[NEWS] President Annoying Orange's travel ban still halted by federal court

[Corderlain]

and the immigration act of 65 amended the act of 52 and revoked this ability

Show me where.

[Ad Bot]

[otto-san]

The 9th circuit made a political decision not a judicial decision. They're supposed to uphold the law not bend it to fit their political agenda. Circuit should be redone and the judges should be removed from bench.

Immigration act of 52 allows for the president at any time to close borders on immigrants and any others when he feels the safety of the American people is threatened.

they haven't made any decisions yet about the legality of the ban. all they've done is put it on hold until courts either affirm its legality or deem it illegal. and if the SCOTUS determines that it is illegal, or defers to a lower court's decision, then that will be the new legal precedent on the matter.

[Corderlain]

they haven't made any decisions yet about the legality of the ban. all they've done is put it on hold until courts either affirm its legality or deem it illegal.

It's entirely legal. The amendment of 65 says nothing about the presidents ability to close borders due to national security concerns. This is the hyper liberal west coast judicial circuit making a play based on political agenda. They've done this before and they will continue to do it. Need to be removed from bench.

[otto-san]

removing judges from their positions and overhauling the federal judiciary as punishment for an unfavorable ruling sounds like a hilariously terrible thing to become standard practice

that being said, no ruling has even been made yet. it seems completely reasonable to temporarily suspend an order until its legality is determined

[Corderlain]

removing judges from their positions and overhauling the federal judiciary as punishment for an unfavorable ruling sounds like a hilariously terrible thing to become standard practice

that being said, no ruling has even been made yet

A ruling has been made by the 9th circuit that the ban won't be upheld. This is being taken further and will most likely reach the Supreme Court where it will be passed. The 9th circuit has a history of making judgements based on their political agenda. I agree that a rework of the judicial system would be ineffective therefore the judges need to be replaced with those who don't bring political basis to the bench which is supposed to be above that and adherent strictly to the law.

[Nonnel]

Show me where.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf


here is section 101(a)(27)
201(b) and 203 seem to deal with numerical restrictions

[IkeTheGeneric]

The travel ban wasn't preventing domestic terrorism, so it was useless regardless of your stance on it. It was just more security theater for the people that bought into the "Muslim antagonist" narrative.

[Corderlain]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf


here is section 101(a)(27)
201(b) and 203 seem to deal with numerical restrictions

Then why have the previous four presidents passed bans with zero political pushback? Precedence has been set for 20+ years. This is a blatantly political move by the supposedly apolitical judiciary branch.

The travel ban wasn't preventing domestic terrorism, so it was useless regardless of your stance on it. It was just more security theater for the people that bought into the "Muslim antagonist" narrative.

Yes that's why the three countries with the largest Muslim population in the world aren't banned. This is a list of countries with zero to little government and what little government they have is clearly not interested in keeping the peace with the U.S.

[Corderlain]

A list that was compiled by the Obama admin of dangerous counties where potential terrorist threats could come from.

Keep forgetting this forum doesn't auto collapse a double post into one single post.

[IkeTheGeneric]

Yes that's why the three countries with the largest Muslim population in the world aren't banned. This is a list of countries with zero to little government and what little government they have is clearly not interested in keeping the peace with the U.S.

Well good job, because this travel ban managed to inconvenience ourselves more than it prevented terror. It's a true testament to how truly stupid and wasteful this whole war on terror is in the first place.

[otto-san]

A ruling has been made by the 9th circuit that the ban won't be upheld. This is being taken further and will most likely reach the Supreme Court where it will be passed. The 9th circuit has a history of making judgements based on their political agenda. I agree that a rework of the judicial system would be ineffective therefore the judges need to be replaced with those who don't bring political basis to the bench which is supposed to be above that and adherent strictly to the law.

maybe i misunderstood the current situation, but regardless, the point stands that clearing out a court because it ruled unfavorably would very clearly be at odds with the philosophy of checks and balances. accusations of political bias are nebulous and hard to prove; if the court presents a viable legal opinion in its ruling then you are essentially punishing courts for interpreting law the wrong way, which is a power that lies exclusively in the courts to begin with. you don't want to get congress or the president in on the business of interpreting their own legislation and orders

[Corderlain]

Well good job, because this travel ban managed to inconvenience ourselves more than it prevented terror. It's a true testament to how truly stupid and wasteful this whole war on terror is in the first place.

That has nothing to do with the ban's legality.

maybe i misunderstood the current situation, but regardless, the point stands that clearing out a court because it ruled unfavorably would very clearly be at odds with the philosophy of checks and balances. accusations of political bias are nebulous and hard to prove; if the court presents a viable legal opinion in its ruling then you are essentially punishing courts for interpreting law the wrong way, which is a power that lies exclusively in the courts to begin with. you don't want to get congress or the president in on the business of interpreting their own legislation and orders

The court wouldn't be cleared out because it ruled unfavorably, the court should be cleared because it continues to interject its personal political beliefs into what is supposed to be a sterile unfeeling to the letter inactment of the law.

[Nonnel]

Then why have the previous four presidents passed bans with zero political pushback? Precedence has been set for 20+ years. This is a blatantly political move by the supposedly apolitical judiciary branch.

seems like you should be blaming the courts from the previous four presidents and not from now, who are following the law as it's written

[Corderlain]

seems like you should be blaming the courts from the previous four presidents and not from now, who are following the law as it's written

The law as it's written is decidedly unclear on the presidents ability to restrict immigration based on national security. You're excerpt talks about immigration bans based on personal traits. In the case of national security, an immigration ban would still be enforced by the president. This is only strengthen by the courts lack of action in previous years on the same matter.

I will admit, this is very up in the air by the book. However, precedence is the key factor in all matters shakey.

[Snaked_Snake]

If Obama set this travel ban it wouldn't be halted.

Tony for gods sake stop bringing up "if someone else did it no one would care!" It's not true and it makes you look like more of an idiot