9th Circuit Court and the Travel Ban

[sk8knight]

So, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the injunction against the travel ban by substituting their judgement of what constitutes a threat to national security for the Executive branch's and also requiring the branch to justify it's findings where no justification is required.

But what is most troubling about their latest ruling is that it states that the Executive branch has no authority to bar immigration from any nation for any reason. If this doesn't make the Supreme Court docket, I don't know what should.

 

[Happy Hands]

Oh crap. I thought that said traveling band. Nevermind. I don't care.

 

[Ace of Knights]

So, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the injunction against the travel ban by substituting their judgement of what constitutes a threat to national security for the Executive branch's and also requiring the branch to justify it's findings where no justification is required.

But what is most troubling about their latest ruling is that it states that the Executive branch has no authority to bar immigration from any nation for any reason. If this doesn't make the Supreme Court docket, I don't know what should.

You do realize the 4th circuit upheld the injunction too. That's two appeals courts. And given Trump's stupid tweets about political correctness as it applies to this... good luck.

 

[fabknight]

You do realize the 4th circuit upheld the injunction too. That's two appeals courts. And given Trump's stupid tweets about political correctness as it applies to this... good luck.

While the 9th Circuit Court has a 80% overturn rate, the 4th has a 61% overturn rate so it is still plausible that it gets overturned by the Supreme Court. The article below isn't the most recent but it seems pretty comprehensive yet simple in it's analysis and numbers really haven't changed significantly.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[sk8knight]

You do realize the 4th circuit upheld the injunction too. That's two appeals courts. And given Trump's stupid tweets about political correctness as it applies to this... good luck.

The difference with the 4th is that they ruled religious discrimination in much the same vein as the 9th's original ruling. They both ignored the actual wording of the EO and ruled on some prescient vision of what might happen or some emotional application of intent that should have been irrelevant. It's not for the courts to guess at what legislators were thinking when they write laws and then twist the laws to be contrary to the law in substance, which the 9th did with the INA in its finding.

Both are interesting, though, because Congress explicitly gave the Executive power to limit immigration to preserve national security and both Courts are usurping that authority. Of course, it's all turned upside down when you have appointed courts that won't stop acting like legislators and your elected Congress that thinks it's a courtroom.

 

[bqknight]

You do realize the 4th circuit upheld the injunction too. That's two appeals courts. And given Trump's stupid tweets about political correctness as it applies to this... good luck.

SHHH! Courts are EVIL, LIBERAL douches....unless they stop those evil abortions and let me keep my guns.

 

[UCFWayne]

the 9th needs to be broken up into 2 different circuits.

 

[UCF11and1]

The real question is: WTF do they need the EO after almost 150 days? The EO was going to stop entry for 90 days so "bad hombres" couldn't get in while they fixed the screening process. I hope the process is fixed by now and no terrorist made it in.
Also, since the new process is/should be in place, there is no need to keep fighting for this.

If the EO is really flawed, going to SCOTUS is just going to create a legal precedent when the injunction is upheld. I was going to say the government lawyers (state department?) should be fired if that happens but I know trump won't let them drop it even if it is a losing battle.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

The real question is: WTF do they need the EO after almost 150 days? The EO was going to stop entry for 90 days so "bad hombres" couldn't get in while they fixed the screening process. I hope the process is fixed by now and no terrorist made it in.
Also, since the new process is/should be in place, there is no need to keep fighting for this.

If the EO is really flawed, going to SCOTUS is just going to create a legal precedent when the injunction is upheld. I was going to say the government lawyers (state department?) should be fired if that happens but I know trump won't let them drop it even if it is a losing battle.

There needs to be a legal precedent. We can't have judges overruling the sitting President on information they have zero access to. If the SC thinks a judge with no clearances has better information on national security than the President then they need to rule on it.

 

[sk8knight]

The real question is: WTF do they need the EO after almost 150 days? The EO was going to stop entry for 90 days so "bad hombres" couldn't get in while they fixed the screening process. I hope the process is fixed by now and no terrorist made it in.
Also, since the new process is/should be in place, there is no need to keep fighting for this.

If the EO is really flawed, going to SCOTUS is just going to create a legal precedent when the injunction is upheld. I was going to say the government lawyers (state department?) should be fired if that happens but I know trump won't let them drop it even if it is a losing battle.

Your first question is a good one that probably needs to be asked of the administration. To be fair and explore both sides, rolling out the fixes is probably complicated. It might involve system upgrades, retraining, acquiring facilities and resources, etc. They might not be able to roll it in while the same assets are already tasked.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

The real question is: WTF do they need the EO after almost 150 days? The EO was going to stop entry for 90 days so "bad hombres" couldn't get in while they fixed the screening process. I hope the process is fixed by now and no terrorist made it in.
Also, since the new process is/should be in place, there is no need to keep fighting for this.

I thought delaying past 90 days was the whole point of the 9th circuit issuing an injunction. But to Bob's point, having the SC rule on this is probably needed. If the President has leeway based on National Security, they need to rule just how much leeway he really has.

 

[UCFhonors]

So, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the injunction against the travel ban by substituting their judgement of what constitutes a threat to national security for the Executive branch's and also requiring the branch to justify it's findings where no justification is required.

But what is most troubling about their latest ruling is that it states that the Executive branch has no authority to bar immigration from any nation for any reason. If this doesn't make the Supreme Court docket, I don't know what should.

The Executive branch has no authority to bar immigration. Congress has no authority bar immigration. The Supreme Court no authority bar immigration.

Read your Constitution.

 

[UCFhonors]

Oh crap. I thought that said traveling band. Nevermind. I don't care.

It eventually will be, when Republicans get their way.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

The Executive branch has no authority to bar immigration. Congress has no authority bar immigration. The Supreme Court no authority bar immigration.

Read your Constitution.

Where does it say that? Can you provide a quote? I just skimmed it real quick and there is nothing in there that pertains to non-citizens.

 

[sk8knight]

The Executive branch has no authority to bar immigration. Congress has no authority bar immigration. The Supreme Court no authority bar immigration.

Read your Constitution.

The constitution gives Congress the authority to control naturalization (citizenship) but doesn't address immigration. The INA of 1952 gave the President the power to suspend immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons. This has been amended a few times but courts have upheld this authority and it still held until the 4th and 9th decided to make new law. President Carter used the INA to bar Iranians entry during the hostage crisis in the 70s.

Think about how dangerous this is outside of this EO. If you are truly in a war, and you cannot stop people from a warring nation from coming in, then how the hell do you legally defend your border given the 9th's ruling that you cannot bar people from entering based on nationality?

 

[UCFhonors]

Where does it say that? Can you provide a quote? I just skimmed it real quick and there is nothing in there that pertains to non-citizens.

You're reading it wrong.

The way the Constitution is written (NOT amendments like the Bill of Rights) is to list out the explicit powers of the Federal Government. This is known as "Enumerated Powers. "The Constitution therefore gives the power and authority to each branch. If something is not listed they CANNOT do it.

Or you could have read the 10th Amendment. Full Text: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, again. You won't find anything in the US Constitution about immigration control because immigration control in not a power granted to the Federal Government. Any attempt to limit immigration is unconstitutional which about 90+% what our corrupt government does any who and without penalty.

 

[UCFhonors]

The constitution gives Congress the authority to control naturalization (citizenship) but doesn't address immigration. The INA of 1952 gave the President the power to suspend immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons. This has been amended a few times but courts have upheld this authority and it still held until the 4th and 9th decided to make new law. President Carter used the INA to bar Iranians entry during the hostage crisis in the 70s.

Think about how dangerous this is outside of this EO. If you are truly in a war, and you cannot stop people from a warring nation from coming in, then how the hell do you legally defend your border given the 9th's ruling that you cannot bar people from entering based on nationality?

A law passed by congress does not change the Constitution. Said another way, those laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

You're reading it wrong.

The way the Constitution is written (NOT amendments like the Bill of Rights) to list out the explicit powers of the Federal Government. This is known as "Enumerated Powers. "The Constitution therefore give the power and authority to each branch. If something is not listed they CANNOT do it.

Or you could have read the 10th Amendment. Full Text: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, again. You won't find anything in the US Constitution about immigration control because immigration control in not a power granted to the Federal Government. Any attempt to limit immigration is unconstitutional which about 90+% what our corrupt government does any who without penalty.

The states and people, by not fighting the Fed for their supposed overreach, are voluntarily giving that power to the Fed.

 

[UCFhonors]

The states and people, by not fighting the Fed for their supposed overreach, are voluntarily giving that power to the Fed.

Stop making stuff up.

 

[UCFhonors]

The states and people, by not fighting the Fed for their supposed overreach, are voluntarily giving that power to the Fed.

This hurt my brain so much that I'm replying twice.

It would be beyond retarded for a state to try to control immigration into the US. The Constitution explicitly says States can not restrict movement between states. So if AZ banned immigration but CA followed American principles and the Constitution by not trying to restrict movement, people would just immigrate into CA and drive to AZ. Thus making AZ's ban completely unenforceable.

Literally, there are only two ways for the people to give the Feds authority to control immigration - 1. Constitutional Amendment. 2. Constitutional Convention (aka a whole rewrite).


If you ever wonder what the powers of the Feds are, just look at the quick list found in Article 1 Section 8.