The Travel Ban

So, the 9th CC of Appeals refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban. I've heard that given the 9th's reputation, their decision wasn't unexpected.

My question is, if the ban was just a 90 day temporary stay, did Trump really need it? Couldn't the State Dept. accomplish the same thing by "slow walking" visas from those countries. It takes at least 60 days to get a visa anyway and longer if there are "special circumstances".

In other words, can't Trump use some Obama-like tactics and accomplish the same thing without an executive order. Sort of like Obama telling ICE to just ignore the laws of the land and let illegal immigrants go free.

 

He could but there's already been Congressional Lib threats of impeachment if he was ignoring the stay even before the appeal judgement.

Not saying they'd be successful, but I'm sure it's being watched like a hawk and impeachment movements would start abruptly if irregularities are detected.

I say that's exactly what he should do, but carefully. The faster we get a bogus impeachment movement underway, the quicker the Libs will squander their only nuclear bomb when it explodes on the launch pad.

 

Good news is coming in from unexpected places.

So far I've seen legal experts on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox all state the 9th badly overreached by giving constitutional rights to non-Americans around the world. They also agreed WA has no standing to bring the case.

A common theme used was it may be bad policy, but legal. They all agreed it will be overturned.

This is from CNN guy...

Callan said, “I think what has surprised all the lawyers who have looked at this decision is that what the court said here is that the state of Washington, because it brings students into its universities, it brings customers into its restaurants, is the representative of virtually anybody across the world who’s not an American citizen. And it extends, in some respects, the constitutional rights of Americans, that only Americans are persons in the United States, to the world. … Why would they have standing to appear in our federal court, and argue that the US Constitution protects their rights? I think the court overreached.”

Words used to describe the appeals court reasoning were "laughable", "disgrace", "horrific", etc. Much of this coming from the Lib channels.

The guy on MSNBC said the WH could get this settled quickly with a few minor tweaks.

 

I wrote several posts on other thread of the issues, the problems and the solution

My guess is that, instead of trying to thread the needle by guessing how to appeal this case, Trump will instead re-issue a new EO. Mooting the current case. He can do this with one well-tailored paragraph

But, its just a guess, Trump likes to fight, so we will have to wait and see

 

If 76% of the decisions you made while performing your job were wrong, as are those of the 9th CC of Appeals, what do you think would happen to you? They're a joke.

 

This is the best course of action, IMHO. Security is too important to risk a 4-4 political outcome at SCOTUS.

Clean it up, make the same Lib political judges block the better version with even more absurd, inappropriate reasoning, and then take that case to SCOTUS if needed.

 

Again, this is why Hillary had to lose

The liberals were allowed to pack the Courts for too long -- Obama, for example, packed the DC Circuit with young, true believer judges and this is now a huge problem. As a direct consequence, the last time I looked, the DC Circuit was actually reversed more often than the 9th Cir! And this is a more important Circuit Court, generally, than the 9th (bc of what they have jurisdiction over).

One good thing is that this now seems to have the attention of the people. What I mean is that the people see that eventhough they have given Rs the House, Senate and White House, they can still be stymied by activist judges. It's an education process, but I think alot more people get this now than did two weeks ago.

 

Hugh Hewitt had an interesting take on the DC court. He suggested expanding the number of judges from 11 to 16. He thinks that it's perfectly legal for Trump/Congress to do so. Then, of course, you put your own type of guys in there to counter act Obama's guys.

 

What scares me is everyone said the same thing about can't lose when suits were filed against the ACA. No way the 'not a tax' could be constitutional and yet, 'it's a tax' became the law.

 

It was a tax, which is why it passed muster of the SCOTUS. The Democrats just lied and said it wasn't. I laughed when listening to the Solicitor General arguing on behalf of the government when he said something to the effect of "The administration said it is not a tax, but if you need to believe it is a tax to rule in the government's favor, it is a tax"

 

I guess that is more legal than going all Pelican Brief on them

 

And, thus, the Roberts-hate
Coulter did try to warn us about him .....

 

This thread is ironic when considering the accusations that Dems nominate "activist judges" that often flow from the right. It's clear to me that both sides could fit the bill of that accusation. The only difference being that it's OK when "we" do it and not when "they" do it.

 

It pains me to admit this but Husker makes a good point.
That is why I do not want to do anything that might benefit the Republicans now but could come back to bite later

Are you feeling it Harry Reid?

 

Looking like my guess^ will come to pass

 

wrote some stuff on this on other thread

 

No worries. I'm sure it won't happen again for a longtime. I didn't support the changing of the rules that Harry Reid put in place either.

 

One thing about it if Trump decides not to appeal, is that the Democrats now own this issue. The court activists supplanted the political policy of a duly elected President with their own political policy. That was a bold act. Arguably extra-Constitutional. But it also means that any future foreign-born jihadi attack is now on them. An appeal would take that liability away.

 

So, it appears Chief Judge Thomas thinks his colleagues got it wrong?

 

Re-write it and tow the line stricter. Let the Lib judges block it again with grosser out-of-bounds disregard for the constitution.

Easily display them as anti-American frauds only following a political agenda. Their lunacy will be dismantled much harsher in consensus by media legal experts.

Then take it to Scotus if needed with the constitution overwhelmingly on his side.

Two for one. The case would be much stronger and constitutionally sound, and the Lib's anti-American agenda will be completely unmasked for all to see (remember in 2018).

 

I think this is a ploy by 9th circuit to stay the EO as long as possible so that existing visa holders can travel. Wouldn't surprise me that the stay and the lawsuit goes away in a few weeks n

 

ISIS has directly admitted they exploit refugee waves to smuggle in jihadists. The 9th Circuit has given them a window

 

"A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump's vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president's order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in...."


http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

 

I'd be slow to do that. That sounds very similar to FDR's court-packing plan, and it backfired. It became a big political issue, and Democrats lost over 70 seats in the House in part because of it. They still had a majority, but the GOP formed a conservative coalition with a large bloc of Democrats and basically shut down the rest of FDR's domestic agenda.

 

I think the target objective is the same, but the procedure will be slightly different with a more obtuse and longer effect. There has been legislature just introduced this past week to add a new 12th circuit and thereby split up the "nutty" 9th circuit. The proposed legislation will split off California, Hawaii, and Oregon off from the other six states. Something tells me that the 3-state district will have a worse concentration of Democratically appointed judges. Then try to water this proportion with newly appointed judges. This is similar to redistricting in the House to increase the number of desirable judge philosophies. One of the reasons being quoted is to correct the large load on the 9th circuit and reduce some sort of 15 month waiting time. This sounds to me part of Trump's deal making strategy and part of his war with California immigration procedures. This is some sort of squeeze play to put pressure on this liberal immigration policy by changing the geographical jurisdiction to make the new 6-state circuit at least be more conservative in its judges. The key will be which of the current 18 ?? circuit court judges will be moved to this circuit.

Also, what seems to not be emphasized is that the entire order is not under a restraining order --- only the travel ban part. The extreme vetting and the study on how to do this will proceed with this order. The vetting change is what will have the biggest effect on slow-walking the cases. In the mean time, the Trump administration has committed to make this a SCOTUS case to be considered. The tricky part of this is how do get the constiutional issue resolved with the new Supreme Court nominee becoming effective to fix the possible 4-4 tie problem where the circuit court decision remains in effect. GEEE -- maybe the deal will be to drop the new legislation if the Dems do not filibuster and let the new SCOTUS nomination go through quickly.

BOTTOM LINE ----- If you do not like the game, then change the rules and the playing field used in the game.

 

In 2013, the Senate refused to consider President Obama's nominees to the D.C. Circuit, saying it's workload was too light to justify its current complement of 11 judges. Expanding the Membership at all, much less by 44%, would be ironic, to say the least.

 

No. According to the Order, one unnamed Justice of the Ninth Circuit asked that the case be reconsidered by the whole court. As the Ninth Circuit's En Banc Coordinator, Chief Judge Thomas notified the parties of that request and instructed them to file briefs. This is an administrative duty on his part, and says nothing about his viewpoint.

 

I've been calling for a split-up of the Ninth Circuit for 20+ years. Maybe it will finally happen.

The CA/OR/HI circuit would have about 2/3 of the existing Ninth Circuit caseload and would get approximately 20 of the 29 judgeships. As such, it would still be the nation's largest circuit. Of the judges with duty stations in those states, the current makeup is 11 appointed by Democrats and 5 by Republicans. With 4 vacancies to fill, President Trump could quickly make this circuit nearly balanced, at 11-9. The Senate would have to do away with senatorial courtesy, but I don't see this as an obstacle they couldn't or wouldn't hurdle.

The other circuit would get around 9 judgeships, making it the second smallest (the First Circuit has 6, and all others have 11 or more). Of the 9 Ninth Circuit judges with duty stations outside of CA, OR, and HI, 7 were appointed by Presidents Obama or Clinton. Thus, this court would be very liberal, at least initially.

Most stats are from this link.

 

I wonder why the Republicans didn't forsee that this particular EO would have ended up in court. If the did, why couldn't they have beat the Democrats to the punch and file a complaint in a circuit that was more favorable to a verdict that would end up with the desired outcome.

Wouldn't a different verdict in a different district prevent any other complaint to get filed?