Is this planned chaos or just incompetence? » « Film thriller in reverse

Ninth Circuit refuses Trump’s request to immediately reinstate his bans

The three judges of the Ninth Circuit, after hearing oral arguments on Tuesday, today unanimously upheld US District Judge James Robart’s stay of Donald Trump’s executive orders on people entering the US pending a full judicial review. (You can read the opinion here.)

The court found that “the government has not shown a stay is necessarily to avoid irreparable injury.” In particular, its ruling noted “the government has pointed no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.”
…

The panel wrote “although courts owe considerable deference to the president’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action”.

Trump’s response to the opinion had the calm, sober, and measured tone that we have come to expect. He tweeted in all caps: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

Um, which court, exactly? Does he mean the US Supreme Court? Or did he mean the District Court where the merits of the case will be decided? Because if the latter, that is what the opinion called for. And who exactly is the “you” in the tweet? The Appeals Court judges are now out of the picture. Judge Robart maybe? Then again, that is what the opinion said should happen.

Is this planned chaos or just incompetence? » « Film thriller in reverse

Comments

  1. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    That ruling is fake news! A lot of bad hombres in the courts. Sad!

    See you in court!

  2. John Morales says

    I spent quite some time carefully perusing the full text. A most enjoyable use of my time, and a pleasure to read.

    Basically, all of the Government’s contentions were shown to be spurious.

  3. John Morales says

    This bit is typical of the shenanigans:

    The Government has argued that, even if lawful
    permanent residents have due process rights, the States’
    challenge to section 3(c) based on its application to lawful
    permanent residents is moot because several days after the
    Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald
    F. McGahn Il issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that
    sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to
    lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we
    cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the
    Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent
    residents. The Government has offered no authority
    establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to
    issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order
    signed by the President and now challenged by the States,
    and that proposition seems unlikely.

  4. John Morales says

    Dry snippets as footnotes:

    In addition, the Government asserts that, “[u]nlike the President,
    courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed
    by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of
    those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting
    process.” But the Government may provide a court with classified
    information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal
    and maintain its confidentiality. Regulations and rules have long been
    in place for that. 28 C.F.R. 17.17(c) (describing Department of Justice
    procedures to protect classified materials in civil cases); 28 C.F.R.
    17.46(c) (“Members of Congress, Justices of the United States
    Supreme Court, and Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal and
    District Courts do not require a determination of their eligibility for
    access to classified information … W.D. Wash. Civ. Lk 5(g)
    (providing procedures governing filings under seal).

  5. tbtabby says

    Take heed, parents. This is what happens when your child grows up without ever once hearing the word “no.”

  6. applehead says

    This will be brought before the SCOTUS, won’t it?

    How likely is it, in this political environment, that they will back 45? I’d put little past this administration, they may have compromised the Supreme Court by threatening the liberal judges and their loved ones with God knows what.

  7. Mobius says

    Rachel Maddow pointed out that the Court basically pwned the Trump Administration on their lack of understanding of basic civics. I found it hilarious, just another day in the Trump clown car.

  8. Mobius says

    BTW…

    Rachel had one rather scary statistic from a recent poll -- 51% of Trump supporters think that Trump should just ignore the courts and do what he wants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *