Current Events > Appeals court rules against latest travel ban.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/appeals-court-rules-against-latest-travel-ban/ar-BBHaMAC?li=BBnbcA1

A federal appeals court ruled Friday against President Trumps latest travel ban, saying that it exceeds the scope of his delegated authority, but that it was ultimately for the Supreme Court to decide.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Seattle affirmed the decision of a federal judge in Hawaii who ruled on Oct. 17 that the order was unlawful on statutory grounds.

The ruling on Friday was a procedural but important step. This month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban the third version issued by the Trump administration to take effect for now, and encouraged the appeals courts to rule on the case, a sign that it intended to take up the matter. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering a similar ruling out of Maryland.

---

I can't handle all this winning
---

Can't exactly say I'm surprised. Trump wasn't exactly very secretive about his motives for the travel ban and it's only going to keep biting him in the ass each time he tries.
---

Eat shit, Trump.
---

Lmao he just can't catch a break.
---

Can someone explain this whole federal judge thing? Why was it originally a random judge in Hawaii that over ruled the president and now a random group of judges in Seattle did the same thing? I legitimately don't understand how this whole thing works. Who is deciding which judge does what? Why are judges with different views not constantly over ruling each other?
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Can someone explain this whole federal judge thing? Why was it originally a random judge in Hawaii that over ruled the president and now a random group of judges in Seattle did the same thing? I legitimately don't understand how this whole thing works. Who is deciding which judge does what? Why are judges with different views not constantly over ruling each other?

Federal district courts are only bound by the decisions made by the federal circuit they are located in and decisions by the US Supreme Court.

In this case, the federal judge in Hawaii made his ruling on the matter. Hawaii belongs to the Ninth Circuit, and so the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision. Unless/until the Supreme Court reverses, all federal district courts in the Ninth are bound by this decision. However, the article states, the Fourth Circuit is also deciding the matter. The Circuit Courts are coequal to each other and are not bound by the precedent of other Circuit Courts. So the Fourth Circuit could come to the opposite conclusion without issue. This would further spur a Supreme Court ruling, because division among the Circuit Courts causes obvious issues.

Edit: an en banc hearing in the Ninth (a hearing with all of the judges in the circuit) could also reverse the decision.
---

Didnt the Supreme Court already say it was okay? Or did I go insane?
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Didnt the Supreme Court already say it was okay? Or did I go insane?

They have lifted the injunction until they officially decide.
---

I guess we can add a court to Trump's dark list
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Didnt the Supreme Court already say it was okay? Or did I go insane?

They have lifted the injunction until they officially decide.

Yeah, they basically just kicked the can down the road a bit more. They didn't make any actual decision.

I get the impression that the Court is predisposed towards allowing the ban (President's "broad and generally undefined powers over foreign affairs" and whatnot), but wants to see justifications in the opposite direction. I figure how tweets and other statements will be leveraged in construing the context of the ban will be outcome determinative regarding constitutional violations.

frozenshock posted...

I guess we can add a court to Trump's dark list

He's already been ragging on the Ninth Circuit, as has every other halfwit with a bone to pick with them librul activists. :P
---

The administration said the restrictions would be in effect until those countries proved to the United States that they had adequate screening. But the appeals court said that the ban was, in effect, an indefinite one, and that Congress did not give the president the authority to stop immigration from any country indefinitely.

I had a feeling this would happen after the initial 90 days expires. A "temporary" ban became an indefinite ban. Sneaky bastards.

One of the legal arguments against the ban is Trump's past comments on Muslims. They now can point to his recent twitter bungle in which he retweeted a series of videos intended to conjure up fear of Muslims in general. Stupid, stupid Trump.

Arrest those judges
---

Ammonitida posted...

One of the legal arguments against the ban is Trump's past comments on Muslims. They now can point to his recent twitter bungle in which he retweeted a series of videos intended to conjure up fear of Muslims in general. Stupid, stupid Trump.

I'm more convinced by the separation of powers issue myself. I don't think any kind of First Amendment argument is going to persuade the Court on the matter.

NurseRedHeart posted...

Arrest those judges

I know I'm not likely to get an answer that doesn't boil down to standard maga blathering, but for what? Performing the duty assigned to the judiciary as a coequal branch to the executive and legislature?
---

ThePieReborn posted...

I know I'm not likely to get an answer that doesn't boil down to standard maga blathering, but for what? Performing the duty assigned to the judiciary as a coequal branch to the executive and legislature?

They're openly going against the president.

In many, many countries around the world, that would be more than enough to get them jailed and/or executed.
---

frozenshock posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

I know I'm not likely to get an answer that doesn't boil down to standard maga blathering, but for what? Performing the duty assigned to the judiciary as a coequal branch to the executive and legislature?

They're openly going against the president.

In many, many countries around the world, that would be more than enough to get them jailed and/or executed.

...And? What bearing does that have here? The U.S. is a nation of laws, not of men. Power is vested in the judiciary to determine what the law says, and that includes curtailing exercises of law that go beyond its constitutional scope.
---

frozenshock posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

I know I'm not likely to get an answer that doesn't boil down to standard maga blathering, but for what? Performing the duty assigned to the judiciary as a coequal branch to the executive and legislature?

They're openly going against the president.

In many, many countries around the world, that would be more than enough to get them jailed and/or executed.

Trump isn't a dictator yet, sorry
---

This was a mistake. At this rate it will go to the Supreme Court, and poof. Every president going foward is going to have significantly more power.

thronedfire2 posted...

frozenshock posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

I know I'm not likely to get an answer that doesn't boil down to standard maga blathering, but for what? Performing the duty assigned to the judiciary as a coequal branch to the executive and legislature?

They're openly going against the president.

In many, many countries around the world, that would be more than enough to get them jailed and/or executed.

Trump isn't a dictator yet, sorry

I'm sure he has a plan for that.
---