Trump foolishly asked his DOJ to foolishly argue that presidential power on immigration and national security is absolutely unlimited, with zero checks or balances whatsoever.
The 9th Circuit's opinion is pretty clear in listing the rock-solid legal precedents that support their ruling.
Even if President Bannon and his frontman Trump decide to appeal to the US Supreme Court, the only way they would win is if at least 5 justices agree with the DOJ's foolish argument.
Now what are the odds that 5 exceedingly intelligent and legally trained lifelong career jurists, no matter how conservative or liberal in their personal views, will suddenly roll over and say "Surprise! We just realized that the entire US judiciary has been far too powerful and far too involved in government, so we're gonna overrule all our precedents and take ourselves a massive step down in authority."?
Trump will see the courts in court
Other urls found in this thread:
cnn.com
travel.state.gov
bensguide.gpo.gov
politifact.com
twitter.com
>this amount of shitposting at twitter
trump is canada of US presidents
Where's this stake location?
I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS opinion was unanimous. Even if they're wanton conservative partisans, they still have to play the long game. The justices will be in office til they retire or die. Trump will be here a maximum of 8, more likely 4, and maybe even less if he's impeached. For all Roberts knows, the next president may be a die hard liberal from the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. The last thing he wants to do is establish precedent that the executive has completely unchecked power on any issue.
If he says the president has broad discretion, but can still leave room, that leaves room to check future liberal presidents. If the president he agrees that the executive has unchecked authority, then he can't argue against his own precedent. Today the case is Trump barring Muslims or building a border wall. Maybe next election a crazy anti-Trump gets elected, and just goes nuts, opens all the border checkpoints and says, "we're going back to the 1800s solution. Everybody come on in!!"
Trumps order is completely legal, President can ban aliens based on country of organ.
Cite the cases that give your statement legal precedence.
Many folks don't realize how mentally disciplined the practice of law is. It's easy and common to assume that political favors will dominate, like in the other two co-equal branches of government.
Of course, since they're still human, there might be some influence from politics, but at the end of the day, each Justice still needs to write or agree with a coherent line of strict legal reasoning that properly arrives at his/her conclusion from settled legal precedents and principles.
you, the media, and all the other retards took the bait!
How come you guys didn't chimp out like this when Obama banned immigration from various countries 19 times?
Because he didn't ban people already issued Visas.
>each Justice still needs to write or agree with a coherent line of strict legal reasoning that properly arrives at his/her conclusion from settled legal precedents and principles
Sotomayor doesn't do any of that. She's literally overwriting law with her feels and her SJWism
Irrelevant.
And neither did Trump.
>each Justice still needs to write or agree with a coherent line of strict legal reasoning that properly arrives at his/her conclusion from settled legal precedents and principles
>Sotomayor doesn't do any of that. She's literally overwriting law with her feels and her SJWism
Can you give an example of something she's written during her time on the Supreme Court that didn't include a conclusion from settled legal precedents and principles?
US code title 8 chapter 12 subchapter 2 part 2~1182
LOL, why don't you read it:
cnn.com
>I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
Are you literally retarded?
"Rock solid" legal precedents that support their ruling? So the constitution covers non-Americans? Since when?
>Trump foolishly asked his DOJ to foolishly
If you think that includes all Visas, or even MOST kinds of visas issued, you don't know anything about visas.
Do you know what it takes to get a Diplomatic visa instead of a work visa?
I can't believe the high energy of this guy. He just won the biggest election campaign ever against all odds and he's rustled everyones jimmies and now he's gonna take on the highest court in the land.
Name any Work Visa that is excluded in the order. Here is a list of Work Visas:
travel.state.gov
So, Trump banned people with Work Visas, and Obama did not.
So, Trump has to go to Court, and Obama does not.
Kys
hi5 for the hidden AA reference
sage for shit board
I dont really care about who is right, but what are the odds of courts cockblock trump on that one?
The court clearly overstepped its power.
It will be reversed 8-0 at the supreme court like 90% of the ninth circus' retarded decisions.
Cuck btfo by
100%
If the courts don't, they will be losing all power to the President on this matter, forever. So, President Bernie would get to let everyone in the world in.
>US code title 8 chapter 12 subchapter 2 part 2~1182
When was this Upheld for already issued work and student visas?
A law isn't a court precedence, dipshit.
Under F:
>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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
I'm a Dutchfaggot, so please excuse my ignorance, but is there anything at all in the constitution that would invalidate this?
I guess all of Sup Forums was asleep when they went over the roll of the Judicial Branch in 8th grade.
I hope Betsy DeVos fixes this clear gap in our school system's curriculum.
No.
trump is playing 11-D M theory chess. Just like with the grabbing pussy leak. He picked a fight that would obviously never hold up in court, but now every time the public hears trump and court, they are going to hear trump v. Muslims. Checkmate faggots. #trump Sees2020
as opposed to the inverse, setting the precedent that the president cannot control immigration because das raycis, so president bernie gets to let everyone in the world in, even if he doesn't want to
enjoy brazil 2.0 you nigger loving retard
>THAT'S IT! I'M TAKING THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE TO COURT!!
>setting the precedent that the president cannot control immigration
That's not what Trump's team is arguing. They are arguing for COMPLETE CONTROL. Which is why they're going to lose. If they constructed a more reasonable case, they could win.
It doesn't have to directly contradict anything in the Constitution. That's not how the Judicial Branch in the US works. Here is a beginners guild for those of you that went to public school for 8th grade:
>The judicial branch is in charge of deciding the meaning of laws, how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the Constitution.
bensguide.gpo.gov
Rape yourself, nigger breath.
>If they constructed a more reasonable case, they could win.
which is what will happen, you stupid liberal bitch. you braindead fucking nigger worshiping cuckold. america will be white again and every single fucking COMMUNIST will be purged. fuck you and FUCK every single nonwhite on earth
It's like you faggots never played 4d chess. Trump has maneuvered the court into looking like the bad guy if there's a terrorist attack. Attacks now make him stronger, if there are no attacks he takes credit. It's a no lose situation.
not constitutional
>a fucking leaf
>only court that matters would split vote 4-4
>implying the only court that matters would meet on this ruling before confirming new conservative judge making it 5-4
Your days are numbered leech.
They've already constructed their case to be heard. The case is that the President should have unlimited control without any of the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution.
So, no, it's not "what will happen," since the opposite has ALREADY happened. They've made the most extreme case they could, and the courts will never go for it, since it would limit their own power.
>a beginners guild
>The judicial branch is in charge of deciding the meaning of laws
The law in question explicitly authorizes the president to bar any aliens or class of aliens in the national interest. If that law is constitutional I don't see anything that makes Trump's actions illegal. Which law is broken by Trump's order?
What checks and balances are there on immigration in the constitution?
If you think the new guy is going to side with Trump over the Courts, you have another thing coming. He's already criticized Trump for this case.
>The 9th Circuit's opinion is pretty clear in listing the rock-solid legal precedents that support their ruling.
ha, that's cute.
name 1.
The balls on the guy trying to get me interested in American politics.
kys...over 14 post
The ninth circus is the most overturned court in the land. Nearly 90% of their cases are overturned.
The entire circuit needs to be flushed.
he criticized trump for shit talking judges, he hasn't said a word about the case you fake news peddling faggot.
...but 10%
There are checks and balances on the President's power in general. Go read the Constitution.
But, even if there wasn't, the courts get to interpret the laws. In the most basic:
Does the law explicitly say the President gets to override already lawfully issued Visas? No? Oh, I guess there is some room for interpretation then. Better let the courts decide.
Oh they will, but you aren't going to like it.
Yes, it does, under 8 USC 1182. It says the president can suspend entry of any aliens or any class of aliens. People with lawfully issued visas are still aliens.
No. That section of the US Legal Code was not only ruled constitutional when it was added, but has been upheld by the Supreme Court on at least two occasions.
Alright. I guess we will just have to see if the courts are willing to give away ALL of their ability to check ANY President when it comes to immigration.
(PT: They'll not)
>le Ban-man is real president meme
Drop that in your next iteration unless you're just trolling. If you really believe it, then you're in for a wild ride.
But then your argument is that the courts will make up their own law on the spot to protect their power. That's possible I gues, but then you have a serious constitutional crisis on your hands.
As best I can gather the law may be crazy, it may give the president the power to do whatever the fuck he likes with respect to immigration, but if that's the law then that's what the courts must go with.
But its not in their ability to decide anything about immigration.
YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKE COURTS
The courts have nothing to do with immigration, retard.
This reality you monkeys have constructed for yourselves is beyond bizarre.
Should have known a simple one would fall for such hearsay. You guys are pushing your luck..can only make so many allegations before you get fucked.
>If you think the new guy is going to side with Trump over the Courts, you have another thing coming.
what are you fuckin' elizabeth warren?
So you're saying there's a 1% chance he will win? Sounds familiar.
You are literally retarded.
fuck off erDOGan
It's based on a scotus opinion that states the judiciary has no place in ruling on matters of national security.
These are truly glorious times.
I'd say the odds of the SC overturning the 9th Circuit's ruling is about 60-40 in favor of.
The only reason it's even that low is because Scalia's gone. If he were still alive I'd put it at 90-10.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of actions under 8 USC 1182 on two separate occasions. If they overturn it now for blatantly political reasons it would be a MASSIVE upset and set a dangerous precedent for future judicial action.
he had to win reelection though. Once you voted black, you don't go back!
The 9th circuit has over 80% of their decisions overturned when they are taken up by the Supreme Court. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 grants the President the power to restrict or block immigration of any class of immigrants from any country in the interest of national security for any length of time he deems necessary. You're wrong, the courts are wrong, and these activist judges will be lucky if they keep their jobs.
The court will say the courts have the right to suspend the ban, like they're already doing. The Supreme Court will back up the courts ability to check the President, like it always has.
Can anyone cite the last time the Court ruled to give all of its power over any matter to the President?
autism
BRUMPP
T
F
O
>judiciary has no place in ruling on matters of national security
>“The government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches — an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence,” the court’s unsigned opinion said.
>“Instead, the government has taken the position that the president’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.”
>That, the court said, “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
>Stealing Republican memes
>How pathetic
The 6th circuit has a higher rate than the 9th. That's Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee. This percent is the number of cases that the Supreme Court overturns out of the number they hear. The Supreme Court is extremely selective and only hears a minority of cases submitted. All of the circuits in the country have a high rate because the Supreme Court only selects the most controversial, important, far reaching cases.
Republicans invented memes about comparing real people to fictional people?
>Trump foolishly asked his DOJ to foolishly argue that presidential power on immigration and national security is absolutely unlimited, with zero checks or balances whatsoever.
Except this is exactly what he wants
Hogs the media time, gives liberals a false sense of success, exposes the problem of the 9th circuit/liberal judges
This is, like most stuff you Trumpfags pull out of your ass, false.
politifact.com
Where does it say that the president cannot revoke visa's?
It's ridiculous how much everyone hates Trump and tries to stop him at every turn. Just let him do his job.
you guys are fucking low iq
trump will probably not even take this to the supreme court
this was a massive waste of time
>constitutional democracy
fuck this clown court
No visa holders outside the country don't have constitutional rights
And this stay is MUCH broader than that
...
They're not giving any power to the president you literal retard.
LOL at the cucks who voted for Trump.
Let me guess, you thought Trump branded ties were legit too?
I have some shit Trump real estate to sell you!
Cucks cucks cucks cucks cucks cucks
>9th circuit liberal judges
"Judge Richard R. Clifton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush"
KEKED BY A FUCKING BUSH APPOINTEE
Where does it say he can? Hu, I guess its up to interpretation, which is the Constitutionally defined job of the Judicial Branch.
>It's ridiculous how much everyone hates Trump and tries to stop him at every turn. Just let him do his job.
Like they did for Obama?
Interesting date ranges, chaim.
You know at this point I actually hope one of these rapefugees brings in a dirty bomb or some shit just so you reap what you sow.
How retarded do you have to be to not understand probabilities. Trump's ~20% chance of winning the general election means he wins 1 out of every 5 times.
If I give you a 5 chamber revolver with one bullet in it, do you put it to your head and pull the trigger?
I don't know enough about what happened, but saying "I'll see you in court" comes off as petty to me.
>foolishly
Its right here in black and white nigger
You are a braindead monkey if you think the highest court in the land will upset previous presidence to make a clearly political move. This would leave open the door to challenge everything they have ruled on in the past because fuck presidence. The liberal judges know this also because, unlike you, they are mouth breathing rejects. Roe vs wade? With a conservative majority under Trump that's gone. When you ignore previous rulings once in favor of playing politics you leave open the door to challenge them all. Trump is mindgaming you nerds so fucking hard right now it's unreal. If he loses this shitty battle and the SC fucks presidence in the ass then he gets to start pushing shit through and doing whatever he wants cause previous rulings don't mean shit. But if he wins, which he will, he gets to make the Democrats look the the retards they are. Truly the best timeline
For the last time
IT'S NOT "CHECKS AND BALANCES" WHEN THE COURTS CAN JUST MAKE SHIT UP ON THE SPOT AND NULLIFY THE LAW. IT'S A FUCKING DICTATORSHIP.
Hey CTR, welcome back.
Weak b8
SAGE
A
G
E
I'm sure Trump does too, because then he can declare Martial Law.
Heck, he should pay one to do it.
someone on Sup Forums not understanding how VPN works... lulz
>There are checks and balances on the President's power in general.
>relevant to whether the ban is constitutional
The judges have no constitutional basis to reject this law. They have the constitutional power to reject it, but their reasons for doing so are not supported by the constitution.
Green card holders are not citizens and are not protected by the Constitution.