Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

[danarhea]

So what you are saying is that any statement made by any politician, or statements made by people associated with a politician, at any point in time, can be used in questioning the legality of any law or order they participated in passing.

That should be fun in the long run.

Since it shows their intent, which they cannot hide, absolutely.

 

[Samhain]

Since it shows their intent, which they cannot hide, absolutely.

Which means its their intent for all eternity. It cannot ever be changed. Which means any statement made by any politician or by their agents, can be used against any law they have written or will write.

Like I said, if this stands on that basis, prepare for hilarity in the future.

 

[KLATTU]

Actually, they DO have legal bearing, since it shows his intent, which is violate the separation clause of the Constitution.

I think you meant establishment clause. So how does this prevent free exercise of religion for US citizens?

 

[Redress]

Hardly. Using a speech to speak towards what is actually written months later in an EO is ignorant.

The comments where certainly not confined to "a speech". It helps to know what you are talking about. You might try reading the ruling for starters.

 

[Redress]

Trump did indeed say this. People say lots of things when they run for office. Does those comments therefore place a legal standard upon the person upon election? It has never before been thus viewed.

Comments about what a law or action is intended to do has been used in decisions based on the law or action since, well, since there have been laws and a court system.

And the EO doesn't keep Muslins out of the the USA. Even if you wish to argue that this is just a 'first step' it ought remain in the political, not legal, world.

No one is claiming it keeps all muslims out of the country. It is at issue if it the intent is to keep any number of people out of the country based on their religious faith.

 

[Redress]

That's in the application or execution of a Law/EO
You're misapplying "intent" to the constitutionality of the language of a Law/EO.
Provide an example of the USSC striking down a Law that says one thing but where the Judges decided that it doesn't actually mean what it says because of a position held before the Law was written.

Intent was a very large part of Justice Roberts reasoning in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

 

[bubbabgone]

And it should be noted that you said, "The majority of the Appellant Judges thought that it couldn't but the minority did." When called on to explain that statement, you deflected. Did you think I wouldn't notice that?

Oh.
Sorry.
I thought "Do tell" was your way to minimize the minority opinion.
I didn't sense you were questioning that 3 of the Appellate Judges disagreed with the majority.
They did.

 

[matchlight]

Intent was a very large part of Justice Roberts reasoning in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Nothing about that execrable decision is pertinent to the issue of a President's authority to exclude aliens. You might want to look at Kleindienst v, Mandel and Fiallo v. Bell.

 

[Cardinal]

Oh.
Sorry.
I thought "Do tell" was your way to minimize the minority opinion.
I didn't sense you were questioning that 3 of the Appellate Judges disagreed with the majority.
They did.

Yes, there is a minority opinion in decisions where a number of judges are deciding on a case. Do you have a reason to believe that judges don't take into account full context? Besides your own opinion, I mean.

 

[bubbabgone]

Intent was a very large part of Justice Roberts reasoning in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

How so?

...it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes.

Relate that to the unconstitutionality of the EO in question based on words spoken earlier but not included in the EO.

 

[Redress]

Nothing about that execrable decision is pertinent to the issue of a President's authority to exclude aliens. You might want to look at Kleindienst v, Mandel and Fiallo v. Bell.

You might want to follow along with the actual discussion taking place. I was responding to whether intent can be a part of a ruling. Reading Is Fundamental, please try it.

 

[Athanasius68]

Comments about what a law or action is intended to do has been used in decisions based on the law or action since, well, since there have been laws and a court system.



No one is claiming it keeps all muslims out of the country. It is at issue if it the intent is to keep any number of people out of the country based on their religious faith.

Then there is little to worry about. The EO was clear-- a temporary hold on those countries, which the Obama Administration had deemed a danger, until an review of vetting systems were complete.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes, there is a minority opinion in decisions where a number of judges are deciding on a case. Do you have a reason to believe that judges don't take into account full context? Besides your own opinion, I mean.

Judging Constitutionality should be based on what is written in the EO or the Law.
Not what someone had previously suggested.
How about a bet.
If the USSC overturns the Appellate Court(s) you start a thread about it and say that bubba dude was right all along. Props to bubbabgone.
If they don't overturn I will do the same for you.
I'm suggesting that because I have no money or a way to get it to you anyway.
If they don't decide anything then no one has to do anything.
Bet?

 

[Redress]

How so?



Relate that to the unconstitutionality of the EO in question based on words spoken earlier but not included in the EO.

Did you really just go to the wiki article on the ruling, take one tiny quote from there, and think you had made a point? This is even more embarrassing than when you where arguing how the court would rule on same sex marriage and got every singlke detail wrong. In this case, let me quote from the Roberts opinion:

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act, however, are creatures of Congress’s own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence of Congress’s intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described “taxes” even where that label was inaccurate. See Bailey v. George, 259 U. S. 16 (1922) (Anti-Injunction Act applies to “Child Labor Tax” struck down as exceeding Congress’s taxing power in Drexel Furniture).

Now, you can make the point that the source of his deciding intent was the law's language, but it is also true that what he was trying to determine was intent. In fact, the dissenting opinion can be summarized as "congress did not intend what they said in the law".

 

[Cardinal]

Judging Constitutionality should be based on what is written in the EO or the Law.
Not what someone had previously suggested.
How about a bet.
If the USSC overturns the Appellate Court(s) you start a thread about it and say that bubba dude was right all along. Props to bubbabgone.
If they don't overturn I will do the same for you.
I'm suggesting that because I have no money or a way to get it to you anyway.
If they don't decide anything then no one has to do anything.
Bet?

You say what "should" be, but provide no reason beyond your own opinion as to why that should be.

Anyway, this conversation has run its course. As I already said, I hope that Trump continues to make hilariously unconstitutional EO's so judges can continue to slap them down.

 

[Redress]

Then there is little to worry about. The EO was clear-- a temporary hold on those countries, which the Obama Administration had deemed a danger, until an review of vetting systems were complete.

And the courts will have to decide the issue. What this ruling says is that it is possible that the motivation was to keep some muslims out of the US based on their religion, and it is therefore a significant possibility that the courts will rule against the EO when it goes before them on the merits. For an injunction like this, the standard is not the same as it will be when the court actually hears the case.

 

[danarhea]

I think you meant establishment clause. So how does this prevent free exercise of religion for US citizens?

Oops, establishment clause. By favoring one religion over another in it's treatment of immigrants. No, it's not preventing the free exercise of religion, but it is respecting the establishment of Christianity over the establishment of Islam, which is unconstitutional.

 

[bubbabgone]

Did you really just go to the wiki article on the ruling, take one tiny quote from there, and think you had made a point? This is even more embarrassing than when you where arguing how the court would rule on same sex marriage and got every singlke detail wrong. In this case, let me quote from the Roberts opinion:



Now, you can make the point that the source of his deciding intent was the law's language, but it is also true that what he was trying to determine was intent. In fact, the dissenting opinion can be summarized as "congress did not intend what they said in the law".

Yup. That's the point. The text of the Law and the EO.

 

[Redress]

Yup. That's the point. The text of the Law and the EO.

No, that is avoiding the point. Roberts specifically, and literally stated that intent was important. The dissenting opinion felt that intent was important. That is just one recent example of the court looking at intent.

And if that was the point, why did you post an unrelated quote and argue something completely different? It is almost as if you don't really know much about the topic...

 

[matchlight]

You're certainly working overtime to avoid a simple and obvious point: judges take intent into decisions all the time, both both from public statements and even the end results of an order or bill. It's not the judge's fault Trump didn't know that.

Your ignorance is nobody's fault but your own.

You are ignoring the fact the Supreme Court has made very clear that courts are not to do the very thing the Fourth Circuit just did. It said this in a 1972 decision, Kleindienst v. Mandel:

"[W]hen the Executive exercises [its] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion . . . ."

Five years later, in Fiallo v. Bell, the Court said this:

"Our cases have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control."

In Fiallo, the Court recalled that in Matthews v. Diaz, it had said this:

"[T]he reasons that preclude judicial review of political questions also dictate a narrow standard of review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization."

In a 1952 case, Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, Justice Frankfurter wrote a concurring opinion in which he stated the Court's position on this issue, which even then was already well established. The Fiallo Court quoted Frankfurter with approval:

"The conditions of entry for every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds, on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control . . . ." (emphasis added).


Someone might carp that Frankfurter was affirming Congress's power to exclude aliens without second-guessing by the courts, and not the President's, although Fiallo, Matthews, and Mandel make clear that courts are to defer to both the Legislative and Executive Branches in these matters. I doubt it would have made any difference to the lawless judges in the lower federal courts if a federal law had been involved, rather than an executive order. The goal of these judges is to concoct rights for Muslim aliens out of thin air and elevate them over President Trump's authority to protect the nation from foreign threats. They are not about to let the Constitution or the law get in their way.

One solution to this lawlessness would be for Congress to make a law removing the jurisdiction of lower federal courts to hear any case involving this issue. These courts only exist at all because Congress, exercising its constitutional authority, chose to create them by law. And what Congress has power to create or dissolve, it has power to restrict.

 

[Redress]

I think you meant establishment clause. So how does this prevent free exercise of religion for US citizens?

The establishment clause does not say "US citizens". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

 

[matchlight]

You might want to follow along with the actual discussion taking place. I was responding to whether intent can be a part of a ruling. Reading Is Fundamental, please try it.

Your citation of the Obamacare individual mandate case was silly and irrelevant to the discussion taking place. As to the specific question whether courts may look into the intent behind an executive document--at least one involving the exclusion of an alien--if the reasons offered on its face are legitimate and bona fide, the Supreme Court could not have made any more clear in Kleindienst v. Mandel that they may not.

 

[Aberration]

I see SCOTUS upholding the ban.

 

[Aberration]

The establishment clause does not say "US citizens". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

What law did Congress make prohibiting the exercise of religion? Is Trump Congress? And how does his order prohibit anyone from exercising their religion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[matchlight]

And the courts will have to decide the issue. What this ruling says is that it is possible that the motivation was to keep some muslims out of the US based on their religion, and it is therefore a significant possibility that the courts will rule against the EO when it goes before them on the merits. For an injunction like this, the standard is not the same as it will be when the court actually hears the case.

Please cite any case, other than the bizarre Boumediene v. Bush, where the Supreme Court has held that aliens who have yet to enter U.S. territory enjoy any of the protections of the Constitution of the U.S.