Posted on 02/05/2017 12:19:26 PM PST by ColdOne
Why was this case allowed to be argued again before a different federal judge, after the first federal level ruling?
1. It was argued differently here, on a new point.
2. Shouldn’t the plaintiff have been referred to appeal the first decision back East?
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
ping
No lawyer however wager strings are involved.
Seattle Judge is Wrong and Overreached With Nationwide Injunction on Travel Ban
“Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns.”
Did ya catch that? This federal judge basically made a ruling on what he THOUGHT Trump meant- which is clearly against the law- a judge can not just rule based on guesses about motive- just as hearsay isn’t allowed in courts- neither is second guessing someone’s motives-
This judge clearly overstepped his authority and should be reprimanded somehow- perhaps impeached- to send a loud clear message that if you are a judge- you had better stick to hte law or there will be consequences-
Now Donnelly is a Brooklyn judge...and we all knows who owns Brooklyn which may be why she has remained silent. Hell, she can just stir the pot...
A temporary order is good for 14 days unless extended. Donnelly did not extend it....cuz it's going to wind up being a blot on her record. She wanted out...and knew the arguments to extend would be worthless.
And so, they turned to a Judge who doesn't give a damn..Robarts.
Who specifically licked his boots...it'll come out in the end. One name I'm seeing is the Washington AG...Bob Ferguson.
The big word in all this is "Temporary".
The Plan....Just floating a disruption to p** off Trump and payback for Obama's order to let illegals remain...
Totally, absolutely political.
A judge in one District Court is not bound by what a judge in another District Court in some other part of the country thinks.
A judge in a District Court IS bound by decisions of the judges on the Appeals Court in the circuit in which his District Court is located. And of course the Judge is bound by what the Supreme Court decides.
So you often have Appeals Courts in different parts of the country coming up with different legal analyses on the same issue. If you have a split among the various Appeals Courts in different parts of the country in how they treat the same legal question, often the Supreme Court will be willing to take a case on appeal in order to resolve the differing approaches to the issue and settle the question once and for all.
These guys also see the words “privacy” and “musket” in the Constitution. Apparently they have the ability to see things that aren’t really there, and make up new rules based on their superpower vision. Tough combo to beat. Each battle must be fought and won.
Why can’t Trump just issue another executive order. Make it a little different with more countries on the list and a longer ban. Cite the Obama precedent and explain that this is for national security. Doesn’t the stay only pertain to the existing order?
Because the judiciary is their last stand, regardless of whether the rulings are legal or not. The left has been stacking the benches in the lower and middle tier courts for decades now, usually with the acquiescence of the quisling Republicans (after all, it's just a lower or mid level court, let's throw them a bone to get other favors for ourselves, has been the thinking).
The left sees decades of their 'progress' being unraveled at a breakneck pace and will do ANYTHING to avoid being set back one or even two generations. There will be challenges to every single Trump ruling, beit executive orders or laws passed through congress. There will be riots staged in the streets, and the media (also seeing their influence being lost) will do a hard court press to wear us down with endless stories of how many millions of people oppose Trump's policies. This is just the beginning folks, and it will get a lot worse before it gets better.
Or, we lose and America as we know it is gone.
Concurrent jurisdiction presupposed. Actually, there is no valid jurisdiction in 28 USC 2241 (e)(1).
I am tilting to the belief that the President’s lawyers have advised him not to challenge jurisdiction because such challenge in itself causes arguments to be made in the court hearing the complaint and such challenges are perhaps properly heard at USSC. Also, a challenge to jurisdiction would look odd if accompanied by secondary arguments.
A challenge to jurisdiction of a district court in an appeals court leads to bringing up the underlying subject matter and so must argue the underlying subject matter.
The democrats were smart to have the Seattle case brought by a state because it establishes a basis for arguing the underlying subject matter in district court.
The Seattle judge states that he has jurisdiction because he perceives the President’s EO as “an attack on the Constitution and the Law”. The Constitution allows such judge to hear the parties (jurisdiction) because it was brought by a State against the United States but reserves original jurisdiction to the USSC meaning SCOTUS can ignore all lower courts and decide without them, without presuming an appellate role.
The logic of the President’s lawyers would, therefore, follow to argue in appeals court to buy time for the President’s Supreme Court appointee to be confirmed and seated. In the meantime, the President’s DHS Director, General Kelly, has revoked tens of thousands of visas and may still be legally revoking en masse because the Seattle judge’s order pertained to vetting and not revoking. Thus, the nation is safe until Judge Gorsuch is confirmed and seated.
The President is winning and will win. But the democrats are thinking they winning because of their pyrrhic control of media narrative. However, President Trump knows the importance of media dominance and will surely be changing the headlines in the days ahead as this case falls off the radar until later. It may be that the fully seated SCOTUS will end this skirmish with hardly a sound because President Trump is again dominating the airwaves with new issues.
Different Plaintiffs.
Just like two superior courts located in different geographical districts may arrive at two different decisions and state supreme courts are called to resolve the differences.
Same too in federal gay marriage, Obamacare, and abortion rulings. When there is a conflict of circuit court opinion, it makes it more likely that the SC would review an appeal of a case to resolve the conflicts.
Last line should have read: ‘And we fight back or we lose and America as we know it is gone.
The State of Washington is a party to this case, hence, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
Why the Acting Solicitor General did not go there Friday is a good question, as is the question of why this EO was issued before the DOJ team was in place.
The cases were brought by different plaintiffs. The Boston case was filed by individual immigrants being detained at Logan airport. The Seattle case was filed by the State of Washington.
It would be like a product liability case: one injured plaintiff in New York files a lawsuit against GM, alleging its cars are faulty. A second plaintiff, who lives in Utah, can file an identical claim against GM in Utah. (There is a mechanism for consolidating cases in different states raising the same issue, but the defendant has to invoke that mechanism, and the Government hasn't-- probably because deciding the consolidation issue can take weeks or months, and the Seattle decision would stay in effect all that time.)
Under the current jurisdictional statute, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only if both parties are states (e.g., boundary disputes).
...........a “reprimand” to a judge in legal circles is
known as a “mandamus”..........see below:
Mandamus (”We command”) is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court, to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority—to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing)—and which is in the nature of public duty, ...own as a “mandamus”............
Trump should re-issue the EO to ban all immigration. Then there would be no bias claim. Then Trump could say....see I just wanted to to a few countries for 90 days, but you didn’t like that so i had to do this .
It may be that the Left wants this to go the Supreme Court, get deadlocked at 4-4 and make a big stink about it in the MSM, with Soros-funded riots in the streets, etc. as a backdrop to the Gorsuch confirmation, rather than have this resolved in the government’s favor at the appellate level.
Yep, he should extend the temporary ban for ALL VISAS, citing national security ..,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.