Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems this law suit only applies to 2 people in a rare special circumstance. There is no attempt to make this more widespread.
Also, the original Seattle judge refused to apply the order to the revised policy.
From the article....
He didn't refuse, he wants new briefs from both sides if he's gonna hear it again. Transferring an old TRO to a new case is a quick way to get overturned. Judges hate that.
"Conley, chief judge of the federal court in Wisconsin's western district and an appointee of former President Barack Obama, concluded the plaintiff "has presented some likelihood of success on the merits" of his case and that his family faces "significant risk of irreparable harm" if forced to remain in Syria."
How about we grant refuge in America for every human that could be in danger? This is why our nation is 20 Trillion dollars in debt with a consumer. service-based economy standing on a overprinted fiat currency and artificially low interest rates.
Syrian-based safe zones. The successful resolution has been proposed by the Trump administration. We can't afford to admit people from all over the world that could be in danger. That ideology is idealistic and ultimately dangerous.
Congress needs to remove jurisdiction from the lower federal courts to hear cases on immigration executive orders.
So that upper courts are backed up for months? The system works fine. If the lower courts agree then it's handled. If not then it goes to upper courts. It probably works faster this way than cramming the upper courts with everything.
Can't wait to see the Trumpheads twist themselves into pretzels arguing against this one.
Oh, wait.... none of them will even click on the link....
Never mind.
If the courts fight this as a political issue, they will be restructured. In the U.S. our Constitution limits access to federal courts (they are courts of limited jurisdiction). State courts have no authority over immigration issues. If Congress passes a law removing immigration review authority from the federal courts, the only venue will be to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court. Only states can do this, not ACLU and what not. Our Supreme Court can't decide on much in less than a year, unless it's a Presidential election issue.
This would nullify the courts and potentially harm many, but the abuse of the courts, and the increasingly political nature of the courts, may require the other two branches to remove them from this issue.
If the courts fight this as a political issue, they will be restructured. In the U.S. our Constitution limits access to federal courts (they are courts of limited jurisdiction). State courts have no authority over immigration issues. If Congress passes a law removing immigration review authority from the federal courts, the only venue will be to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court. Only states can do this, not ACLU and what not. Our Supreme Court can't decide on much in less than a year, unless it's a Presidential election issue.
This would nullify the courts and potentially harm many, but the abuse of the courts, and the increasingly political nature of the courts, may require the other two branches to remove them from this issue.
Do you think that Congress is really going to go through that political quagmire before just dealing with the immigration problem themselves?
It's easier to TRO an EO, a statute is a whole new ball game.
"...the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts."
In other words, the law doesn't matter, the courts will do as they see fit!
8 USC 1182 is still just as plain as it ever was. The President has had absolute authority to restrict immigration, for any reason, since 1952. There is no provision in the law for any court (or anybody else) to question the decision of the President. Yet, the courts keep ignoring that law.
One has to wonder....
The court is the law. You know what the "judiciary" means, right? Just because Trump waves his magic pen and knows how to sign something doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. The president's command is not more important than Congress or the judicial system. We have checks and balances for a reason. Besides, America doesn't allow any and every immigrant in. We had an extensive vetting process before Trump, and he has not been able to prove that our previous vetting process is flawed and that these immigrants are a security risk. He's only proving that he is discriminating against Muslims. Yes, we can question the decision of a president and reverse it because we are not a dictatorship; we are a republic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
