patrick.net

They better get their court pick confirmed fast! :)

(checking if he has tweeted yet ... oh I cannot wait for comment from the administration.)

Dang it. Hasn't.

Some good tweets though:
"for non-lawyers, the decision means that the the 9th circuit thinks trump is dumb and a big loser with low energy"
"At this very moment Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer are flipping a coin to see who tells Donald Trump he lost."

OHhhhhh here it is!!!!

Master of the all caps. Bahahahaha.

Trump has ways of making the 9th Court of Apease disappear.

"Don't believe the lie! They begged to reinstate my ban and I said yes!! It's already been reinstated!!"

Tenpoundbass says

Trump has ways of making the 9th Court of Apease disappear.

By alternative facts? By force?

LOL

Rew says

Trump says "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

Great!

Looks like the University's harm from not being able to hire cheap PhDs to teach the tax payer's kids while American PhDs are a dime a dozen, or bringing in full-tuition paying superwealthy foreigners (Since Abdul Average in Sudan's who family don't see $10k in a year), in order that 6 figure admins can get a pay raise and hire two secretaries at $60,000 for the Assistant Associate Vice Dean of Campus Diversity.

Meanwhile the cafeteria staff gets a few bucks an hour, no benefits.

If you ever suspected Colleges turned into businesses, now you know! They're more important than national security, allowing the 9th Court to put the health of College Administrators over health and safety.

The three devils are: Mass Immigration, Pharma/Med Full Retail Price Controls, and the Education Lobby. Good news it's a 3-legged stool so we only gotta kick in one leg.

There's plenty of more ways to skin this cat. And with the Trump Ban being popular, he'll have at it again.

I'll ask again, does anyone know a site that allows betting actual money on the conclusion of this issue?

The current appeal involves a temporary restraining order (TRO) related to a specific Order. Due to their inherently temporary nature, they tend not to get appealed, and appellate courts tend not to reverse.

Now that even the President has publicly stated he would have preferred to issue an Order that included a month's notice, the administration can issue a better written Order achieving the same goal, and with smoother implementation. They can also decide whether to continue litigating the original order. President Trump holds all the trump cards on this issue, and majority support. He might even benefit from keeping the spotlight on an issue where he is perceived as fighting for what most voters want, letting his opponents commit themselves to an unpopular and ultimately losing position. His eventual victory might help him more if people see he fought for them against the "swamp" of entrenched interests that don't care about them.

NOT NICE!BAD! TERRIBLE! SO CALLED JUDGES!

Heres Your Card says

lol

Would it have not been a better strategy to have a RED state within a RED FAVORABLE court jurisdiction purposefully sue first to get jurisdiction, and then have the RED court lift the restraining order?
Some strategy along these lines should have been in place and executed quickly before the libbies had a chance to puff...

Macropodia says

Would it have not been a better strategy to have a RED state within a RED FAVORABLE court jurisdiction purposefully sue first to get jurisdiction, and then have the RED court lift the restraining order?

I thought Trump the Serial Drapist was used to restraining orders.

Macropodia says

Would it have not been a better strategy to have a RED state within a RED FAVORABLE court jurisdiction purposefully

9th circuit is made up of many red states (Montana, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada). They were unanimous.

Ceffer says

I thought Trump the Serial Drapist was used to restraining orders.

He is used to litigation, that's for sure!

T L Lipsovich says

If you ever suspected Colleges turned into businesses, now you know! They're more important than national security, allowing the 9th Court to put the health of College Administrators over health and safety.

What the? That's some triggered weirdness there. Take a breath.
Supreme court upcoming. Camp Trump getting bashed for three weeks, but the sun will shine on this dog someday, too.

Rew says

They were unanimous.

It's almost as if they were sending Trump a message. I wonder what it was?

Rew says

It's almost as if they were sending Trump a message. I wonder what it was?

"Yeah I guess the State of Washington has standing on behalf of trying to save money on Foreign Professors on contract (however many come from Libya or Somalia), and getting rich General's kids from Libya to pay more in tuition to support UWa Admin Salaries and the new Health Spa for Staff, so we're letting the TRO stand even though Robart really didn't explain jack shit behind his reasoning and why he rejected the Government's argument, and here's some things the Executive might want to consider when he writes his next executive order trying to do the same thing."

"Also,we have the right of judicial review as we always like to remind the Executive on a continuous basis. Big Surprise."

They literally decided nothing else and washed their hands of it and let the injunction stand.

They did NOT overturn the executive order, they only let the TRO stand. The way the media is carrying on, having their first minor (trivial) victory in months, I thought the 9th shut the whole thing down.

Meanwhile, Trump could order the State Department to suspend new visas or just take everybody off the 7 countries Visa application "desks".

Doesn't anybody remember Signing Statements and Executive Orders and National Security Memos and all this other crap under the last few Presidents?

So the liberal imams have decided the president/congress cannot decide which alien we can decide not to admit into the country.
Whats next they will put a stay in the middle of a war and say it is a Muslim majority country -we cannot attack it or defend ourselves if attacked???

Where do these liberal imams think their authority stops??

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

The 9th Circuit Grabbed Trump by the Pussy!

Grab 45 anywhere,HE'S PUSSY ALL OVER.

BTW APOCALYPSEFUCK,
Enjoy your philosophy.

lostand confused says

Whats next they will put a stay in the middle of a war and say it is a Muslim majority country -we cannot attack it or defend ourselves if attacked???

Well, if they get what they want, you won't be able to allow Sikhs to immigrate if you ban Pakistan Citizens from immigrating, even if you banned Pakistani nationals as diplomatic punishment for genocide against Sikhs, because then you'd be discriminating against religion due to violating the Establishment Clause. Never mind that all law on refugees recognizes persecuted religious minorities (inc. by non-state actors like ISIS) as a valid reason to be granted refugee status.

But this is a nothing burger. They just upheld the lower court minimally reasoned TRO while kicking the ball down the line.

The way the Media was hootin' and a hollerin', I thought it was more than that. It wasn't.

It's simply a successful delay; but when you've been losing so long, anything that isn't a defeat looks like a victory.

lostand confused says

Where do these liberal imams think their authority stops??

Right where the constitution says it stops.

bob2356 says

Right where the constitution says it stops

Nah in today's world it right where the liberal imams decide it stops. Back then Supreme court pretty much did rule slavery was legal ya know-does not make it right. At which time the republican erupted in dissent. Looks like it will take the repubs to relase us from this mess and decide we have borders-are we a country that can decide who can come in at will or some zombies where anybody can come in and be on welfare-aka our tax dollars.

Sure the stupid dems want more tax dollars to feed these bums Democrats-always on the wrong side of history..

lostand confused says

Looks like it will take the repubs to relase us from this mess and decide we have borders

Sure, after all Reagan and Bush did such a great job with that. Look at how many more illegals they deported than Obama. Oh wait Obama deported more. How could that be? Never mind.

lostand confused says

bob2356 says

Right where the constitution says it stops

Nah in today's world it right where the liberal imams decide it stops.

Because you being a world renowned constitutional scholar says so?

bob2356 says

lostand confused says

bob2356 says

Right where the constitution says it stops

Nah in today's world it right where the liberal imams decide it stops.

Because you being a world renowned constitutional scholar says so?

So you agree with slavery decision by supreme court. Simple question-as a country do we get to say who we want-not citizens-but immigrants/refugees/tourists. Do we have that right or not. I know you enjoy playing the dunce-but think that is genius- but the court did not rule about the constitutionality-it just said the judge had the right. That judge did not rule either-the Boston judge already agreed with trump. but of course leftie nuts -what cna you expect.

bob2356 says

lostand confused says

Where do these liberal imams think their authority stops??

Right where the constitution says it stops.

Oh, look at the Trumpthuglicans screaming out for unilateral power. Checks and balances, checks and balances.

so old school...
everyone uses electronic bill payment these days...

Rew says

Oh, look at the Trumpthuglicans screaming out for unilateral power. Checks and balances, checks and balances.

lostand confused says

So you agree with slavery decision by supreme court. Simple question-as a country do we get to say who we want-not citizens-but immigrants/refugees/tourists. Do we have that right or not. I know you enjoy playing the dunce-but think that is genius- but the court did not rule about the constitutionality-it just said the judge had the right. That judge did not rule either-the Boston judge already agreed with trump. but of course leftie nuts -what cna you expect.

No I agree with the supreme court's right to make the slavery decision. You said what right did the judge have, not what constitutional argument he made. There is a big difference that is totally lost on you. Try to follow your own arguments.

So the boston judge made the right call because he agrees with what you want to believe and any judge who doesn't agree with you is a liberal iman. Very good, a perfect example being a trumptard dunce since we are discussing dunces.

You didn't even notice that I offered no opinion of which judges ruling I agreed with did you? You would be surprised at the answer, but thanks for playing the fool.

bob2356 says

You said what right did the judge have, not what constitutional argument he made. There is a big difference that is totally lost on you. Try to follow your own arguments.

That is rich coming from you. You bought the constitution in -not me and I responded. keep up with your own arguments-just drift in , throw some garbage out, drift back and throw more garbage and see what will stick.

lostand confused says

That is rich coming from you. You bought the constitution in -not me and I responded. keep up with your own arguments-just drift in , throw some garbage out, drift back and throw more garbage and see what will stick.

Reading comprehension problems? This is your reasoned response detailing your positions? Perfect.

You are the one contradicting yourself. First you say liberal iman judge has no right to issue the restraining order then you say the court had a right to declare slavery legal (actually there were 15 supreme court decisions between 1781 and the 1857 dred scott case the recognized slavery). Which is it?

Which order is more legal, the boston or the washington order? Oh right, the one you agree with is always legal and proper while any you disagree with are the work of liberal iman judicial activists. I get it.

bob2356 says

First you say liberal iman judge has no right to issue the restraining order

Genius-I said liberal imams have decided the president and anyone else in this country have no right to restrict foreign nationals even for national security.

You brought in the constitution.
bob2356 says

say the court had a right to declare slavery legal

Genius, I say the court ruled slavery was legal and I say that is decision is not right- even though the court ruled it so.

lostand confused says

That is rich coming from you. You bought the constitution in -not me and I responded. keep up with your own arguments-just drift in , throw some garbage out, drift back and throw more garbage and see what will stick.

curious2 says

fighting for what most voters want, letting his opponents commit themselves to an unpopular and ultimately losing position. His eventual victory might help him more if people see he fought for them against the "swamp" of entrenched interests that don't care about them

I'm sure the voters here who are against travel ban like Rew will change his tune quickly once the refugees start occupying the schools that his kids attend. If travel ban fails, then there is great possibility that refugee and other welfare recipients kids will have access to voucher program quite soon.

People like him don't mind as long as refugees are far away in locales like Twin Falls Idaho and raping five year old children of deplorables......Out of sight out of mind

On another note, would be barrel of laughs to see limousine liberals up in arms about how "I spent so much money to buy home in expensive school district....now I have to accommodate welfare takers also?"

Did we suddenly drop our current immigration controls? Did we reset and massively increase our refugee quota for Mid East/Europe/Africa/Asia?

I'd welcome the opportunity to have a reasonable amount of refugees in my town. I think most of the residents share that, especially the more Christian leaning ones.

How about for every 100,000 H-1Bs and Immigrants, we raise the Fed Min Wage 50 cents.

Then we'll see how much immigrants low-end service businesses think we really "need".

T L ... for every 100,000 in the low skilled labor category? Sure. I'm game!

We should bring minimum wage up more ... period.

This is a Dred Scott-like decision that will lead to further division in the country and the perception (rightly in this case) that the courts are now the de facto government. It seems the argument for having standing (WA) is of the cost of UW visas and the impact to the university system (how I am reading the decision). So, not letting holders back into the country hurt the UW. This type of argument can be made for literally any reason: don't go to war, Mr. President, because it may impact "something" - whatever the court decides. In fact, it is hard to see how the government can exact any immigration controls that cannot be dictated by the court. No deference to the executive branch anymore.

Dred Scott decision was really the root cause of the civil war as the parity between free and slave states was essentially eliminated by (1) saying the slaves were property and you don't lose property by moving from one state to another and (2) therefore property has no standing and cannot bring an action. This completely upset the political balance as slavers started to move in to the western states that were intended to be free or determined by popular sovereignty (below line). It overturned in every essential way the Missouri compromise and eventually enflamed the Republican party toward an uncompromising strict abolitionist view (ironically, not Lincoln so much as Seward, etc...). In retrospect, it was a great decision (not by the design of the court), but it lead the war and to the freeing of the slaves, which was a true abomination.

I wonder if Trump would defy this and who would back him? He is a populist - and there is hardly any doubt that he doesn't have much support from the political elites in either party. He moved WAY to fast on this with bad lawyers. So much for knowing how to hire the best and brightest. I wonder also if he will take this to the SC or if he won't do that because a decision against him would set a bad precedent.

krc says

(rightly in this case) that the courts are now the de facto government.

Do the courts sign laws into being? Do they actively enforce laws in America? No.

This is a check on the executive acting in a very legislative like capacity. You can disagree with the ruling, but this is an American government working, not failing.

The court didn't magically overreach here. It is doing exactly what it was built for. It probably FEELS like it is doing something wrong, or incorrect, in the face of the desire for the current movement Trump embodies in authoritarian nationalist populism. "I alone can fix it". No you cannot Trump. You must work with others to fix it. It's how it was designed.

Ask yourself, really if this was 'in the wrong' you think Trump would be back to re-drafting the EO?

krc says

This type of argument can be made for literally any reason
argument for having standing (WA) is of the cost of UW visas and the impact to the university system (how I am reading the decision)

You can read it in full. This wasn't solely about university students or for "any reason". I'm sure you watched the news and saw just who got caught up in this slap dash rollout of the hasty order.

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

The summation was essentially this:
"Nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."
"how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when?"
"We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay."