HAPPENING- BLOCK ON TRAVEL BAN UPHELD BY 4th CIRCUIT COURT

cnbc.com/2017/05/25/federal-appeals-court-upholds-block-on-trumps-travel-ban-nbcnews.html

The block on Trumps travel ban has been upheld by a fairly moderate circuit.

Other urls found in this thread:

circa.com/politics/barack-obamas-team-secretly-disclosed-years-of-illegal-nsa-searches-spying-on-americans
scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4
nsa.gov/news-features/press-room/statements/2017-04-28-702-statement.shtml
archive.is/6lQjF)
m.metronews.ca/#/article/news/winnipeg/2017/05/18/refugee-claimant-who-walked-across-manitoba-border-granted-refugee-status.html
youtube.com/watch?v=8AEwyWIqmAw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

B-B-B-B-BUT 9TH CIRCUS

IT WILL BE OVERTURNED
LMFAO

why hasn't SCOTUS ruled on this yet?

SCOTUS awaits...

It'll be an interesting case that will set precedent. So far they've said his own words on the campaign trail can be used against him.

This basically goes against centuries of precedent

You have to get thru the other courts

Not really, this case is unique in the way that it looks at what a candidate said and applies it to an executive order signed as president. Even though it doesn't ban all Muslims, it can be seen as a de-facto Muslim ban based on what he said on the campaign trail.

It would be an equally bad precedent if public figures were allowed to make retarded statements in public and not get called on it later when other people use those statements to derive intent.

I HURT MYSELF TODAY

shhh ill

It's not really a surprise. The 4th Circuit has gone from reliably conservative - arguably the most conservative circuit - to reliably liberal in the past 10-15 years.

I agree. What you say should matter.

command your NATO army to wipe out the 4th circuit

The standard since 1776 is that the president and congress have absolute discretion over immigration matters. A full Muslim ban would have been held to be constitutional in the past.

*So long as the president at any time didn't say anything about banning all Muslims.

Context in this case, like others, matters.

this is what pisses me off about this court
they like to cite his words in the campaign
as if, in their minds, they consider there NO possibility that his stance could change
as if government has not always been about compromises
as if Trump doesn't surround himself with experts and advisors who may have shaped the direction of this order

it makes no sense that you can ignore how government works when finding a flaw in something not present in the executive order

It has no logical response so it lashes out blindly.

Only if you're a partisan looking to put points on the board for your "team".

If the yazidi christians can't get in, how is it a muslim ban? If atheists aren't even being asked to prove they aren't muslims how is it a muslim ban? Can you piss on a koran and eat a slice of bacon to get in?

Nevermind the fact that it's a 120 day delay, not even a ban

>So far they've said his own words on the campaign trail can be used against him.

My understanding is that all the relevant legal precedents are against this, and for good reason. Trying to play mind-reader with legislation, or executive orders, opens all sorts of bad doors for bad judges to go through, and would introduce a great deal of uncertainty into the law. The only thing that should matter - the only thing that is properly before a judge (with rare exceptions) - is the text that becomes law.

Activist judges need to be gassed.

i hope that this can be used as precedent to rule that all terrorists are Muslims and all Muslims are terrorists since this court seems that it can decide that this anti-terrorism order is about being Muslim without calling it by name, but by the word "terrorist"

when will the HAPPENING MEME end?

its like the only way to get replies to your threads these days

Fast track this to the supreme court.

Wow look at these defendants supporting the ban:

STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; PHIL BRYANT, Governor of the State of Mississippi; AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE; SOUTHERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC.; AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION; IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE; U.S. JUSTICE FOUNDATION; CITIZENS UNITED; CITIZENS UNITED FOUNDATION; ENGLISH FIRST FOUNDATION; ENGLISH FIRST; PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF THE UNITED STATES; GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION; GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA; CONSERVATIVE LEGAL
ahahahhahsoh180gd80g83g80808faebfaf

I'm pretty sick of leftists when will it be OKAY to start taking out out leftist activist judges? At what point does reveling become acceptable towards a government that does not follow the will of the people?

No faggot. The ban on Muslims would require India et. al. to be included too.

This means?

Podesta/Obama are really calling in the Pizza related map blackmail lately.

You mean like Obama and keeping your doctor or Hillary calling half the nation deplorable?

Oh god damnit. Donald keeps getting cucked.

I am starting to regret voting for this fucking loser.

JESUS CHRIST WIN SOMETHING. PLEASE. THIS IS HUMILIATING.

You realize it is just an effort to bring it to the scotus right?

>a government that does not follow the will of the people?


The will of the people doesn't matter in america. If it did, hillary would be president because 3 million more people voted for her.

HILLARY WAS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

SHE. FUCKING. WON.

not necessarily. scalia and the other originalists believe that the law should be interpreted in view of the intent of which it was passed. they believe that you have to view the law under the eyes of the people who wrote it, not under our current system. However, while trump's multiple statements on this matter have clarified his intent, i.e. to protect america and not to exclude muslims, those get overshadowed by the reporting that purpotes otherwise.

This needs to be repealed by the appealent court so it goes to Supreme.

Then it will be law of the land.

Defacto leaf ban when?

Trump continued, “Our Constitution is great. . . . Now, we have a
religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that’s great. And that’s the
wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it differently.” J.A. 481.
OUR PRESIDENT IS A NINE YEAR OLD HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

>inb4 this ban is upheld by the Supreme Court and the next Democrat president uses its precedent to block Afrikaner refugees from coming to America

Also it's not like terrorists are coming from these countries.

>Manchester bomber in Libya 2 days prior to attack.

Really articulates those actuaries

starting to feel really stupid for voting Trump

ITS NOt A MUSLIM BAN

NOT ONLY MUSLIMS LziVE IN THESE COUNTRIES

THRE ARE 14 OR SO MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES NOT AFFECTED BY THIS

FUCK THE MEDIA

>The worst states in the UNION
>Conservative propaganda foundations
Keep me posted

When one of the branches cock blocks the other, there should be immediate action taken. It should not drawl on for 120 days.

Especially as we see terrorists attacks in England and immediate calls by ISIS on Las Vegas.

The ban was for 90 days. It would have been over by now.

The judge was a Bill Clinton appointee. His ruling was based on comments made by Trump during the campaign and not the law. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act section 212 gives the president the authority to block immigration for any set period of time for any reason as long as it is not race if determine that the immigration from that geographical region could pose a threat to the national security of the nation.

But you're a fucking leaf, so doubt you could comprehend that.

LOOK AT ALL THE COUNTIRES NOT AFFECTED BY THIS

Judging from your post you are indeed really stupid, just not for the reason you think.

Here's the thing though. Two things have been well established in American law. First, the intent of a law matters as much as the words. Second, animus towards a particular group is not a legitimate rationale for laws. Presidential authority over immigration is irrelevant if the immigration law in question is rooted in animus, and since word and spirit carry equal weight, Trump's campaign statements can be used to show animus in intent. Just another case of Trump shooting himself in the foot.

4th Circuit Court are all liberals appointed by Obama.
They are part of the Deep State.
Their ruling is un-Constitutional.

The ban was never meant to pass. It was Bannon's way of causing mass protests so the Trump base could see that the libtards would make it impossible to do what he promised.

And so the ball begins to roll faster.

>libya is in the ban list

>father of manchester bomber is arrested

>libyan refugee

liberals want america to die hm?

Kangaroo court judges. The ban is fucking constitutional.

GET THE FUCK IN HERE ASSHOLES!
Biggest scandal in U.S. political history being IGNORED by MSM

Involves 'institutional' abuse of NSA surveillance practices

Obama knowingly lied to the public

SOURCE: circa.com/politics/barack-obamas-team-secretly-disclosed-years-of-illegal-nsa-searches-spying-on-americans

PROOF: scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4

PROOF: nsa.gov/news-features/press-room/statements/2017-04-28-702-statement.shtml (Archive: archive.is/6lQjF)

Fucking bull shit. Your courts are insane America. They love mud dick to much.

The original ban would have ended by now right? Why do they still try?

Yeah just let anyone in, what a joke. Canada is the fucking worst FYI. We let fake faggot illegals in and then support them for life. Country is in crazy debt and austerity is on the way unless you are some muzzie gibs taker.

m.metronews.ca/#/article/news/winnipeg/2017/05/18/refugee-claimant-who-walked-across-manitoba-border-granted-refugee-status.html

That moment when the ACLU uses you as their punching bag, the whole world knows you're Putin's jizz-rag, you're clearly headed to impeachment and your wife slaps your hand away when you try to touch her in public.

At least the wall got built, Obamacare was repealed, and the 30-day plan to defeat ISIS wiped them off the map, right?

At least the prick can not build a bomb with no fingers.

Why can't the president just ignore their objectively unconstitutional decrees?

honestly

If he had balls he could. I'm sure most of the military is on his side.

It's not going to the Supreme Court if the 4th circuit blocked it retard

I think the significant cultural and language gap between the citizens already here and the muslims is complex enoigh from a practical standpoint to warrant the travel ban. Given real statistics, intel, and historical context of islamic terrorism, the ban makes complete sense.

Uuuhhhhmmm no sweetie. Smart people like us Trump supporters know that you failing democrats are only grasping at straws here as you continue to lose. Oh hun, don't you know the more Trump falls down and gets back up the more people like him? You didn't think too much about that one, huh sweety?

You trying to be cringe?

That moment when you're reduced to literally making stuff up to uphold your crumbling false narrative because you have a double digit IQ and no friends. Try again sweetie.

Isn't the scotus above some irrelevant circuit?

>he doesnt into sweetieposting

Wasn't the original a 90-day ban so they could rework the vetting program? Where's the rework?

Yes, but libtards have nothing left to obsess over since the Russia thing has been BTFO

Court was considered very left wing while Obama was president?
Let it go to the supreme court. See if you post this after that has been decided.

>Texas
>worst state
Califags are like leafs; no one likes them.

Well, if you see the list of the judges from the circuit and who appointed them, you can see why they veto'd the EO.
There should be a big purge. Very soon.

The 4th circuit didn't block the order, they just ruled that the 9th circuit had the ability to block the order. So far no one has ruled on the order itself, which will happen eventually in the supreme court. It basically goes like this:

>Trump submits travel ban
>Person files suit against the ban saying it is unconstitutional
>9th circuit rules that the suit has merit, and consequently blocks the implementation of the travel ban until the ban can be ruled on by a higher court
>Trump/DOJ says the 9th circuit had no right to block the travel ban, challenges the blocking of the ban in the 4th circuit
>4th circuit rules that the 9th circuit had appropriate cause to block the ban and acted within their powers to do so
We are now here
>Next the travel ban itself will go to the supreme court to be challenged by the original suit
>Supreme court will decide of the ban is constitutional or not

>since the Russia thing has been BTFO
There is like what 4 active investigation into it by different agencies and branches of government.

How exactly is it BTFO'd?

And those government agencies are loyal to who exactly?

I WANT MY MOMMY

>4th circuit
>moderate

The Hell are you smoking?

Their career you fucking idiot.
If you are the investigator who takes down Trump. You are pretty much going to be able to write your own ticket for the rest of your life.

Also, what fucking world are you living in where everyone in government answers to or is even loyal to, the President?

Means fuck all when the Supreme Court upholds though?

idk what part of
>President has authority to ban ANYONE for national security
people don't understand

Except intent doesn't fucking matter. The president has the right to ban whatever group of immigrants or non-immigrants from entering the country. Any group he wants. Trump could decide to not allow people with red hair and freckles tomorrow if he liked.

These bullshit courts are saying that it violates 1st amendment freedom of religion, but this isn't so. Freedom of religion doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil.

Again, there is literally nothing that says this matters.

You have a poor understanding of these things. Firstly, intent does matter. It matters a lot. US courts have shown time and time again that the word and spirit of the law both carry weight, especially in cases where a law is being challenged as discriminatory. Secondly, animus is not a legitimate pursuit of government. If a law is found to be rooted in animus, it is invalid, regardless of whatever framework allowed that law to be put into place. So the US code you posted is irrelevant if a court decides the travel ban is rooted in animus.

This is not exclusionary to the idea that the law itself is what should be judged by a court, not the person who wrote it. All Scalia and other originalists believe is that the original intent(and how it would have been originally interpreted to mean) is what matters, and that is what should be followed that way until changed*. Whether a law or executive action is racist is not decided by the intent of who wrote it(which is usually impossible to determine), but by it's actual impact. Pretending otherwise is insane.

>*ie if the word 'no' meaning changed over the next 100 years, rape laws should remain how they are today, not change because the meaning of a single word in it did

Oh no a travel suspension from countries is called a ban to rile up brainwashed morons and some of the most inbred looking judges ive ever seen into making poor decisions! Time will prove them wrong, but I can still dream they are being hung for treason.

>fairly moderate
lol

The EO is rooted in the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act signed by Obama.

You're talking around in circles.

WITH REGARDS TO IMMIGRATION, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY GROUP HE SEES FIT

It says it right fucking there, clear as day.
1A and anti-discrimination laws do not apply to foreigners on foreign soil

> t-they'll do it!

What will drumpfags say when they cuck him too?

That's wrong unless i am misinterpreting the situation. Rulings of the appellate court can be appealed to the supreme court. The only reason travel ban season 1 didn't go that far is Donald pulled the EO to draft a new one. Travel ban season 2 should and will be taken to supreme court for final ruling.

this

SCOTUS will rule accordingly

And Islam already violates our immigration laws. The argument here has to be whether or not it is a good idea to refuse immigrants from a country which does not have a credible government or infrastructure to help identify or judge potential immigrants. None of this matters anyway because it's completely within the President's powers to stop immigration for any reason, even religious reasons.

Watch President Trump own the NATO Pussies!

youtube.com/watch?v=8AEwyWIqmAw

Oh, the judges understand it will enough. This is just heel dragging on from the left to be an irritant to Trump's administration. The dems are doing delay tactics on every move Trump makes.

Yaaaaasssss!
Bonus feature . . .

>McCabe is not the appointed interim director. He is the man to whom the job defaults because his immediate superior has been released from service.

>When President Trump returns from overseas he can appoint a new acting interim director of his choosing, and that day is likely to be like fucking Christmas for us.

>not wanting this in your country

>The fbi is a federal court
Trumpcucks are losing it

Kike ass libtards. Traitors every last one. SCOTUS will over turn these shill ass motherfuckers. Fucking libtard cocksuckers.