Understanding Politics

[dreamaker]

I don’t like nor do I grasp Politic, I see it a pleasant deception.  I know there are more objective people on the subject. Well my question is, with Donald’s Travel Ban being blocked by our Judicial Branch.  Did our Judicial Branch just spread our legs to our enemy and the people that want to destroy our way of life?  I saw Donald’s action as a Stop, Step Back and Observe; I see the Judicial Branch action as inviting the Japanese to lunch on Dec 7th at Pearl Harbor.  Or do I have it completely wrong!  Normally I wouldn't care but this action seems important!

[3fan4life]

It would seem that the lower courts are playing politics instead of upholding the law.

No-one has a "Right" to immigrate to our country.

The President's primary responsibility is the safety of the American people.

It has been well demonstrated that people from that part of the world want to do us harm.

A temporary ban on people comming from those areas to help us develop a way to vett those comming into our country from there makes sense.

Which is probably why the left doesn't like it.

Maybe our President should enact a TOTAL immigration ban that doesn't allow ANYONE from ANYWHERE into our country for 90 days.

That would stop those that are calling it a Muslim ban and still let us get that pause and reset.
 

[Robert]

It would seem that the lower courts are playing politics instead of upholding the law.

No-one has a "Right" to immigrate to our country.

The President's primary responsibility is the safety of the American people.

It has been well demonstrated that people from that part of the world want to do us harm.

A temporary ban on people comming from those areas to help us develop a way to vett those comming into our country from there makes sense.

Which is probably why the left doesn't like it.

Maybe our President should enact a TOTAL immigration ban that doesn't allow ANYONE from ANYWHERE into our country for 90 days.

That would stop those that are calling it a Muslim ban and still let us get that pause and reset.
 

Very well said

As a question, sanctuary cities are housing people who are illegally in our country and protecting them.

To do the same to a normal criminal is a legally punishable offense.

How does this help protect US citizens and how can those that do it call themselves American. Just like open boarders.

There is no record of who these people are and what they have done so how do you know who you are letting in?

You need to look into the record of the Ninth court its the most liberal court in the US. I am surprised they did not try to change the location of the hearing. It goes to show its not about the law but ones own emotional interpretation of it. Yes they do put everyone at risk in my opinion.

As a bit of information one judge was caught looking at pornography on his computer. Its of course against policy and put the government in a very awkward position. He said there was nothing wrong and when it was all finished nothing happened and he was still able to look at pornography on his computer.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/02/judge.explicit.files/
9th Circuit's chief judge posted sexually explicit matter on his website ...
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged. ... which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like ... computers that denied access to pornography and other materials, ...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Adherence to the "Willow Doctrine" has immobilized my fingers on this thread. 

[Pappy!]

Am thinking that the left wingers will be litigating more than ever these days.  Apparently Clinton even tweeted out 3-0 on Trump.
Seems she forgot she is also 3-0 and not sitting where Trump is.

[Willow]

I will generally stay away from some of these discussions but I think something needs to be said.

What has been described is precisely what the "balance of powers" in our country is about.  The court's job is to interpret the law as the court sees it.  Simply because I or someone else doesn't agree with a decision doesn't mean they are "playing politics".  They are doing what the founding fathers intended them to do.  The legislative branch has the responsibility to change the law if they deem the law to be incorrect.  The executive branch has the responsibility of managing the enforcement of, applying the use of, the laws.

Politics, whether we like it or not, is how the founding fathers intended the U.S. of A. to work.  Misuse of political loyalties can be a problem such as confirmation of appointments votes going strictly down party lines.  We do need to find a way to break out of that but doing away with politics is not the answer.  Perhaps doing away with recognition of political parties for elected officials is the answer.  I don't believe that placing the executive branch above and unanswerable to the judicial branch would solve the problem. 

[Robert]

I think what frosts me about the courts and our congress is an example we see in the Supreme court that supposedly has no political ties or fixed terms . We see them divided on issues not because of law but because of personal views. So How impartial are the courts really?

  Congress is supposed to exercise their rights and be the final say on decisions but how come we never see them do that? We see it on gay marriage and Obama care. These examples are the courts to legislate from the bench circumventing our freedoms and rights as a country.

 These issues that affected so many, also many places held voting on the issues and decided against it. Yet the peoples decision was struck down by the courts. 

[dreamaker]

It would seem that the lower courts are playing politics instead of upholding the law.

No-one has a "Right" to immigrate to our country.

The President's primary responsibility is the safety of the American people.

It has been well demonstrated that people from that part of the world want to do us harm.

A temporary ban on people comming from those areas to help us develop a way to vett those comming into our country from there makes sense.

Which is probably why the left doesn't like it.

Maybe our President should enact a TOTAL immigration ban that doesn't allow ANYONE from ANYWHERE into our country for 90 days.

That would stop those that are calling it a Muslim ban and still let us get that pause and reset.
 

Very well said

As a question, sanctuary cities are housing people who are illegally in our country and protecting them.

To do the same to a normal criminal is a legally punishable offense.

How does this help protect US citizens and how can those that do it call themselves American. Just like open boarders.

There is no record of who these people are and what they have done so how do you know who you are letting in?

You need to look into the record of the Ninth court its the most liberal court in the US. I am surprised they did not try to change the location of the hearing. It goes to show its not about the law but ones own emotional interpretation of it. Yes they do put everyone at risk in my opinion.

As a bit of information one judge was caught looking at pornography on his computer. Its of course against policy and put the government in a very awkward position. He said there was nothing wrong and when it was all finished nothing happened and he was still able to look at pornography on his computer.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/02/judge.explicit.files/
9th Circuit's chief judge posted sexually explicit matter on his website ...
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged. ... which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like ... computers that denied access to pornography and other materials, ...

I am not sure if I agree with you, he is a Judge, is he perving, was his pants down or zipper open,or is he doing research.  You can't clearly judge some thing on here say, you have to do the research, I don't know if that is the case here. Also I don't see how that is related to letting people that want to harm us, to treat them with open arms. I agree people at that level are suppose to set a good standards.  I understand we should be compassionate, but you have to draw the line some where.  Generally we create rules on the basis that people are honest and will adhere to those rules, but when you got a bunch of wackos that want to end our lives  the circumstances have to have tougher rules applied.  The court said there was no obvious threat to the US, come on!! The Pentagon, Twin Towers, Boston Marathon and so on, is not a clue of what is to come.  May be I am missing the whole point of what is going on!

[Jess from VA]

Both the original District and the 9th Circuit courts found the plaintiffs had standing to sue, when they (States) did not have standing at all.  They both had to reach out to unnamed students (none of whom who were actually, allegedly harmed, were joined in the lawsuit).  And both courts ruled as they did in the face of the constitution and statutes that give the POTUS the most wide ranging latitude in making immigration decisions of any other presidential power in the playbook.  This list of 7 countries had existed since long before Trump's presidency, and they are undisputedly the source of the majority of terrorist activity (excluding Indonesia) worldwide. The 9th circuit said there was no evidence that there were any convictions for terrorism from any of these countries, and they lied as there certainly have been.

Now the ban was a temporary one, and the temporary restraining order (TRO) of the courts is not a permanent order.  

So IMHO, the courts both erred in their rulings, went beyond the normal constitutional balance of power, and essentially set themselves up as super legislatures, purely following leftist politics and not the rule of law.  That cannot be allowed to stand.    

It has been written, that the Trump admin can go back to the drawing board and produce an appeal proof order, but it looks like Trump will go the the Supremes where he expects to get an actual lawful court decision.  It could be 4 to 4, meaning the 9th Circuit decision would stand, but Kennedy is not a radical leftist like the three females on the court, so it might be 5-3 in the administration's favor. Last night, Charles Krauthammer said it would be quicker and more expedient and foolproof to just produce a new appeal proof order.  

When the Zero ordered that existing Federal immigration law not be enforced on our southern border, the courts gave the president wide latitude, to our country's detriment.  But when a president tries to protect our country, the courts now want to say he exceeded his authority.  If this is not hard evidence of politicization of our Federal courts (to our nations detriment), I don't know what is.

In any event, it may be time to break the Ninth circuit into two separate circuits (it was time 25 years ago) (and not one of the existing 9th circuit judges should be moved to the new circuit), and it may be time under the Constitution to legislate additional restrictions to Federal court jurisdiction, since they have apparently decided to regularly exceed their authority.   And the constitution gives the right to alter Federal court jurisdiction to Congress.      

[Oss]

As usual, I kind of see the same history as Jess. Perhaps its our training in constitutional law I dont know

Anyway  Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, we have a system of checks and balances

Over the last 4 plus years the party (Republicans) out of power did not have the intestinal fortitude to challenge in court those many executive orders foisted by the prior Potus

The party now (Democrats) out of power suffers no such self inflicted handicap

IMHO there is no question not even one iota, that the Executive has the power to protect the land from foreigners, and can stop immigration and can also order deportations, the sticking point, which seemed to me to be excessive, apparently is at what point does a person with a visa have the ability to challenge executive rulings.  I agree the circuit is looking for trouble from congress as Jess pointed out but it wont happen this year.

 If I were Trump I would redraw the order today and thus take away the wind from the sails of the movants as who knows when SCOTUS will hear the case.

Oss

Of greater importance to me is the demonization of anyone not in the liberal camp.

[Alpha Dog]

I am glad Jess and Oss weighed in, kind of thought they would see it this way and in fact if you read the Statutory law that was handed to the President by Congress in 1952, this being 8 U.S.C. 1182(F) it clearly in no uncertain terms hands the power to the President to do exactly what he did.  Maybe someone can pull it up and post it here, I tried but only found opinionated articles and not just the exact law. Trump read the exact law 2 days ago.   Last night Jay Sekulow explained the next step Sessions should take, much same as Krauthammer, just address what the 9th dillwads put forward and re institute the temporary band.   Allen Dershowitz said a few days ago that the law was clear and Trump could just ignore it should he want.  This has been done in the past, Lincoln and Jackson come to mind, sure there are many others.   The 9th dillwads did not even litigate the law and did not mention it.  Good grief - this is responsible.  I think not but of course I know why and many others do also.  The 9th circuit has been reversed more times by the Supreme Ct. than any other circuit and by a wide margin.  Well I guess this happens when your court is run by court jesters.

[DirtyDan]

Law.......as in the document ?

Don't seem to need documents these days

Dan

[Jess from VA]

Read this:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/09/ninth-circuit-gets-it-wrong.html

At least 60 convicted (not just charged) from these nations of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

No meaningful discussion whatsoever in either the District or Circuit court decisions of  8 U.SC. §1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."  Unless this statutory provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law.

Now these judges are being threatened.  Good.  You reap what you sew.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It has been written, that the Trump admin can go back to the drawing board and produce an appeal proof order, but it looks like Trump will go the the Supremes where he expects to get an actual lawful court decision.  It could be 4 to 4, meaning the 9th Circuit decision would stand, but Kennedy is not a radical leftist like the three females on the court, so it might be 5-3 in the administration's favor. Last night, Charles Krauthammer said it would be quicker and more expedient and foolproof to just produce a new appeal proof order.  

Obviously, I am no lawyer. But it seems to me this paragraph is the pertinent info. As a layperson it seems the Appeals Court got him on technicalities. But why would supposedly the best lawyers in the country be so inept as to let them slip by ? Why roll the order out with so many issues wrong ? And here is the question I have now, will the President do the prudent thing and just reissue an order with the corrections ?

[3fan4life]

I will generally stay away from some of these discussions but I think something needs to be said.

What has been described is precisely what the "balance of powers" in our country is about.  The court's job is to interpret the law as the court sees it.  Simply because I or someone else doesn't agree with a decision doesn't mean they are "playing politics".  They are doing what the founding fathers intended them to do.  The legislative branch has the responsibility to change the law if they deem the law to be incorrect.  The executive branch has the responsibility of managing the enforcement of, applying the use of, the laws.

Politics, whether we like it or not, is how the founding fathers intended the U.S. of A. to work.  Misuse of political loyalties can be a problem such as confirmation of appointments votes going strictly down party lines.  We do need to find a way to break out of that but doing away with politics is not the answer.  Perhaps doing away with recognition of political parties for elected officials is the answer.  I don't believe that placing the executive branch above and unanswerable to the judicial branch would solve the problem. 

Agreed.

The problem as I see it is that the lower courts aren't following the law in this matter.

Act 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the President the power to determine who may enter the country as refugees and how many.

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1625.html#0-0-0-190


This law is the basis for the legality of the ban and has been used by the courts to uphold previous immigration bans.

In this case the lower courts have chosen to ignore precedence and play politics.

My fear is that if this does go to the Supreme Court and they too choose to play politics that a precedent will be set that k
forever prevents anyone for any reason from being denied entry into the US.

Lately I have been looking at what it takes to immigrate to other countries.

The rules and requirements can be mind boggling.

Shoot, Canada won't even let you visit their country if you've been charged with or convicted of a DUI.


We do need to secure our borders and we do need a system that looks closer at those who come to our country.

This isn't rocket science and it doesn't even require the passage of new laws.

It just requires that the immigration laws that have been on the books for decades be enforced.

[Jess from VA]

It has been written, that the Trump admin can go back to the drawing board and produce an appeal proof order, but it looks like Trump will go the the Supremes where he expects to get an actual lawful court decision.  It could be 4 to 4, meaning the 9th Circuit decision would stand, but Kennedy is not a radical leftist like the three females on the court, so it might be 5-3 in the administration's favor. Last night, Charles Krauthammer said it would be quicker and more expedient and foolproof to just produce a new appeal proof order.  

Obviously, I am no lawyer. But it seems to me this paragraph is the pertinent info. As a layperson it seems the Appeals Court got him on technicalities. But why would supposedly the best lawyers in the country be so inept as to let them slip by ? Why roll the order out with so many issues wrong ? And here is the question I have now, will the President do the prudent thing and just reissue an order with the corrections ?

The appeals courts did not get him on technicalities, they made up their own technicalities as a subterfuge for avoiding any discussion of the controlling and operative law.  They didn't discuss it, because there was no getting around it.  Plain and simple.

The case should have been summarily dismissed for lack of standing, or rejected as a matter of established law.

The initial order may not have been all it could be, but it was not unconstitutional either on it's face, or as applied. Absent unconstitutionality, the courts had no right to insert themselves as a super legislature and try to improve it, or grant a TRO until it could be fixed to their satisfaction.  A good judge, doing a good job, would have affirmed the executive order, then perhaps added an appendix to his decision, pointing out all the potential problems or pitfalls that might be remedied to make it a better order.  That kind of language is called Dicta, not binding law, but helpful discussion.

The man was elected on a full steam ahead imperative, and he is trying to deliver.  Bully for him, and bully for the USA.  

A couple problems with existing visas and a few other odds and ends had already been remedied, and others would have been in short order.

I don't know what he will do.  But the news today seems to indicate they will go back to the drawing board.  That would indicate he is more interested in protecting the country than his ego.  That does not mean he (we) should be finished with the 9th Circuit, or judicial (leftist) activism.  That should be treated like the malevolent plague that it is.  

We are a nation of laws, and no politician, congress, court, judge or president should be excepted.  Anyone not following the rule of law, their oath of office, and an exceptionally high degree of fiduciary responsibility to the people (citizens, not non-citizens) should be identified and treated accordingly.

[G-Man]

No, the courts do make laws.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

[The emperor has no clothes]

It has been written, that the Trump admin can go back to the drawing board and produce an appeal proof order, but it looks like Trump will go the the Supremes where he expects to get an actual lawful court decision.  It could be 4 to 4, meaning the 9th Circuit decision would stand, but Kennedy is not a radical leftist like the three females on the court, so it might be 5-3 in the administration's favor. Last night, Charles Krauthammer said it would be quicker and more expedient and foolproof to just produce a new appeal proof order.  

Obviously, I am no lawyer. But it seems to me this paragraph is the pertinent info. As a layperson it seems the Appeals Court got him on technicalities. But why would supposedly the best lawyers in the country be so inept as to let them slip by ? Why roll the order out with so many issues wrong ? And here is the question I have now, will the President do the prudent thing and just reissue an order with the corrections ?

The appeals courts did not get him on technicalities, they made up their own technicalities as a subterfuge for avoiding any discussion of the controlling and operative law.  They didn't discuss it, because there was no getting around it.  Plain and simple.

The case should have been summarily dismissed for lack of standing, or rejected as a matter of established law.

The initial order may not have been all it could be, but it was not unconstitutional either on it's face, or as applied. Absent unconstitutionality, the courts had no right to insert themselves as a super legislature and try to improve it, or grant a TRO until it could be fixed to their satisfaction.  A good judge, doing a good job, would have affirmed the executive order, then perhaps added an appendix to his decision, pointing out all the potential problems or pitfalls that might be remedied to make it a better order.  That kind of language is called Dicta, not binding law, but helpful discussion.

The man was elected on a full steam ahead imperative, and he is trying to deliver.  Bully for him, and bully for the USA.  

A couple problems with existing visas and a few other odds and ends had already been remedied, and others would have been in short order.

I don't know what he will do.  But the news today seems to indicate they will go back to the drawing board.  That would indicate he is more interested in protecting the country than his ego.  That does not mean he (we) should be finished with the 9th Circuit, or judicial (leftist) activism.  That should be treated like the malevolent plague that it is.  

We are a nation of laws, and no politician, congress, court, judge or president should be excepted.  Anyone not following the rule of law, their oath of office, and an exceptionally high degree of fiduciary responsibility to the people (citizens, not non-citizens) should be identified and treated accordingly.

If the Executive Order did not give due course protections for legal visas a legal green cards, how is that not unconstitutional ?

[Jess from VA]

Non citizens are not entitled to (full) constitutional protections.  They get what we give them, and no more (just like every other country in the world).  Shall we allow the Taliban to bring class action lawsuits into our federal courts?  Shall we allow a visa holder the right to go to federal court?  Shall we allow terrorists the full panoply of constitutional criminal procedure in US courts? 

There may be some debate on this, but not for me.

It's not due course, it's due process.

[Serk]

.....or Trump did this as a genius political insurance policy.

It's entirely possible he knew this order would get struck down, and now he's not only got some political capital to go after the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Already talk of splitting it up, which is much needed IMHO) he's also insulated from blame for the next terrorist attack that happens on our soil.

When the next attack happens, and it will, he can just say "Hey, I tried to do something to stop this, but the courts stopped me."

Genius...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Non citizens are not entitled to (full) constitutional protections.  They get what we give them, and no more (just like every other country in the world).  Shall we allow the Taliban to bring class action lawsuits into our federal courts?  Shall we allow a visa holder the right to go to federal court?  Shall we allow terrorists the full panoply of constitutional criminal procedure in US courts? 

There may be some debate on this, but not for me.

It's not due course, it's due process.

LOL ! Sorry about that. I understand they are not entitled to "full" constitutional protections. Are they not given due process protection by the Supreme Court ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

.....or Trump did this as a genius political insurance policy.

It's entirely possible he knew this order would get struck down, and now he's not only got some political capital to go after the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Already talk of splitting it up, which is much needed IMHO) he's also insulated from blame for the next terrorist attack that happens on our soil.

When the next attack happens, and it will, he can just say "Hey, I tried to do something to stop this, but the courts stopped me."

Genius...

It would be genius if he didn't care if we were attacked. I hope that's not what his genius, diabocal plan is. He is insulated from nothing.

[Willow]

It would be genius if he didn't care if we were attacked. ...

I tried really, really hard to see some logic in that statement.  It just wasn't there.   

[Serk]

.....or Trump did this as a genius political insurance policy.

It's entirely possible he knew this order would get struck down, and now he's not only got some political capital to go after the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Already talk of splitting it up, which is much needed IMHO) he's also insulated from blame for the next terrorist attack that happens on our soil.

When the next attack happens, and it will, he can just say "Hey, I tried to do something to stop this, but the courts stopped me."

Genius...

It would be genius if he didn't care if we were attacked. I hope that's not what his genius, diabocal plan is. He is insulated from nothing.

The attack is going to happen no matter what, at least now he can say he tried to stop it. (And I'm sure he's doing all he can do to stop it or reduce the severity of it as well, of course)

I think he genuinely does care and would prefer to stop the attack from coming, but at this point I don't think there's anything that could be done to stop it.

[The emperor has no clothes]

.....or Trump did this as a genius political insurance policy.

It's entirely possible he knew this order would get struck down, and now he's not only got some political capital to go after the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Already talk of splitting it up, which is much needed IMHO) he's also insulated from blame for the next terrorist attack that happens on our soil.

When the next attack happens, and it will, he can just say "Hey, I tried to do something to stop this, but the courts stopped me."

Genius...

It would be genius if he didn't care if we were attacked. I hope that's not what his genius, diabocal plan is. He is insulated from nothing.

The attack is going to happen no matter what, at least now he can say he tried to stop it. (And I'm sure he's doing all he can do to stop it or reduce the severity of it as well, of course)

I think he genuinely does care and would prefer to stop the attack from coming, but at this point I don't think there's anything that could be done to stop it.

Why not rewrite the EO to conform to the constitution ?

[Serk]

Why not rewrite the EO to conform to the constitution ?

Two part query:

1) Who says he's not got folks working on that right now?
2) Would you support that action if he took it?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Why not rewrite the EO to conform to the constitution ?

Two part query:

1) Who says he's not got folks working on that right now?
2) Would you support that action if he took it?

1) I hope he does. That only seems smart to me.
2) yes

Your response seemed that you felt it was genius for him to let us be attacked and say "I told you so"

[DirtyDan]

I don't know about genius but it would be "just deserts". We reap what we sow.

Dan

[Jess from VA]

Again, the executive order (as is) was perfectly constitutional under the constitution and existing statute.  Visa holders, hold a visa at our sole discretion (like every other country).  We have published procedures, but if we do not follow them, it is not unconstitutional.

Visa holders are not US citizens, do not get citizenship rights via a visa, and a president could revoke a visa (or a pile of them) for any reason at all.  It might not be fair or rational or justified by logic, but it would be constitutional.

Activist judges would like to make all legislative and executive decisions that are not logical, or rational, or fair, unconstitutional if they disagree with them.  But just saying it does not make it so.

The courts in this case exceeded their authority.  Period.

 

[Oss]

Have to agree with the counselor from the State of Virginia

At most the visa holder should have an administrative remedy to the State Department or Homeland Security.  It is after all Dept of State that is "supposed" to be in charge or it once was. And if you read Trump's order it provides for this kind of remedy which was NOT followed thus the lawsuits must be dismissed front and center  They were premature at best

I believe there have been at least six similar temporary bans this past 100 yrs by Presidents both Dem and Repub

This was no worse than any of them the only difference is the funding and hidden mandate of the groups filing suits against the USA.  And make no mistake I consider these groups against the USA.

The judge was out of his mind and the panel likewise

Thank the good Lord that Clinton will not have the opportunity to be appointing more of these kinds of jurists any time soon (hopefully never)

[The emperor has no clothes]

So you guys are saying that a legal visa holder has no rights to removal ? INS can pick them up and deport them without a hearing ?

[Oss]

please read the order

its in a previous thread

and this is not about deportation  it is about entry

[The emperor has no clothes]

It would be genius if he didn't care if we were attacked. ...

I tried really, really hard to see some logic in that statement.  It just wasn't there.   

You are correct. There is nothing genius about the guy. 

[Jess from VA]

FYI, the noted liberal Alan Dershowitz a prominent scholar on United States constitutional and criminal law, and a leading defender of civil liberties, has written that the Courts in this case were wrong, on multiple points.

The 9th Circuit is the 2d most reversed circuit in the land (80%), right behind the Federal Circuit in DC (83%).  With records like this, one wonders if lifetime appointments are such a good idea.  Who do you know in your lifetime, wrong 80% of the time on the job, and gets to keep their job?  Very well paying jobs mind you.  Even the freaking weatherman is better than this. (Now understand, most final decisions are not appealed, so we are only talking appeals here.  It's still an unbelievably bad percentage of reversals) 

And if you think about this for a minute, you realize this is not about being incompetent at all.  Rather it is (often, if not always) about powerful, sycophant, elitist, lefty judges issuing decisions that they think should be the law, when they are damn certain it is not the law.  And they can do so knowing the SCOTUS will reverse them and make things right anyway.  Over a period of time, this is the type of behavior that ought to get a judge impeached/removed from office.  Pick the worst offenders and make examples of them.
  
Off with their heads.

Get the picture?  

And one more thing, this immigration thing should be the easiest fix in the books compared to all the other things needing fixed.  Damn the torpedoes..... and burn the protesters (right down to their sox).  

[Willow]

It would be genius if he didn't care if we were attacked. ...

I tried really, really hard to see some logic in that statement.  It just wasn't there.   

You are correct. There is nothing genius about the guy. 

Adherence to the Rules of the Road prohibits my response to your comment.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

please read the order

its in a previous thread

and this is not about deportation  it is about entry

Ok, let me rephrase my question. If a legal visa holder were to leave the country on a trip, they would have no right to a hearing on denial of reentry ?

[Alpha Dog]

Are there no more Judge Roy Bean?

[Robert]

Steve Gern If i can`t come outside here in Iraq, Why would i let them come outside home in U.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sd5CEQZkTA

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/gowdy-slams-9th-circuit-opinion-no-right-for-non-citizens-to-come-to-u-s/

The Supreme Court’s dissenting justices wrote in their opinion that the case was more about “a claimed right of release into this country by an individual who concededly has no legal right to be here” and concluded that there is “no such constitutional right.”

Gowdy added to his criticism of the 9th Circuit, saying, “It seems clear to most of us — not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States. It also seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the Commander in Chief. There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.”

[Alpha Dog]

Steve Gern If i can`t come outside here in Iraq, Why would i let them come outside home in U.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sd5CEQZkTA

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/gowdy-slams-9th-circuit-opinion-no-right-for-non-citizens-to-come-to-u-s/

The Supreme Court’s dissenting justices wrote in their opinion that the case was more about “a claimed right of release into this country by an individual who concededly has no legal right to be here” and concluded that there is “no such constitutional right.”

Gowdy added to his criticism of the 9th Circuit, saying, “It seems clear to most of us — not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States. It also seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the Commander in Chief. There is a reason we elect the Commander in Chief and do not elect federal judges.”

I just saw that Retired Sergeant Steve Gern interviewed.  Over 44 million hits.  The touchy feely crowd ( not implying anyone here) more the street rabble rousers and 9 circuit judge types, should really give him a  listen.  Not that they will listen.

[Moonshot_1]

please read the order

its in a previous thread

and this is not about deportation  it is about entry

Ok, let me rephrase my question. If a legal visa holder were to leave the country on a trip, they would have no right to a hearing on denial of reentry ?

It would appear to me that they would have the privileges that would be extended to them by current statutes and procedures as defined by the State Department.