Posted on 10/10/2017 5:54:44 PM PDT by SMGFan
Link only with title, but other stories did nothave this title explaining the ruling.
Another loss for the Nutty Ninth and the new radical 4th. Screw the prick AG in Hawaii. He sounds like an Obama leftist fanatic. Hope he keeps getting his legal ass handed to him on a platter of decisions.
As for the ACLU. They never met a communist or Moslem terrorist they didn’t like. Affectionately known as the American Communists Liberty Union.
” http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/16-1436.pdf “
Below is the http://www.scotusblog.com/ summary article to pair up with your PDF of the formal decision document.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/justices-end-4th-circuit-travel-ban-challenge/#more-262685
Haha. Awesome. :D
Great news.
I suppose the Supremes don’t want to live with rampant terrorism in their country. The Constitution is full of common sense ideas. If a justice tries to use his common sense and then checks the Constitution, they will often agree.
A refugee is not a refugee when they don’t ever intend to go back to their home country. They are seeking refuge, not transplantation.
Bitch wearin’ the wrong hat. Should be a hammer and sickle.
There can be no examination of judges other than Impeachment proceeding and that has happened once early in our history-Justice Chase. He was not convicted. Separation of Powers as per the Constitution.
Even if it were split what would prevent the split from filing the exact same cases?
“There can be no examination of judges other than Impeachment proceeding”
Impeachment proceedings imply that impeachable offenses have been uncovered.
“Separation of powers”
Balance of power. The other two branches are supposed to keep an eye on the Judicial Branch. None of the three branches is empowered to police itself exclusively.
I am glad :)
Sometimes you need a break from the news and I took a little bit of a hiatus, but the majority of things I read, I loved :)
About Trump, of course. He has no party behind him and it sickens me.
Congress can impeach, or break up the Court. Executive branches (local, state, federal) can investigate crimes, but only Congress can remove from the bench
The win is that the SC ordered the lower court, (4th circuit), to dismiss the case. That means that the findings and rulings are no longer valid and they must start new on the EO3 case. They can not amend the original case since is has been, (will be), dismissed.
All 9 justices voted to dismiss as moot, however, Sotomeyer wanted to revoke the centiori but leave the lower cases intact. That would have allowed the Plaintiff’s to use the negative findings as a basis for their challenge to EO3.
This now means that the district court hearing the EO3 cases will need to develop the facts during hearings and can’t use the previous findings as a starting point. Also, the issue of standing must be litigated for the new case/plaintiffs. The old plaintiffs are out because their visas have since been issued and the visa holder is in the US. Their facts no longer are valid since they do not have injuries to be argued.
Starting from scratch means there have been “No finding of religious animus” etc. The prior plaintiff’s are gone and the facts argued prior are not valid. New facts are required, I.E. “my wife has been denied a visa” etc.
The Hawaii case from the 9th circuit is still valid because the refugee issue was part of that case and the 120 days doesn’t expire until 24 Oct. Hawaii filed a revised complaint 10/10/17 adding the EO3 to their case. However, it is expected that the SC will also declare that original case moot and order it dismissed. At that time it is expected that the Hawaii court will have to also dismiss the new revised complaint with the original case and Hawaii would have to file a new complaint encompassing only the EO3 without the findings the court made in the EO1 and EO2 since that case is dismissed, (treated as having never existed).
Sorry the above is lengthy. I’m trying to put it in layman terms.
I am not the originator of this thread.
There seem to have been 15 federal judges impeached and 8 convicted
https://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-01/impeachment-of-federal-judges/
Liberal heads exploding, as their dream of a non-Christian America goes up in smoke.
Thank you very much for that explanation. It was very clear and now I understand the importance of that decision, even with the “wise Latina’s” dissent. Well done!
Winning?
“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump’s travel ban on majority-Muslim countries Tuesday because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.
The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries. That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.
“We express no view on the merits,” the justices said in a one-page order.
The decision effectively wipes the record clean in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, one of two federal appeals courts that had struck down major portions of Trump’s travel ban. That case began in Maryland.
A separate case from the 9th Circuit, based in California, remains pending because it includes a ban on refugees worldwide that won’t expire until later this month. But the Supreme Court is likely to ditch that case, which began in Hawaii, as well.
The challengers in both cases already have renewed their lawsuits in the lower courts, starting the legal process anew. In Maryland, a federal district court has scheduled a new hearing for next week.
.....”
Not sure they can.
Supremes should end it—one way or the other.
Welcome. The SC accepted and adopted the DOJ’s position on how to go forward on this case, (and the Hawaii decision coming up). After the Sept EO3 was released the SC asked all parties to file a letter giving their views on what the next step should be. The question was: is the case moot and what should the SC do if it is? The letters were filed on 5 Oct. The plaintiffs argued the cases weren’t moot but if the court thought they were that the SC should revoke the cert. but not dismiss the cases, (Sotomayer’s position). I’m glad the SC went along with the DOJ.
BTW the revised complaint by Hawaii doesn’t have any parties that would have standing because no one has a visa request pending that has been denied under the new rules. (all are speculative not actual injuries. Hawaii is still using the “loss of revenue” issue for colleges and tourism as their supposed standing/injuries. All in all a good read if you want to see what grasping at straws is like.
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.