Page 1 of 38 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 377

Thread: Immigration Ban Hearing

  1. #1

    Default Immigration Ban Hearing

    If you're interesting in the appeals court hearing on the immigration case, you can listen to it live this afternoon at 3 pm pacific time or 6 pm eastern time..

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi...vid=0000010884

    The hearing will probably be boring. How people react to it later won't be.
    We are the music makers,
    And we are the dreamers of dreams,
    Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
    And sitting by desolate streams;
    World-losers and world-forsakers,
    On whom the pale moon gleams:
    Yet we are the movers and shakers
    Of the world for ever, it seems.

  2. #2

    Default

    I can't wait until it's rightfully upheld in favor of the Trump Administration so the riots and tears can start up again.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parkbandit View Post
    I can't wait until it's rightfully upheld in favor of the Trump Administration so the riots and tears can start up again.
    That won't happen today. Federal government will be unable to show injury that necessitates immediate enforcement. The states of Washington and Minnesota can show injury by immediate enforcement before legality is decided. I would expect the federal government to lose at this specific hearing.

    As far as actual legality goes (which will take months to decide, I suspect), it's going to literally turn on the issue on whether Trump's (and his advisors') statements regarding the order can be factored in, or if only the text of the order itself can be considered. On a prima facie basis itself, the order is legal - the president has fairly broad powers over immigration. It's his own stated motivations that make it constitutionally suspect. We'll see how that goes.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kembal View Post
    That won't happen today. Federal government will be unable to show injury that necessitates immediate enforcement. The states of Washington and Minnesota can show injury by immediate enforcement before legality is decided. I would expect the federal government to lose at this specific hearing.

    As far as actual legality goes (which will take months to decide, I suspect), it's going to literally turn on the issue on whether Trump's (and his advisors') statements regarding the order can be factored in, or if only the text of the order itself can be considered. On a prima facie basis itself, the order is legal - the president has fairly broad powers over immigration. It's his own stated motivations that make it constitutionally suspect. We'll see how that goes.
    It's the 9th Circuit, so it's HIGHLY unlikely that their decision will be favorable to Trump. This will almost assuredly go to SCOTUS to decide.

    And I'll respectfully disagree on the Trump statements. There's a VERY long history of using Congressional commentary on legislation in Court proceedings determining legality of legislation. It would be almost unthinkable that they would not include his statements easily in this case. This'll turn on three issues:

    1) Standing- this is the Federal Government's best argument at this point. There's solid enough case law that makes it very difficult for a State to prove standing in immigration situations. Obviously if they don't get past this, it's over.

    2) The 1965-ish law that clearly prohibits national origin as a criteria for immigration and the Establishment clause (which will almost certainly strike down at least the priority given to Christians in the EO). Congress determines the laws that govern immigration. The Executive branch can work within those laws but cannot supersede them.

    3) Rational Basis- the lack of evidence of any terrorist threat in the countries singled out makes this EO VERY sketchy on rational basis. And rational basis supersedes all other considerations. Immigrants who aren't already in the country may not have many rights, but there are still universal rules that govern ALL laws.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    20,933
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    It's the 9th Circuit, so it's HIGHLY unlikely that their decision will be favorable to Trump. This will almost assuredly go to SCOTUS to decide.
    So you're agreeing that 9th Circuit is unfairly biased. Glad you can admit that.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    So you're agreeing that 9th Circuit is unfairly biased. Glad you can admit that.
    Just as much as the Fifth Circuit can be "biased" in the opposite direction.

    Considering the initial order in this case came from a Bush appointee, I don't think the liberal/conservative leanings of the judges play as much of a role here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    20,933
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kembal View Post
    Just as much as the Fifth Circuit can be "biased" in the opposite direction.

    Considering the initial order in this case came from a Bush appointee, I don't think the liberal/conservative leanings of the judges play as much of a role here.
    I'm not the one that pulled it up. She did.

    Still, I don't have an issue with a judge wanting to hear the entire case. This is going to the Supreme Court regardless of this appeals court ruling, and I am sure they know that.
    Last edited by Gelston; 02-07-2017 at 02:29 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    So you're agreeing that 9th Circuit is unfairly biased. Glad you can admit that.
    No, but I'll agree that you have no concept of the notion of case law. The different Circuits all have their history of legal decisions. 9th Circuit's relationship with Immigration law, Standing, and Executive Power is very different from, say, that of the 5th Circuit.

    Excellent Tgo-style unwillingness to handle ambiguity.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    I'm not the one that pulled it up. She did.

    Still, I don't have an issue with a judge wanting to hear the entire case. This is going to the Supreme Court regardless of this appeals court ruling, and I am sure they know that.
    With the possibility of a 4-4 split though, it's possible the 9th Circuit's judgment is the one that will count.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kembal View Post
    With the possibility of a 4-4 split though, it's possible the 9th Circuit's judgment is the one that will count.
    Assuming SCOTUS even bothers taking the case. I'm not super familiar with the current Court's case history on State standing in immigration cases- which is the most likely point of contention between the Courts.

    The other piece they may hit is the refugee provisions in the EO- those are a bit less clear-cut. I genuinely don't know to what extent- if any- the Immigration and Naturalization Act's prohibition on national origin impacts this. And I think the rational basis test may be a bit more favorable to the Trump administration on that one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •