[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: 4th Circuit Court Ruling Keeps Trump's Travel Ban On Hold The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that President Trump's controversial travel ban should be kept on hold, maintaining a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocks key elements of the executive order from being enforced. A 13-judge panel of the court heard arguments over the ban earlier this month. In Thursday's decision, the chief judge writes that the travel ban "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination." Trump has signed two executive orders restricting travelers from a handful of majority-Muslim countries and putting a temporary moratorium on refugees. The first prompted chaos and was swiftly challenged in court. It was replaced by a second order, which omitted references to religion and explicitly exempted green card holders. That one, too, was promptly challenged in court and its central provisions have never gone into effect. The second executive order — "EO-2," as the court dubbed it — is the one that was under consideration by the 4th Circuit as well as several other courtrooms across the country. The issue at hand: whether a lower court acted properly in issuing a nationwide injunction to keep the order from being enforced. That means the court was not directly ruling on the travel ban's constitutionality. But to rule on the injunction, the judges had to evaluate the strength of the case against the ban. They decided the arguments against the executive order were strong indeed. The judges ruled 10-3 on Thursday to "affirm in substantial part" the earlier decisions that have kept the controversial ban from going into effect. In their decision, they drew on the "backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisers and representatives" to conclude that lawyers have a good chance of proving in court that Trump was motivated by religious animus when he signed the order. The judges "remain unconvinced" that the travel ban had "more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President's promised Muslim ban." "We find that the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2's primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs," Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote on behalf of the majority. "Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles — that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another," the ruling read. While the president has broad power over immigration, "that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked," the court said. And claims of national security are not a "silver bullet" to defeat any arguments against a decision, the judges ruled. The judges did overturn one small part of the injunction — namely, the bit where it specifically applied to one Donald Trump. The injunction covered the entire administration, but also Trump as an individual, which the judges say was inappropriate. So now he's no longer singled out — which, the court says, should not affect the enforcement of the injunction. Three judges dissented, saying they would vacate the injunction. As NPR's Carrie Johnson has reported, judges in the 4th Circuit had focused on Trump's own words about a "Muslim ban" as they heard arguments over the case earlier this month. "Judges on the court ... returned over and over to remarks made by Trump during the campaign," she wrote after that hearing. "Judges also noted the presence on the Trump campaign website of the 'Muslim ban' promise, which was only taken down Monday afternoon after it was brought up in the daily White House briefing." One of the legal battles over the travel ban, whether this case or a similar lawsuit before another court, is expected to ultimately land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest What's interesting is if the UK implemented a similar ban, the Manchester bomber would not have been permitted back in the UK; or would have been further screened.
#2. To: All (#0) "In their decision, they drew on the "backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisers and representatives" to conclude that lawyers have a good chance of proving in court that Trump was motivated by religious animus when he signed the order." Absolute bullshit. The EO is what the EO says it is. Courts are now going to rule that campaign rhetoric trumps a written document? Well then, I seem to recall Obama saying during his campaign that those who did not purchase health insurance had to pay a "penalty" not a tax. Yet Justice Roberts changed the law to read that it was a tax -- and therefore constitutional. WTF??
#3. To: redleghunter (#1) I will hold those 10 justices responsible for the next terrorist attack in the US.
#4. To: misterwhite (#0) http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/17-1351/17-1351-2017-05-25.html International Refugee Assistance Project v Donald J Trump, 4th Cir 17-1351 (25 May 2017)
Affirmed in part, vacated in part by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judges Motz, King, Wynn, Diaz, Floyd, and Harris joined in full. Judge Traxler wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Keenan wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Judge Thacker joined except as to Part II.A.i. Judge Wynn wrote a concurring opinion. Judge Thacker wrote a concurring opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judges Shedd and Agee joined. Judge Shedd wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judges Niemeyer and Agee joined. Judge Agee wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judges Niemeyer and Shedd joined. Full opinion can be read or downloaded at link.
#5. To: misterwhite (#0) Trump should instruct his departments to carry out his orders. Then send a note to the Judges that simply says: FU !!! Also, if Ryan and his minions are really patriots, they should immediately start impeachment proceedings for these judges. If there is another terrorist attack in the USA, those same judges should immediately arrested for aiding & abetting the attacks. ( Those more versed in the law can probably suggest better law than I !! ) Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur #6. To: nolu chan (#4) I'm supposed to read a 205-page opinion that was written to justify the court's conclusion that whatever Trump said on the campaign trail overrides the actual text of the executive order? That banning Muslins from six defined terrorist countries is no different than banning all Muslims? This ruling says, in effect, that if every single Muslin WAS a terrorist, we couldn't ban Muslims because that would violate their religious freedom to destroy us. The court does not have the intelligence information that the President does. Nor should they. They are in no position to make this judgement.
#7. To: Stoner (#5) "Also, if Ryan and his minions are really patriots, they should immediately start impeachment proceedings for these judges." I agree, but they should wait until the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump.
#8. To: Stoner, misterwhite (#5) Also, if Ryan and his minions are really patriots, they should immediately start impeachment proceedings for these judges. That is barred by judicial immunity. The judges' immunity for their judicial actions is absolute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity
Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions.
#9. To: nolu chan (#8) Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions. It means they can't be sued. They can certainly be impeached. Or simply defunded.
#10. To: misterwhite (#9) It means they can't be sued. They can certainly be impeached. Or simply defunded.
You can attempt such an impeachment. It was tried 212 years ago and did not fare well and established that impeachments of judges must be based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance. https://www.oyez.org/justices/samuel_chase Excerpt re the impeachment trial of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, Vice President Aaron Burr presiding.
When President Jefferson was elected, he was alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through the claim of exclusive judicial review and led his party’s efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench. Jefferson and his allies repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges, despite lifetime appointments. Chase denounced this action when he spoke before a Baltimore grand jury and warned that such conduct violated the constitutional guarantees of an independent judiciary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase [Excerpt]
The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached. [Excerpt]
The Senate prosecution of Chase was conducted by Representative John Randolph, a firebrand proponent of states' rights from Virginia. At the trial, Randolph presented an emotional but disorganized harangue against Chase. Chase was defended by the finest lawyers the Federalists could assemble, who emphasized that he was not accused of any crimes, but rather was impeached merely because he took legal positions not in accordance with the jurisprudential theories advanced by Jeffersonians. In particular, in the Callender and Fries trials Chase had sought to exclude evidence or arguments that he thought irrelevant and which might mislead the jury. Randolph argued that the juries should have been allowed to determine the law and the facts with a maximum of discretion, but Chase believed the jury had a more narrow role, to apply the law as given to it by the judge to the facts as found from the most reliable evidence. Chase's rulings were in keeping with what was to become American orthodoxy and Randolph's notions were no longer in the mainstream.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|