Live Anti-Trump Protests from JFK Airport 01/28/2017

yes, thanks
I misphrased that anyway, it was just a Civil Div atty (i think)
The SG will save it for the Supremes
Which is good, bc this atty was not so hot

I guess everyone thinks like this, but I heard multiple matters I would have handled differently
For example, their question on whatever Gulliani said -- who cares? I cannot believe this was an issue. Circuit Court judges are supposed to be better than that
 
Last edited:
The panel was split 2-1 Dem appointees

But that Robart order is so poorly written, I did not think it would matter. It is the legal version of junk

But tonight, at least one judge on the panel seemed willing to read into the Const, US Constitutional rights in non-citizens living abroad. This is crazy. And a good example why the 9th Cir is, historically, the most reversed Cir of all of them

ps -- although you cannot not always tell from oral arguments how the final ruling will go

---------------------
We did get this one question at least -- Judge: 'I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when in fact vast majority of Muslims not affected.'
 
Last edited:
If you ever wonder how websites like Politifact work, here is an example

C4Eeb79UkAAW-8X.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
If you ever wonder how websites like Politifact work, here is an example

C4Eeb79UkAAW-8X.jpg
Click to expand...

Spicer did say affected and are you absolutely positive that Donald Trump didn't say the same thing on Bill O'Reilly's show? Notice Politico didn't quote Trump's tweet.

"Three hundred and twenty-five thousand people flew into this country from airports and 109 people were affected and slowed down in their travel. I understand that is an inconvenience but at the end of the day that is a small price to pay as opposed to somebody losing their life because a terrorist attack was admitted," Spicer told MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Regardless, like many things the Trump administration walked back those statements including in the information the Justice Dept. gave for the Virginia court case. I think General Kelly also gave different information in this trip to Capital Hill today.
 
looks to me like you are referencing a tweet and not the quote from OReilly. While the OReilly transcript doesn't include the word "affected" it wasn't explicit with "detained and held for questioning". His quote on OReilly was "We had 109 people out of hundreds of thousands of travelers and all we did was vet those people very, very carefully."
 
Just a reminder, and to answer the court's questions on facts concerning the threat of immigrants, I'll take one of the countries in question:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/germany-imposes-surprise-curbs-on-syrian-refugees

A Black Eye for Obama’s Vetting Program
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/syrian-refugee-admits-terrorist-intentions-in-blac/

One Killed, 12 Injured in Explosion in Ansbach, Germany. Syrian responsible.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=syrian+refugees+bomb+germany&qpvt=syrian+refugees+bomb+germany&view=detail&mid=F500A8C359EBF2409C15F500A8C359EBF2409C15&FORM=VRDGAR


Syrians headed to U.S. with stolen Greek Passports apprehended in Honduras:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Syrian+Refugees+Problems&&view=detail&mid=EB88CE6E543EE325E127EB88CE6E543EE325E127&FORM=VRDGAR

The Night That Changed Germany’s Attitude Toward Refugees:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Syrian+Refugees+Problems&&view=detail&mid=8690126E195EC89AAE318690126E195EC89AAE31&rvsmid=EB88CE6E543EE325E127EB88CE6E543EE325E127&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV

129 Dead, 349 injured in attacks in France by Syrians that came disguised as refugees.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318379/Hunt-Isis-killers-Syrian-passport-body-suicide-bomber-Stade-France.html

Syrian Refugee Arrested in Germany After Fatal Knife Attack
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/world/europe/syrian-refugee-arrested-in-germany-after-fatal-machete-attack.html?_r=0

Syrian Refugee Blows Himself Up at German Music Festival, Wounding 12
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/world/europe/ansbach-germany-explosion-music-festival.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Wait, here is something Obama did to Iraq:

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131
 
This is an option (see tweet) -- But it could open up a huge, separate line of discussion.
Can (would?) Trump just go ahead and have his Exec Branch impose the visa suspension anyway?
People too easily throw around the term "Constitutional Crisis" -- but this action, if taken, would actually create one

I have always loved this question -- goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison (who decides what is and what is not Constitutional? It is not express in the Const itself. The Federal Courts, of course, concluded that the Fed Courts get to make that decision. But was this correct? DO they have the power and sole jurisdiction over this issue just because they say they do?)

 
After hearing the nonsense the judges asked the only shocker is the final tally. I expected 2-1 against.

It's beyond me how a judge (who has no clearance for classified intel, nor will they be read in), can challenge the President's decision that people coming from a specific location pose a threat to national security without upgrading current vetting procedures.

So now he has to prove why his decision is justified? What other Prez has been forced to do so when doing the same type halts?

America is in trouble with these bleeding hearts. It's like was said in the hearing, I guess their proof will come when it goes 'boom'. Good thing the terrorists think a big strike in America is ideally done in well-known places like NY and CA.
 
Brad Austin said:
After hearing the nonsense the judges asked the only shocker is the final tally. I expected 2-1 against.

It's beyond me how a judge (who has no clearance for classified intel, nor will they be read in), can challenge the President's decision that people coming from a specific location pose a threat to national security without upgrading current vetting procedures.

So now he has to prove why his decision is justified? What other Prez has been forced to do so when doing the same type halts?

America is in trouble with these bleeding hearts. It's like was said in the hearing, I guess their proof will come when it goes 'boom'. Good thing the terrorists think a big strike in America is ideally done in well-known places like NY and CA.
Click to expand...
That DoJ attorney was pretty sad though. I wonder how much not having Sessions QC'ing the team hurt the Government.

And forget classified intel. Just @iatrogenic post should have sufficed.
 
I wonder if the stay is a ruse to allow current visa holders an opportunity to come in. Wouldn't surprise me the same judge rules against the lawsuit after a month or two.
 
Garmel said:
Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 against Trump.
Click to expand...

Some of the questions at the oral arguments were pretty puzzling --
-- The female judge asked for new evidence. Rookie mistake. Attorneys are never supposed to make judges look bad, but you have to say something in the face of this. The Civil Div guy said nothing.
-- There was an extended discussion of something someone not even in the Admin said on Fox News. Why?
-- The idea that non-US-citizens, who have never set foot on US land, would have any rights under the Const is mind-boggling. I do not think even Ruth Ginzburg would go along with this idea. Outrageous
-- This appeal upheld a TRO. It was not dispositive on the law. There is even a chance that, when it goes back to the District Court for a full hearing, he will rule against plaintiffs at that time.
-- Both the District Court and this 9th Cir panel necessarily found that Washington (and Minnesota) were IRREPARABLY HARMED by a 90-day suspension of visas for people from Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. How can anyone in their right mind come to this conclusion?

---------------
Trump's appeal options are now -- request an en banc hearing or go to the Supremes. Or, he can let it go back to the Distr Ct for hearing.

-- The 9th Cir does not grant en bancs very often. This is the biggest Circuit Court which means it has a lot of judges. Twice as many as the average circuit. IIRC, to deal with this, they break up en bancs to 3 sets of 9-10-11 judges. I think it has total of 29 judges right now. So, if this did happen, the make-up of the panel would be key. And, given how organized the resistance is to Trump at the judicial level out west, it will be swimming up stream.

-- The SCOTUS will have its own set of issues for a Trump appeal too. The most obvious being the 4-4 split and even that count is generously assuming Kennedy will behave himself, which there is no guarantee of. OTOH, we have seen several of the Court liberals (Kagan and Breyer in particular) more than willing to do the right thing. They willingly slap down the 9th Cir on a regular basis and even slap down Obama overreach (who i think was the most reversed president in history). Also, if Gorsuch were already seated, the math might look different. But he is not. So, it will be a tough call for Trump/Sessions .....

--------------------
Lastly, if reports can be believed, visa seekers are piling in during this stay. As we saw in Orlando, one bad guy can do a lot of damage. These judges had better hope they are not letting one or more of them through.
 
Last edited:
To get where it wanted to end up, the 9th Circuit had to first view the District Court TRO as ruling on due process grounds. Their problem is that the Distr Court did not do this, and offered no reasoning along these lines

If you read appellate court decisions, this is a huge problem for liberal courts. They do not look at the case presented, they first look at where do they want it to end up. Then they back their way into the legal argument. This is what is happening here.

C4QqeYbUYAAIf7i.jpg
 
Here, the 9th Cir says there is no SCOTUS authority saying due process does not apply to aliens living abroad.
Their problem is that they have no authority to say it does.
But, of course, they just skip past this problem

C4Qq03YVcAACIY_.jpg
 
Then they go one step further, saying that aliens' due process rights could be vindicated in the future. If Ruth Ginsburg read this today, you can be she was asking herself - "what am I going to do about this?"

C4QrriZVMAASjQ3.jpg

C4Qrv8yVYAAK08m.jpg
 
The 9C mentioned a few times the Govt did not put forth any evidence that terrorists come from these countries. In the face of natl security, Courts normally take the Govt's word on this. So, the 9C is clearly making itself a new playbook.
TRO's happen fast. There is not time for lengthy evidentiary hearings. Because of this, what the Court should do is just take the facts as stated in the papers. In this case, Washington relied upon newspaper clippings (I kid not). The US, of course, had access to classified info.



C4QuRD4VcAAMsZ9.jpg


C4QuVRaVcAAmO2E.jpg
 
Last edited:
Based on his tweet, it looks like DJT wants to go to the Supremes
But there are problems here
If they go this route, it is unlikely Gorsuch will be there in time to participate (maybe the Senate will try and expidite him? Mitch does not seem in a hurry, but we will see)
Also, he does yet have an SG in office.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the cliffs notes JF (do they still have them). I missed out at the beginning of this . It is hard once you miss part of an event to go back know and get info.

So the Ninth has 80% of its cases overturned. And most so called experts including the renowned Husker:smokin: say Trump's temporary halt will stand Why did the leftists push this?
 
Horn6721 said:
....Why did the leftists push this?
Click to expand...

Liberals are emotion driven. They really do hate Trump. They will oppose him on everything because they are angry.

On this matter, alot of people think the Courts are no longer just the judicial branch, but have changed themselves into a sort of Super-Legislature which is not answerable to the people. With Trump, they are going to be second-guessing his policy from here to eternity. You would think elections settle this question, but it seems not.

I talked about this alot during the primary and general election. Why Hillary could not be allowed the next SCOTUS pick or exert further liberal control of the federal judiciary generally. So, you can now see what this means. And it will get worse, for awhile at least. But, however bad it may get, dont forget that it could have been much, much worse.
 
Last edited:
Did you notice, in those quotes above, what was not mentioned?
The 9th Circuit never discussed the primary legislation involved
How is this even possible?

(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.​

This is probably the biggest single issue this matter is about -- how broad the President’s authority is to suspend visas (or to limit admissions) under this statute that gives him sweeping power? And to what extent is that authority is limited by the Constitution?

The decision is 29 pages. Yet the 9th Cir did not mention this statute once.

I will go on record now saying that when this matter does finally get resolved (I have no idea when this will be) this statute will play a key role. Keep in mind that this was only an appeal of a TRO. TRO requests go fast, there is usually no time for an evidentiary hearing and so the judge can only rule on what is in front of him/her. The appellate court is dealing with the same record. This all will change upon a full hearing of the case. At that point, they will no longer be able to avoid the bigger issues.
 
Last edited:
If anyone cares to read the opinion, here it is. Link. It has some procedural issues that are pretty important, but if you only care about the substance, it starts in Part V on page 18.

It's a per curiam order, so it was unanimous, and its author was unnamed. However, it was rendered by a three-judge panel that included 2 Democrats (one Carter and one Obama appointee) and 1 Republican (Bush 43 appointee).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top