Posted on 05/25/2017 5:19:50 PM PDT by Pinkbell
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's revised travel ban "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination," a federal appeals court said Thursday in ruling against the executive order targeting six Muslim-majority countries.
Trump's administration vowed to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 10-3 vote, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the ban likely violates the Constitution. And it upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Republican administration from cutting off visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban unveiled in March. Trump's administration had hoped it would avoid the legal problems that the first version from January encountered. A second appeals court, the 9th U.S. Circuit based in San Francisco, is also weighing the revised travel ban after a federal judge in Hawaii blocked it.
The Supreme Court almost certainly would step into the case if asked. The justices almost always have the final say when a lower court strikes down a federal law or presidential action.
Trump could try to persuade the Supreme Court to allow the policy to take effect, even while the justices weigh whether to hear the case, by arguing that the court orders blocking the ban make the country less safe. If the administration does ask the court to step in, the justices' first vote could signal the court's ultimate decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
And then after making them do that, and making them sort out what body bit belongs to just what little girl...
...force these blacked-robed sleazeballs to deliver those pieces to the parents, while explaining to them their rationale on this ruling.
Right.
The judges got this one horribly wrong. Such an absurd ruling, on so many levels.
Trump will lose 5-4, Kennedy siding with the deep state ...
The court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the order but on how they believed Trump felt.
How does that work? Maybe fascist judges can now be hanged on how we feel about them.
Ten islamist facilitators on the 4th Circuit.
Any islamist crime, no less attack, should be traced directly back to these fools.
TREASON.
but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination,” a federal appeals court said Thursday in ruling against the executive order t
Since when did “context drips with religious intolerance” become a basis for a legal ruling?
That sounds like opinion and not a ruling on facts or the actual law.
The issue is that these countries have hostile governments or lack governments so getting good data on applicants is suspect. A moratorium is entirely reasonable.
The Supreme Court may issue a summary reversal to enforce its own clear and on-point precedent. In doing so, the court reminds the lower courts of how authoritative it is.
For instance, the court has intoned that “it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents” and that those precedents “bind” the lower court whose decision was under review.
The summary reversal fits a familiar picture of vertical “stare decisis” (precedent), in which the court issues formal precedents that lower courts are absolutely obliged to follow – and absolutely may not overrule.
But this chastisement can go further, if the lower court either disregards clear federal law, established and constitutional on its face; or, as in this case, when the court introduces extraneous information not part of the case.
The lower courts ignored what was actually written in President Trump’s executive orders, and whether it was legal or not, and tried to “read into them” from what he had said in campaign speeches.
This is judicial malfeasance, and could arguably lead to the impeachment of these judges, or for the SCOTUS, or congress, to remove these judges from hearing any cases in the future.
The Manchester bomber had just returned from Libia, we are actively conducting raids in Somalia and Yemen, we are actively fighting in Syria, what more do these judges need to know? Just because they are suicidal doesn’t mean we all have to die with them
By the court's logic, that would be the voter's fault, for electing Trump.
Why the pepole put up with these [expetive deleted] in the federal government is a mystery to me.
There are serious security implications to hamstringing a president in national security concerns for political reasons. That is the heart of this issue and scotus should put an end to it.
+1
I hope you are correct.
The next argument will be that Trump has had his 3 months to develop the enhanced vetting procedures. Why keep pushing for the ban?
Since when did “context drips with religious intolerance” become a basis for a legal ruling
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.