• 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!

Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrict[W:75]

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A federal appeals court onThursdaydenied the Trump administration’s request to block more travelersfrom six Muslim-majority nations and permitted all vetted refugees to be admitted. The decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could significantly decrease the number of people stopped from traveling to the U.S. under President Trump’s travel ban. The ban currently halts nearly all refugee resettlement and travel by foreign nationals from six mostly Muslim countries unless they have close connections in the U.S.

And here's the argument that won the appeal:

“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the court said.

This now goes to SCOTUS, but for right now, families will be together.

Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrictions again - LA Times
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

soon Trump will be spewing a massive Twitter tirade complete with nasty .............
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Instead, the judges, all Democratic appointees, ruled on the scope of the ban.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Yes... justice, like morality itself, varies from region to region. How odd there should be debate over what MUST be universal truths? Can I tell a secret?.... The "Law" is merely, the Church with a different color dress on.supreme-court-justices_LI.jpg

Any questions?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Where's that damn scarlet "A" when you need it?

When a thing is judged in an American court of "law" the result is (a) Bull, amusingly. These are the diligent sissies from school. Men of no distinction other than their willingness to accept nonsense as truth; to pretend a devotion to a God that doesn't exist. A willingness to suspend disbelief does NOT a useful jurist make, unless one is trying Santa.... How long do you imagine the American system of "justice" will survive once everybody notices the only ACTUAL God is money and "justice" is STILL served by the Priests?

Be forewarned... the end is nigh...

Johnston-Gate-Harvard_.jpg

One would do better to attend the fire hydrant. That at least has the POTENTIAL of being useful.
 
Last edited:
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Well, regardless of what you think of the ban, those ARE bona fide relationships.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Well, regardless of what you think of the ban, those ARE bona fide relationships.

True or not, extending the exceptions all the way out to cousins pretty much nullifies the ban.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

And here's the argument that won the appeal:

“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the court said.

This now goes to SCOTUS, but for right now, families will be together.

Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrictions again - LA Times

The Supreme Court "bonafide" exception was a major legal blunder, creating a vague benchmark for a "law" (EO) that does not need one (Congress already gave the President the right to classify as he wished). And as could be predicted, the 9th circuit's left-wing subjectivism has exploited the vagueness.

First, the Supreme court did not permit ANY bonafide relationship. It said:

§2(c). The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to
the provisions of EO–2.

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship
is required
. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member,
like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship

Therefore a "close" relationship is not the same as "any relationship". One could rightly claim that a bonafide relationship could exist between anyone related genetically or by marriage, no matter how slight. However, minimally it requires a "credible" and "close relationship", which requires a definition.

Once again, according to Congress, that benchmark definition can be set by the President. Failing that, Congress has already provided benchmarks in immigration law, benchmarks that Trump uses in his EO.

Of course, the 9th basically says "We don't care, we will set the benchmarks independent of Congress and the President just because we say so".

Sad but true.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

And here's the argument that won the appeal:

“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the court said.

This now goes to SCOTUS, but for right now, families will be together.

Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrictions again - LA Times

A decision with no basis in the law or the Constitution just what the judges feel the law should say because they don't personally like it. Another legislating from the bench.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Well, regardless of what you think of the ban, those ARE bona fide relationships.

That is not for the judges to define.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

That is not for the judges to define.
I am curious, in the ignorant partisan world who is supposed to decide?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

How many times do I have to post this?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens...(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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

It is this law that allows the President to establish a "ban" as proposed.

President Trump did not push the issue when the SCOTUS was evenly divided 4 - 4, because without a majority no ruling can be made...and the lower Federal Appellate court decision will stand.

The issue was raised in the 9th Circuit via "forum shopping," because that is the home of West Coast Progressivism (Oregon, California and Hawaii). Most of those judges adhere to that brand of Social Justice ideology.

Forum shopping is the practice adopted by some litigants of having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping

This is why the cases were successful first in Oregon, and also the Hawaiian federal district courts; and why it guaranteed success up through the 9th Circuit.

Each Court used convoluted reasoning, and Trump's campaign comments to reach their decisions...even though the Ban was not limited to Muslims.

It proscribed all travel from only seven nations already identified for restricted travel under the Obama Administration as either terrorist threats (Iran, Sudan, Syria), or terrorist havens (Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen).

7 Countries Targeted in Trump’s Executive Order Initially Identified as ‘Countries of Concern’ Under Obama Administration | KTLA

Now that the Supreme Court has a 5 to 4 majority, I think he just might allow it to go up via Federal appeal.

It would be my hope he does and the decision overturns the 9th Circuit's prejudicial ruling. :twocents:
 
Last edited:
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Another illegal ruling.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

I am curious, in the ignorant partisan world who is supposed to decide?

The Constitution and it's already been decided
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

And here's the argument that won the appeal:

“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the court said.

This now goes to SCOTUS, but for right now, families will be together.

Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrictions again - LA Times
It's the 9th court. The fact that they bent over backwards to justify allowing "in-laws" shows that this is just judge shopping. Why stop at in-laws though? A 5th cousin is still a cousin right?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Well, regardless of what you think of the ban, those ARE bona fide relationships.

Now, we're going to see 50 y/o men and women with 74 grand children. What could go wrong?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

So, in all this time since January 29 that Trump has had since needing an immediate 90 day ban to review "what's going on,"

1) Has ninety days passed?
2) Has his administration conducted a review?
3) If so, what were the revelations of that review?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

The Constitution and it's already been decided
Why don't you cite the relevant part that deals with relationships or you too just made yet another moronic post?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Yes... justice, like morality itself, varies from region to region. How odd there should be debate over what MUST be universal truths? Can I tell a secret?.... The "Law" is merely, the Church with a different color dress on.View attachment 67222530

Any questions?

What do the letters on the justices denote?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

And here's the argument that won the appeal:

“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the court said.

This now goes to SCOTUS, but for right now, families will be together.

Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrictions again - LA Times

Wait! What? The Ninth Circus rules against Trump?

Do you think they actually listened to the arguments or just reflexively made the ruling.

What are the odds that this will be overturned by the Supreme Court if they review the case?

Oh, wait. We don't need to wonder... The odds of the Ninth Circus being reversed by the Supreme Court Review is at about the 80% level when a Ninth Circus Ruling is accepted for review by the Supremes.

Does the Ninth Circus have a copy of the Constitution or do they just make crap up?

| National Review
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Wait! What? The Ninth Circus rules against Trump?

Do you think they actually listened to the arguments or just reflexively made the ruling.

What are the odds that this will be overturned by the Supreme Court if they review the case?

Oh, wait. We don't need to wonder... The odds of the Ninth Circus being reversed by the Supreme Court Review is at about the 80% level when a Ninth Circus Ruling is accepted for review by the Supremes.

Does the Ninth Circus have a copy of the Constitution or do they just make crap up?

| National Review

Lol, only SCOTUS actually disagreed with the 6th circuit just as often (okay, 1% difference!), and with the 3rd, 7th, 8th, and 10th, 100% of the time. Thats Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, ND, SD, MN, NE, MO, AR, NM, KS, OK, CO, UT etc. Anyways, let's take a quick look at October, 2016 as an example:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SB_scorecard_20170628.pdf

Final Stat Pack for October Term 2016 and key takeaways

You can now download the final SCOTUSblog Stat Pack for October Term 2016 here. This year, the 43-page Stat Pack includes information about, among other things, the rate of unanimity, the opinions written by Justice Gorsuch in his first term, agreement among different justices, which justices asked the most questions at oral argument, and the advocates who argued the most frequently during the term.

Below you can view each section of the Stat Pack individually and review our key takeaways from the Stat Pack.

View attachment 67222587

Anyways, pick the month and we'll take a look at the statistics.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Why don't you cite the relevant part that deals with relationships or you too just made yet another moronic post?

Captain Adverse posted the law. Why don't you read it?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

And here's the argument that won the appeal:

“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the court said.

This now goes to SCOTUS, but for right now, families will be together.

Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrictions again - LA Times

The problem is as I understand it is countries with no acceptable immigration controls are instead being vetted by the UN.

They sure scream about their rights, except when it comes to women and children. And infidels.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Lol, only SCOTUS actually disagreed with the 6th circuit just as often (okay, 1% difference!), and with the 3rd, 7th, 8th, and 10th, 100% of the time. Thats Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, ND, SD, MN, NE, MO, AR, NM, KS, OK, CO, UT etc. Anyways, let's take a quick look at October, 2016 as an example:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SB_scorecard_20170628.pdf



View attachment 67222587

Anyways, pick the month and we'll take a look at the statistics.

Over the course of years, the Ninth Circus is overturned more than the other circuits. It is also the busiest of the circuits, though.

There are periods of time when the RATE of reversals is not at the top, but the number seems to be pretty consistently at the top of the heap.

In the "Pundit Fact" link below, a name that is open to debate, they review a claim from Hannity that the Ninth Circuit is the most reversed. They provide stats that support this assertion and then change the game from the highest number to the highest rate and pronounce the assertion as "False".

Who wins the Major League Home Run title each the year? The guy with the highest number of HR's or the highest rate of HR's to AB's? Do they even measure the HR Rate?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

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