• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rjinaz

Member
Tovarisc said:
KtcwQjH.png

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/829846606493134848
Click to expand...

That's why we call him Easy D!
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
whyamihere said:
I mean, again, on the merits, I don't think there are 5 votes to uphold the EO's constitutionality.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what you said. I think there probably 5 votes right now even without Gorsuch.
 
A

antonz

Member
Mondrian said:
So basically not happening, especially for this piece of garbage.
Click to expand...

I mean the conservatives argue they are strict constitutionalist etc. So if that is true there is no way in good faith they could side with Trump as Checks and Balances is at the heart of the Constitution.

Trumps entire argument is the Presidency is so powerful the courts lack the authority to challenge his rules
 
B

Back-In-Black

Banned
Advocatus Diaboli said:
I mean, based on my read, there are two things that I find interesting:

  1. DOJ's assertion that the EO was unreviewable by the judiciary.
  2. The usage of extrinsic evidence (or at least, failure to reject considering it), such as Trump and Rudy referring to the EO as a "Muslim ban."
50 years from now, if this makes it to SCOTUS, it'll undeniably be a seminal separation of powers case.
Click to expand...

#1 isn't such a big deal, #2 is a major deal if we ever get to the merits of this case. At the moment we are basically just at the pleading stages of this case so the Court is supposed to give extreme deference to the plaintiffs and the accusations they place in their pleadings. But, once we actually get to the merits of the case it will be VERY interesting to see if the Court concludes that statements made by the Administration could be used for purposes of discerning the intent of the Order.
 
S

Socivol

Member
Peltz said:
Can GAF ease off the pedal a little when saying that "checks and balances will be destroyed" due to Trump? Americans should have a bit more faith in their system of government. It's far larger than any one man or any one office. Of course, the presidency is a big deal, and Trump is a cause for concern.

But our system of government is built precisely to withstand this sort of situation as today has (somewhat) shown.
Click to expand...

Actually if the system acted in the way it was built he wouldn't be president at all because he was woefully unqualified and the EC should have prevented that from happening but here we are....
 
A

Advocatus Diaboli

Member
Sean C said:
Highly unlikely. Of the conservatives, Alito is such a partisan hack that I could see him going along with this, and I don't know what Thomas' arcane ideas about the Constitution would dictate in this case, but Roberts and especially Kennedy would have no interest in going to bat for this.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. 6-2 is my estimate. I could see Thomas and Alito both dissenting on some national security grounds, but even still, the precedent is strong.

But, again, this is NOT a case that should be appealed to SCOTUS. (Which means it will be.) Plus, I don't even think that SCOTUS would ordinarily grant a writ in this case. There's really nothing new here.

(Again, we're talking TRO only - not the underlying merits of the order.)
 
S

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
Yes. YES. Get Donald into a court. Get him to put his right hand on the bible, take the oath, and talk about literally anything for a few minutes.

His pathological ass would commit perjury within three sentences, guaranteed.
 
P

Peltz

Member
Shoeless said:
So the next step is either introducing an EO that can fire Federal judges, or simply round them up and have them vanish into the night. Does he have ANY legal options left at this point, or are his only choices all illegal now?
Click to expand...

They'd have to amend the constitution. It won't happen.

Basic civics.
 
A

Armaros

Member
Shoeless said:
Would the Republicans be willing to take it that far? If they have the majority right now, couldn't they just push it through?
Click to expand...

That also requires enough States to agree, constitutional congress for amending the constitution is absurdly difficult.
 
B

Back-In-Black

Banned
Angry Grimace said:
I doubt there would be a carve out for existing visa holders either because the Supreme Court has already held that a visa isn't a constitutionally protected right and the reason for revoking it isn't religious on its face.
Click to expand...

That was the government's position but I don't believe that will hold water since while holding a visa isn't a constitutionally protected right, resident aliens still have Due Process rights, as the 9th Cir. addresses that in its opinion:

17-35105 said:
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they ”appl[y] to all ‘persons' within the United States, including aliens," regardless of ”whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States' procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (”[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him." (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (”[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.").
Click to expand...
 
P

Peltz

Member
Shoeless said:
Would the Republicans be willing to take it that far? If they have the majority right now, couldn't they just push it through?
Click to expand...

They can only amend the Constitution with two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. It's never going to happen. Ever.

The Constitution will protect us. Have faith in it.
 
T

teiresias

Member
I love how the WH likes to act like we're being bombed left and right by terrorists on a near constant basis, and, of course, the only people that believe that bullshit are stupid right-wing twats that live out in the middle of nowhere that have never experienced a terrorist attack in their lives.
 
T

tearsintherain

Member
Its a good victory for tolerance and freedom but I do have to wonder - what exactly do you think is gonna happen if a terrorist attack by an immigrant occurs in the next 24 months? No doubt Trump will act rationally and say "well, you guys stopped me from doing the travel ban and you were right about that, lets work together to analyze why we suffered this terrorist attack."

Or it'll be an excuse to circumvent the judicial system completely using the reasoning that listening to them threatened the safety of the American People and the president's #1 job is making the homeland safe. And a TON of people are going to go along with him, because fear always wins - Japanese internment or the Patriot act being examples in our recent history.

Feels like Trump set up a lose/lose situation for everyone who disagrees with him, going under the assumption that terrorist attacks are going to occur every now and then and its impossible to stop them all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Supreme Court rules in favor for Trump in 'Muslim' travel ban
2
83
6K
ic3cait replied
Federal judge blocks Trump’s third travel ban
29
6K
Dev1lXYZ replied
  • Locked
Federal appeals court upholds nationwide block on Trump's travel ban
3
1K
Madness replied
  • Poll
Trump turns to Supreme Court to move forward on travel ban
0
1K
EYEL1NER replied
U.S. judge orders Trump administration to allow abortion for undocumented teen (WaPo)
9
2K
MrToughPants replied
Top Bottom