Posted on 02/07/2017 4:43:39 PM PST by Truth29
Full Title: Trump's lawyer gets pounded by judges with questions about 'Muslim ban' as he fights for travel restrictions to be put back in place - and says White House will take ANY part of the ban being reinstated
President Donald Trump's administration says its temporary restrictions on citizens of seven terror-afflicted countries are not the equivalent of a Muslim ban - but justices on a federal bench reviewing the executive order indicated Tuesday that they're not buying it. Judges wanted to know whether the executive branch believes that Trump could bar Muslims from entering the country if he wanted. Judges wanted to know if the executive branch believes that President Trump could bar Muslims from entering the country.'That's not what the order does here,' said DOJ lawyer August E. Flentje Judges wanted to know if the executive branch believes that President Trump could bar Muslims from entering the country.'That's not what the order does here,' said DOJ lawyer August E. Flentje 'That's not what the order does here,' August E. Flentje, a career Department of Justice lawyer arguing on behalf of the president, repeatedly said. If it did, an American citizen would have standing to challenge it, Flentje told Ninth Circuit justices, but that 'is a far cry from that situation.' Flentje asked the court to 'immediately' lift a judge's injunction on Trump's executive order as he went head-to-head against lawyers representing two states. At the very least, he said, the government should reinstate the part of Trump's order 'that applies outside the boundaries of the US and extends beyond people who are in the US or who have been in the US.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
They shouldn’t even be hearing the merits of the case. Plaintiffs have no standing.
this whole thing is preposterous !
if an army of protected minorities is ATTACKING us, we have the right to defend ourselves without some judge saying we are discriminating against the minorities we are defending ourselves against and issuing restraining orders keeping our military from fighting back.
Listened to the hearing. The states’ attorneys got their own pounding too. Sometimes brutal. The female judge seemed to lean to The Presidents opponents. Not sure about this outcome.
the appellates sounded like they want to send it back down for trial (rather than up to SCOTUS) in order to pound Trump about campaign statements re: a muslim ban.
There is no case.
Judges have no business second-guessing the President on national security.
That’s exactly what they did here today.
Strip the federal courts below the US Supreme Court of jurisdiction over alien matters. Problem solved.
This keeps up and we are collectively going to have to face a decision on what to do about a Judiciary that arrogates to itself final authority in all matters.
Sounds consistent with the clips from the testimony that was aired by Fox News.
I’m not a lawyer, but, from what I’ve heard the DOJ lawyer assigned to this case may not have been the best choice to make this argument. Apparently, others above him had to recuse themselves.
It probably doesn’t matter. The 9th Circuit is predisposed to usurping the constitution. Fortunately, their decisions are often overruled.
It sounds like the Trump Administration is backing off a bit on saying they will take this case to SCOTUS. I think Trump has been advised to be more polite to the courts, or at least not attack them.
It’s fun and fascinating to watch history unfold...
Sounds like a Kangaroo court ...
Sounds consistent with the clips from the testimony that was aired by Fox News.
I’m not a lawyer, but, from what I’ve heard the DOJ lawyer assigned to this case may not have been the best choice to make this argument. Apparently, others above him had to recuse themselves.
It probably doesn’t matter. The 9th Circuit is predisposed to usurping the constitution. Fortunately, their decisions are often overruled.
It sounds like the Trump Administration is backing off a bit on saying they will take this case to SCOTUS. I think Trump has been advised to be more polite to the courts, or at least not attack them.
It’s fun and fascinating to watch history unfold...
Yes. It’s particularly galling since our Founding Fathers envisioned the judicial branch to be our weakest branch. And it was until an activist judge expanded the power of the court in Marbury v Madison.
“Judges have no business second-guessing the President on national security.”
But a lot of these Left Coast judges are social justice warriors first and judges second.
I only thought of this AFTER the hearing.
My guess is it's 90% or more, not counting attacks committed during conventional warfare.
Muslim ban? YOU BETCHA!
Both sides got pounded. FWIW, the administration is outnumbered 2-1 with the justices that heard this case. Both sides presented weak arguments. The Ninth will rule in favor of the state of Washington.
It’s a rather straight forward issue.
The 9th either smacks down Robart, or the Supreme Court will 8-0.
Trump has been deferential and shown respect to the judiciary by not simply ignoring Robart. Robart has no authority over the Executive in this matter.
The 9th would be wise to smack down Robart.
If they don’t, the Supreme Court will.
Just like they have no business overturning the will of the people when they shot down Prop 8.
If he backs off then he does not an immigration policy. Ya’ don’t think there will be lawsuits once the wall starts to be built?
Let me tell you, if we don’t control the borders in every way possible ASAP we have no country left to worry about jobs.
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.