5
5
0
Always interesting to see how the 9th Circuit deals with decisions it doesn't like.
The Ninth Circuit’s Power Grab
Posted from nationalreview.com
Law
Immigration
Judiciary
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
9
9
0
The ban was designed to create a time delay to improve screening processes. POTUS then tweeted about giving Christians priority, and media ran with the 'Muslim' ban... but I really thought the legal opposition was mostly about denying people who are already approved, already screened green card holders. I read an article last week that an international student at a local university - a junior who's been there for three years- wasn't allowed to get back to class in the US after a trip back to see family. It was an unfortunate casualty in the dragnet.
So I could see a valid legal argument on most sides about if the ban should include pre-approved green card holders.... that would be a decent discussion...
But I was dead wrong- the opposition just wants to be opposition due to partisan ideals. The extreme left and extreme right hijacked the conversation. It's now 'let everyone in' or 'let no one in.' Both extremes are seriously flawed. Its.now about anti-Muslim vs tolerance of all religions.
So there I was directing the logical disagreements if what to do with the few who would unfairly get caught in the net that was cast in order to find progress in the name of better screening and a better path to legal immigration... there I was realizing I was a fool to try and look at the differences logically because it all comes down to blind partisan loyalties and blind hatred.
The left and right are really destroying most everything that would lead to progress.
So I could see a valid legal argument on most sides about if the ban should include pre-approved green card holders.... that would be a decent discussion...
But I was dead wrong- the opposition just wants to be opposition due to partisan ideals. The extreme left and extreme right hijacked the conversation. It's now 'let everyone in' or 'let no one in.' Both extremes are seriously flawed. Its.now about anti-Muslim vs tolerance of all religions.
So there I was directing the logical disagreements if what to do with the few who would unfairly get caught in the net that was cast in order to find progress in the name of better screening and a better path to legal immigration... there I was realizing I was a fool to try and look at the differences logically because it all comes down to blind partisan loyalties and blind hatred.
The left and right are really destroying most everything that would lead to progress.
(9)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
Damn.
That was...good. I must admit, that was well thought out and maddeningly accurate
That was...good. I must admit, that was well thought out and maddeningly accurate
(2)
(0)
LTC David Brown
I do believe congress granted that power to the President, and a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the management of immigration was a political affair and not a legal affair.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
The Constitution gives these rights to the President. These judges don't get security briefings. And the 9th circuit is the most overturned.
(7)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Actually, the Constitution gives those rights to Congress in Art. I, § 8, cl. 4. Congress then delegated the authority to the President to exclude certain aliens under § 1182(f), but did not allow him to exclude legal permanent residents under that section.
(4)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
GySgt John Olson - incorrect. Art. I, §8, cl. 4 states that Congress has the power "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." This was confirmed by the Supreme Court to include immigration by Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892). It hasn't changed since.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
They (the Ninth Circuit) got it right. Funny, I don't recall you conservatives being against the Fifth Circuit blocking Obama's immigration executive order in 2013.
(5)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - That was the meaning of the E.O, AS CLARIFIED DIRECTLY BY POTUS AND AS ENFORCED.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - The EO specified all citizens of those countries, and when DHS said no permanent residents Bannon specified that residents were included.
As for the decision, it has not been denounced on both sides. It has been denounced on the right, and applauded on the left.
I'm not quoting sources because I choose to spend one minute on a short reply from memory rather than twenty or thirty minutes of research gathering and citing sources.
As for the decision, it has not been denounced on both sides. It has been denounced on the right, and applauded on the left.
I'm not quoting sources because I choose to spend one minute on a short reply from memory rather than twenty or thirty minutes of research gathering and citing sources.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - My facts aren't wrong, I just don't have the patience or desire to spend the time required to research projects to refute every wild claim this administration and its sympathizers make. Pushing back on all of the alt-right crap on just Rallypoint alone would take hours every day, and I don't have the time.
Do your own research, using real news providers like BBC World, AP, Reuters and CNN. Take anything Fox (right) or MSNBC (left) with many grains of salt, and completely disregard anything on ActBlue or Breitbart.
Do your own research, using real news providers like BBC World, AP, Reuters and CNN. Take anything Fox (right) or MSNBC (left) with many grains of salt, and completely disregard anything on ActBlue or Breitbart.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LTC (Join to see) - I ended up blocking him - he thinks that some experience as a police officer and a bachelor's degree qualify him to properly analyze court opinions, including those covering areas far away from his criminal justice expertise. It's not worth wading through the wall of text he throws up.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google