Posted on 02/07/2017 4:49:44 PM PST by Steelfish
Federal Judges Express Skepticism About Trump Travel Ban SUDHIN THANAWALA,
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A panel of appeals court judges reviewing President Donald Trump's travel ban hammered away Tuesday at the federal government's arguments that the states cannot challenge the order.
The hearing before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges was the greatest legal challenge yet to the ban, which has upended travel to the U.S. for more than a week and tested the new administration's use of executive power.
The government asked the court to restore Trump's order, contending that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States. But several states have fought the ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations and insisted that it is unconstitutional.
The judges — two Democratic appointees and one Republican — repeatedly questioned Justice Department lawyer August Flentje on why the states should not be able to sue on behalf of their residents or on behalf of their universities, which have complained about students and faculty getting stranded overseas.
Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked whether the government has any evidence connecting the seven predominantly Muslim nations covered by the ban to terrorism.
Flentje told the judges that the case was moving fast and the government had not yet included evidence to support the ban.
Friedland asked if the government had connected any immigrants from the seven countries to terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Time for President Trump to declare the judiciary in insurrection and start arresting them for sedition. Call out the 101st Airborne.
Rough on Americans to have to go through another attack
When a major attack comes it will be in a blue city so....
Yup. Think you are right. The 9th circus is missing the issue IMHO. I think the issue is whether the statute that governs this power of the president (which gives the president the power AT HIS DISCRETION to block immigration) was properly applied by the President. Whether there are facts tying bad actors to the 7 countries is irrelevant to the issue presented.
Not by a long shot. Judge Freidland (Obama appointee) was against the EO right out of the gate trying to delve into the Executive’s anti-Muslim animus, something that is completely immaterial when it comes to the plenary powers of congress on who gets to come in the country and the constitution does not apply to those non-citizens living abroad.
The questioning by Judges Canby and Clifton were quite hostile as well on the issue of standing by suggesting that Washington has a proprietary interest in the functioning of state colleges and universities so as to confer standing on Washington. It appeared that these two judges would still strike down the EO but would limit their strikes so as to exempt green-card and visa holders.
Absolutely correct.
The Supreme Court in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952)declared: “Any policy toward aliens is . . . interwoven with . . . foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”
That's my opinion on the matter. There's no way the Democrats on the USSC will choose this hill to die on, which would immediately create a severe Constitutional crisis that would drive the country towards civil war.
It's just not possible that the USSC could be as blatantly political as the 9th circus.
If the 9th Circus acts like a bunch of politicized children, the SCOTUS will have no choice but to be the adults in the room, and rule (hopefully unanimously) in favor of upholding the President's EO.
There's simply no way that the USSC can legitimately decide that Congress and the President (via the U.S. Code, Constitution, and precedent) suddenly don't have the power to control the national borders of the country.
To reiterate: overturning this EO would be an insane decision that would flout the rule of law and legal precedent, create a Constitutional crisis, and steer the nation straight towards civil war. And appropriately so.
I simply can't imagine even the Democrat party being so foolish with the stability of this Republic. I mean, some day in the distant future, there's going to be a Democrat in the White House, and that person is going to want to exercise their legitimate Constitutional powers with respect to immigration law and policy.
Elections have consequences, and the Federal Judiciary doesn't get to arbitrarily abandon Constitutional principles simply because they don't like who the Poeple elected.
I honestly don't see how any thinking person could conclude that the President and Congress don't have the power to enforce which aliens cross our national borders. It borders on hysteria...
The Supreme Court declared in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):
“Any policy toward aliens is . . . interwoven with . . . foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”
I used TW to tell him to overturn #DACA while we wait on Bolshevik judge-9thcircuit impasse
Issue new order everyday
Not even the 9th can get this one wrong.
It’s Unconstitutional if a Republican President does it.
Obama just screwed over the Cubans and not a peep. He changes the Immigration Laws to allow so called Dreamers to stay, not a peep.
AZ is told the Federal Government has the final say regarding Immigration.
In this case the State of Washington sues the Federal Government about Immigration Policy and the Liberals on the Court all of a sudden are concerned with States Rights.
Hard to believe the Republicans have the House, the Senate, the Presidency and control a majority of the States.
The DOJ lawyer is doing his best to throw this case.
There’s been over a hundred cases since 9/11 where “immigrants” from the targeted countries were convicted on federal terrorism charges...and this so-called lawyer could not cite even ONE.
Of course, with the TRO applying to all agents of the executive branch, you can almost guarantee the state/local LEOs in the sanctuary states/cities would attempt to now enforce federal law.
Trump is essentially a third party President and all of the Rats plus a lot of the Republicans are trying to slow or stop him. This is the so-called uniparty fighting to bring him down.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Precisely correct.
If I was Trump I would withdraw the current ban and immediately replace it with a one year moratorium on all immigration citing national security.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump may do just that if he ends up losing this in court.
“When a major attack comes it will be in a blue city so....”
Some of us have relatives in blue cities, and states - but I think you already took that into account, given your handle. LOL.
The bottom line, with the exception of the World Trade Center (so far), are that these terrorist events take out a relatively small number of innocent people...but they can have a HUGELY DISPROPORTIONATE impact politically - something that the Democrats likely didn’t consider in their rush to attack.
“Could this be a case of the DOJ throwing the case on purpose, before Jeff Sessions gets appointed and can start to purge the Obama agents throughout the DOJ?”
I’m starting to think that too...also allows Trump to DEMOLISH the Democrats (and the media) if and when the next attack happens.
Our new prez may be much smarter than even we give him credit for.
The DOJ attorney should have stuck narrowly to the statute and these two cases in his argument, but he did not seem particularly familiar with these decisions. At the end of the day the 9th Circuit has to argue in avoidance, and it would seem really hard to do so.
I was curious about the attorney from the DOJ and found this:
“August E. Flentje, a career trial attorney in the Department of Justice’s civil division, will represent the Trump administration.
In his 19 years in the department, nearly all in the civil division, Flentje has worked under every president since Bill Clinton. He was part of a team that received an an award from former Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. in 2013 for “extraordinary work” in the legal maneuvering around the Obama administration’s decision to support same-sex marriage in defiance of the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress.”
Except Trump is going to take most of the blame unless the next attack is related to one of these countries and comes in the next two or three months.
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.