Posted on 03/25/2025 12:39:00 PM PDT by DFG
The most liberal circuit court in the country delivered a surprise victory to the Trump Administration today.
As Politico reported, a three judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked an order by a district court judge in Seattle that would have forced the Trump Administration to restart refugee admissions. Trump can now continue with his pause on all new refugee admissions.
Politico notes that the administration must still process refugees approved before January 20. The ruling notes that Trump’s executive order had nothing to do with those refugees.
Bill Clinton and Joe Biden appointed two of the judges, Barry Silverman and Ana De Alba. The other judge, Bridget Bade, was appointed President Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I think you are right. It seems to me that the Democrat lawfare at this point is merely a delaying action, and that the Democrats are paying a high price and will pay an even higher price in terms of losing favor and credibility with the general public.
I'm not sure I understand the Democrats' long-term strategy here.
Who saw that coming?
“I’m not sure I understand the Democrats’ long-term strategy here.”
I think what happened is that they underestimated the seriousness of the administration of a variety of topics.
They thought that Trump 2.0 would be a repeat of 1.0.
The bullet to the ear has given President Trump the determination and resolve he needs to stare down these clowns.
Once that happens you fear no evil any more.
i am losing track of these cases
is this the one where Trump said the sky is blue
and the judges disagree
It bears mention that Trump45 (even before his metamorphosis to Trump47) spared no expense in loading the 9th Circus with conservative ideologue judges.
Some sanity still remains in parts of the Judicial Branch. Maybe there’s hope for us.
Light
“Some sanity still remains in parts of the Judicial Branch. Maybe there’s hope for us.”
No it does not.
What is happening is this latest very public Judicial overreach has threatened the pay for ruling corruption.
Trump is set to expose exactly how much a liberl SCOTUS receives for each favorable ruling.
Shits about to get real!
Haha! You just made me laugh. No, it's not any of that.
“is this the one where Trump said the sky is blue”
You are certainly confusing the issues, Joshua.
This is the one where Boasberg ordered the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft to turn around and not leave the atmosphere.
I want every single illegal alien gone. All 40 million of them. I want them living in fear every second they are here that ICE is going to show up and throw their a$$es back to where they came from.
OMG pigs just flew past my kitchen window LOL, by the grace of God he is in control!! The exposure of the Dems and these judges has been an absolute rude awakening for normal people!!!
Some of the judges got their Teslas keyed.
Not a yuge win. For the 9th to have said "Biden's EO persists in light of Trump's contravening EO" is guaranteed emergency cert and an embarrassing 9-0 smackdown by SCOTUS.
EOs are governed by well-established case law, albeit most of it generated in just the past 30 years.
Pacito v. Trump, 25-1313 (9th Cir, 25 Mar 2025)
Thanks!
Their system finally puked it up - it wasn’t there earlier in the day.
I don’t see any dissent in there, either.
Interesting.
My thoughts exactly, but it sounds to me like this latest ruling is going to have to be overturned or we’ll be embroiled in this mess that the Bidean administration has created for some time yet. Am I wrong? Or am I just underestimating what the Trump administration can do?
That worked for a time, but AutoPen Biden's handlers reloaded the Ninth with brainless Biden stooges.
Trump installed 10, Biden's handlers installed 8.
Pacito v. Trump, 25-1313 (9th Cir, 25 Mar 2025)
Page 2 of 2:
In all other respects, the district court’s February 28, 2025 preliminary injunction order is stayed. See Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018) (explaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) “exudes deference” to the President and “vests [him] with ample power to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (defining standard for stay pending appeal). The existing briefing schedule remains in effect.The clerk will place this appeal on the next available calendar. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 3.3(f).
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.