Federal Judge Issues Restraining Order on Immigration EO

[EnglishPete]

The Pussygrabber regime is appealing Judge Robart's decision to the 9th circuit, on the basis that the President is immune to the judiciary. Not really exaggerating here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

If Trump is to achieve anything at all he cannot allow every single petty district Judge to have absolute power to declare any kind of EO they don't like to be legal or illegal according to their SJW sensibilities. That would simply allow the likes of the ACLU to shop around for a suitably SJW judge to grant them whatever they want. That's really a matter for the Supreme Court, not for any Congressionally established court.

If the judge has been acting unconstitutionally in his judgement then there is no reason for the President to submit himself to an unconstitutional order, and indeed every reason not to. The problem in this case appears is the State Department. They took a phone call from the Judge and said 'the judge has ruled. That's it we're getting back to normal'. Now of course the State Department technically work for the President but since he has limited power to hire and fire them he can't really do much if they say "we're taking orders from some obscure district judge and not you".

However a remedy may be available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

www.the-american-interest.com/2017/01/28/civil-service-reform-reassert-the-presidents-constitutional-authority/

and this from Inez Feltscher Stepman of ALEC

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/317647-drain-the-swamp-trump-should-look-to-the-states-civil

If Trump can reclaim his right to fire at will any federal civil servants he can then get on with the important task of 'draining the swamp' i.e. mass purging of the federal bureaucracy to make it accountable and obedient to democratic authority. Its been reported that the White House team have already been talking with Governors like Scott Walker about their experience with such a system to prepare for implementing such an 'at will' system for the federal civil service, so good news there.

[EnglishPete]

A Great point here made by Professor Adam Perkins

Adam Perkins ‏@AdamPerkinsPhD  Jan 29
 Trump's ban makes sense in human capital terms: people from the banned nations tend to be over-represented in crime & unemployment stats.





https://twitter.com/AdamPerkinsPhD/status/825687733280600068

[Meclazine for Israel]

 
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 10 hours ago
Just cannot  believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!


#baddudes

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More fake news from the Groppenfuehrer.  The EO wasn't having people be checked very carefully, tho that is what was already done when the visas were granted.  The EO was banning people from coming in for no other reason than country of origin.  I have no objection to people from certain areas being subject to a higher level of scrutiny, but they already were being so subjected before Trump took office.

[EnglishPete]

The Pussygrabber regime is appealing Judge Robart's decision to the 9th circuit, on the basis that the President is immune to the judiciary. Not really exaggerating here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html


Given that the 9th is the most liberal appeals court, I'm looking forward to even more tantrums from the White House (or the Orange House, or the Dark Tower - wherever the whiner-in-chief is dosing up that night).

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for the WH to find another judge on another circuit who could issue a judgement declaring the Robart judgement to be unconstitutional on the above grounds and ordering State Department employees to submit to the original EO.

[SteveRogers]

The Pussygrabber regime is appealing Judge Robart's decision to the 9th circuit, on the basis that the President is immune to the judiciary. Not really exaggerating here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html


Given that the 9th is the most liberal appeals court, I'm looking forward to even more tantrums from the White House (or the Orange House, or the Dark Tower - wherever the whiner-in-chief is dosing up that night).

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for the WH to find another judge on another circuit who could issue a judgement declaring the Robart judgement to be unconstitutional on the above grounds and ordering State Department employees to submit to the original EO.

No because that's not how courts work.

[The_Doctor]

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for the WH to find another judge on another circuit who could issue a judgement declaring the Robart judgement to be unconstitutional on the above grounds and ordering State Department employees to submit to the original EO.

No because the U.S. legal system doesn't work that way. Any federal judge can impose a nationwide injunction and there's a process that plays out. The judiciary is extremely deferential, usually, to the executive and legislative branches and so any injunction is rare.

Once a judge issues that order, only an appeals court can override it, and since the 9th Appeals Court has refused to override it pending a full hearing (as I understand it), only the Supreme Court can override the appeals court. (Or maybe there's another step between, where the DC Court hears the appeal and then tracks it to the USSC).

Until then, the injunction stays in place. The Administration could appeal the Appeals Court and ask the Supreme Court for an emergency ruling, but I doubt that with the multiple suits making its way nationwide that the Supreme Court would short circuit the process. They'll likely amalgamate the various suits into one giant case (or take one particular case and say all similar cases will have the same ruling) and then hear it.

Kennedy (or Roberts) would be the deciding vote on this, and if Kennedy is still on the bench, he's got a long streak of being friendly to civil liberties and ruling against the Administration when it comes to cases like this (Hamdi, 2006 comes to mind). Kennedy, in particular, may take umbrage at the Trump tweets and attacks on the judiciary and might rule against Trump in that scenario.

I should add that that the judiciary probably has no fear of Trump, given his popular vote loss and tenuous relationship with the Congressional Republicans. They read polls too and they probably feel very safe rejecting the President, knowing that there's a very vociferous opposition in place to Trump and Co. So the judiciary will continue telling Trump to pound sand if they feel like it.

This all means the injunction would probably end up staying in place until June (at the earliest) or if the justices decide they want to slow walk it, not until summer 2018. Most likely, the Supreme Court will add it to their docket and hear and issue a final ruling by June.

[Green Line]

We have to respect our institutions.

[EnglishPete]

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for the WH to find another judge on another circuit who could issue a judgement declaring the Robart judgement to be unconstitutional on the above grounds and ordering State Department employees to submit to the original EO.

No because the U.S. legal system doesn't work that way. Any federal judge can impose a nationwide injunction and there's a process that plays out. The judiciary is extremely deferential, usually, to the executive and legislative branches and so any injunction is rare.

What is the procedure if one judge imposes a nationwide injunction saying "Federal employees must not do xyz" and another imposes a nationwide injunction saying "Federal employees must do xyz"?

[The_Doctor]

That kind of stuff gets fast tracked through the system, to the Supreme Court, who decides it. The appeals courts have jurisdiction only within their districts, not other districts. So the Supreme Court would decide in an emergency situation like that.

Not applicable in this case, by the way. No court has mandated that the executive order has to be followed, just said they are ending the restriction or some such. So, I don't see the Supreme Court deciding this case in February, or March, earliest would be June.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump's sister is a judge, so he will be told what to do.

Getting back to country of origin, why do pundits hang onto the idea that you are not a terrorist unless you commit an act on US soil.

There is an issue with terrorism from these countries as identified by US intelligence.

And equally well, there are genuine refugees.

Before the 'heavy vetting' system is introduced, a 90 day ban seems appropriate.

The USA has moved too far to the left in the last 8 years.

I can guarantee not many of the Australian refugees will pass the 'heavy vetting' process.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trump's sister is a judge, so he will be told what to do.

I thought the fact that the Groppenfueher refuses to do what he is told to do was what endeared him to you and the alt-Nazis.

[Meclazine for Israel]

 
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
The threat from radical Islamic terrorism is very real, just look at what is happening in Europe and the Middle-East. Courts must act fast!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

More fake news from the Groppenfuehrer.  The EO wasn't having people be checked very carefully, tho that is what was already done when the visas were granted.  The EO was banning people from coming in for no other reason than country of origin.  I have no objection to people from certain areas being subject to a higher level of scrutiny, but they already were being so subjected before Trump took office.

To be fair to sol-called president Pussygrabber, he's probably not deliberately lying in this case. He just doesn't know what it says, because he hasn't (or can't) read it.

[Vcrew192]

A Great point here made by Professor Adam Perkins

Adam Perkins ‏@AdamPerkinsPhD  Jan 29
 Trump's ban makes sense in human capital terms: people from the banned nations tend to be over-represented in crime & unemployment stats.





https://twitter.com/AdamPerkinsPhD/status/825687733280600068

Then it's definitely a good thing that Sweden has banned its police from saying the ethnicity of perpetrators in official police reports.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swedish-police-are-not-allowed-to-give-descriptions-of-alleged-criminals-so-as-not-to-sound-racist-a6810311.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares about the truth? Avoiding the appearance of racism is definitely more important.

[Dr. Arch]

A Great point here made by Professor Adam Perkins

Adam Perkins ‏@AdamPerkinsPhD  Jan 29
 Trump's ban makes sense in human capital terms: people from the banned nations tend to be over-represented in crime & unemployment stats.





https://twitter.com/AdamPerkinsPhD/status/825687733280600068

Then it's definitely a good thing that Sweden has banned its police from saying the ethnicity of perpetrators in official police reports.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swedish-police-are-not-allowed-to-give-descriptions-of-alleged-criminals-so-as-not-to-sound-racist-a6810311.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares about the truth? Avoiding the appearance of racism is definitely more important.

Truth... have you seen our new administration?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Then it's definitely a good thing that Sweden has banned its police from saying the ethnicity of perpetrators in official police reports.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares about the truth? Avoiding the appearance of racism is definitely more important.

In Perth in Western Australia, no reference is allowed to made by Police reports to the colour of skin or race, or ethnic background.

The traditional owners/indigenous population/aboriginals in Western Australia make up 80% of the prison population, yet only constitute 4% of the actual population.

So it makes things a little tricky when you have a "Crime Stoppers" report, and you cannot say they had black skin.

Now we have African Australian's in the same situation, and their crimes are different yet again.

If you are chasing a criminal, it would be useful just to say "Aboriginal" or "African" appearance, but political correctness in Australia means we cannot read this. Basically what it means is that the proportion of crime committed by these two ethnic groups is so astronomically high, it is now considered rude to reference those people in Police reports at the fear of 'stereotyping' them in society as 'black' criminals.

In terms of ethnic groups, this is the research I found.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0~2014~Main%20Features~Country%20of%20birth~7

Vietnamese were over-represented in drug crime.

Lebanese were over-represented in terrorism offences.

Sudanese were over-represented in pretty much everything.

All of the muslim countries researched (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon) had a higher proportion of imprisonment than people born in Australia.

Sudanese is a tough one, because most refugees were driven out by an Islamic execution order on these people. So violence begets violence.

I don't need a research paper to tell me certain countries will bring crime to Australia and the USA.