re: 9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling

quote:

---

I'm not a lawyer but it would take a pretty dim bulb not to see how absurd this ruling is.

---

this is what I'm talking about

I have no idea if you have a good basis for your opinion, but the majority of people saying this shite haven't even read the opinion, couldn't tell you anything about the legal standard the 9th was to apply at this stage, etc.

quote:

---

I don't believe that the security decisions of a U.S. President with respect to immigration would normally be challenged by the courts. I believe that because it's Trump, they believe he needs to be restrained whether or not it's actually a normal part of their role.

---

As in you don't believe states would typically challenge them (fair argument, but probably would for any Republican in this environment), or that the courts wouldn't hear the case for some reason?

More likely the second. We saw what happened when Arizona challenged the Feds on immigration. The courts said "nunya" and "suck it."

I'm not sure if that was on page 22 or 23 of the decision.

quote:

---

I want to affirm your usage of the alternate spelling of judgment.

---

I use Swype on my phone, and once I spell a word wrong it usually defaults to that spelling.

Good catch. I will delete that.

Edit: Actually, it appears that judgement is acceptable, at least in British English.

Judgement vs Judgment

quote:

---

Today, judgement is an accepted spelling in British English, but if you stick to judgment, you won’t be judged in the UK or the US.

---

quote:

---

The court presumes that the visas are all legitimate. That's the problem with them asking questions about previous terror attacks from visa holders from those countries. They are saying we have a process that is working and you disrupted it.

---

This subject is admittedly well outside my wheelhouse, but the Reason article claims that the courts opinion focused largely on due process for Visa, green card, illegal immigrants on US soil. Is it your opinion that lack of "proper" vetting would invalidate the Visa holders access to due process via 5A?

Even if we take out Visas and Green cards completely you still have the courts claim on refugees seeking asylum.

quote:

---

Even refugees could make due process claims under 18 USC 1231 if they seek asylum after arriving in the United States.

---

Can you state your position on these arguments as it relates to due process? I guess Im not seeing how your position invalidates these claims. Everything Im reading seems to point to an improper scope.

I wasn't being sarcastic. It's an accepted alternate spelling.

quote:

---

. So it highlights that the 9th is not disproportionately overturned

---

Most lay persons will lump a reversal and a vacate together. Disregarding semantics, they both speak to the performance of the circuit. By that standard it is the 2nd worst circuit only slightly behind the D.C. Circuit (shocked).

So it is completely reasonable to criticize the court based on the combined percentage (which funny enough is exactly what the document in your link does).

Your link even assigns a letter grade to the circuits and the 9th is the 2nd worst, again behind the d.c. Circuit (shocked again)

quote:

---

Your link even assigns a letter grade to the circuits and the 9th is the 2nd worst, again behind the d.c. Circuit (shocked again)

---

I wasn't arguing that they were doing a great job. I was just providing more context, since raw totals are skewed by population and the sheer number of cases.

It's generally poorer than other circuits, but it's not as exteme as the raw totals would suggest.

I think the 9th Circus is garbage, as are the decisions coming out of this EO, but I've read the decision and:

This is false:

quote:

---

9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling

---

and this is false:

quote:

---

and never justified standing.

---

I'm not saying the 9th was legally correct or had sound reasoning, but it did purport to jump through the hoops.

Also, while the 9th circuit cited tons of "actual law," if the criticism is that the 9th didn't refer to the grant of authority to the President, that was not really at issue. Noone contested that the President had authority to issue the EO. The issues addressed were whether the EO was subject to judicial review (they cited several cases for the proposition that it was) and whether the US had met its burden (because the 9th was addressing a request for a Stay of the lower court's decision) to obtain a Stay of the TRO.

It also became clear to me in reading the Decision and the EO that if Trump had not overreached on religious issues (i.e., restricting travel from predominantly muslim countries but allowing for special consideration for religious minorities from those countries (read:non-muslims)), this whole thing may have turned out very differently.

The rate of poor performance is extreme.