What are those anyway?
Trump is in control of all of the agencies though.
Order them to ignore an unconstitutional ruling and enforce his immigration order. The GOP isn’t going to impeach.
F em all.
Any restrictions on which EOs Trump cannot strike down? Target rich environment.
Here’s a good one:
OBAMA UNLEASHES INTERNATIONAL COPS ON UNITED STATES
http://freerepublic.com/tag/eo12425/index?tab=articles
Unchartered. I will read more tomorrow. Thanks for posting.
Trump needs to put out on Facebook the entire statute, showing precisely why the court order is illegal. And then order the entire Executive Branch to enforce the law.
This is a stunning display of Judicial violation of the Law. They should all be arrested and locked up for treason and sedition.
Notice how Trump keeps a dozen controversies going at once? Notice that the Democrats get no traction as a result? Seems to me previous Republicans would pick a single fight at a time, and “stay on message.” This maximized the effectiveness of the Democrats’ propaganda.
IMO Trump has two choices. First fire all of Obama’s generals and put his own in. Then declare martial law and arrest some traitors in the ckngess and judiciary. Right now there are two co-eqhal branches if government and the executive isn’t one of them.
His other choice is to announce That the people are going to have to help him replace most of Congress. And until that is done there’s nothing he can do. The bullies have teamed up against America and won’t stop until they own the play ground.
One thing I don’t understand...
The restraining order blocks 5a-c and 5e. But 5d says 50,000 refugees is detrimental to the US and halts it! And that wasn’t blocked?
Am I reading it wrong. Or is the refugee program blocked in it’s entirety?
Of course, restraining order against 3c stops the travel ban.
Headlines say refugees are flooding in from the 7 states. But are they refugees are people who already had visas?
One thing I don’t understand...
The restraining order blocks 5a-c and 5e. But 5d says 50,000 refugees is detrimental to the US and halts it! And that wasn’t blocked?
Am I reading it wrong. Or is the refugee program blocked in it’s entirety?
Of course, restraining order against 3c stops the travel ban.
Headlines say refugees are flooding in from the 7 states. But are they refugees are people who already had visas?
....Heck then all of the legal wrangling can take place with the Old one tieing up the liberal legal assets .... While at the same time the new properly edited one would be in effect protecting the nation by preventing the flood of bad elements into the country.
Trump can rescind the previous EO.
Then issue a new one that doesn’t include Green Card holders (the sole basis of the 9th Circuit decision).
Then file suit in a Republican-friendly district asking for judicial review of his own order. Forum shop it. Then win in Court.
I actually think Trump is setting up Democrats to replace Ginsberg (who is dying) with another judge from his List of 20.
Now he can say, “Look at these active judges who are thwarting the will of the public who elected me! We need conservative judges.”
Trump may get a total of 5 picks to the SCOTUS if he stays 8 years.
bookmark
First, the ruling repeatedly cites minority positions, especially those dissents expressly written by Stephen Breyer, as if they were binding caselaw. That is a remarkable appeal to the vanity of the liberals on the higher court, where they surely see this going ("Steve: we're going to pretend that your dissent is as important as the actual law.")
The other is that in order to circumvent a well established Constitutional precedent -- that states have no standing to sue the Federal government on behalf of their citizens -- they have invented a novel circumvention in which the states are given standing by virtue of suing on behalf of state institutions.
Specifically, the Court accepts the notion that WA and MN have standing because of a claim that the inability of academics to travel to various hell-holes such as Yemen damages their prestige. This is breathtaking: not only have the states shown no actual harm -- only an anticipated one -- there is no precedent that I'm aware of that a plaintiff without standing can sue on behalf of someone else who also doesn't have it. (The state institutions don't have it, because their anticipation of harm is not evidence of actual harm.)
We might also ask, since the Court seems impressed by the failure of the Trump administration to show that terrorists have actually come to the US from these countries, why they are not equally impressed by the failure of the plaintiffs to prove that ANY faculty member has ever even travelled to Syria. This is all the more puzzling because the principle of primacy of the political branches in making and applying immigration law actually forces the court to presume WITHOUT evidence that the former is true, while the consideration of the lack of evidence for the latter is a presumptive test for the supposed likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail.
In other words, they have have shifted the burden of proof to the political branches, and made them answerable for political decisions to the courts. That is, in a word: bullshit.
This decision is on a level of Dred-Scott-awful.
President Trump should start relocating refugees to where they 9th circuit court justices live. Let the lawyers tell us why that would be wrong to let the refugees live in the upper crust areas that the Justices live.
ping
The apparent fact that the DOJ intentionally hamstrung itself certainly is NOT irrelevant. It is entirely to the point - we are fighting a two-front war against judicial usurpation and internal dereliction of duty within the DOJ.
If the rule of law cannot constrain the leftists, then let the point of the bayonet act against these traitors.
