Does it mean something?

Can a judge from seattle really have more power than an executive order?

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38864253

Other urls found in this thread:

cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-declines-to-renew-restraining-order-on-trump-travel-ban/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
twitter.com/PressSec/status/827717320365719552
justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Aziz-v.-Trump-Amended-Complaint-Booker-Affidavit.pdf
documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html
lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/const-allows-muslim-immigrant-ban/
youtube.com/watch?v=-3DfliLMraA
theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/24/israel1
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Oh quit being a dirty kafir and seek forgiveness from Allah. If there is no hell nothing will happen to you but if there is...
Surely, the disbelievers will be in the torment of Hell to abide therein forever. (The torment) will not be lightened for them, and they will be plunged into destruction with deep regrets, sorrows and in despair therein. We wronged them not, but they were the wrongdoers. And they will cry: ‘O Malik! Let your Lord make an end of us’ He will say: ‘Surely, you shall abide forever.’ Indeed We have brought the truth to you, but most of you have a hatred for the truth" (Quran 43:74-78)

as long as we arnt in a state of war, yes

A federal judge in Boston just ruled differently

cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-declines-to-renew-restraining-order-on-trump-travel-ban/

Also, Seattle Judge belongs to the 9th circuit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

>However, through 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court's rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court were affirmed only 20% of the time and reversed and or vacated 80% of the time; a rate substantially higher than the median reversal rate of 68.29% for the same period

9th Circuit Judges usually have a big losing streak against the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the free bump

>Trump appoints far right wing supreme court
>supreme court rules 1965 immigration act unconstitutional

>tuns out Sup Forums hates states rights

It means a judge is going to lose his bar license and Seattle needs a new judge

It's not enforceable until it goes to the supreme court, overall it depends on the local jurisdiction decisions of immigration bureaucrats.

>it's states rights to take in foreigners and force it on 49 other states
wrong you stupid mongoloid

Official answer from the based Spice merchant himself: "no."

twitter.com/PressSec/status/827717320365719552

Good to know this, interesting how they manage to put so much effort in wanting refugees. Refugees should just go somewhere else. So many countries, why the need for it to be the US?

Yes and no.

Generally speaking, you can find a judge a judge to go along with pretty much anything. It will have the force of law and the executive cannot override it.

With that said, these judicial stays are temporary. Ultimately, the administration can and will present additional arguments and another judge will either overturn it, or it will get appealed to the supreme court. Which is ultimately what will happen here.

There's nothing unconstitutional about these executive actions, so there's no chance of SCOTUS overturning them permanently.

Many thanks, the headlines are confusing and literally clickbaits from bbc

>can the rule of law have more authority than a Presidential chimpout
Yea it can jose

But I have nothing to be sorry for. I've killed muslims in Iraq. I feel no remorse for it.

Sure thing Bob

Nope. The lower court immediately gets overridden by a higher court.

In a case like this where the executive order is clearly constitutional, that judge is also throwing away his career.

>There's nothing unconstitutional about these executive actions,

except you know, equal protection.

if you read them, the main argument in all these temporal stays issued by the district courts is that, although technically the executive order is legal under current legislation as there are previous examples of such bans, the fact that trump expressly said he wanted to "block muslims" throughout the election campaign shows the actual intent of this order, which is discriminatory on the basis of religion

t. lawfag

GET FUCKED CTR

Not exactly. The law can. It may be an activist judge ruling from bias, but it's a normal process for a civil society institution or affected person to bring suit and challenge the constitutionality of a law or other executive action.

I'm (mostly) glad Trump signed the EO, and I hope it stands, but there is the off-chance that the Supreme Court (if an EO can even be pursued that far) or other judicial organ will find that the President over-stepped his legal authority. If he had, though, I expect Dems would've already introduced articles of impeachment.

thats actually a good argument. the thing is, would it hold? From what i see the EO didnt say muslim so you cant concretely tie it to a "religious" ban. So you can't say for sure it's unconstitutional but you know that's mostly the point

The democrat voter block is shrinking

>one state controlling the 49 other states
>states rights

Fuck off

97% of muslims are unaffected by the ban. People in those countries who are not muslims are effected. The courts will affirm the order, and lower courts must find that ruling persuasive.

The equal protection clause can ONLY be applied to citizens and green card holders.

Non-citizens overseas have no constitutional protections whatsoever, and the country has the absolute right to block access to the country to anyone for any reason.

There is ample precedent for this, as various administrations have blocked immigration to many different groups -- some indeed on racial, ethnic, or religious grounds -- throughout U.S. history.

And regardless of what Trump may have said personally while campaigning, the text of the order does not in any way discriminate based on religion, nor does it even begin to cover the bulk of people of the muslim faith. And the text of the order is, in fact, the only criteria by which the order may be judged upon. Reading intent into the order beyond it's actual scope is textbook judicial activism, and it won't stand for long.

The simple fact of the matter is that IF this were intended as a 'muslim ban', it is the absolute least effective means to go about such a thing. There are FORTY muslim-majority nations in the world. This order blocks SEVEN of them, and does so temporarily.

There is ZERO legal ground to block this order. Leftist judges are once again legislating their own ideology, not applying the law.

Actually, yes. Under the US Constitution, Federal Judges have equal power to the Congress and the President.

The Constitution establishes no limit on the membership of the Federal Judiciary, only that its members be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In theory this means there could be only ONE Federal Judge. In practice this is not viable, so Congress created 9 circuits and various levels of seniority among them with the Circuit judges being the lowest rung and the Supreme Court being the highest. All of them however are "the Judiciary" and have authority. Even a circuit judge can issue an order with force of law that constrain Congress and the President.

>if you read them, the main argument in all these temporal stays issued by the district courts is that, although technically the executive order is legal under current legislation as there are previous examples of such bans, the fact that trump expressly said he wanted to "block muslims" throughout the election campaign shows the actual intent of this order, which is discriminatory on the basis of religion

1) It affects less than 8% of the Muslim population
2) It affects only 7 of 43 Muslim-majority countries
3) It does not affect AMERICAN Muslims (the only people that US courts have jurisdiction over)
4) The US Constitution clearly grants the president the ability to block ANYONE on ANY BASIS, and non-citizens do not have the legal protections that citizens do.
5) You are a shitty lawyer, and you need to re-think your career path. I feel sorry for anyone you represent.

>t. Lawfag
Curious as to how much "equal protection" applies to non-citizens. Also why you think prior statements actually matter at all when none of those statements made it into the EO.

t. real lawfag

wtf, I hate checks and balances now

well, if the case comes before the supreme court (which is likely) and if supreme court gets its new confirmation, and if roberts doesn't betray the conservative cause like he did with the obamacare shit, trump's order might hold

my two cents - if this goes to the surpeme court, it's a 50/50. we all know how the liberals will vote.

but kennedy is an asshole who literally let fags marry even though he's a "conservative", and roberts might fuck up again. and actually clarence thomas, but for a diffferent reason. thomas is actually principled as fuck so if he finds something from the founding fathers' days that shows that an executive order like this is illegal, then it's a problem.

even if a single individual is affected, that's sufficient for lifting the fucking ban. our constitutional history is rife with that kind if shit. one citizen of us of a muslim origin affected by this ban (or married/related to a muslim affected) and you got yourself a solid case. i'm sure there are people like this as there are cases being brought right now like crazy

also see loving v virginia - how many white male black female interracial couples were there in the fucking south at the time? i bet not many.

>equal protection clause applying to non-citizens based on something a candidate said and not the text of the order

do you have any idea what kind of fucking moron you sound like? Did we violate the equal protection act when we bombed the shit out of Iraq in 2003 because we didn't bomb the shit out of every other country at the same time?

well, as I said, all you need to do is find one greencard holder who got fucked over, and it's a case. not saying it will succeed, as the court politics are a bit fucked up.

for example i have no idea how the great betrayers roberts or kennedy might vote. and thomas is principled as fuck so if he finds something that says "founding fathers didn't do this" then he'll vote with the liberal side.

>Curious as to how much "equal protection" applies to non-citizens

there are citizens who got fucked over. some american woman can't see her husband from yemen, some greencard holder got fucked at the border for coming from yemen.
as i said, read the cases

Trump has case law on his side, it's totally constitutional to ban Communists from entering the country, the same can be extended to Muslims

>3) It does not affect AMERICAN Muslims (the only people that US courts have jurisdiction over)

see

This is not true of course. But its not just the 14th Amendment.

The State of Virginia filing in Alexandria alleges not just 14th Amendment violations, but also 5th and 6th Amendment violations, as well as criminal malfeasance in office by border agents at Dulles Airport and Contempt of Court.

justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Aziz-v.-Trump-Amended-Complaint-Booker-Affidavit.pdf

Virginia has actually gone so far as to request writ of Habeus Corpus and immediate repatriation of the individuals deported from Dulles.

kek

commies aren't a religion. if there's one thing our law is super sensetive about, it's religion.

ethnic classification is fine though, even ideological. but religious stuff hasn't been done before which makes this very tricky

>justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Aziz-v.-Trump-Amended-Complaint-Booker-Affidavit.pdf

Thanks for posting this. Within the first couple of paragraphs we see the issue.

>Petitioners Tareq Aqel Mohammed Aziz (Tareq) and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz (Ammar) are two brothers of Yemeni nationality, who were granted immediate relative immigrant visas (IR2 category) by virtue of their status as immediate relatives of their father, a US citizen.

As I said, this link to a US citizen is fundamental and is specifically stated for the constitutional law to apply.

I'll keep reading, but so far, in my view and from what I was reading, the cases brought forward are really strong ones. All these plaintiffs lawyers are literally picking the best possible cases for the best chance at winning, so it's not going to be easy for Trump

>communism not religion

Yes it is.

I don't think you understand how any of this works.

Individual cases where citizens and green card holders were inconvenienced is not enough to stay the entire order. It just doesn't work like that.

Once someone touches down on US soil they have constitutional rights. But non-citizens residing overseas have NO rights and no legal standing to demand access to the United States, nor does anyone in this country have the legal standing to demand so on their behalf.

The entirety of the valid legal arguments against this order concern the individuals who were enroute to the US when the order was signed and caught in administrative limbo. Their cases will be adjudicated according to constitutional law, and life will go on for them. As it already has.

None of this has any bearing on the order itself, which is entirely constitutional.

I think what strikes me about the Virginia filing is how broad a blast it is, and how many specific violations it is suing on. 3 Constitutional amendments, violations of several federal laws like the immigration act, and names as respondents everyone involved from the President of the United States down to eight (as yet unnamed) customs agents at Dulles Airport.

Some cuck faggot liberal judge does NOT have more power than POTUS.

it's a kitchen sink approach. literally every lawyer does this because you never know which one might stick.

Good thing the ban doesn't even remotely touch on religion.

you idiots realize that texas used this exact argument to keep obama from legalizing all the mexicans who entered illegally right?

trump supporters are true idiots.

the judge is a conservative appointed by bush and used states rights as the basis of his decision

it's laughable how stupid and intellectually bankrupt trump supporters are.

because they aren't actually refugees, they're shitskin immigrants seeking to leech the life, blood, sweat and tears of our countrymen and ancestors.

True, but in this case it could be a nasty legal fight if any of the accusations in this initial filing turn out to be true.

If the border guards really did lie to the plaintiffs about the contents of the documents they were made to sign and the law around them, that is a 5th amendment violation.

If the Federal Government really did refuse access to States Attorney's who showed up to represent the plaintiffs on the order of the Virginia Attorney general (in Virginia), really strong 6th Amendment argument can be made. Especially when combined with the aforementioned 5th Amendment violations.

And then we get into the shitstorm with the 14th Amendment where the Presidents executive order led to violations of existing federal immigration laws in the implementation of it and the sudden denial of valid Visa holders and summary deportation from US soil individuals who entered lawfully.

Naming the individual border guards involved in the mess is just the patina on the kitchen sink, and most likely done to turn the screws on the flunkies to sing like canaries.

Federal Court Order here: documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html

>equal protection

Show me the amendment that applies to foreign citizens please.

lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

Boston Federal Judge ruled differently.

Seattle Judge on the other hand is from the 9th Circuit with an 80 percent losing streak against the Supreme Court.

Great, a first year law student. And judging by your post count, a very autistic one at that.

If you'd like lawfag, I will post the copy.

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Somehow applies to people who live in Iran.

Makes you think.

The judicial branch needs to be reigned in. They are unelected and accountable to no one. A single activist judge can put our entire nation jeopardy.

Equal protection means all the laws of the Government are applied with equal force and broad speaking cannot contradict each other. For example, Murder is Illegal. The President cannot make an executive order telling people to murder each other. This is a legal contradiction and violates the 14th Amendment. In order for the murder executive amendment to have force, Congress would first have to repeal the law that makes murder illegal.

In this case, foreign nationals entering the USA are subject to laws like the immigration act. A person possessing a lawfully issued visa on US soil most definitely falls under the category of an individual being granted statutory rights and privileges by Congress under existing laws that cannot be counteracted by Presidential order. An argument could be made for issuing NEW visas, but existing visas are another can of worms.

yes and no
honestly none of it even matters. the police enforce whatever laws they want, and good police will enforce good laws and they can generate the paper work to justify their actions after the fact.

Oooooo, you know what a bar license is, I'm SO IMPRESSED!!! Too bad everything else you said is complete horseshit.

The only question that matters is this. Can refugees come in NOW? Will they be turned away?

the boston judge ruled on a different case with entirely different parties you moron

the party bringing the suite in the washington case is literally the state of washington itself

the same way that the state of texas sued obama over dreamers and won

Watch the butt hurt that their guy just cost their broke ass goverment a lot of money. How the fuck can you watch people from only certain countries that have not attacked you get banned for being a certain religion. americans fucking up basic racism what a fucking joke of a country.

When you virtue signal so hard you lose your job.

No, the only thing he can do is look for new employment.

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/const-allows-muslim-immigrant-ban/

wew lad
>attacking credibility of the poster without making a substantive claim to the argument
Redditors are supposed to know about logical fallacies.
sad!

I would fuck you so hard on that, the ban is for NATIONALITIES, not RELIGION.

If you dont have rule of law what do you have? Dog shit the answer is dogshit.

good for you you pretend edgelord

If it sticks by Monday, you'll see a rocket fast appeals process because this concerns a high profile, far reaching EO.

I don't expect this to be around much longer, regardless of how much of the actual EO is affected.

You stirred the shit hive

So the ban continues?

...

>accept refugee into state
>freedom of movement to any other 49 states
Yeah, nah, that's exactly what the EU does.

Except when it allows christians from those countries a pass

>even if a single individual is affected, that's sufficient for lifting the fucking ban
Wrong.

non-christian != muslim

>politics done on Twitter

What a world we live in.

Step 1: How to ruin your career.

Whats wrong with gay people marrying?

Conflicting rulings, the most recent one is precedent. However - the emergency order being prepared will likely limit the inflow of people getting through, or impact those who already came in when the ban was lifted.

let's see a fight, get in there and fight.

youtube.com/watch?v=-3DfliLMraA

Only in Boston. When Federal circuits disagree on the same issue, the orders apply to the States subject to their circuit pending appeal. So if a Judge in Seattle says the EO is unconstitutional but a Judge in Boston say it is fine, then the EO is invalid in Seattle but valid in Boston.

Usually when this happens a higher court immediately issues stays and all the suits get rolled into an Omnibus docket. Ideally at only one of the appellate courts.

In this particular case though, you have numerous States bringing forth the challenge rather then individuals, and that means we are probably going to see rulings from the 4th and 9th circuits in the coming days/weeks. Regardless of what happens though, this will end up before the Supreme Court. Possibly in an emergency hearing which does not happen very often.

Either way, this is quite a fiasco for a Presidents first week, no matter what side you are on.

Here is how it works in reality.

President Issues Order
Judge Issues Rebuttal
POTUS gives zero fucks until the matter is resolved by a higher court or SCOTUS.

And since the Constitution explicitly gives the President authority on immigration, this is just autistic screeching by a political hack Federal Judge.

As long as the dicks dont touch it isnt gay.

>leaf

Up yours asshat. Judges don't lose their license s to practice law by making rulings. Fuck off back to Sup Forums grownups are talking

Fuck off leaf

Yeah how dare that judge uphold the law

>if you marry a foreigner you have special right

no fuck off

If there's one thing I've learnt, I hardly understand your jargon but get the gist of what you're saying. Where do I learn this stuff?

Secondly how will this affect president Trump in a scenario that the ban is rescinded?

Actually, national security matters quickly go the supreme court really fast.

And pretty much 99 percent of Obama federal judges are against this.

An Obama Judge okayed the Jill Stein recount as well even though a State Judge said Jill Stein's recount was too late and she didn't have any proof to convince the State Judge to okay a recount.

From the mouth of the masters.
Key word: "social time bomb"

theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/24/israel1

>seattle

single combat, the emperor can take him.

Right

Ahh sorry that your shitlord ideals fall apart when confronted

For the most part*, this literally does not matter. Constitutional protections do not extend to aliens outside of the U.S. lacking visas. SCOTUS will uphold this and the EO will proceed.

*the current issue in the courts is how this affects those currently holding visas and not yet in the U.S.

t. actual lawfag

If Trump wrote that with the intent to block muslims, he would have blocked all muslim countries.

>theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/24/israel1

OY VEY!!! DELETE THIS POST AT ONCE, GOYIM!!

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE READ
THAT ARTICLE.