I need you all to level with me

What are the real odds that SCOTUS upholds the stay on the immigration ban? 25%?

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20170210012127/http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-full-text/index.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

literally 100%

They will likely rule 4 to 4 and uphold the 9th circuit without creating precedent.

Every legal expert will tell you it is lawful. The 9th circuit appeals process didn't even ask relevant questions to the case. Their main argument is that they need to push it off to another court. Aka they are liberal traitors who wanted to delay it for as long as possible

Without gorsusch and scalia and that old fucking hag bitch ginsburg seating in sway, my guess is little.

The courts recent decisions lean overwhelmimg left, even if goesuch somehow gets in, he is suspiciously mellow and not conservative enough.

The SCs rulings have been on the left time and time again.

The order is 100% lawful, of course. It's fucking black and white.

However leftists love to legislate from the bench. It'll probably fall 4-4 tie or an outright majority will uphold the stay and force congress to rewrite the law to make it (((constitutional))).

I agree with Trump that he needs to put the security of the nation first, but I think he now sees how important it is to ALSO drain the swamp as fast as possible. I hope Sessions has a good gameplan going in because he needs these people locked up as fast as possible to prevent more interference.

>polls

Are we going to do this meme again?

just read a bit about the 9th circuit court.

>Goesuch ruling against Donald Trump in his very first case

LOL

You live in a dream world.

I'm disappointed that he didn't even wait to get confirmed before he started undercutting Trump's message, fucking traitor. He might have been a Manchurian candidate.

fpbp.

Law is absolutely clear

SCOTUS will deadlock 4-4 on party lines and lower court ruling will stay in effect.

Suck my fat dick, conservatives, this is what you did to Obama for 8 years. Oh fuck yeah, suck it down girl

I can see Alito and Kennedy possibly upholding it. Thomas is 50-50. I don't really know anything about Gorsuch but I'll give him 50-50 odds too. The other five are almost certain to stay it.
>Every legal expert will tell you it is lawful.
Source?
He's in the scotus now, he doesn't answer to the president. Life term m8.

>Implying a new scotus wont be appointed.

>and force congress to rewrite the law to make it (((constitutional))).
1. It's an executive order
2. It's an executive order
Either Trump does the rewriting or the constitution gets changed, not the executive order.

100% upholds the stay? that means nullifying the EO

>implying there's any universe where that happens in the next 90 days, aka the time it would take for the ban to expire

>he is suspiciously mellow and not conservative enough.
You're retarded, he's to the right of even trumjp

SCOTUS won't deadlock even among party lines. There's almost no chance they will uphold the stay.

The 9th Circuit Court is basically a joke which SCOTUS has it out for and overrules 90% of the time. They even had a streak of 17 consecutive overrules just a little while ago.

That's what happens when you base a court out of San Francisco.

Alan Dershowitz and every other law professor that has gone on a news channel has said its legal.

>(((Dershowitz)))
What did he mean by this?

LOL you're a fucking idiot

Kill yourselves

0%

This is a 8-0 ruling due to due process

>executive order
>trump can just reinstate it after 90 days

In what universe is ANY feature of constitutional law "black and white"?

if the supreme court fails us...we take up arms

> The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

-Thomas Jefferson

Living within the 9th circuit I can tell you they generally fuck up anything conservative.

As much as I love living in California I hate the politics twice as much. We need the SCOTUS to overturn pretty much everything the 9th has overturned in local courts.

This. California frikin' sucks.

>if the supreme court fails us
>anything that isn't my specific approach to statutory interpretation is a failure
Why does everyone seem to think that the job of the supreme court is to be a rubber stamp for the executive branch? Do you think a judge's job is easy? Do you think interpreting a constitution is a matter of common sense? Do you think there aren't 10s of thousands of pages of case law and extrinsic statutory material that the bench needs to be collectively across and prepared to take stock of in delivering a judgment?

Go fuck yourself.

We had shall issue conceal carry for about 10 minutes before the 9th circuit overturned it for pretty much no reason at all other than FUCK YOU

Trump can just push it again. That was always the plan in case he wasn't happy with the new immigration standards.

If they don't they're in open violation of the US Constitution.

I didn't mean the executive order, I mean the supreme court will strike down the law giving the president the power to halt immigration when he determines necessary.

This case is as good as it gets.

The executive branch absolutely has power over immigration, but it's not like the supreme court only gets rulings correct

This sounds about right. The key question is whether or not this ban is a ban based on religion. There's a lot of evidence to support this view and not a lot to make it seem as though this is intended primarily as a defense against terrorism. The fact that Saudi Arabia is off the list and Iran is on the list makes it seem that this is not about terrorism and that terrorism is being used just as an excuse to cover a deeper prejudice. The Constitution is set up to protect against such bias and abuse.

Guess what: as long as they're not citizens, they don't get constitutional protection for (((equality))). If Trump wanted to ban all Muslims (non-citizens), then under the law HERE he could 100% do that and it would be legal.

The US isn't allowed to create laws or enact orders that violate its own own constitution. It's pretty simple. The First Amendment was created to stop the US being a nation of religious discrimination such as Saudi Arabia.

It will 100% fall in Trump's favor. If they rule after Gorsuch is confirmed it's 110%. The 9th circuit is a group of activist judges with a 79% overturn rate when appealed. The initial block was done by an immigration activist judge in Washington State. This is a total non-issue, the Democrats are just prolonging the inevitable because they need a moral victory.

My first-glance reading of this statute is that its scope is limited by the meaning of "the President finds" and "detrimental to the interests of the United States". Ignoring all precedents because I don't know what they are, if "the president finds" is a conferral of plenary power, then there is no case. If, on the other hand, it's a conferral of power that is subject to certain standards of proof, then it's determinable by any court with jurisdiction to hear federal matters, and it will be thrown out if the entry of residents of those nations is not deemed detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Anyone know if there's any relevant case law that determines the ambit of "the president finds"?

>The First Amendment was created to stop the US being a nation of religious discrimination such as Saudi Arabia.

Wrong, reread the amendment. Says nothing about discriminating against members of a religion in matters of immigration.

Someone clarify because it sounds one sided.

Is it one sided pro or anti trumps EO?

Exactly. The First Amendment asserts the right of people to be free in their exercise of religious belief. This means that you can't take actions against people on grounds of religion, because this would be restricting free exercise of religious belief. This means you can't exclude large numbers of people on religious grounds. You can on security grounds, but then it would be necessary to demonstrate that this is what's going on. Trump's ban, though, is not obviously about security, in part because Saudi Arabia and Canada are not on the list.

They'll refused to rule on it because Trump'll still be looking for a replacement SCOTUS nominee.

Yes it does. It says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Respecting being here a synonym for "regarding", or "concerning", or "with respect to", or "which has as its subject matter".

It doesn't really matter because it's not a ban on islam, otherwise indonesian immigration would be prohibited as well. But if it was they couldn't do it.

You can exclude whomever the fuck you want for whatever fucking reason if they are outside of the border and not citizens. Constitutional protection doesn't apply to non citizens outside of the us

Why didn't the 9th circuit site any of those 10s of thousands of pages? People wouldn't be incredulous if an actual argument based on the constitution were made for nullifying the president's executive powers being carried out to the letter of the law.

0

The ninth circus is the most overturned court in the country.

THE
CONSTITUTION
DOES
NOT
APPLY
OUTSIDE
AMERICA

And even if it did, they're free to practice their shitty religion OUTSIDE of america, because they're not citizens. They're not entitled to come in here.

>It says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
The LITERAL meaning of that is that there will be no STATE RELIGION. It most certainly does NOT mean that the government can't pass laws that affect religions.

Is the judgment available already? Can you link it, I'd like to read

Ww2 japs the most recent one. A whole fucking race and nationality got put into camps because of the US interests

Fuck off pussy faggot.

From what i heard the Trump legal team didn't prep a brief, tl;dr no reason as to why the ban should remain.

If SCOTUS is deadlocked, the Appeals court ruling will stand, and thus ban is on hold

Congress shall make no law.

This has nothing to do with Congress.

Is there a liberal in the country who isn't an illiterate retard?

If their religious beliefs go against the interest of the American people, exceptions can be made

And before any AUSTRALIAN chimes in the Supreme court upheld the constitutionality of that order AND IT'S STILL ON THE BOOKS.

President has the power to place members of a certain race, even citizens, in camps. Get ready islamists.

It applies to laws in the US. You can't create unconsitutional laws or orders. You can't have a law aimed at a certain religion.

Law is abstract and conceptual. It's not about an action carried out against another person. Instead, it's about concepts and principles, so the question of the citizenship of people to whom it might apply is completely irrelevant. The laws and orders of the United States must be consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Here's what really gets me though. Obamacare was passed even though it went against the constitution because they argued that some clause about federal trading implicitly gave the president the power to force everyone to buy a private product. Implicit. Implied power allowed the President to trample on the constitution. Yet, a clause that EXPLICITLY gives President Trump the power to halt immigration is being challenged, and might potentially be held as unconstitutional. If this ban is rescinded, I will have literally lost all faith in our justice system.

web.archive.org/web/20170210012127/http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-full-text/index.html

100% because the judges on SCOTUS actually take their jobs of impartiality seriously when determining legal evidence. but thats only because SCOTUS is majority 'conservative' now, since apparently any judge who rules with the constitution of the nation in mind is 'radical' and 'conservative'

im sure the leftist obama appointed whore sotomayor will vote against it though, because lets face it she is an unqualified latina bitch with an affirmative action title

>obama pushes for things that are unconstitutional
>surprised they get pushed back

You're a faggot, gas yourself.

Nope. The First Amendment prevents this. Even if someone's religious belief was daily masturbation with an American flag, this belief would be protected by the constitution (if it's part of a religion).

This is why the US can have retarded pseudo-religions like Scientology that are banned in other countries that don't have enshrined the right to pursue any crazy, fucked-up religious belief.

>consti doesn't apply outside of the united states
>what is the define and punish clause
Also the 1st ammendment absolutely means that the legislature can't pass laws that have in their direct scope and contemplation a religion or members of a religion.
If you had reading comprehension - it's okay, not many people itt do - you'd see we're talking in hypotheticals.
Sorry, I meant what's the test for when the president is able to make a finding. Is it entirely discretionary or is it subject to standards of proof?

what if my religious belief requires that i yell fire in a crowded hall every third hour?

>supreme court doesn't uphold the law
>Trump blocked
>Trump writes new executive order negating his old executive order
>writes another executive order to do the exact same fucking thing

Even if these cunts overturn these orders as soon as they can Trump can still deport and enforce them the few days it takes to overrule them.

They motherfuckers just pissed off the man who can do whatever he wants. This is war.

Idiot detected. Precedent and practicaliry requires uniform enforcement of immigration policy. The Supreme Court won't just let the law stay one way in the 9th Circuit and potentially other ways everywhere else. They are going to rule on this, decisively, and are probably going to hand Trump his ass.

Without trumps guy in 100%. With trump guys in. 30%

>anything that isn't my specific approach to statutory interpretation is a failure
Except this result is clear as day. It is literally been decided before as precedent. The President, by statute has this power. There is nothing in the Constitution which bars him from doing this. Foreigners have 0 rights under the Constitution.

There's nothing hypothetical about this. The executive branch can legally and constitutionally bar anyone they want from immigrating.

The original stay and ninth circus ruling have no legal basis. It will be overturned, like most ninth circus decisions by the supreme court.

Frankly all four judges involved should be removed from the bench for failing to do their jobs.

...

>serv emps v healthcare workers
>arbaugh v Y&H
>Hajro v US Citizenship
>Lujane v Defs of Wildlife
there's a bunch of case law they cite for their jurisdiction to hear the case
>Boumediene v Bush
>Zivotofsky v Clinton
>INS v Chadha
there's a bunch of case law on the reviewability of executive decisions re: national security

Did you even read the judgment?
WHAT PRECEDENT

Read paragraph ending page 15 continuing on page 16. That might make the law clearer in your mind.

Incredibly, unbelievably wrong. This is why armchair conservative "scholars" hole up here, so they can get away with saying absolutely braindead shit like this. Holy shit,

There's no way your judiciary will rule against national security precautions

They'd have to throw out all the precedent in domestic and international law

haha

Pretty damn good considering the gov't argument was essentially to go the court and tell them that they didn't have the authority to review if his order was lawful.

Trump literally argued that the court should undermine it's own constitutional authority. 10/10 strategy. Im sure it'll work out well with the highest court in the land.

Are you going to cry when the ninth circus is overturned yet again?

>Anyone know if there's any relevant case law that determines the ambit of "the president finds"?

2000 when Clinton kicked a 6 yr old Cuban kid out of the country.

As explained by the federal appellate court that ruled on Elian Gonzalez's asylum application: "It is the duty of the Congress and of the executive branch to exercise political will," and "in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs," which includes immigration.

They 4-4'd in Texas v. United States you fucking retard.

I thought the cuck states were arguing that it was not "detrimental to the interests of the United States" because of the revenue from foreigners

I don't know how that will ever supercede national security concerns

National security is the literal Joker card you can pull at any time to win any debate. The Courts would be veering into fairyland trying to dictate what can and cannot happen under National Security concerns.

Do SCOTUS see themselves as war chiefs?

Title 8 of the US Code says the President can ban, ban, ban, ANY CLASS from entry for any reason.

The Judges are trying to determine policy that is exclusive to the President, all to protect the citizens if the USA.

American laws do not apply to other citizens in other countries. They do not have US Constitutional rights.

These, 3 judges will be reviewed by SCOTUS and possible Impeachment hearings to determine their treasonous intentions.

Also San Francisco will be considered by the President concerning fugitive Mateens wife, harboring her and obstructing Justice.

SO glad we now control the military. Just let you fags know. We would gladly back the president to put down all traitors to law and the constitution.

CORRECT.

DAY OF THE ROPE.

100%, they'd never defy the god emperor

none of them want their families to be droned, now do they? :^)