HOW DID TRAVEL BAN NOT GET APPROVED?

Does anyone have any summary about the case?

What in the fuck happened?

Bump.

I really need Sup Forums experts summary on this.

Kys

>Does anyone have any summary about the case?

Turns out the courts agree with Mike Pence.

Checks and Balances.

>courts have judges who are biased, aswell as bought out by special interests

>they literally have no argument except muh feels, but because checks and balances they can turn Trump down

>there hasn't been ONE good argument and we're literally at the final cycle of this thing

AKA checks and balances being bipartisan causes butting heads. In reality, Trump should be allowed to do it, but these judges are risking their careers virtue signaling until it all comes crashing down.

presidents have been pussies for so long that when one actually acts like he should they freak out and get scared.

He deserved it for not applying the ban to countries he has business with and the Christian clausole, giving them an excuse. This was a true blunder for the Don.

Pretty much well this, the first judge who kicked it to the 9th circuit of appeals has said that what Trump did was not unlawful but ruled against it anyway.

It went to the 9th because it is the most liberal of them all and we all know it is going to be kicked up to the supreme court.

My only concern at the moment there is only 8 SC judges and if it gets tied 4-4 what happens after that?

Courts operate under the principle of positive proof as opposed to Sup Forums's feelings who saw a muslim 1% rape someone once and thus decided to hold the rest 99% guilty for it.

Unsuprisingly the Trump administration had no actual proof on why countless violations of liberty ought to take place other than its feelings. The whole point of courts is to change people from innocent to guilty on production of evidence not cheerlead doing so in advance.

Can you imagine, if the SC ties, it gets thrown to a public vote.

And like the election, the ban wins and gets reinstated.

My God the tears would never stop flowing.

Gee hitlerdubs, just as well the EOs had nothing to do with banning religion

>EOs had nothing to do with banning religion

Does that mean the travel ban covered Christians too?

But how are the chances of the ban coming back? Come on USA why do you need a president if he doesn't have any power? Even Merkel can do what she wants

not such thing
if it ties at the supreme court, the 9th circus' decision is final
trump can start all over with another EO though

It was approved then the bitch said she thinks it isn't legal snd that's how this shit started

The temporary ban was for foreign nationals from countries of concern (listed in 2015 legislation) with case-by-case discretion for persecuted religious minorities as long as they satisfied national security concerns and met international conventions as to who is considered a refugee.

9th district commie court ruled that trump can't use federal laws and powers he is granted as president.
goes to supreme court which will buttfuck them and it will be the end of their success as judges. they might still have jobs but they won't move up any more and the more nationalism spreads throughout the usa the more scared they will become.

Would like to know this as wel.

Are there any actual lawfags here?

The reason they stated was, there in no immediate threat to warrant a ban

9th Court is always Liberal. Even the Bush appointee. It happens when you reside in Washington, California, and Oregon. Supreme Court will decide, but with a divided court I don't think they'll be able to make a decision.

Which is why we need Trump's SC pick to get approved and get to work.

Send all those fucking sandniggers to Seattle Washington where that motherfucker judge lives!

It's a retarded ban tbhfam
At least put actual terrorist countries on the list

There has to be a warrant of a threat to put a temporary ban? That's BS. How about Islamic extremism? Or inability for US to really verify without a proper functioning government in the country & an US embassy?

Is the entire EO out, or just the travel ban on those countries? i.e. is the visa waver back in place?

Here's the basic gestalt

>9th court is historically Liberal

>They did some logical jujitsu to uphold the halt on the travel ban.

>Last year 80% of 9th's ruling were over turned.

>Any one who wiki'd the 9th would have seen this coming.

>Trump knew this would happen.

>Trump just let the 9th show how bias they are.

>11th Dimensional chess moves in progress.

RAI 2 much?

basically its illegal and unconsitutional for us NOT to let in muslims.

we MUST let in muslims and there's nothing we can do about it. it has always been this way.

Freedom of expression and religion.

kek speaks through me

Some high-ranking judges proved that globalist narrative and dark money is more important to them than the law they're supposed to uphold. It's sedition, and we've learned Trump always gets back when someone betrays him. Someone's gonna layeth the smacketh down on this bullshit sooner or later.

>for not applying the ban to countries he has business with
this i hear a lot but is it actually true? i thought trump gave up his company when he became president.

The current status is that there is a TEMPORARY hold on the temporary ban, pending the court's decision. The courts have made ZERO decision on whether the ban is legal or not.

SOME form of the ban in constitutional. That's absolutely sure. The worst case scenario is that Trump has to redesign it slightly to whatever is decided that's unconstitutional.

what you describe is a principle in penal law, executive orders arent part of the penal law.

This has been their year long plan ever since Scalia "died peacefully", to force the supreme court into a ouroboros permanent 4-4 tie, this is heavier thatn the bogpill lads.

Here's a quick rundown
>Wash. and Wis. have standing because students at uni (uni is part of state)
>Executive orders on immigration are reviewable but deference is owed. 9th ct. distinguishes Kleindienst v. Mandel 408 U.S. 753 (1972) that held “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.’” By distinguishing between application of the law in a case and promulgation of an EO.
>Fed. gov have the burden of showing a stay of the stay is necessary. (i.e. the burden is reversed on appeal).
>Fed. gov has not shown 1) likelihood of success or 2) that it will suffer irreparable harm, 3) it would harm others and 4) is not in public interest
>Both lawful and unlawful residents have due process right to a hearing before their travel rights is restricted. Refugees and visa applicant with a connection to a U.S. citizen might also have such a right. (this is insane! RIP Border control)
>9th cir. ignores white house clarification of EO saying it's not binding.
>Declines to limit the order geographically citing the need for uniform application of immigration law.

Not in the slightest. Of course he would do business with countries that we're on good terms with more than those that we aren't. That's confirmation bias.

The seven countries were also listed in a travel bill targeting terrorism by the Obama administration in 2015. Most likely, the list comes from intelligence agencies who have deemed that there is a legitimate threat.
> no us citizen had died from one of those countries in 15 years
Cool. Glad to hear you know more about terrorist organizations than someone in the intelligence community who works with classified information pertaining to exactly that.

'1%'. What percentage of Muslims believe in the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality?

Me.

>falsely implying that not letting someone into your country is equivalent to punishing them
How can people be this fucking retarded? You don't punish someone by refusing to give them something that they are not entitled to because you think it's against your best interests.

THIS^

PRAISE KEK

10/10 mental gymnastics.

Also, learn what gestalt means.