![](http://i.imgur.com/02S93qT.jpg";)
Posted on 03/15/2017 6:54:43 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A federal appeals court judge says President Donald Trump has the authority to block foreign travelers and courts must defer to the president’s judgment in decisions about who should be allowed in the United States.
Judge Jay Bybee of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in court documents filed Wednesday that his appeals court colleagues were wrong when they refused to immediately reinstate Trump’s original travel ban. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Wow, Obamatard missed replacing this guy.
Bookmark
So what does this mean for today’s ruling?
So what does this mean for today’s ruling?
Probably DOA.
Congress is slow rolling hearings and a vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch. The Supreme Court is now ineffective in aiding President Trump, and that is the way they want it.
Now that is surprising. I didn't think there were any in the 9th that were not leftist activists.
Guess they didn’t like being called out in a Rally that President Trump had today, especially when he enlightened every one there and watching the Rally as to what the actual law says...
Best Election Ever!!!
You mean Hawaii ruling of today not this ruling by the 9th?
![](http://i65.tinypic.com/2r4u7pc.jpg";)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
District of Alaska.
District of Arizona.
Central District of California. Eastern District of California.
Northern District of California.
Southern District of California.
District of Hawaii.
What was this hearing? En banc? Or was his a dissenting opinion?
Well l am confused this ruling looks like it came after the Obama hack in Hawaii but l don’t see any mention of it.
This reads like a dissenting opinion from the earlier opinion. If so, it has no effect on today’s decision.
That don’t sound like a ruling, just his opinion.
Yah,I should have been clearer.I meant that the ruling halting Trump's EO might not last if this is acknowledgment about the President's Constitutional powers.
I’m confused... did he overturn his colleague’s ruling, or is he just stating the truth for the record.
Well if she is saying the 1st EO was legal then the 2nd one sure as hell is so why isn’t the Hawaii clowns decision getting thrown out.
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.