Politics The ACLU took Trump to court over his Muslim refugee and immigrant ban — and won

https://tribktla.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/17-35105-web.pdf

 

Maybe he will make the DOJ lawyers submit their brief in all caps. Maybe then they will win?

 

And the right calls the left butt hurt and sore losers.........SAD

 

Losing!

 

^ Trump right now.

 

Can't win for losing.

 

Who was the butthurt loser in Roe Vs Wade?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

I think he has a right to be mad. The 9th Circus court had no legal right to uphold the travel ban block. Literally the language in the law gives the President power to do what he did for National Security concerns.

Regardless of what "side" you are on. Having Judge's rule from a bias political position is dangerous. Hopefully Trump creates a new EO w/stricter language to resolve this bullshit. Because if there is a terrorist attack on American soil from a refugee, or immigrant (from those 7 places) in the coming months, blood will be on their hands.

Lastly, I hope this 9th circuit court gets neutered.

 

It's the 9th court of appeals fault that the Gov. attorney did a piss poor job arguing? Even republicans/foxnews have said this.
Hell I've heard better arguments from democrats for the ban, than this Gov. attorney made. Those same democrats oppose the ban as well.
The Washington attorney when pressed with hard questions at least had an answer outside of. "Yes it's un-reviewable."
The Washington attorney gave previous legal cases that have applied to previous presidents that show it is indeed reviewable.
The law regardless of how you feel about it, is the law. With as little law the Gov. attorney argued it was no doubt going to be ruled in favor of the Washington attorney. Frankly it was obvious to as Trump said himself, high school educated people. Law is not opinion, that's what the Gov. attorney was arguing. It was sad to listen to in real time.

If you hope anyone gets *cough fired cough*.
Shouldn't it be the Attorney for arguing so poorly?
Never mind how poorly Trump wrote the order, there are cases out there and arguments to be made for it to be un-reviewable that the Gov. Attorney failed to cite. If I know of these cases and I'm not a lawyer. Shouldn't the Government attorney, AND President know of them?
Which means he didn't do his job. Which means the judges don't then have to take it into consideration.
I listened to the whole thing as it was happening. Not what right or left MSM is pushing.

Hell Richard Clifton asked the question that basically caused the appeal to be denied. His question was cited as to why the Gov. lost.

None of what I mentioned here is fake news, nor alt facts.
The law is the law, one attorney did a good job citing the law, the other attorney cited more opinion than law.

 

I understand the attorney was shit. I guess, IMO, the law is pretty cut and dry when it comes to the President's abilities to close borders to certain people or classes of people. I figured they would rule on that instead of ruling on completely different things.

I suppose the old EO can be rescinded and a new EO can be drafted with certain things setup to placate the judges.

 

It's not as cut and dry for the President as FN is trying to say though.
Nor is it as cut and try against the President as CNN is trying to push that Trump can't do something like this.
As I was writing the details of the law down... I started thinking to myself. WTF WHY DO I KNOW THIS. Makes me curse certain teachers for being right.
I've decided I won't get into the details as to why it's not cut and dry for either side of the argument.
The burdern of proof is on the Government as to why it's un-reviewable, not the State.
The burden of proof is on the State for discrimination, not the Government.
It's just not as cut and dry as the MSM for either side is pushing.
The law never is.

Edit - I don't believe Trump will draft another EO. I've yet to see a President really put their ego to the side in support of the people.

 

verbal moonwalking

 

Donald Trump has learned a lot over the last two weeks....most of all..he's never worked for anyone before and he just didn't anticipate what working for over 300 million people would be like....he'd really rather not work for anyone

 

Probably a legal adviser told him that it's unlikely that the Supreme Court would take the case at this point. The appeals court's decision just refuses to lift the temporary injunction against the EO. The case goes back down to the lower district court to get a full hearing and the usual course for SCOTUS is to not take cases before they're fully litigated.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...s-got-it-wrong-on-trumps-executive-order.html