- 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
Administration not asking for en banc review; to issue entirely new order
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:22 pm
quote:
“Rather than continuing this litigation, the President intends in the near future to rescind the Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns,” the Justice Department told the court. “In so doing, the President will clear the way for immediately protecting the country rather than pursuing further, potentially time-consuming litigation.”
LINK
Any guesses on what the edits are going to be?
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 5:23 pm
10
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:28 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Any guesses on what the edits are going to be?
Your worse nightmare that will be legally airtight.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:29 pm to boosiebadazz
It's still going to be challenged and we'll get to see the nutty 9th circus be exposed as the naked partisans they are for all to see.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:30 pm to boosiebadazz
Obama showed him the way. 
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:31 pm to dr smartass phd
quote:
Your worse nightmare that will be legally airtight.
Nope. While I think this makes sense. I also don't think it will change a thing. I think the same judges will rule the same way.
The 9th didn't even site the law which gave him the power to do what he did in their ruling thus nothing is airtight. They will continue to pay no heed to constitutional law and rule with nothing more than emotion.
So nothing he sends them will be airtight. This is still going to head the the Supreme Court.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:33 pm to boosiebadazz
Immigration Act of 1924, come on down!
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:35 pm to TigerMyth36
True Myth, for way too many people in this country, including some judges, feelings >>>>>> laws.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:37 pm to uway
The only way to handle this equitably is to suspend immigration/visas from ALL countries temporarily while we nail down the new vetting process.
frick 'em.
frick 'em.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:37 pm to dr smartass phd
I think it would have been alright if he would have left out permanent resident aliens.
I bet they take that out due to due process concerns and then it's much harder to label it unconstitutional.
I bet they take that out due to due process concerns and then it's much harder to label it unconstitutional.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:39 pm to uway
I don't know if that's where the US Code article I saw cited came from, but I'll bet that statute faces a constitutional challenge. It reads way overbroad, and I'll bet it was passed before SCOTUS handed down some rulings concerning due process for non-citizens.
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:39 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Any guesses on what the edits are going to be?
It will definitively call whatever it is a "travel ban" and not a restriction on immigration.
Someone in the Trump PR group got a gold star for coming up with that euphemism.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:39 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Sounds like he quit to me. Such an easy court case, am i right?
“Rather than continuing this litigation, the President intends in the near future to rescind the Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns,”
ETA: They CLEARLY don't want to go through discovery.
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:42 pm to Sentrius
I fully expect the 9th to be used quite frequently over the course of Trump's presidency.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:43 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Nope. While I think this makes sense. I also don't think it will change a thing. I think the same judges will rule the same way.
The 9th didn't even site the law which gave him the power to do what he did in their ruling thus nothing is airtight. They will continue to pay no heed to constitutional law and rule with nothing more than emotion.
So nothing he sends them will be airtight. This is still going to head the the Supreme Court.
and with the right revisions he will get an 8-0 or 9-0 ruling instead of a split decision.
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:51 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Nope. While I think this makes sense. I also don't think it will change a thing. I think the same judges will rule the same way.
The 9th didn't even site the law which gave him the power to do what he did in their ruling thus nothing is airtight. They will continue to pay no heed to constitutional law and rule with nothing more than emotion.
So nothing he sends them will be airtight. This is still going to head the the Supreme Court.
Nope. They can write it in such a way that lower court judge will not issue a stay.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 5:51 pm to Gusoline
The thing in the original order that was questionable to me and probably unconstitutional was the ban on people who had already been granted legal status. Take that out, and it's all good.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:02 pm to boosiebadazz
Looks like there's an equal-protection challenge pending before the Supreme Court Slate and ACLU that challenges the 1952 immigration law that gives birthright citizenship only to children born abroad whose mother was an American citizen, excluding the father.
This Constitutional case law is backed by Miller v Albright and more recently, Nguyen v. INS
These cases affirm the legislation's exclusion of one gender over another, saying the government's interest (American men going overseas and knocking up children and ease of travel) overruled any equal-protection claim.
Surely, terrorism and seven nations that have been excluded from this country by legislation would survive a Constitutional challenge, but as you can see, the liberals on the court (four votes) almost opened the door for terrorism exclusion to be considered racist.
This Constitutional case law is backed by Miller v Albright and more recently, Nguyen v. INS
These cases affirm the legislation's exclusion of one gender over another, saying the government's interest (American men going overseas and knocking up children and ease of travel) overruled any equal-protection claim.
Surely, terrorism and seven nations that have been excluded from this country by legislation would survive a Constitutional challenge, but as you can see, the liberals on the court (four votes) almost opened the door for terrorism exclusion to be considered racist.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:15 pm to TidenUP
Republicans in Congress can totally change the 9th if they want to.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:17 pm to Sentrius
quote:Unless it's conveniently struck down by a judge whose jurisdiction is presided over by a more conservative court.
It's still going to be challenged and we'll get to see the nutty 9th circus be exposed as the naked partisans they are for all to see.
Wink wink.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 6:28 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Seems smart to me. Why give the Left and their useful media idiots a circus trial to mount more attacks from, or spew more propaganda?
ETA: They CLEARLY don't want to go through discovery.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News