Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[cubby]

I also think their they're wrong, so...

(fixed that for you)

And you are welcome to your uninformed opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, please tell me again about something I've studied for years.

You don't seem to know much about how the court system works - what exactly have you studied for years?

[Breccia]

Fat chance in hell any SCOTUS judge will be confirmed before the next judicial recess.

Didn't the GOP hold up a SCOTUS nomination 11 months? So, they're prepared to see that happen again, right?

[Deleted]

Yes, please tell me again about something I've studied for years.

Then why the confusion?

[cubby]

What makes it a pressing issue?

Did Fox News make you scared of the terrorists, friendo?

/snort, lol.

It's amazing that people can chime in on a topic and be almost entirely uniformed of the legal issues. Like, @ControlWarrior, do you know that we already have a very intensive immigration screening process? Just, you know, fyi.

[Breccia]

Hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so hold your horses.

That's 100% fair, but so far, it hasn't held up in court. So far, she's been vindicated.

[Extremity]

The President has no power allowing him to bypass or ignore our Constitution. It is the role of... well, pretty much everybody, to enforce what is Constitutionally appropriate over the President's demands. Anybody that feels pressured otherwise or acts in the President's favor when doing so directly conflicts with our Constitution is effectively going against the very principles our nation was founded on.

The President, regardless of anything, is one man. The constitution is the bedrock of our society. He, nor anybody else, surpasses its authority outright.

[Breccia]

And everyone can disagree with their interpretation and reasoning for doing so.

Well, yes, and you can disagree with a STOP sign, but if you run one, expect to be pulled over and fined.

[stabetha]

That's 100% fair, but so far, it hasn't held up in court. So far, she's been vindicated.

Hasn't held up in the most liberal Court district in the US that has the majority of its ruleings overturned.

[TZucchini]

The Founding Fathers are really treating Trump unfairly. It's very unfair of them to have written the Constitution the way they did. SEE YOU IN COURT, Founding Fathers!

[cubby]

That's 100% fair, but so far, it hasn't held up in court. So far, she's been vindicated.

Actually, it's even worse for ControlBoy - the ruling is constitutional until ruled otherwise, by SCOTUS.

[alexw]

Again, activist ruling by an activist court.

Ahh right you hate activist court rulings? That means you want to go back to the original and true meaning of the second amendment whereby only members of active militia's can own fire arms?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...cond-amendment

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

[cubby]

Hasn't held up in the most liberal Court district in the US that has the majority of its ruleings overturned.

You really need to pay better attention.

[Elegiac]

Hasn't held up in the most liberal Court district in the US that has the majority of its ruleings overturned.

"The Supreme Court chooses which cases it wants to hear, and it generally doesn't hear the cases that were clearly correctly decided. The Supreme Court only agrees to hear appeals of a minuscule number of cases that the circuits decide. Over ten years, the Supreme Court reviewed only 0.153% of the Ninth Circuit's decisions.

So when you talk about circuit reversal rates, you're talking about a tiny, tiny sample size. To put it another way, 99.847% of the Ninth Circuit's decisions over those ten years were not reversed."

Try again.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Trump wanted 90 days of stay, is it worth the appeal ?

Yes. Illegal and Unconstitutional orders are always worth fighting. This one is 90 days, if we let it slide, what will the next be?

[Breccia]

Hasn't held up in the most liberal Court district in the US that has the majority of its ruleings overturned.

As noted earlier,
a) saying "the majority of its rulings were overturned" is patently untrue. The vast majority of their rulings were never brought to SCOTUS. This is an outright lie.
b) and even if you meant "of those rulings SCOTUS actually heard", then that's true for ALL OF THEM.

Your statement is both ridiculous and undefendable.

[cubby]

Yes. Illegal and Unconstitutional orders are always worth fighting. This one is 90 days, if we let it slide, what will the next be?

It will be what it was before, thorough and protective of the United States. This whole EO is just a political play - we were never in any danger from immigrants.

[petej0]

Yes. Illegal and Unconstitutional orders are always worth fighting. This one is 90 days, if we let it slide, what will the next be?

However it isnt illegal or unconstitutional.

[ranzino]

Yes. Illegal and Unconstitutional orders are always worth fighting. This one is 90 days, if we let it slide, what will the next be?

i was under impression such appeals are a long winding affair, but 9th circuit was very prompt.

- - - Updated - - -

However it isnt illegal or unconstitutional.

Unless SCOTUS will have its say, it IS unconstitutional.

[AndaliteBandit]

That doesn't really change my point? The fact is the SC hears only a minuscule number of cases from ALL circuits in the country, and the 9th has far and away the most overturned. Even if that number is tiny amount of their total # of hearings it doesn't change the fact that they have more than everyone else.

Of the cases that the Supreme Court heard from the Ninth Circuit, it is true that 80% of those rulings were overturned. 75% of the Tenth's, 72.9% of the of the Sixth's, 72.5% of the Fifth's, and 71.9% of the Second's were likewise overturned. Even what we could call the best circuit, the Seventh, was reversed more than 50% of the time.

But once again, this only accounts for the cases that the Supreme Court doesn't outright dismiss. As I explained earlier, 99.847% of the Ninth's rulings were not reversed. That best circuit, the Seventh? Their rulings were not reversed 99.807% of the time.

So this "clown fiesta" of a circuit that has "far and away the most overturned" rulings actually only has their rulings reversed 0.04% more often than what we could call the best circuit.

[petej0]

Unless SCOTUS will have its say, it IS unconstitutional.

Is there anything in the Constitution that says we must accept any and all immigrants/travelers into our borders?