another hollywood has-been trying for 15 minutes more....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here is a sincere question...how does Trump's ban, interfere with the Constitutional rights, of anyone covered by the Constitution? What was the legal basis for the judge's decision? I didn't see it.

This is one report on his reasoning:

The judge’s decision says he granted the temporary restraining order because the states are “likely to succeed on the merits of the claims;” were likely to “suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;” and because “a TRO is in the public interest.” Robart will rule at a later point on whether to permanently stop the Trump order.

The judge’s ruling says the “states themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Executive Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases, and public funds.” The residents of the states are affected “adversely” in the areas of “employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” the judge’s order says.

None of those seem to be about the constitutionality of the EO. Of course, being constitutional under the present norm, is merely a matter of opinion. Probably the most important opinion that he gives is that the plaintiffs were“likely to succeed on the merits of the claims;” He doesn't give any constitutional reason on the merits of the claims. He doesn't need to since it is a temporary stay to be decided further by arguments from both sides.

And if the case got to the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted, at least half, the Progressive half, would concoct some social justice reason they would claim lies in some penumbra or emanation of the Constitution. So the decision of the appellate court would stand. And that being the 9th Circuit in this case, a very Progressive Circuit, the EO would be struck down. Another reason for the left to stall the appointment of Trump's nominee.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is one report on his reasoning:


None of those seem to be about the constitutionality of the EO.

sounds like he was ruling based on "feelings" rather than "fact" and "law"

Trump...on the other hand....

The controlling provision of federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could not be clearer:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

sounds like the judge doesn't understand how the system works or how the law reads ...but this is what we've come to expect from so-called progressive justices is it not? Making decisions based on the desired policy result and not the law.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

sounds like he was ruling based on "feelings" rather than "fact" and "law"

Trump...on the other hand....

The controlling provision of federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could scarcely be clearer:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

sounds like the judge doesn't understand how the system works or how the law reads ...but this is what we've come to expect from so-called progressive justices is it not? Making decisions based on the desired policy result, not the law.

Trump hasn't shown "detrimental to the interests of the United States"
he just feels thats the case .... Courts dont go with fake news or feelings and thats why the they put a temporary stop to his order .. he need to provide the evidence of what is detrimental to the interests of the United States and how not just because he says so

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

.. he need to provide the evidence of what is detrimental to the interests of the United States and how not just because he says so

in which statute did you find this fact?

Judge Robart wrote this at the end of his order....

"Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches."

he's apparently a so-called comedian as well

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Courts dont go with fake news or feelings

you are aware that Robart's order will now be weighed by the Ninth Circuit, which hold's the distinction of being the most liberal/progressive court in the nation and not coincidentally the most frequently overturned and reversed court in the nation and which once notably ruled the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional" ... in 2011 during the Supreme Court session the high court reversed or invalidated 19 out of 26 decisions reviewed from the 9th Circuit.

that's a pretty bad percentage for a Court/judges ruling based on "law" and not feelings

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

in 2011 during the Supreme Court session the high court reversed or invalidated 19 out of 26 decisions reviewed from the 9th Circuit.

that's a pretty bad percentage for a Court/judges ruling based on "law" and not feelings

That alone, tells you unequivocally, what's happening in that 9th circuit (sometimes referred to as the 9th circus court of schlemeels). That court is a liberal activist group. When the Supreme Court (which is not a right wing entity) tells you that you got it wrong 73% of the time, that means you are a moron, and in this case, probably an azzhole.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

sounds like he was ruling based on "feelings" rather than "fact" and "law"

Trump...on the other hand....

The controlling provision of federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could not be clearer:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

sounds like the judge doesn't understand how the system works or how the law reads ...but this is what we've come to expect from so-called progressive justices is it not? Making decisions based on the desired policy result and not the law.

In theory, a judge could find that law you cited, to be unconstitutional. It doesn't sound like that was the case here, from Detbuch's post, it sure seems like the judge struck down the ban because he doesn't like it.