bounty44
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
the argument that the injunction comes from a protection of the first amendment is an untenable stretch.
The courts are continually disagreeing.
"the courts" (derp)
They say that an Obama-appointed judge can block a ham sandwich
The Ninth Circus is a joke
You are crowing because a partisan hack is causing a constitutional crisis for political points. Its like a lot of other bad precedents alt left radicals crowed about at the time they had the power
Harry Reid went nuclear in the Senate, how is that working out for you now
Barack Obama refused to work with Congress, did everything with his pen and his phone
How is that working out for you now
Now you think that it's great that some nobody partisan hack judge in Hawaii takes it upon himself to second guess the power that the constitution and a legal act of congress vested in the president.
Trump is appointing a lot of extremely conservative judges
Your chickens
Is gonna come home
To roost
from nnanji's subsequent link:
"Five Ninth Circuit Judges Issue Rare Dissent Rebuking The Panel In Immigration Ruling"
quote:
Despite a surprising lack of media attention, the Ninth Circuit saw a relatively rare filing of a dissent in the appeal of the first executive order. Critics of the order have celebrated the panel decision, though many of us (including opponents of the immigration order) criticized the opinion as poorly written and supported…
In a surprising move, five judges (including the highly respected Chief Judge Alex Kozinski) filed a dissent to the motion for rehearing. The blistering dissent showed that a significant number of Ninth Circuit judges strongly disagreed with the decision of the panel. (Some judges may have not approved of the panel decision but did not see the need for a rehearing). As previously raised by experts, the strongly worded dissent belies the claim that the original executive order was legally unsustainable. To see this type of vociferous dissent in a withdrawn appeal is remarkable in itself but it also shows the depth of opposition to the panel’s decision among other judges.
The dissenting judges objected that there is an “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors of the panel. It called those errors “fundamental” and even questioned the manner in which the panel reached its decision with a telephonic oral argument. The dissent raised many of the problems that various commentators have raised, including myself. The lack of consideration to opposing case law, failure to address the statutory authority given to the President, and the sweeping dismissal of executive authority are obvious flaws. (These problems are also apparent in the ruling in Hawaii, though it was based on establishment rather the due process grounds) The dissenting judges refer to the “clear misstatement of law” in the upholding of the district court. so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case…
These five judges joined in the analysis of the court in Boston in accepting the rational basis for the President’s actions. They insisted that “so long as there is one facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.”
The opinion has all of the legal analysis that is so conspicuously absent in the panel decision, which dismissed or ignored countervailing case law of the Supreme Court and even the Ninth Circuit. The panel poignantly noted:
quote:
We are all acutely aware of the enormous controversy and chaos that attended the issuance of the Executive Order. People contested the extent of the national security interests at stake, and they debated the value that the Executive Order added to our security against the real suffering of potential emigres. As tempting as it is to use the judicial power to balance those competing interests as we see fit, we cannot let our personal inclinations get ahead of important, overarching principles about who gets to make decisions in our democracy. For better or worse, every four years we hold a contested presidential election. We have all found ourselves disappointed with the election results in one election cycle or another. But it is the best of American traditions that we also understand and respect the consequences of our elections. Even when we disagree with the judgment of the political branches—and perhaps especially when we disagree—we have to trust that the wisdom of the nation as a whole will prevail in the end.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/17/five-ninth-circuit-judges-file-rare-dissent-rebuking-the-panel-in-immigration-ruling/
|
RE: Republicans worry about Trump's rolling disaster (2... - 
Profile
)
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread