Executive Orders and Court Opinions Thread

[LexusLover]

It would be "informative" to have read THE "Immigration" Executive Order signed by Trump on January 27, 2017, AND any Court's Opinion you wish to discuss BEFORE commenting.

"Immigration EO, 27Jan17," = "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"; and

"Temporary Restraining Order" ("TRO") signed February 3, 2017, by the U.S. District Judge of the Western District of Washington at Seattle in Case No. 2:17-cv-00142-JLR [C17-0141JLR)(Document # 52) in State of Washington, et al, Plaintiffs vs. Donald J. Trump, et al, Defendants.

#1: The "ImmigratiOn EO, 27Jan17" does NOT CONTAIN the word "Muslim" or "Islam" in the text.

#2: The TRO does NOT enjoin "enforcement of the "ImmigratiOn EO, 27Jan17" ONLY SELECTED PORTIONS OF IT, which are identified specifically and QUALIFIED in the TRO.

#3: The "ImmigratiOn EO, 27Jan17" does NOT CONTAIN the identity of any specific religious group by name.

If you desire to dispute the above assessment it would be "informative" to cite the document, page #, and quote the passage supporting the dispute not some "Op-Ed" article "interpreting" what Trump or the Judge "really meant"!

[I B Hankering]

Hyperlinks to:

1) Trump's EO.

2) A summary of Robart's TRO.

[LexusLover]

Thank you. I could not "link" my source.

I will attempt to locate a publicly available copy of the Court's order in its entirety, which will include the legal and factual findings made by the Judge to support the TRO. The findings are critical to the decision and the discussion.

Copy of TRO as uploaded to the Federal Efiling System ("PACER"):

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...art-Order.html

Please note the "restrictive" nature of the TRO in that it relates to provisions "that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities"

.. that relates to an "equal protection" argument that must be based on the U.S. Constitution establishing a "right" of "entry into the United States" by a foreign national.

In other words to find a "right" to "protect" the District Judge must create a "right" to enter the United States to any foreign national and that right must override the collective security of the U.S. citizens in order to justify a prohibition against a disparate treatment of foreign nationals vs. U.S. citizens.

The so-called "Liberals" in this country, who are facilitating and tolerating anarchy, murder, and violence, are asserting that "minorities" should not be recognized when it comes to seeking special protection for them!

[JD Barleycorn]

You need to point out that this executive order was based on the recognition of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which was passed into law overwhelmingly by the democrat controlled House and Senate. It gives broad powers to the president to take action to protect the country including banning entry by citizens of different countries for various reasons including an antipathy to the United States.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You need to point out that this executive order was based on the recognition of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which was passed into law overwhelmingly by the democrat controlled House and Senate. It gives broad powers to the president to take action to protect the country including banning entry by citizens of different countries for various reasons including an antipathy to the United States.

The statutory authority and basis is in the EO.

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,..."

This Judge made a "political decision" not a legal one. The Massachusetts Federal Judge dissolved his TRO after 2-3 days and a further examination of the law as to the FACTS. The New York Federal Judge issued an extremely limited order addressing just those within the U.S. borders ... re "deportation" only .... IF THEY HAD VALID PAPERS.

I'm thinking Kennedy may go with the conservative four and render at least a 5-3 decision overturning the Judge....if they stick to a "legal" decision and not vote "anti-Trump" .... then it should be 8-0 to set aside the Judge's ruling.

The West Coast and East Coast loons are making a mistake...They made two major ones in the past year or so! Not taking Trump seriously and putting HillaryNoMore on the chopping block!

Their hysterical, whining, blubbering anarchy is Strike Three!

[JD Barleycorn]

They had Diane Feinstein on FOX today and she was asked the question, "the opponents of Trump say that he is violating the Constitution, border security has always been the province of the President, what has Trump done that is unconsitutional?" She never answered and tap danced around the question.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

They had Diane Feinstein on FOX today and she was asked the question, "the opponents of Trump say that he is violating the Constitution, border security has always been the province of the President, what has Trump done that is unconsitutional?" She never answered and tap danced around the question.

Feinstein was "ok" with the torture chambers in San Francisco when she ran for mayor there and pledged not to shut them down if elected (to get the gay vote)! From that point forward her "character" was etched as far as I am concerned even when she has been pro-military! (Underaged were being "tortured"!)

She's got no principles!

[LexusLover]

NINTH CIRCUIT PROCEEDINGS WITH DOCUMENTS AND VIDEO:

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content..._id=0000000860

Links

9th Circuit Order (Note: It ain't over in the 9th)
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/17-35105.pdf

This link should take you to the "final" order of the Massachusetts Judge who initially stopped enforcement of the OE, but then changed his mind as per his opinion:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5%20motion.pdf

It begins on page 42 of the "Trump-USA" Motion filed in the 9th Cir.

At the moment the Mass. Judge's opinion is the most thorough current INDEPENDENT source of the legal arguments involved with cites supporting the POTUS OE. Video quality may vary depending upon your computer. It may be clearer to download/copy the video to your desk top and then pay it, the site is a trusted site as per the 9th circuit, subject to the "qualification" and "warning" that the Russians might hack your computer in the download process ... as per the apologists for the election beating HillaryNoMore suffered!!!!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Thank you. I could not "link" my source.

I will attempt to locate a publicly available copy of the Court's order in its entirety, which will include the legal and factual findings made by the Judge to support the TRO. The findings are critical to the decision and the discussion.

Copy of TRO as uploaded to the Federal Efiling System ("PACER"):

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...art-Order.html

Please note the "restrictive" nature of the TRO in that it relates to provisions "that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities"

.. that relates to an "equal protection" argument that must be based on the U.S. Constitution establishing a "right" of "entry into the United States" by a foreign national.

In other words to find a "right" to "protect" the District Judge must create a "right" to enter the United States to any foreign national and that right must override the collective security of the U.S. citizens in order to justify a prohibition against a disparate treatment of foreign nationals vs. U.S. citizens.

The so-called "Liberals" in this country, who are facilitating and tolerating anarchy, murder, and violence, are asserting that "minorities" should not be recognized when it comes to seeking special protection for them!

Very well presented argument utilizing the facts. I hope the liberals choke on it and die.

[Zhivago52]

In the meantime (until it gets to the SCOTUS) the administration can cease issuing new visas from those countries if they choose to do so.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Zhivago52

In the meantime (until it gets to the SCOTUS) the administration can cease issuing new visas from those countries if they choose to do so.

The "enhanced" vetting requirements can take an extraordinarily long time to implement even after they have been selected and confirmed, much like the "vetting" of recent administration cabinet nominees, and the verification process to obtain legitimate copies of identifying documents is a challenging task in a war torn environment ... particularly when supporting documents are not kept in any safe electronic format but are stacked in books in burned out buildings.

Probably the most readily available documentation would take 3-4 months to obtain with another 3-4 to verify with appropriate signatures and seals.

What do you think?

The Liberals may decide they really don't want to allow any and all Muslims into this country once they realize there is a population pool of about 1.5 BILLION of them who can come to the United States .... with their bag of personal items and no job or other identifiable means of support!

After all ... the anti-Trump crowd objects to a "ban on Muslims"! ... they can't "pick and choose" the Muslims they want without running afoul of their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution which according to them provides a RIGHT for anyone in the World to enter the U.S. borders with impunity!!!

The Liberals can quickly fast-track perhaps the first 500 million so they can get registered to vote as "citizens" so they will be able to remind them at election time who brought them over here and who resisted their presence. The resulting election will install Muslim politicians quickly, Sharia law will replace existing Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and the Liberals won't have to worry about such things as "abortions" when their wives' and daughters' vaginas are mutilated to the nonreproductive condition appropriate for infidels and other "garbage" ...

... then they have to figure out how to support all the Muslims here without jobs or training for jobs after the conservative Christians have all been rounded up and burned or drowned in cages, if their heads are just sawed off!

The Liberal Plan to make "America Great"!

Californians are great at "making things better"! Just ask 'em!

[LexusLover]

Week Two of the Pause on Bringing Terrorists to the U.S.

[Zhivago52]

Lexus: Agree. I believe however, the matter is more concerned on lack of vetting "infrastructure" than it is on individuals. That said, I think they may choose to just quit issuing new visas from those countries (as opposed to slow-rolling them) until the vetting infrastructure is improved. Time will tell.

[canuckeight]

Trump duped these dumb politicians again. Go with EO he knows everyone is going to scream about. The EO gets shut down by lower courts, more than likely going to supreme court and then! Voila "Neil Gorsuch".

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Zhivago52

Lexus: Agree. I believe however, the matter is more concerned on lack of vetting "infrastructure" than it is on individuals. That said, I think they may choose to just quit issuing new visas from those countries (as opposed to slow-rolling them) until the vetting infrastructure is improved. Time will tell.

How does the Federal Judge in Washington enforce his order?

Keep in mind what the order actually suspends ... and then consider that the Judge can only enforce "lawful" orders and the Judge CANNOT order anyone in the State Department to issue a visa to anyone in particular. Secondly, the Judge's order doesn't "order" anyone to issue a visa to anyone in particular. Thirdly, if the Judge attempted to enforce the order because someone was not issued a visa to come to the U.S. the person responsible for issuing the EXACT visa ABOUT WHICH A COMPLAINT WAS FILED has a "defense" of complying with the existing law regarding the application and verifying process to complete the process of issuing the visa and as long as that individual is "processing" the application that person would not be in violation of any such order ... EVEN IF IT EXISTED.

It doesn't matter what CNN .. ABC .. or an ECCIE poster "labels" the Order signed by the Judge. It only matters what the PRECISE terms of THE ORDER states. BTW: That's why I wanted an OFFICIAL copy of the order linked ... to stop this stupid bullshit about "banning Muslims"!

The OE does NOT BAN MUSLIMS! So the Judge's order CANNOT "lift" a "ban" on something that was NOT BANNED in the first place!

This same kind of ignorant dialogue surfaced regarding the "law" surrounding the electoral college voting ... with the anti-Trump crowd pretending that electoral voters can do whatever they want to do and the decision by the U.S. voters from the state from which they came didn't matter!