• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9th Circuit Court of Appeals deliberating Travel Ban Executive Order

Cardinal said:
I'm glad that you and I can find common ground on this.

I'm surprised that some form of sanctions weren't handed out to the lawyers that defied the Hanen ruling. While that was clearly wrong, Trump's dismissal of the court system when it doesn't go his way is much more chilling because of its overarching tones.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Trump will comply with what is determined in the end. If law and order is central to his administration, as he claims, he has no choice. Knowing Trump, he'll simply issue another, differently worded EO which has the same net effect.
 
Trump's lawyers are arguing their case is based on "risk"....as risk to the safety of the American public....and therefore can't be reviewed by the court. They're gambling that courts will only look at the wording of the EO itself and not the intent that led up to the EO.

The State's lawyers are hoping the court will be looking for discrimination...and I think they'll find it in the abundance of inculpatory evidence that led up to the EO and in Trump's own tweets.

I think two other states have joined the lawsuit....maybe more. Two Utah law professors have written amicus briefs against the EO...but I wouldn't be surprised if the court is inundated with "friends of the court" from both sides of the debate.

If...if it goes to the SC before the new nominee is voted in....then it will likely be a 4-4 ruling and the lower courts ruling will stand. But if the nominee is voted in and sitting on the bench before it goes to the SC then it will be a 5-4 and the EO stands.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I just avoid clicking on that rag.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother with something like this from them except that I read about the Hanen ruling extensively at the time and I'm not about to go on excursion for a MSM link which is probably buried in the archives by now. I'm sure if one looks for it, there are MSM links available. Probably not MSNBC or CNN, but likely on Fox, ABC, WaPo, WSJ, and maybe the NYT. I'm just lazy and it's past my bedtime.
 
humbolt said:
You are? So it's all right for me to say that you agreed with the Obama administration's illegality then, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you want, it's a free country. But your side has been doing a whole lot of "but...but...but Obama did it", which is proof y'all have no integrity in your political arguments and positions.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
You can say whatever you want, it's a free country. But your side has been doing a whole lot of "but...but...but Obama did it", which is proof y'all have no integrity in your poetical arguments and positions.
Click to expand...

My side? The only person on my side is me. I pointed out an actual illegal act by the past administration concerning immigration. I don't give a rat's ass that you don't like that I pointed it out. Trump, for all his many faults, has not done such a thing yet. If he does, I'll trash him for doing it too.
 
humbolt said:
My side? The only person on my side is me. I pointed out an actual illegal act by the past administration concerning immigration. I don't give a rat's ass that you don't like that I pointed it out. Trump, for all his many faults, has not done such a thing yet. If he does, I'll trash him for doing it too.
Click to expand...

Mmmmhmmmm, which is why you already played the "Obama did it" defense before anything even happened.

lol

But we'll see what happens in the end. There's always going to be a measurable, no matter how much y'all try to ignore it.
 
I dont think this goes Trumps way because the elite tend to stick together, but if it does then he should add a country or two and extend to 6 months, as penalty for aggravation.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I dont think this goes Trumps way because the elite tend to stick together,
Click to expand...

You mean like the gaggle of billionaires, CEOs and Goldman-Sachs bankers Trump has surrounded himself with.

lol
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
Click to expand...

They will go against Trump because they are California and they will be overturned as usual.
 
Ikari said:
You mean like the gaggle of billionaires, CEOs and Goldman-Sachs bankers Trump has surrounded himself with.

lol
Click to expand...

Bannon.

There goes your storyline....
 
Ikari said:
Mmmmhmmmm, which is why you already played the "Obama did it" defense before anything even happened.

lol

But we'll see what happens in the end. There's always going to be a measurable, no matter how much y'all try to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Of course the point is that nothing has happened, but when it did in the past - since you seem big on saying this - y'all didn't say a damn thing about it. You were just fine with it then. Rather than simply ignoring the court order like Obama did, Trump, for all of his faults, is obeying this one. Mmmmmhmmmm, indeed.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Bannon.

There goes your storyline....
Click to expand...

Not really, because he's how much is Bannon worth? And at most you got one conspiracy rag theorist amongst that gaggle of billionares, CEOs, an Goldman Sachs bankers, lol

I know, y'all really wanted to believe that Trump was some outsiders, but it's the same folk pulling the strings as before, lol.
 
humbolt said:
Of course the point is that nothing has happened, but when it did in the past - since you seem big on saying this - y'all didn't say a damn thing about it. You were just fine with it then. Rather than simply ignoring the court order like Obama did, Trump, for all of his faults, is obeying this one. Mmmmmhmmmm, indeed.
Click to expand...

We'll see how far that "obeying" goes when the court rules. And I'm sure if they come down against Trump and he ignores it, we'll get a healthy dose of "Obama did it", lol.
 
Ikari said:
Not really, because he's how much is Bannon worth? And at most you got one conspiracy rag theorist amongst that gaggle of billionares, CEOs, an Goldman Sachs bankers, lol

I know, y'all really wanted to believe that Trump was some outsiders, but it's the same folk pulling the strings as before, lol.
Click to expand...

Please,,,,Bannon is a bomb thrower....
 
Ikari said:
We'll see how far that "obeying" goes when the court rules. And I'm sure if they come down against Trump and he ignores it, we'll get a healthy dose of "Obama did it", lol.
Click to expand...

Trump had better not ignore it. If law and order is as important as he says it is, he has no choice. Naturally, there are other ways he can achieve the same thing. I expect he'd go that route rather than the Obama route of ignoring the law when it's inconvenient.
 
humbolt said:
Trump had better not ignore it. If law and order is as important as he says it is, he has no choice. Naturally, there are other ways he can achieve the same thing. I expect he'd go that route rather than the Obama route of ignoring the law when it's inconvenient.
Click to expand...

When has law and order mattered to the Republocrats?

We'll see where it goes. And if he ignores it, we're gonna get a lot of "Obama did it". Already getting it.
 
ModerateGOP said:
You forgot that the Washington Times isn't MSM. It's very misleading.
Click to expand...

Wait, with all the crap you post from extreme left blogs and you are criticizing the Washington Times?

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

Hypocrite much? Really??????
 
Ikari said:
When has law and order mattered to the Republocrats?

We'll see where it goes. And if he ignores it, we're gonna get a lot of "Obama did it". Already getting it.
Click to expand...

He won't ignore it. He'll go at it from another direction. This is not Trump's big problem. Congress will be Trump's big problem, and it won't be the democrats. The democrats have no power. It'll be the republicans. Half of them won't be able to agree that tomorrow will be Wednesday.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm glad that you and I can find common ground on this.

I'm surprised that some form of sanctions weren't handed out to the lawyers that defied the Hanen ruling. While that was clearly wrong, Trump's dismissal of the court system when it doesn't go his way is much more chilling because of its overarching tones.
Click to expand...

President Trump has not defied a court order. Nor did he denounce the USSC at a SOTU because he didnt like the way the court ruled on an issue. Its not clear why Obama's actions did not have a "chilling effect."
 
Moot said:
Trump's lawyers are arguing their case is based on "risk"....as risk to the safety of the American public....and therefore can't be reviewed by the court. They're gambling that courts will only look at the wording of the EO itself and not the intent that led up to the EO.
Click to expand...

The intent was the former. However, even if not, it doesnt change the problem from what Trump is arguing. That the Judiciary is trying to determine national security policy of the USA. This is outside the scope of their power, and their expertise.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The intent was the former. However, even if not, it doesnt change the problem from what Trump is arguing. That the Judiciary is trying to determine national security policy of the USA. This is outside the scope of their power, and their expertise.
Click to expand...

But it's not the court that's suing...it's the State(s). The court simply said their lawsuit had enough standing to bring it to court. So doesn't the court have judicial review when a federal law is challenged as unconstitutional?

I find it disturbing that the president could claim everything he does is for national security and there would be no oversight or challenge to his authority. Somehow I don't think that's what the founders had in mind.
 
Last edited:
Trippy Trekker said:
Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels - CNNPolitics.com

Three Appelate Judges, two with Left of Center proclivity and one with Right, tasked with deciding on an Injunction put in place by a Lower Court Federal District Judge. I predict they rule 2-1 in favor of the Injunction. Team Trump, upon losing, appeals to the USSC. Senate Democrats filibuster and use every tactic available to delay confirmation of Gorsuch... and the USSC splits down the middle thereby keeping the Injunction in place. Do you care to predict an outcome?
Click to expand...

I am confounded by what's going on. The judges are obviously deciding on whether or not they think a temporary ban is necessary. They should only be deciding on whether or not the POTUS has the power to institute it.

Since I'm a law-and-order junkie, and since I absolutely believe the decision coming down from these judges is political rather than defining POTUS powers, i rather hope that the Senate Republicans seat Neil Gorsuch in order to avoid deadlock in the SCOTUS. I no longer have confidence in jurists to do anything other than vote down partisan lines.

What a world...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom