re: Every human in the world was granted "due process" rights today in the US.

Being granted due process doesn't mean you have a right to enter the country or that you can't be arres. JFC, if someone goes to an ISIS camp and comes back. They will be arrested.

The gist of what you have quoted is that the District Court did not specifics which of the states three arguments it relied upon in granting the TRO. That is not particularly unusual.

In continuing on and stating their reasoning for upholding the TRO as to due process they state.

quote:

---

The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).

---

The court then goes on to discuss why the later interpretation of the EO by counse to exclude lawful permanent residents is non-binding.

The court throws in some dicta about other classes of non-citizens, but the actual holding relates to lawful permanent residents.

quote:

---

The EO also forbids green cards. And favors Christians. Amend the EO and it wil be fine.

---

A badly thought out and badly written EO. Trump muffed this opportunity.

quote:

---

If the country to which this person travels is a failed state without a vetting process, how would anyone know where and what the person has done? I think that why the EO was aimed at the 7 specific countries. No vetting.

---

Yes too bad the DOJ hashed up the record on this point.

quote:

---

you support that, you are not an American. You're something entirely different, and you are my enemy, and the enemy of this country.

---

GFY. You're trying to change America based on fear and what-if scenarios. THAT is un-American. The statistics show that 90 percent of terrorism in this country isn't related to islam and most are born in this country. fricking idiot. Put your gun down

quote:

---

It's a throw in note

---

When you deal with Appellate Courts, I would be very careful about asserting that something they wrote is a throw in note especially when referencing actual cases. They are basically saying that those classes are covered by the Fifth and by extension the 14th Amendments.

Also, the Court is dancing perilously close to overstepping itself in it own language by deigning to decide what is a national security threat which is the purview of the elected classes..mostly the Executive.

The Ninth really contorted itself on this one piecing together a lot of disparate case law like Zadvydas 523 US 678 and even Boudemine V. Bush.

quote:

---

When you deal with Appellate Courts, I would be very careful about asserting that something they wrote is a throw in note especially when referencing actual cases. They are basically saying that those classes are covered by the Fifth and by extension the 14th Amendments.

---

I have plenty of experience dealing with court opinions. The entire gist of the reasoning is about lawful permanent residents. A filler backup on potential other grounds is not a holding.

quote:

---

Also, the Court is dancing perilously close to overstepping itself in it own language by deigning to decide what is a national security threat which is the purview of the elected classes..mostly the Executive

---

Regardless of what countries are a security threat, any actions the executive takes are still constrained by the constitution. There is a difference between Trump/Obama's decision that these countries presented a risk and the measures to address that risk.

Oh also this still hasn't been heard on the merits at all.

quote:

---

The Ninth really contorted itself on this one piecing together a lot of disparate case law like Zadvydas 523 US 678 and even Boudemine V. Bush.

---

You see that a lot on these weird cases that don't come up often.

quote:

---

The precedent set today is dangerous and will end up getting Americans killed.

---

Wow, some real drama queens here.

If there was any actual risk that this Order sought to address, the Administration would have presented that to the court. A review of the opinion makes clear that the Administration did not present anything at all. It instead argued the radical positions that due process only applies to American citizens and that the President of the United States has unlimited power and his orders cannot be reviewed by the Judiciary.

Well, let's look at this from a long view institutional perspective. If a President can do whatever he wants and his actions cannot be reviewed, then the next Democratic president will also have unlimited power. This is not and has never been the law under our constitution. The Administration was wrong. Its assertion that it holds absolute power was rejected. Thank God.

As for due process, every person within the jurisdiction of the United States has due process rights. To rule otherwise means that every foreign tourist at Disney World can be arrested without charge, imprisoned and shot to death. If they have no rights, and no right to legal process, we can do anything. Again, WRONG.

Look, all Trump had to do was present evidence to show that he had a rational basis to conclude that admission of this class of aliens, who otherwise hold legal entry permits granted by the U.S., would be detrimental to the United States. He couldn't even meet this minimum requirement. As a result, he did not have the power to issue the order. End of story.

quote:

---

Are you familiar with the term precedent?

---

I think they doubt that you are.

quote:

---

Does it say 'Christians' in the EO?

---

Does it need to? It's pretty naive to ignore the writing on the wall because you happen to like it this time.