Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[Somewhatconcerned]

Why does he keep insisting that people are "pouring in?"

[Templar 331]

Why does he keep insisting that people are "pouring in?"

It's a tactic to fire up his voter base. Keep the image of illegals and foreigners in the minds of people to give them something to fear. Makes them think the country is being invaded which triggers their "fight or flight" instinct which then makes them want to fight. And who are they going to fight? The invaders and the ones "letting them in."

[ranzino]

for those interested in the actual paperwork in this legal battle: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content..._id=0000000860

lot of amicus curiae letters; one by former secretaries of state and other officials and that's pretty stuff by professionals

the response of the State of Washington in defense of the appealed jurisdiction, nice to read

the State of Hawaii also joins in additional defense of the plaintiffs ( Washington State + Minnesota); they filed a motion too, but Judge Robart was a step ahead

now the court is waiting for Trump and his team to defend the appeal, their stuff is due monday 3:00 pm ( less than 3 hours from now).

[ranzino]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi...vid=0000010884

livestream in less than 90 minutes of the hearing. will be audio only, it's via phone. 30 mins each side. should be over by or around 4:00 pm PST.

as it seems not a single one amicus curiae brief was filed in favor of Trump, but everybody and their grandma is friends of the court on behalf of Washington State.
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont also filed as amici in a single motion. 16 states ( besides Hawaii, which filed amicus earlier) also angry about Trump's EO.

[Shadoweye]

Stefan has an interesting prospective on the matter.

[Breccia]

Last post was...yesterday, nice, not necroing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politi...lay/index.html

Trump: I wanted month delay before travel ban, was told no

President Donald Trump -- even as he blasted lawyers contesting his immigration executive order -- detailed for the first time Wednesday his own hesitations about the controversial plan before it was signed.

Trump, speaking to law enforcement officials in Washington, said he argued before the order was finalized for giving travelers a month's notice before cutting off entry to the US.

But he said he was overruled by law enforcement officials, who he didn't name, alleging the delay could prompt a flood of dangerous terrorists into the country -- an explanation that failed to account for the lengthy process of obtaining a US visa or applying for refugee status.

"The law enforcement people said to me, 'Oh, you can't give a notice,' " Trump said at a conference for the Major Cities Chiefs Association. "I suggested a month. And I said, 'What about a week?' They said you can't do that because then people are gonna pour in before the toughness."

-------------

Stopping right there, because it's time to play Count the Bullshit.

1) Trump, once again, saying "people tell me things" but this time about running policy.

2) Trump continues to attack people slowing the ban.

3) Trump has, once again, said an objective falsehood.

This is Trump's Contract with the American Voter. You will notice that his travel ban is listed as one of the things he wanted to do the very first day of office. In fact, he wanted to do this even faster than he did.

So, he's lying about waiting a month, or he lied when he said he wanted to do it on day one.

By the way, feel free to follow that link. CNN shows parts of the speech before law enforcement (and, no teleprompters, so it's Trump Gone Wild again) where he specifically says the part of the law he claims is on his side, that he disagrees with, is the part where the President is described as "he or she". No really, watch it.

- - - Updated - - -

CBS is reporting the ruling on the travel ban will come tomorrow.

Even under the circumstances, that sounds fast. How black and white was this case?

[Wyrt]

The 9th circuit ruled against Trump. Get rekt Trump.

[belleflop]

Stefan has an interesting prospective on the matter.

Really unsound argument. He said immigration RESTRICTIONS.. What Trump is doing isn't a restriction, it's a ban. The premise of this guys argument goes out the window with his first and only fatal error.

[Xandrigity]

Shocker, 9th circuit is a bunch of liberals. No big surprise.

[mage21]

I'm eager to read the argument for why Trump does not have the right, based on national security, to enact the executive order.

[Wyrt]

I'm eager to read the argument for why Trump does not have the right, based on national security, to enact the executive order.

They essentially said there was no legitimate national security risk.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Does he have any possible recourse against this?

Seems to me the ban is done and over.

[Skroe]

Shocker, 9th circuit is a bunch of liberals. No big surprise.

It was unanimous. Conservative judge voted to block the ban too.

Get fucked Trump / Trumpkins.

[Skroe]

Last option is to have it go to the supreme court, but if they want to push it forward it'll go to a 8 panel SOCTUS and in the case of a four to four split the ruling would stand and it'd be pretty dead.

In other words, we've gotten yet another lesson in "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

[Torgent]

Shocker, 9th circuit is a bunch of liberals. No big surprise.

Also a bunch of people who have actual knowledge of the law. No big surprise.

We have a president who knows nothing about our constitution, and is going to get destroyed in courts every time he does stupid shit like this.

Also you left the fact that the conservative judge also voted to ban this. It was a unanimous decision because that's the obvious answer.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Last option is to have it go to the supreme court, but if they want to push it forward it'll go to a 8 panel SOCTUS and in the case of a four to four split the ruling would stand and it'd be pretty dead.

So it's pretty much dead then.

That would be a good thing, since quite frankly a ban is not the way you prevent this.

I'm afraid of the internal backlash, however. Read: Racism.

[Xandrigity]

Does he have any possible recourse against this?

Seems to me the ban is done and over.

Probably not, but on a side note bill in congress to break off some of the power of the 9th circuit court. It's become a little too powerful and liberal : )

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/po...t-court-may-be

[BananaHandsB]

False dichotomy, you attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with your employer when it comes to big time issues like this, and then you resign rather than state your intention to go rogue while still under the umbrella of your employer.

THOUGH I'm forced to agree with you that I think she was well aware she would be fired and knew what the implications would be. However, the attorney general exists to be the official representation of the President's legal authority.

For an analogy, if a defense attorney takes a case to represent a murderer, it is that defense attorney's job to represent that person's interests to the best of their ability and resign from that assignment if they cannot carry out that duty. On the same token Yates took a job to represent Trump, and decided as his representation to work against his stated interests while still assuming the role of representing him.

An attorney cannot resign in the middle of litigation without a judge's permission. Furthermore it is indisputably unethical for an attorney to tell a judge their client is lying/guilty/etc. In most situations when a lawyer tries to resign a case for "ethical reasons", the judge will deny the request as the jury will immediately become bias against the defendant when they see their lawyer disappear. In most cases, the attorney will use tactics such as asking the defendant to "state his side of the story" instead of asking questions that will prompt known lies to retain his sense of ethics. Cases are tried ALL the time where attorneys do not withdraw from a case or furthermore are prevented from doing so, even though they have ethical dilemmas. It is not their responsibility to resign, it is their responsibility to fulfill their duties without letting their bias come into play.

But, this is not a case of an attorney with a guilty conscious defending a guilty client. Your analogy does not hold up. This is someone's job, they earned it. They have no obligation to resign if they do not wish to. That is their right. This is not a dictatorship. But, it is also the right for their superiors to fire them if they chose to, provided they follow the proper protocols.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Can't make this up.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...36231802515457

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

[Wyrt]

Can't make this up.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...36231802515457

The twitter rage commences.