- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:28 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:28 am
and never justified standing.
Kind of like the court allowing a state to declare breech of 1st Amendment rights on part of an individual, and then for the court to never reference the 1st Amendment in its ruling.
Applicable Law:
Kind of like the court allowing a state to declare breech of 1st Amendment rights on part of an individual, and then for the court to never reference the 1st Amendment in its ruling.
Applicable Law:
quote:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
22
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:29 am to NC_Tigah
9th Circuit gonna 9th Circuit
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States
Didn't they say the White House failed to prove that there was an actual threat that required the travel ban of these specific countries?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:36 am to NC_Tigah
Dershowitz and Turley both say that the law is on Trump's side in this instance.
For those wanting to say Trump is wrong and the 9th is right, I'd say you are low informed wannabe lawyers.
For those wanting to say Trump is wrong and the 9th is right, I'd say you are low informed wannabe lawyers.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:37 am to sicboy
quote:
Didn't they say the White House failed to prove that there was an actual threat that required the travel ban of these specific countries?
Yes.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:37 am to NC_Tigah
They just had a law professor (think he was from Harvard) on Morning Joe. He went down the list of things the 9th did in this decision. Basically the 9th totally ignored the law and instead pulled shite out of their arse to put out a decision that fits their political viewpoint. This decision by the 9th is both laughable and totally unsupportable from a legal standpoint.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:38 am to sicboy
quote:
Didn't they say the White House failed to prove that there was an actual threat that required the travel ban of these specific countries?
By what authority does a Predident have such a burden?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:40 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
By what authority does a Predident have such a burden?
So there should be no checks in place for any decision he makes?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:40 am to sicboy
The problems he doesn't have to. The statute is clear on that.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:40 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
By what authority does a Predident have such a burden?
there is no such authority. The 9th. Left the actual law books on the shelves gathering dust when it comes to this decision. Like I said above, they pulled this decision straight out of their progressive asses.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:43 am to sicboy
That's quite the extrapolation from a single specific question directed to this specific scenario. I realize there's really no good answer to my question that fits your desired results, though.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:43 am to sicboy
quote:
Didn't they say the White House failed to prove that there was an actual threat that required the travel ban of these specific countries?
The WH didn't try to. They asserted that these decisions aren't subject to judicial review. And normally they wouldn't be. It's just that the 9th and the whackaninny in Washington decided Trump is an existential threat to the country and that they therefore do have review over security decisions with respect to immigration.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:44 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
So there should be no checks in place for any decision he makes?
According to the law "YES", but the law has been ignored here. It's what communist do, ignore the law and decree what is going to happen.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:44 am to NC_Tigah
They're not a court of rules. They are a court of policies and politics. And they wonder why they are overturned on a 80% clip. That's embarrassing.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:44 am to Fun Bunch
What if the president issued an EO that all immigrants from majority white countries had to go live in a camp. Whould that be constitutional? Of course not. It's ridiculous. So we're talking about line drawing. Where is the line of what is and isn't constitutional? If the US could actually prove there was a significant threat that was thwarted by the ban, they would have probably won. But instead they half assed it and hemmed and hawed and here we are.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:46 am to the808bass
quote:
. They asserted that these decisions aren't subject to judicial review. And normally they wouldn't be.
That's ridiculous of course they are subject to judicial review.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:46 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
What if the president issued an EO that all immigrants from majority white countries had to go live in a camp. Whould that be constitutional? Of course not.
Correct. But that's not what he did. So that's a stupid point.
The courts overstated the executive's position to pretend that they're the rational ones, IMO.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:46 am to NC_Tigah
There's a reason why the bunch of clowns are the most overturned court in America.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:46 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
What if the president issued an EO that all immigrants from majority white countries had to go live in a camp
If the camp is in the us that is unconstitutional, if it is outside the us we would probably be violating some international law but not the constitution
ETA i assume you mean potential immigrants
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 7:48 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:48 am to sicboy
quote:
So there should be no checks in place for any decision he makes?
Are you retarded?
Page 1 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News