If the Northern District Court of California has suddenly become the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, you might be right.
But I don't think it has... 
Posted on 09/20/2020 7:25:47 PM PDT by Magnatron
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler blocked an order by the Trump administration on Sunday that would have banned Chinese-owned messaging application WeChat from the Google and Apple app stores. Judge Beeler said that the order presents First Amendment concerns for users of the platform.
According to a report by CNBC, a California judge blocked an order by the Trump administration that would have effectively blocked the WeChat messaging application from popular mobile app stores. Some analysts feared that the China-based applications posed information security concerns for American users.
The group of plaintiffs that filed a lawsuit believe that the order would infringe upon their First Amendment rights. In her injunction order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler argued that the plaintiffs have sufficiently established the necessary elements to establish their claim.
“In the attached order, the court grants the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim, the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs’ favor, and the plaintiffs establish sufficiently the other elements for preliminary-injunctive relief,” Judge Beeler wrote in the order.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If the Ninth Circuit gave her the authority, you're wrong.
"...the authority that a magistrate judge exercises is the jurisdiction of the district court itself, delegated to the magistrate judge by the district judges of the court under governing statutory authority, local rules of court, or court orders. Rather than fixing the duties of magistrate judges nationwide, the Federal Magistrates Act allows each district court to assign duties to the magistrate judges as fits the needs of that court."
I suspect she's fully empowered to issue this injunction. Not that I think she's right in doing so.
If the Northern District Court of California has suddenly become the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, you might be right.
But I don't think it has...
It's part of the Ninth District.
Do you want to go on record that she doesn't have the authority to issue this injunction?
Have you ALWAYS been full of Mitt on FR?
Have you ALWAYS been full of Mitt on FR?
So, as I suspected, you don't have a point to make.
I’m old enough to remember that you spit on LaVoy Finicum, Mittboy.
Oh, you mean that guy who thought he was above the law, ran from a legal arrest and drew down on US law enforcement?
I didn't spit on him, I just thought what happened to him was legal and entirely predictable.
Judges have no standing in foreign policy and in state of emergency rulings. Trump COULD flip her the finger and drive on. An executive order or and emergency order is a declaration of operating outside the codified laws.
Courts have no say. The remedy for abuse of that power is congress passing a veto proof law overturning his act, or impeachment.
Traitor. Fits the definition precisely.
Could a judge strike down a presidential order to stop Russia.(or China) from wiretapping phone calls and sending them back to their Intel
Agencies as a violation of free speech? Lock her up.
You misspelled "bushwhacking", you piece of Mitt.
Yeah, we all saw how Bundy and Cavalier were shot down like dogs by the bushwhackers.
Oh wait. They weren’t?
Maybe because they didn’t vow to die rather than face justice?
Clown.
I meant "lying clown".
Despite the semiblowhard making the usual @ss out of himself, I second your motion here.
The sockpuppet of the Odiousbama-ites on the ND California court is playing the usual "expand the jurisdiction" games.
I see a brushback pitch in her future.
Didn’t find your quote at that link.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/636
Doesn’t seem a magistrate has injunctive powers, but there’s a lot of legal wriggle room.
Tax it into non-existence.
“This message approved by Chief Justice Robert.”
Flame as you will, but I support this judicial ruling. Outside time of declared war or of serious manifest criminal activity, I do not support the banning of websites, social networks, communication devices, etc. I support free speech and press even for the Chinese. The President’s action was mostly symbolic, easily evaded, and I suspect it will fade away.
The issue is not free speech. The issue is espionage
You have been gullibly duped into supporting espionage
I think I agree with you, HOWEVER, I think we need to change the Bill of Right a little to provide a true 'Right to Privacy' as a new Amendment. This Amendment would see a violation for invasion of privacy for monitoring of Social Media or apps, especially by a government (foreign or domestic), and the app or media platform could be shut down on THAT.
That is, until they comply and stop monitoring.
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.