The Court substituted their judgement as to what constitutes a threat of American security for the president’s …
AND LEST WE NOT FORGET THEY JUST GAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NONE …
A great piece from Eugene Kontorovich, read is all.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has just upheld a nationwide temporary injunction on President Trump’s executive order relating to refugees and visas from certain countries. I think the court’s opinion is weak in most respects, but I will address one of the most interesting and potentially far-reaching aspects.
Generally, the president has vast discretion in issuing visas. One of the major arguments against the executive order is that while in principle a president can limit immigration from the seven affected countries, it would be unconstitutional for President Trump in particular to do so, because in his case the action is motivated by impermissible religious bias. The central exhibit for this argument is his campaign statements about a “Muslim ban.”
While the 9th Circuit did not address this at great length, focusing instead on due-process arguments, it did accept the basic validity of the form of the states’ argument. “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions,” wrote the court.
There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive. The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show “that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.
9th Circus Fedeal Appeals Court Rules Against President Trump on Travel Ban (Update: Trump’s Reaction … See You in Court”)
LIBERAL 9TH CIRCUS COURT AT IT AGAIN …
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 yesterday to maintained the freeze on President Trump’s immigration order that would temporarily ban individuals from coming from 7 countries and entering the United States until the vetting process was examined and improved. Thus, they have refused to reinstate the temporary travel ban. Once again the liberal activist judges of the 9th circus court, the most over-turned appeals court in the United States have gone rogue.
A federal appeals panel has maintained the freeze on President Trump’s controversial immigration order, meaning previously barred refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries can continue entering the United States.
In a unanimous 29-page opinion, three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit flatly rejected the government’s argument that suspension of the order should be lifted immediately for national security reasons, and they forcefully asserted their ability to serve as a check on the president’s power.
The judges wrote that any suggestion that they could not “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
Trump reacted to the decision on Twitter, posting just minutes after the ruling, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He later said to reporters that the judges had made “a political decision.”
9th CIRCUS COURT OF APPEALS AT IT AGAIN WITH THEIR LIBERAL BS …
UNBELIEVABLE … Make no mistake about it folks, the liberals want to take away your guns. the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public. The Second Amendment clearly states, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Seems rather straight-forward, unless you are a liberal activist judge with an agenda.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public, in a sweeping decision likely to be challenged by gun-rights advocates.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 7-4 ruling, upholding a state law requiring applicants to show “good cause,” such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm.
The judges, further, definitively dismissed the argument that a right to carry a concealed weapon was contained in the Second Amendment.
“We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in the majority opinion.
If challenged, it could set up a Supreme Court battle.
This should be more than enough to never vote for Hillary Clinton.
It is hard to believe that the IRS is still stonewalling previous court orders, but they are. As the Vodka Conspiracy opines, the Sixth Circuit court is losing its patience with the IRS. Where is the liberal MSM discussing this scandal that intimately was responsible in one of the greatest voter frauds that has ever been perpetrated in the United States?
Today, nearly 1,050 days since the start of the IRS scandal triggered by allegations that the IRS unlawfully and unethically targeted tea party and other conservative organizations for special scrutiny, the litigation continues. One allegedly targeted group brought suit against the IRS for its conduct, and the IRS has resisted the litigation with the same dilatory tactics that infuriated members of Congress.
In the latest development, a federal district court ordered the IRS to turn over information concerning groups that were subject to the mistreatment identified by the agency’s inspector general. The IRS didn’t like this and is now seeking a writ of mandamus in order to avoid having to disclose more information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit is not amused.
United States v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots denying the IRS petition … The 6th Circuit opinion concludes:
In closing, we echo the district court’s observations about this case. The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015—without redactions, and without further delay.