A federal appeals court just upheld a nationwide block on Trump's travel ban

Business Insider ^ | 5/25/17 | Michelle Mark

[Cheerio]

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday largely upheld a nationwide block on President Donald Trump's travel ban, arguing that it "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination."

The Trump administration will most likely appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

[TalBlack]

The administration are remiss in their duty to the nation when they fail to protect their constitutional perogitives. It is the height of folly to expose these perogitives to a chance however remote, of dismissal by any court. What happens if the SCOTUS does as the lower courts have done?

[mulligan]

Sad and dangerous when decisions are made because of prejudice and hate.

[chris37]

The thing is federal judges are not the law, they are not lawmakers, and they are not obeying the law.

I do not wish to be ruled by unelected and unanswerable politically appointed lawyers.

And congress is total and complete failure, full to the brim with liars, cowards, snakes, schemers and plotters.

I have no respect or need for any of these people.

However, I do respect your very well reasoned post, and normally I would agree, but I may be at a point that lies beyond reason now.

[Nateman]

The logic is not only ludicrous, the opinion is dripping with condescension and animus on the part of the court, against Trump, personally.

I like how you used their owns words against them. Kudos!

[Nateman]

I don’t think the USSC is going to embarrass itself by agreeing with this tripe. Its actually weaker than I thought it would be.

Don't be so sure. The POS who infested the White House previously got a lot of good blackmail material with his illegal wiretapping. I'm convinced that is why Roberts turned on Obamacare.

[Cheerio]

How exaclty does an “inferior court” created by and subordinate to “Congress” even claim to have “Constitutional Authority” over a Branch of Government that is Separate but Equal to the very branch that “ordained and established “ the “inferior court”????

I am sure you know the answer - because we have a Republican party that is afraid of it's own shadow when it comes to overturning anything Husein inflicted upon us, AND they have the NEVER TRUMPERS in that same party that are bitter for not having won their own presidential aspirations. The GOP only controls the Senate by two votes and if McStain and Grahmnesty show their hatred of all things Trump, nothing will pass the Senate and Schumkie wins.

I think there are only two solutions - Article V, or the creation of a new conservative party and shoot the elephant dead in it's tracks once and for all. Prior to the election I was praying that Trump would go 3rd party - he was the one guy that probably could have pulled it off.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO
• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.

• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP
• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who is working against Donald Trump? The same GOP



mcconnell ryan

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back?

Here’s a shock – We are not just pushing back against the left side of the UniParty (Obama, Pelosi and Reid), we are also pushing back against the right side of the UniParty, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

Roger Gregory is a Bill Clinton appointee. What else do you expect?

Why do all hearings on these cases end up in front of Clinton/Obama appointees?

[DoughtyOne]

That’s a fair question. As long as we are a nation of laws, no. If we were talking about something that was worse like them okaying capital punishments based on political ideology or some such I’d have to review that.

I personally think this is way over the top, jumping in to stop Trump. The problem is, if Trump goes rogue, then we have not just one branch gone rogue, we have two.

When you have then is total chaos. The next Leftist president that comes long, they can then go rogue too. That’s a thought I don’t want to contemplate.

Imagine Obama rounding up Conservatives or some such.

[Cboldt]

-- The problem is, if Trump goes rogue, then we have not just one branch gone rogue, we have two. --

In principle, not necessarily. Do the reverse, Trump orders the Court to disband, and the court operates in defiance of Trump's order. Still two rogue departments? Or just the first one, Trump?

Constitutional crises are precipitated when ONE branch steps out of bounds. What exists then is a conflict.

-- When you have then is total chaos. --

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on how the conflict is resolved. The country has survived many constitutional crises, some big, some small.

-- Imagine Obama rounding up Conservatives or some such. --

Or being ordered to bake a cake against your religious beliefs, or participate in some sort of abortion service, or employ moral degenerates because the degeneracy has constitutional protection.

What about all the lawbreakers in CT and NY who have refused to register their so-called assault weapons and turn in their illegal magazines? The courts will, I guarantee, uphold those laws as constitutional; and one day, SCOTUS will say that the RKBA only applies to the brownshirts. Gonna obey?

At the very least, the sort of extra-constitutional judgment of the courts must be subjected to ridicule, serious ridicule, to the point of labeling their decisions as illegitimate and garbage.

[jjotto]

‘Inferior’ federal courts did not originally have any jurisdiction over Constitutional questions. Laws were challenged in state courts and, if necessary, then reviewed by the federal Supreme Court.

I believe a series of federal laws in the 1870s stripped state courts of their primacy and handed power to inferior federal courts.

[DoughtyOne]

Then the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch will have to tell the court, that it has exceeded its bounds.

If the court couldn’t keep itself under control, I can see Congress having to impeach judges or perhaps the Justice Department having to come into play to deny the SCOTUS sans Constitutional actions.

If the court tried to use federal marshals to execute goals deemed out of bounds, it would have to be met with force of some sort.

This gets over my head.

Someone else would have to give you a better answer.

The SCOTUS is not allowed to make law. It is allowed to interpret law. If Congress passes laws limiting it’s over-reach, it would have to comply with those laws.

If it didn’t, it would be outside the law.

[LambSlave]

Stop all immigration for one year, then enforce strict standards of net worth, intelligence, and marketable skills.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I'm afraid we're reaching the point where the court has gone full leftist and the dems have decided that the court, like the media, is a tool of the revolution.

[DoughtyOne]

Chris, I think we have a Constitution Crisis right now.

As you stated, the courts are out of control.

Congress is shirking it’s duty.

The SCOTUS may be on the verge of going rogue too. I don’t think it would do that, but it could.

What is the answer? Should the president become a dictator?

Even if Trump were Jesus (and I don’t say that out of disrespect for Jesus), he couldn’t remove SCOTUS Justices and appoint new new ones that would be seen as valid.

He couldn’t remove members of the House or Senate and replace them.

He couldn’t act outside the law. If he did, he would become by definition a person acting outside the law. He would be a rogue president as surely as Congress and the SCOTUS had become.

You can’t correct things, by taking illegal courses of action yourself. You must stay within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.

If the SCOTUS blocks the president and Congress allows it, you have a federal government that is so badly broken that it would probably be time to call a Constitutional Convention of the States and hope for the best.

What other course of action would be an option?

The very United States would be on the verge of dissolution and utter chaos.

Trump must maintain a lawful stance. He cannot taint himself, or we would not have even one branch doing what it was supposed to.

Trump would have to remain the adult in the room. That would be vital.

Any course of action he tried to implement, must be seen as something that was in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, even if the Legislative and Judicial branches had gone rogue.

We must have a steady rock, a true unblemished champion at the helm. We the People, must be able to fall in behind him from a legal position.

If he went rogue, there wouldn’t be a pure Constitutional unblemished advocate left.

[DoughtyOne]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been rogue for several decades. Not unlike the California capital, it has become unanswerable to anyone. Yes the Ninth gets over-ruled, but then it goes right out and hands down unConstitutional rulings again and again.

The Democrats and the Unions have destroyed any semblance of reasoned leadership in California. It’s now a one party state, the Democrats having a veto-proof Legislature and a Democorat as Governor. Fine law abiding citizens are appalled by what it taking place.

Now it appears the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has gone rogue too. At least on this one matter it has.

Congress is adrift. The SCOTUS will shortly review the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Hopefully it gets it right. If it doesn’t, we have one missing in action branch of government, and another one gone rogue.

And these folks all think Trump is the problem. Currently he’s the only one standing on solid ground. He has done nothing more or less than what he is charged to do as President of the United States.

[chris37]

Your analysis is correct IMO.

“The very United States would be on the verge of dissolution and utter chaos.”

I do think that this is the road we are now on though, and I think it may end in a place that is even worse than utter chaos.

I think our system of government has failed, but not because it is a bad system, but because people are bad.

The farther man moves away from morality, the less sense it makes to place trust in them to wield the power of representation.

Those who wish to represent have too many dark designs, dark appetites, hidden motives and agendas, lunacy and madness.

Free men are failing to remain free, they are failing to teach young people the cost and value of freedom. Instead they are filling their heads with poison and lies, and they are doing this intentionally.

We are on a doomed ship.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm going to use a different font color and size so you can clearly differentiate each issue, my comments, your response, and my return response now.

-- The problem is, if Trump goes rogue, then we have not just one branch gone rogue, we have two. --

In principle, not necessarily. Do the reverse, Trump orders the Court to disband, and the court operates in defiance of Trump's order. Still two rogue departments? Or just the first one, Trump?

Constitutional crises are precipitated when ONE branch steps out of bounds. What exists then is a conflict.

I think you have a resoned retort there.  The problem is, the SCOTUS then orders it's Federal Marshals to take action.  Then you have them trying to obey the court's orders.  You also have the Executive Branch resisting.  In short order you have the Secret Service, and perhaps the military in the mix.  As you go through this scenario, you also have department heads and military officials having to determine if they are following the Constituion faithfully.

Lets say the SCOTUS issues some sort of decision that the President has not complied with their ruling, so he is in contempt.  They order the U.S. Federal Marshals to take action against the President.  What if the Secret Service refuses presidential directives and the military stands down as well?

I'm not sure if any of this is even possible, separation of powers and all, but this is the sort of extreme situation the things could escalate to IMO.

-- When you have then is total chaos. --

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on how the conflict is resolved. The country has survived many constitutional crises, some big, some small.

We know what Congress' mindset is.  They don't seem to like Trump.  Republicans are not in line behind him.  They want him gone.  Then you have the Media and their errand boys the Democrats.  Who would Trump have behind him?  Nobody.  Any action he took could be seen by Congress as a high crime or misdemeanor.  Would you then see an impeachment process?

-- Imagine Obama rounding up Conservatives or some such. --

Or being ordered to bake a cake against your religious beliefs, or participate in some sort of abortion service, or employ moral degenerates because the degeneracy has constitutional protection.

Yes, I recognize those problems, and they are worthy of consideration.  I'm not sure this is the topic to address them under.  I was trying to give you a circumstance that could not be ignored.  While these are IMO unConstituional "problems", they don't reach up to the point of a Constitutional crisis that  might actually end the nation as we know it.  The Obama example was intended to reach a level where it would be impossible to ignore the actions.  While these are clearly bad, they aren't at the same level.  A few people here and there isn't the same as thousands or tens of thousands.  I'm not trying to dimiss the importance of these things, because IMO they are agregious.  They do need to be addressed.  They way outside the limits.  

What about all the lawbreakers in CT and NY who have refused to register their so-called assault weapons and turn in their illegal magazines? The courts will, I guarantee, uphold those laws as constitutional; and one day, SCOTUS will say that the RKBA only applies to the brownshirts. Gonna obey?

It's hard for me to address this issue, since I live in a state that makes CT & NY look tame by comparison.  We can't even buy ammunition now without showing an ID.  I'm not sure if a record is kept or not.  There may be.  You will have to guage what your thoughts are here, and extrapolate accordingly.

At the very least, the sort of extra-constitutional judgment of the courts must be subjected to ridicule, serious ridicule, to the point of labeling their decisions as illegitimate and garbage.

I agree.  What's more, I believe that all Constitutional issues that come before the courts should require an automatic review by the SCOTUS.  It should not have to wait for someone with half a million dollars in their pocket and a decade to spare, to get there.  It should get there for free, and in weeks, not months or years..

I will also state that when new regulations are enacted within states that impact the 2nd Amendment (for instance), they should be reviewed as well.

Citizens should not have to spend a fortune and be held under the shadow of heneous laws and penalties fearing for their freedom.  The SCOTUS should review and strike them down, on it's own.

[Cboldt]

Thanks for the reply. Any conflict can be escalated. That's human nature. And both sides tend to claim they are acting within bounds - in the case of government actors, following the constitution and laws. Both sides claim to be right, and justified.

I mentioned earlier that the realpolitik here is that the Congress and The Courts will work together to remove Trump. Both will impose ridiculous and even unconstitutional limits, and at some point use breach of edict as justification for impeachment.

I can even imagine a rock and a hard place scenario, where if Trump breaches an edict he is impeached for breach, and if he doesn't breach it, he is impeached for failure to take care.

I tend to look past the form and the jargon, and when I see an out of bounds branch, it offends my sensibilities. I want a remedy against the branch of government that is out of bounds.

And it shouldn't, and I'll shut up now, but it bugs me to read a defense of an indefensible institution. We have to follow the courts because they are the courts. That way lies tyranny, and we are there. And the people not only tolerate it, they defend it.

[DoughtyOne]

Chris37, you are looking at a prime reason why I think people need to get right with God. Man is incapable of governing for an extended period of time without becoming corrupt.

We have what should be the perfect framework for a wonderful nation. I have deep respect for our Founding Fathers and what they tried to hand down to us.

It does take moral people of good character for our Constitution and government to work. We simply don’t have them today.

I have always thought in the back of my mind that this was the last valiant effort of mankind to self-rule according to God’s desires.

Well, that dream is nearly dead.

The world is small. Every eye shall see..., it is now possible.

Every person can understand the gospel.

Nations are failing.

Ours is on the verge of chaos.

Will there be need for another test, another nation to see if man could do it the next time?

Israel is a nation again. Russia is back in the region. We have fools like McCain, Graham, Clinton, Rubia, seeking war with it.

It just looks like the table is set.

Take care Chris.

[DoughtyOne]

I understand where you are coming from.

The problem for me is that at times there just isn’t a jeopardy free fix.

You have to try to do things that don’t make things worse.

If Trump were impeached right now, I think this nation would literally crumble.

The citizens on the right would be so betrayed, they would pack it in.