Posted on 03/10/2017 6:41:16 PM PST by mdittmar
Edited on 03/11/2017 7:28:05 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
See link.
Wow, what is this from?
Headline, authors, and content do not match at all with article you’ve linked.
Thanks for the info Mike. Glad it wasn’t as bad as it looked. —I thought there almost had to be two rulings but didn’t think they’d bury one article under another, I don’t know why though...
Wow, maybe these eggheads are starting to get the message.
Wow. That’s a powerful statement. I wish more people would write letters of support!
Of course, they might and we just don’t hear about them.
The article says the court ruled against the new regulation. The plaintiff’s suit was upheld.
“The handwriting was if this judge issued a halt to the newest EO be would be facing impeachment and removal...”
Why do people talk like this? There is ZERO chance of impeachment no matter what any judge rules. None.
This regulation has been stayed and the plaintiff prevailed in his suit.
You are wrong. Any constitutional question can legitimately go before a court.
Nor does the executive have any authority to forbid the courts purview of the new regulation.
There is an argument that the Congress can, under the “Exceptions” clause in the constitution, place certain laws outside review. But I don’t know if that has ever been done.
“I’m reading it as the judge slammed down the new ban...am I correct?” You are correct. The judge in Washington did not rule but the one in Wisconsin upheld the plaitiff’s suit.
I don’t know what people are reading to see a victory here.
Different court.
Good. Now I won’t have to see Washington State’s attorney general on TV any more. He is such TV hog.
Good one
Just look at them. I would hate to be a liberal. Wake up every morning full of hatred and anger.
The title of this thread needs to be taken out back and shot.
I’m not a lawyer, but from what I understand is the fed courts have very limited authority with the new travel ban, since Trump just ordered the embassies to stop issuing visas, and the courts have no say in embassy orders.
Read the intro to the thread, and then read the intro to the story.
They are 180 degrees out of phase:
Thread:
A U.S. federal court on Friday refused to put an emergency halt to Republican President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, saying lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Story
A federal judge in Wisconsin dealt the first legal blow to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee already granted asylum in the United States.
Either Reuters changed the story, or it was posted wrong.
Look at this BBC article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39241321
The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban. Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation. The new 90-day ban on citizens of six mostly Muslim nations is due to come into effect on Thursday but has sparked legal action in a number of states. Lawyers in Washington state had asked Judge Robart to extend his decision on the first ban to cover the second.The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban. Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation. But the judge cited procedural reasons for not doing so. He said a complaint or a motion would have to be filed before he could rule.
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.