Trump loses in the 9th circuit

sherbsherb Senior MemberPosts: 3,809 Senior Member

Replies

  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,952 Senior Member
    where do you see this going, counselor?
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    Without knowing for sure, I'd say Trump will lose on the merits too, since it appears at first glance that the issues driving the TRO are substantially similar to the challenge raised to the ban itself.

    I assume Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court but my guess is that they deny review.

    So its back to the District Court in Seattle for a hearing on the merits.
  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,952 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Without knowing for sure, I'd say Trump will lose on the merits too, since it appears at first glance that the issues driving the TRO are substantially similar to the challenge raised to the ban itself.

    I assume Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court but my guess is that they deny review.

    So its back to the District Court in Seattle for a hearing on the merits.



    at what point will his temper tantrum peak?
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,200 Senior Member
    What a surprise the 9th circus ruled this way....said no one ever. ;)

    Sherb,
    What are the legal grounds for this though?

    Just doing a quick search on the Googles:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/15/donald-trumps-almost-true-claim-that-the-president-has-power-to-ban-any-class-of-persons/?utm_term=.b5eaefc50c1b

    and

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justices-say-its-enough-to-cite-terrorism-in-declining-visa-applicant/2015/06/15/87b5247a-1370-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?utm_term=.92953b1ef11f

    It seems to me like he might actually be able to do it.

    Break down the legal mumbo jumbo for us.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,871 Senior Member
    More so-called judges. I bet they buy their robes at Nordstrom's. So sad.

    Sherb, were Scalia still alive do you think the Supreme Court would take it, or would even he and Thomas find Trump's attacks on the judiciary too outrageous?
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,200 Senior Member
    Nah. I can remember as a young lad that it was referred to as the 9th circus by many. Most definitely not a new term.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,720 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Without knowing for sure, I'd say Trump will lose on the merits too, since it appears at first glance that the issues driving the TRO are substantially similar to the challenge raised to the ban itself.

    I assume Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court but my guess is that they deny review.

    So its back to the District Court in Seattle for a hearing on the merits.

    Someone on Fox suggested he re-issue the order and exclude those with visas and green cards and they may give it a better chance of withstanding scrutiny. That doesn't sound like a bad compromise. The issue with the refugees does conflict with long standing treaties and international agreements however. Would an American court rule on that?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,803 Senior Member
    They mentioned the same thing on NPR this afternoon also, Chris.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    More so-called judges. I bet they buy their robes at Nordstrom's. So sad.

    Sherb, were Scalia still alive do you think the Supreme Court would take it, or would even he and Thomas find Trump's attacks on the judiciary too outrageous?

    I don't think that really enters their mind. They take issues that require resolution in the federal courts, to clarify existing law or to resolve a split in the circuits. There's nothing here for the Supreme Court to decide, as the case hasn't been litigated on the merits. So my guess is that they deny review at this point. But its just a guess.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    Someone on Fox suggested he re-issue the order and exclude those with visas and green cards and they may give it a better chance of withstanding scrutiny. That doesn't sound like a bad compromise. The issue with the refugees does conflict with long standing treaties and international agreements however. Would an American court rule on that?
    .

    The rollout has been an utter disaster and has in many ways fatally compromised the ban on its merits. Starting over wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion, as it quite clear the rollout has muddied the legal and constitutional issues involved. Or, just scrap the **** thing and tweak the vetting process as needed.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444765/travel-ban-incompetent-distraction?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=krauthammer
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    What a surprise the 9th circus ruled this way....said no one ever. ;)

    Sherb,
    What are the legal grounds for this though?

    Just doing a quick search on the Googles:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/15/donald-trumps-almost-true-claim-that-the-president-has-power-to-ban-any-class-of-persons/?utm_term=.b5eaefc50c1b

    and

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justices-say-its-enough-to-cite-terrorism-in-declining-visa-applicant/2015/06/15/87b5247a-1370-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?utm_term=.92953b1ef11f

    It seems to me like he might actually be able to do it.

    Break down the legal mumbo jumbo for us.

    Here's my take, without spending my entire morning doing research:

    Under article II, executive power is almost unlimited in foreign affairs, including who gets designated as an alien and why. But when you have Guiliani and Trump bragging that its a ban on Muslims, you open yourself up to criticism that the ban is motivated by something other than national security concerns. The primary legal issue for the Government is showing that the ban is not motivated by anti-Muslim animus. The primary issue for the plaintiff states is showing that they have standing to sue the federal government. Who wins? Like I said, I think for now the States win, thanks to the administration's comically inept rollout of the EO.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    Good succinct breakdown here. take two minutes and read this.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    Someone on Fox suggested he re-issue the order and exclude those with visas and green cards and they may give it a better chance of withstanding scrutiny. That doesn't sound like a bad compromise. The issue with the refugees does conflict with long standing treaties and international agreements however. Would an American court rule on that?

    Here's a conservative critic of the 9th circuit decision who agrees with you.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuit-travel-ban-donald-trump-ruling
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,200 Senior Member
    Someone on Fox suggested he re-issue the order and exclude those with visas and green cards and they may give it a better chance of withstanding scrutiny. That doesn't sound like a bad compromise. The issue with the refugees does conflict with long standing treaties and international agreements however. Would an American court rule on that?

    I had thought they had reissued the EO to exclude LPRs (legal permanent resident or green cards) but in reading I understnad its still there and they just aren't enforcing that. As long as thats in there then I agree w/ the court ruling.

    I believe he can block those with visa (citizens of other countries). They do not have any constitutional rights since they are not American citizens. They can be denied entry at any time for any reason.

    It would be very simple to reissue the order properly (and I trully had thought they had done so), it is stupid and wrong not to do so.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,720 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    I had thought they had reissued the EO to exclude LPRs (legal permanent resident or green cards) but in reading I understnad its still there and they just aren't enforcing that. As long as thats in there then I agree w/ the court ruling.

    I believe he can block those with visa (citizens of other countries). They do not have any constitutional rights since they are not American citizens. They can be denied entry at any time for any reason.

    It would be very simple to reissue the order properly (and I trully had thought they had done so), it is stupid and wrong not to do so.

    No they didn't re-issue. They made the argument that it was not a concern because the administration had given a directive not to focus on them. The court stated that without a new EO the admin could not be trusted on that issue.

    I do believe that resident aliens are entitled to due process.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,871 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    I don't think that really enters their mind. They take issues that require resolution in the federal courts, to clarify existing law or to resolve a split in the circuits. There's nothing here for the Supreme Court to decide, as the case hasn't been litigated on the merits. So my guess is that they deny review at this point. But its just a guess.

    I understand that; but they are human, just like the rest of us. Their amygdalae must be whispering to them "****-slap a mighty lesson on the separation of powers unto him".
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    In all of the hundreds of appellate court decisions I have read over the years, I can only remember one where I felt like a judge let his emotions get the better of him.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189#writing-USSC_CR_0489_0189_ZD1

    That said, there's NO WAY the administration's party line "this EO is unreviewable by a court" was going to be well-received. Judges guard their prerogatives carefully.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,871 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    In all of the hundreds of appellate court decisions I have read over the years, I can only remember one where I felt like a judge let his emotions get the better of him.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189#writing-USSC_CR_0489_0189_ZD1

    That said, there's NO WAY the administration's party line "this EO is unreviewable by a court" was going to be well-received. Judges guard their prerogatives carefully.

    I stand corrected. I should have said I understand that; but they are human, just like the rest of us. Their amygdalae must be whispering to them "****-slap a mighty lesson on judicial perogatives unto him".
    :)
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,809 Senior Member
    A consensus opinion is beginning to emerge. . .we'll see what happens now.

    C3xxg8ZWEAEBTkd.jpg
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Stupid but constitutional - that's going to get a rise..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.