Posted on 02/15/2018 8:56:46 AM PST by GIdget2004
A Virginia-based federal court of appeals on Thursday ruled the latest version of President Trump’s travel ban unconstitutional citing that it unlawfully discriminates against Muslims.
In a 9-4 decision, a majority of the judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said it examined official statements from Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, and found it “unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.”
The court is the second federal appeals court to rule against the ban.
The most recent iteration of the ban bars people from eight countries — six of which are predominantly Muslim — from coming to the U.S.
The Supreme Court had decided in December that it would allow the latest travel ban to take effect while litigation ran its course.
In late December, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the third iteration of Trump's travel ban, saying it goes against federal law.
The Supreme Court last month agreed to review the legality of Trump's travel ban and is expected in April to hear arguments regarding the order.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
SCOTUS needs to slap them all down HARD when they overturn these.
A scathing opinion from the bench, calling these judges out by name and warning them they’d better knock it off.
Facts don’t matter when they are in opposition to what is trying to be achieved.
“[The court] examined official statements from Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, and found it “unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.” Interesting new legal standard ... Apparently Ruthie Ginsberg should be recused from hearing this case because of her past public animus / statements against Trump personally. In fact, let’s extend this legal standard a bit further . . . since the 4th Circuit has ruling can be interpreted as nothing more than a personal animus against Trump and they are barred from hearing any future cases involving Trump directly or tangentially.
Couldn’t agree more. Trump is tirelessly working to seed the courts with those who believe in the constitution and who follow law vs. making law from the bench - pray for him.
The latest SCOTUS decision was trying to tell the lower courts not to bother with further rulings but they are not listening. Meanwhile the ban stays in place.
The most important thing the Senate can do now is put everything, including DACA appeasement, aside and spend literally all of their time doing the kabuki dance of approving judges Trump has put up. Should the 2018 elections result in further erosion of Americans in Congress, a slight upgrade to the court system will be the only irreversible legacy Trump can point to. Most of the rest can be reversed when the next Dem with a phone and a pen slithers into that office.
I thought all of this was already settled by the USSC?!!!
[[Why do we even have an executive branch?]]
To have someone to blame for everything of course
[[Shut down ALL immigration from ALL countries for a year then revisit.]]
Yup do exactly what NY did when they passed their ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL ban on certain guns and ammo capacities-
Shut it down under the guise of ‘IMMINENT NEED”- just like NY did
And for the other branches to bully.
[[
“[The court] examined official statements from Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, and found it “unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.” Interesting new legal standard ... Apparently Ruthie Ginsberg should be recused from hearing this case because of her past public animus / statements against Trump personally. In fact, let’s extend this legal standard a bit further . . . since the 4th Circuit has ruling can be interpreted as nothing more than a personal animus against Trump and they are barred from hearing any future cases involving Trump directly or tangentially.]]
Precisely-
In its ruling, this lower court is actually saying that a former president’s edicts carry more authority than the current president’s.
Then Bush’s EO’s out weigh oBozo’s EO’s....................
These judges are taking away our rights in the constitution by stating that the constitution prohibits us from defending ourselves. I am growing to think that the hole in the constitution is where it gave the legal system this power. It would not be bad if we had ethical judges.
No surprize, Rome collapsed from within.. even though it was far advanced in so many ways over the rest of the world’s populace... so being wise and enlightened above all others can be a handicap..
What! And ruin my record of not reading the articles before I post? I think not :-)
That’s what I think. Shut down ALL immigration. There’s no discrimination in that.
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.