- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: 9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:58 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:58 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
but when the government doesn't even come with a coherent argument it's kind of hard to let them win.
FWIW, FOX, fwiw, reported yesterday that the attorney representing the government was thrown in at the last minute to represent because the two other attorneys assigned to the case had Obama leans from the previous administration, fwiw.
1
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:58 am to sicboy
quote:That burden is not the Executive's. It is the plaintiff's.
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 7:58 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
I keep seeing this parroted. Yes, they are overturned in the Supreme Court at that rate, currently. That's usually why cases end up in the Supreme Court. Their decisions are not overturned 80% of the time.
Yes, yes they are. Go look at the data. Decisions from the 9th are overturned or vacated over %80 of the time. Also, the Obama admin was overruled by the SC 55% of the time.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 8:03 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:58 am to sicboy
quote:
So there should be no checks in place for any decision he makes?
Are there checks to prevent a law officer from pulling you over when he sees you speeding or reckless driving?
Its a Law of the land. Its been repeated dozens of times by Law Professors this week.
Don't act like those college student protesters who can't name the countries that are included in the ban.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 8:00 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:59 am to TrueTiger
quote:
--US v. Arizona: Arizona attempts to involve itself in immigration matters because it is harmful to its economy and burden on its residents. Fedgov judicial system tell them stay out, it is the exclusive power and jurisdiction of Fedgov. You have no standing. --Washington v. US Washington demands standing says that Fedgov must butt out and stop interfering with its residents because it is harmful to their economy and a burden to their residents. Fedgov judicial system tells Fedgov you stay out, you don't have that kind of authority. ONCE AGAIN, the left shows that it only seeks the result it wants first, and secondly works itself into a complicated frenzy to justify it. THE RULE OF LEFT IS: THERE ARE NO RULES BUT THE ONES THAT GIVE US GOOD FEELS.
Absolutely. They love to halve the baby and pretend they're Solomon.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:59 am to NC_Tigah
There are 19 different cases cited in the standing section of the opinion but sure, whatever you say.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 8:00 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:59 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
it does not give him the authority to put them in camps
I agree with this. However, some conservative "legal commenters" have recently argued on the talk show circuit that this EO was legal because the Japanese internment camps were created by executive order. More scary stuff from the President and his camp.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:59 am to the808bass
quote:
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.
No lawyer here - just someone who has lived a long time using nothing but common sense.
But I think there is nothing the government does that is beyond judicial review. If they actually made that as part of their argument then it would be hard for the court to agree to that principle.
But of course the review would have to pass muster. If the POTUS wanted to ban everyone who was blind in one eye, then certainly the court could uphold a challenge to that and demand an explanation. In the particular case at hand, the ban sounds so perfectly reasonable, that an explanation of why these 7 countries were chosen should be easy to establish. That is, it should be easy to establish in front of an unbiased court. There is nothing a GOP POTUS can present to the ninth circuit that would deflect them from doing whatever the 'feelz good" branch of the DEM party desires.
I think the defense presented to the appeals court was pathetically weak - I stated at the time that I felt I could have done better. But John Jay himself could not have changed their preconceived decision.
And denouncing the decision as activist nonsense is warranted. You just cannot call them 'so-called' judges. That is the only object I have to what Trump has done here.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:59 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:THEY DID NOT EVEN CITE THE LAW!
No but when constitutional rights are allegedly being violated they have essentially unlimited power to provide a remedy
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:00 am to Darth_Vader
Best article Ive seen on this issue, from Reason:
Reason on the 9ths decision
Between this and the National Review it would seem that the arguments on the grounds of due process hold some water and that Trump might be best served by rescoping the EO.
Reason on the 9ths decision
quote:
Rather than seek a narrower TRO, Trump could rewrite his order to focus on unvetted foreign nationals who have never visited the U.S., which would address most of the due process concerns while bolstering the credibility of his claim that he is trying to protect Americans from terrorists. "Even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects," the 9th Circuit says, "it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions."
Between this and the National Review it would seem that the arguments on the grounds of due process hold some water and that Trump might be best served by rescoping the EO.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:00 am to NC_Tigah
The opinion would have been much more intellectually honest had it read ....
"We don't like Trump
We don't like Republicans
We despise Conservatives
SO......
"
"We don't like Trump
We don't like Republicans
We despise Conservatives
SO......
"
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:01 am to NC_Tigah
Cite what law? I know everyone loves that one statute, which is relevant to the merits. This was not a hearing on the merits though.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:02 am to NC_Tigah
It's the new way to legislate from the bench. Just make it all up on the fly.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:04 am to CorporateTiger
quote:No shite. It apparently wasn't a hearing on standing either.
This was not a hearing on the merits though.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:05 am to LSURussian
quote:
Are you bi-polar?
quote:That looks to me like 99.8% of their decisions aren't even reviewed, let alone reversed. Get it? Saying that "80% of their decisions are overturned" is a laughable gotcha talking point.
From 1999 to 2008, of the 0.151% of Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed;
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 8:25 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:05 am to Walkthedawg
quote:
It's what communist do, ignore the law and decree what is going to happen.
I would describe more as fascist... I wouldn't consider a group of appointed intellectual idiots a collective. Even "the party" would consider this group renegade and would have to be dealt with...
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:05 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
the attorney representing the government was thrown in at the last minute to represent because the two other attorneys assigned to the case had Obama leans from the previous administration, fwiw.
Yeah - the first two just couldnt in good conscience argue against their political interests.
The 3rd in line should have done that too - he was incompetent in his efforts.
HOWEVER - it would not have mattered - the 9th gonna do what the mob wants.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:05 am to AUbused
quote:
quote: Rather than seek a narrower TRO, Trump could rewrite his order to focus on unvetted foreign nationals who have never visited the U.S., which would address most of the due process concerns while bolstering the credibility of his claim that he is trying to protect Americans from terrorists. "Even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects," the 9th Circuit says, "it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions."
Here's the thing. If our vetting process is flawerd, the existence of a visa for someone doesn't mean they've been vetted. So his was still a rational decision to make.
This could all blow up in the leftists and courts face if he can demonstrate exactly and precisely where the flaws in our vetting are. I suspect we are in some cases (especially in the countries in the EO) wholly dependent on personal interviews with the applicant.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:07 am to the808bass
quote:
What special knowledge do the judges have to accurately evaluate intelligence data? I'd submit they have almost none.
When this same sentiment was said about Trump I don't remember anyone on here worrying too much about that.
Reality is this was a poorly executed attempt at the Muslim ban he wants. He didn't consider legal immigrants different than illegal ones. He has no proof of immediate need but poor execution during the roll out show that it can be detrimental for legal residents.
That's why the 9th ruled that the stay was valid.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
THEY DID NOT EVEN CITE THE LAW!
For Libs: Feelings >>>>>>>>>>> Laws
You don't like the law, just make shite up to get your way. As long as you feel good about yourself, that's okay.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News