Trump's lawyer gets pounded by judges with questions about 'Muslim Ban' (tr)

Daily Mail ^ | February 7, 2017 | Francesca Chambers

[DoughtyOne]

I believe splitting the court is well meaning, but perhaps misguided. While I have no strident opposition to it, it seems to me like what you do is get the justices to abide by the law or be prosecuted for malfeasance in office.

There’s no clearer a case to do this on, than the one right now before the 9th concerning Trump’s right to do what he did with regard to problematic immigrants.

The law is very clear, and circumventing it should be a crime.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I agree that if you had a smaller 9th Circuit they still would have found a fed judge in Cal and the EO would go to the 9th Circuit. However, states like Ariz. would be able to protect themselves from invasion.

The law is very clear, and circumventing it should be a crime.

Some parts of federal law appear contradictory. The 1965 Immigration Act (which is a horrible law as we know) states no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

There are counter arguments to this, but to me it's not that easy to understand. I think the 9th Circuit is likely to use that to get the ruling they want. I hope not, but a snake acts like a snake.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the counter-point, and I can’t say you’re wrong there.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Another great thing about Trump’s EO. It requires entry and exit tracking for visas, something Sessions has been begging for for many years, but I don’t think any of the “comprehensive immigration” bills included this. Wonder why? Several of the 9-11 terrorists had expired visas.

[DoughtyOne]

Good observations. I agree.

[AuntB]

Thanks for the ping, daddy! good to see you. Break up the 9th CIRCUS!