Exactly.
Posted on 04/22/2017 8:27:35 AM PDT by ColdOne
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday denied a request for an 11-member court review of President Trump's travel ban that was struck down by a Hawaii federal judge earlier this year.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco-based appeals court voted to reject the request from Hawaii for a wider review that would have taken the case to a full “en banc” panel.
The decision means that the case will now follow a traditional path of judicial appeal, and will head to a three-judge panel next month.
According to the report, the judicial order did not provide any details as to why the request was denied by the court.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Or grant Hawaii independence after sending all the invaders there.
Three months in and we’re still stuck here? This is an urgent matter. Let’s speed things up.
Exactly.
Do you not understand the Constitution? The Judicial branch does not respond to Executive branch orders. Only the Legislative branch can change the jurisdictions of Federal courts.
Sounds like you want an all-powerful dictator.
I can’t believe that people are this illiterate of the Constitution, to think a President can get rid of judges or courts. Only Congress can do that.
I've been around this joint since 1998. You can easily track the downward trend of the level of discourse and general knowlegde on many issues over the years.
I've seen some of the dumbest posts ever in the last few years...
Yes however, they can’t even put in judges on the 120 vacancies. They won’t touch the 9th. They are a mess.
Headed for the SC no doubt.
I feel confident Trump actually has his ban already and it came about by making vetting rules so stringent in the countries he named that no one can stand up to it.
They are not burdened with obeying the rule of law or any of the ten commandments. They have no ethic and no morals.
Ignore all radical judicial activity and order all agencies to the actions prescribed in the law. You don’t stop enforcing the law until it has been verified that the already passed law is valid. You carry out that lawful order until someone can PROVE doing so is unconstitutional and then the law must be thrown out.
Act on the law until the law is otherwise proven to be in the wrong.
That’s how I read it also. I was hoping some later comment might make it clear.
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.