional rights apply to people from other countries?

To be fair, yes, there are constitutional rights that foreign citizens do have, however, only once they've entered the US.

It seems reasonable that foreign citizens on foreign soil really don't have any US constitutional rights.

 

[MACS-24]

Is this the human equivalency of the humane society commercials?

 

[Linc]

You mean the two Republican jurists that sit on the bench in sanctuary cities? One Seattle and the address for the 9th Circus is San Diego. That equates to kids in a talent show and the parents are the judges.

I see you've gone full on trumpistani deflector and denier, going to the sanctuary boogieman and smearing the character of conservative judges like yer dear leader just because they ruled against dear leader's incompetent kabal of Bannon/Miller .

 

[Anthony60]

What is moronic to me is that the court is conferring due process and constitutional rights onto a class of individuals that don’t have it.

This is a screw up of historic proportions by the 9th circuit. Since when do we need to go before one of our own courts to get permission to not let people into OUR country? This is a dazzling amount of stupidity. Even worse, is that the court would even hear this, let a alone take the completely ridiculous action that it did.

This court is dangerous. Something needs to be done about it. It's reckless and makes it's own laws, without the slightest care of its duties to this country. I wish we could shut it down tomorrow.

 

[Henrin]

To be fair, yes, there are constitutional rights that foreign citizens do have, however, only once they've entered the US.

It seems reasonable that foreign citizens on foreign soil really don't have any US constitutional rights.

Yes, but the court said that people not even here yet have them. They aren't working off the Constitution at this point, but just whatever they want to be there.

 

[Visbek]

I agree the government attorney was not ready for prime time.
But that does not change the fact the ruling still had no standing on constitutional law .

Actually, if you read it, you'll see that it was in fact paying close attention to both the Constitution, the 1965 law, relevant precedents, fcts on the ground, etc

 

[TheGoverness]

Terrorists. All of 'em.

 

[Anthony60]

Funny, who is the guy with the expensive camera taking the pictures? Did he toss them a sandwich?