Can someone point out to me in this article where I can find the court's legal argument against a travel ban?

Can someone point out to me in this article where I can find the court's legal argument against a travel ban?

bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-09/appeals-court-keeps-u-s-doors-open-during-immigration-fight

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
aclu.org/legal-document/complaint-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief-0
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

> find the legal opinion

there isn't one

The closest thing I could find was this:
>"(the court) called into question presidential power to limit immigration in the way Trump did."

Which is fucking stupid because:
>"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."
- 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Am I now officially smarter than a US appeals court judge?

some immigrant might become a janitor at a university. the ban is literally crippling state financials

They didn't have a legal argument against the ban.

So this is all just political grandstanding by members of the judicial branch?

They _felt_ that the _nature_ of the ban went against the _spirit_ of the religious freedom clauses in the first amendment.

No, because the judge essentially tied the executive order up in court until the 90 day ban would have been over.
This globalist agenda has got to end.

So they """feel""" that the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?

American universities hire instructors out of other countries.
This is in part the reason why kids are such cucks and Marxist cunts these days.
SAD!

They do. Congratulations on your rights.

Foreigners don't have constitutional rights.

Look up what cities/states of which the Ninth Circuit is a part. That will answer all your questions, except for legal scrutiny; but at the same time, it kind of answers that too.

The legal argument is that the Trump administration cut corners in the process of issuing executive orders and that the implementation was inconsistent. If it only affected non-green card/non-valid visa holders, it would still be on. But the administration overreached itself and tried to block legal immigrants who've already gone through the process, ostensibly in defiance of current law.

Green card and visa holders aren't citizens dumbass. Did they take an oath of citizenship? Then the amendments don't apply.

The legal argument is that drumpf is like hitler and he got BTFO. That's literally it. I mean look at the childish tweets the people involved are even making. They're literally saying that they made their decision for the sole sake of spiting trump, and in no way to help justice prevail.

Nevermind the fact previous presidents did the same thing and it never even went to court.

Looks more like those judges and anyone opposing the travel ban is being childish.

Trump literally has the authority to implement that travel ban, and much stricter ones too.
See

previous presidents weren't literally hitler.

Trump was born one year after Hitler died you think this was a coincidence.

He was also born only a few tens of thousands of miles from the exact opposite location on the globe of Hilter's place of death.

Belgium intellectuals everybody!

Everything lines up so perfectly that it must be true.

Yes Satan. It's just the Left Judge-Shopping to find someone in the Judiciary which is of their same leftist mindset who is most likely to agree with them that the EO hurts people's fee-fees.

They know they can't win on legality so they're just abusing judiciary power to stall it for as long as possible.

They ruled on the restraining order on the ban, not on the ban itself

petition our government to send you lots of guns in Europe.

Woah, we got a real sherlock in this thread people!

what are you complaining about now syrup nigger?

The ruling will not contain any fucking arguments against the ban because they didn't rule on the ban.

Captain obvious just retired after reading this post!

why are you bullying me? Am I misinterpretting OP's post, is he asking what the legal arguments are against the ban?

If that's what he wants here's the ACLU brief explaining their case:
aclu.org/legal-document/complaint-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief-0

Here's the actual opinion.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Same thing.
They won't lift the restraining order because they don't agree with the ban.

They literally attack the ban in their ruling.

They do now

It is also your responsibility to pay for their lawyer

He's probably a shill. Just ignore the leaf.

that's exactly how deep the global agenda has his claws into our society. Citizenship means nothing for people, now.
Like how they got the people attacking globalist submits in the last decades, now defending a no border society.

Nice ad hom. Anyway, in the Official court release, it cites the fact that the administration "failed to show any evidence that anyone from the seven nations cited in th executive order has ever committed a terrorist act in the US."

We are a nation of laws, leaf.

At what point did conservativism become synonymous with a complete lack of human decency?

>it cites the fact that the administration "failed to show any evidence that anyone from the seven nations cited in th executive order has ever committed a terrorist act in the US."

Which is bullshit because:
>"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."
- 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

>not allowing mass immigration is a lack of human decency

Lunacy.

Way to ignore his argument because he used one word to call you a dumbass, dumbass.

The truth is you know you're wrong.

>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."

Which is bullshit because the courts have the power to question the constitutionality of an executive order.

You seem to be missing the point, Hans. The EO was too specific on some details and not so much on others. Poorly written law is ineffective and unenforceable. Now if Trump wanted to do the bans on muslims alone, that would be one thing. Undocumented immigrants, another. Legal residents and green card holders, yet another. It's not my fault bannon doesn't know law and tried to wrap all this up in one breitbart shitpost of an authoritarian, white-ethnocentric piece of toilet paper of an executive order.

There is a way to get what they want. They just have to be smart and do it the right way.

His argument was not based on truly countering my argument with anything other than emotional sentimentality.

When the most productive segment of society started being punished for their good intentions.

The way this marxist shithole of a world views what's right and wrong, lacking human decency might objectively be good both on a pragmatic and moral level.

You ridiculous tart. That is entirely too stupid to be anything but a deliberate lie. You have to go back.

There's a lack of specificity, I.e. there's no carve out for the green card holders, and the position prioritizing minority religion in the executive order means that this is an order that the courts have the right to look at, since discriminating visa by religion is a carve out that we're not supposed to do. The big issue for me is that when politics and religion are intertwined as heavily as they are in the middle East then religious categories are equally political categories. The jews screen Muslims more than they screen other people in the airport largely because of the way national conflicts are drawn along religious bounds.

>another ad hom
>literally not an argument
>trump quote out of context

Are you really arguing that someone who has gone through the trouble of legally immigrating, or even visiting the US has no legal protection under the law? I think there are a few embassies that would disagree with that outlook.

>the courts have the power to question the constitutionality of an executive order.
Even when the constitution says the president has the power to issue such an executive order?

You seem confused.

It even literally says "when the President finds that...".
What it doesn't say is "when the courts find that the President is allowed to ...".

You don't argue. There is no point. You act like a child who believes there's a ref around to call ad-hominem and grant you a rhetorical first down. I don't give a shit and neither does google; which wants to correct homienm to Eminem because it thinks you're stupid too.

>inb4 appeal to authority
Just fuck off.

>"when the President finds that...".
And provided no evidence to support his "findings" to support his claims concerning "national security."

Checks and balances.

Could you please respond with little more emotional projection?

I mean, as long as your sling insults, you might as well try to rustle my jimmies.

>bump for read the fucking opinion

>the president has to justify his orders to the court

The court is supposed to decide if he has the power, no whether he's making smart decisions. Congress explicitly gave him the power to issue this order. It's absurd that a court could even rule on this without once referencing the statute Trump was operating under.

No. In fact if we were arguing in person, this would be the part where I consider the merits of murder and prison.

>Congress explicitly gave him the power to issue this order.
You seem confused as to what an executive order is or how one is implemented.

I don't remember everyone freaking out and trying to stop obamas hundreds of shitty executive orders that trampled the constitution

Or bush

How very stable of you.

An Executive Order tells executive agencies how to act under a statute. The law is clear. I'm looking forward to the 9th Circuit getting smacked DOWN yet again by SCOTUS.

At what point does Congress enter the picture?

Yes actually. I'm a reasonable but principled person, willing to make that sacrifice of myself given cause. Threatening the foundations of my home while hiding behind selectively enforced rules and lofty elitism to me in person will get your ticket punched. I would kill you.

But as a reasonable person, I'd make sure you earned it first.

Congress writes the statutes. Executive orders are just directives as to how to implement statutes.

THIS KILLS THE LÜGENPRESSE
GET IN HERE FAGGOTS

>be 9th circuit
>be SF commiefornia hippies
>have 80-86% of your cases thrown out when they go to supreme court

>make loose ruling against poorly written EO.
>escalate to Supreme court
>win or lose all refugees start getting screened hardcore
>in the meantime trump implements the changes the 90 day pause was meant to facilitate
>regardless of decision, trump get what he wants
>if supreme court with possibly one additional appointee rules in favor... precedent.

Green card holders are only citizens so long as they have the green card on their person, if they've been approved to have a green card but do not have it on their person they can be subject to immediate deportation.

Also, immigration visas don't protect against much. If the goverment wants you deported, your visa won't protect you from that.

Non-immigration is the only one that protects you but that is only for the specific amount of time that it is enacted.

Then it's time for Donald Trump to become Andrew Jackson.

>Threatening the foundations of my home while hiding behind selectively enforced rules and lofty elitism
Which side are you describing here? Ostensibly, by this definition it could go either way. That's why I call out projectionism. How is banning a bunch of people from legally entering the country based on the predominant religion of seven countries whose citizens have no history of terrorism on US against us citizens protecting you or I, as us citizens?

If you want to get your jimmies in a bunch over nothing, be my guest, but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously when your debate skills leave you with nothing but ad hominems and threats of violence.

Has Congress passed any statutes banning immigration based solely on religion?

No, but they passed a law the explicitly gives the president to ban ANY CLASS of aliens he thinks is a threat.

>"failed to show any evidence that anyone from the seven nations cited in the executive order has ever committed a terrorist act in the US."

I don't understand this logic. So it's okay to ignore potential threats because you haven't suffered consequences yet? It seems very short sighted. Even if it hasn't happened yet, if our intelligence agencies deem them high risk areas for terrorist activities are we not allowed to take preemptive measures or are we only allowed to react after the case?

There is no logic to it. The courts are supposed to decide on the legality of the order, not whether it's smart policy. They have no place in questioning the President's judgment on national security.

>A FUCKING WAFFLE

My debate skills are fantastic.
Your earlier conduct was self evident: you are not here for honest discussion. You aren't here in good faith to debate ideas. When confronted with an argument you deliberately scour that bitch to find a fallacy irregardless of how superfluous and use said fallacies to ignore all opposing arguments.

If you can't recognize that for what it is I can't help you, and you're only here for me to shit on you.

Provided he shows readable evidence that what he's proposed and it's implementation will benefit the lives and safety of the people.

I think you've confused my argument so I will reiterate: the eo is poorly written (in legal terms) and leaves a lot of vaguarities concerning implementation. Poorly written law is ineffective and a waste of tax payers money (in that the president, his administration and the government at large is funded by tax payers).

If he were to go back, wrote three separate eos on the three different topics this one eo attempted to tackle, we'd be having a different conversation.

>I don't understand this logic
15/19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Why not ban immigration/travel from Saudi Arabia.

Basically.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is notorious for being packed full of grandstanding liberal activist judges.

91% of the 9th Circuits rulings are overturned by the US Supreme Court.

>irregardless
gets you some titties!

He doesn't have to justify the motives or effectiveness of his actions, just the legality of them. There is nothing under 8 USC 1182 is pretty clear... The fact that they didn't even mention the law in their opinion says alot about the judges' motives.

It doesn't says "when the president finds and proves to the courts' satisfaction...".

9th circuit court ruled the constitution to be unconstitutional.

How do i get american gibs shipped here? Interested in wellfare, guns and hamburgers.

You obviously haven't read the decision yourself.

Because

A. The Saudis are one of our closest allies in the middle east and our 2nd largest source of oil

B. The global landscape can change a lot in 15 years believe it or not, and other countries were deemed to be a higher risk at this moment in time.

Congress writes the laws.
The President approves the laws and can issue executive orders on how to enforce them.
The Courts rule on the legality and constitutionality of the laws.

In this case, the laws giving the executive branch authority to enforce travel and immigration bans are already a part of the US Code of Law. The legality isn't in question, and the constitutionality has been upheld thus far by the Supreme Court. It's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that's rocking the boat and declaring Trump's executive action illegal, and it's inevitably going to get it's shit slapped by the Supreme Court like it does for 10/11 rulings.

You must provide evidence if an argument US to be taken seriously. If Trump can't cite one factual piece of evidence in his own eo, how are we supposed to take him seriously?

>Provided he shows readable evidence
Where does it say that in the statute?

Checked, bro nice bro.

But nah, it's the way our government is set up; the checks and balances are designed, in their most basic and foundational ideologies, to stop the advancement of authoritarian rule.

"Fuck it, we're doing it live!"

But the Saudis still fund Isis and arm them with our weapons.

>called presidential power into question

No, they opined that the primary argument the Government set forth against staying the restraining order was that the EO was UNREVIEWABLE, which they disagreed with.

The cited various cases against the Government's other arguments, which is fine and all, because IMHO the Government's arguments were shit at this hearing.

However, the court saying that violating a State education institution's goal of "global engagement" is evidence of CONCRETE actual irreparable harm is bullshit.

So there hasn't been a ruling yet on the initial judge's stay on the ban. Only thing the 9th circuit has done so far is refuse to immediately toss out original stay without more comprehensuve arguments and also to refuse to keep ban in effect while the outcome of appeal is still pending. So yes, they're dragging their heels for spite and grandstanding purposes.

check out youtube channel lionelnation, media personality and lawyer, he has two good (long) videos on this matter recently

Basically the court took a novel position that it doesn't matter what the executive order says if the President or his representatives have said other things with respect to this action. Meaning, even though the executive order is not a "Muslim ban," Trump and his minions have repeatedly called for and discussed "Muslim bans" and this shows the government taking sides on religion against the establishment clause of the First Amendment even if the executive order itself doesn't take sides.

The implications of this ruling are extremely unpleasant. Total Pyrrhic victory for anti-Trumpers.

>old habit typo
Nuts, I suppose all arguments I have made or ever will make are now nullified.

What are you on about? A dead, poorly written, truly unenforceable law?

They cut corners in the process for filing the eo. End of story. Go through proper process and we'll have a different conversation.

>You must provide evidence
No, Trump mustn't.

All the court can do is question his power, which is exactly what they are doing:
>"(the court) called into question presidential power to limit immigration in the way Trump did."

And it's bullshit, since the statute literally gives him this power.

Proxies, russia, proxies. Also, practice your english, because a russian accent is one of the most recognizable in america for cultural reasons.

I read it briefly when it came out last night. It's an amusing use of twisted logic to justify a political decision by the judge.

woooo wooo hol up take some pride in being a american bruh... america also partially funds iss as do the jews in israel. we just call them cia backed forces publicly and in the paper work

>novel

No it's not; if you read the opinion, you would have noticed they cited a previous case where a judge said something along the lines of "the EXACT SAME ACTION would be acceptable if done with good faith, while being unacceptable when done with illegal/unconstitutional intent."

A precedent like this has existed, although I hope Gorsuch helps the SCotUS BTFO of it forever.

>A dead, poorly written, truly unenforceable law?

Ad-homming the actual statute. Nice.

It's all you have left, so I guess it's fitting.

That's not the role of the courts. The courts decide legality, not effectiveness.

Here's your one piece if evidence though. Funny that these attacks are so common we can forget about them in two months.

>Truly unenforceable

I guarantee Trump can and, given the chance, will enforce it.

The statute clearly leaves it to the president's discretion, not the court's.

The court has the power (again) to review the constitutionality if an executive order. Read the decision yourself and you'll see there are principles arguments that represent both sides of the debate but cites curtailing of process, public opinion, and vague implementation across several classes of people, without clear evidence that the ban will make us citizens safer.