Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban at the General Forum; It’s kinda sad when you can’t depend on Senate Majority Leader Mitch to carry the dirty water for you. <In ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2017, 03:48 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,392
Thanks: 849
Thanked 1,409 Times in 1,124 Posts
Default 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

It’s kinda sad when you can’t depend on Senate Majority Leader Mitch to carry the dirty water for you.

<In the meantime, people who had been stranded in legal limbo rushed to fly back to the United States. Some successfully reunited with family members, while others — particularly those whose visas were physically taken or marked as invalid — ran into road blocks trying to board planes overseas. At Dulles International Airport in Virginia on Sunday, immigration lawyers could be heard on phones, arguing with airline representatives to let their passengers board as some seemed confused over the various court rulings and what they meant.>

<What ultimately lies ahead likely is a weeks-long legal battle that will be waged in various courtrooms across the country over whether Trump’s ban can pass legal muster. Federal courts in New York, California and elsewhere have blocked aspects of the ban from being implemented, though one federal judge in Massachusetts declared he did not think challengers had demonstrated they had a high likelihood of success. The lawsuits now stretch from D.C. to Hawaii, and the number seems to grow regularly.>

<The Trump administration has been steadfast in its support of the executive order, which it says is necessary for national security reasons, and the president himself tweeted repeatedly his disdain for the judge in Washington state who put a stop to it.>

<Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “We all get disappointed from time to time at the outcome in courts on things that we care about. But I think it is best to avoid criticizing judges individually.”>

<McConnell went on to offer a broader critique of Trump’s executive order than he had previously: “We all want to try to keep terrorists out of the United States. But we can’t shut down travel. We certainly don’t want Muslim allies who have fought with us in countries overseas to not be able to travel to the United States. We need to be careful about this.”>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...05d_story.html
__________________
President Trump, the King of perpetual aggrievement.

Treedancer
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to treedancer For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2017, 06:43 PM
RedState's Avatar
#RESIST
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 834
Thanked 1,428 Times in 1,035 Posts
Default Re: 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Tune in tomorrow. Same autocrat time, same autocrat channel.
__________________
“The main problem in any democracy is that crowd-pleasers are generally brainless swine
who can go out on a stage & whup their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy—
then go back to the office & sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.”


-HST
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedState For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-11-2017, 08:23 PM
Master
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Okolona
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,556
Thanks: 1,165
Thanked 433 Times in 366 Posts
Cool Re: 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Win for Trump Travel Ban...

Supreme Court Issues Temporary Order Upholding Trump Travel Ban
September 11, 2017 | WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a temporary order allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees while the court considers challenges to the travel ban.
Quote:
Justice Anthony Kennedy issued the temporary order Monday. It was expected to remain in effect while the full court takes up the matter, likely within a matter of days. Had the Supreme Court not acted, an appeals court decision lifting part of the ban on refugees would have gone into effect on Tuesday. If there further challenges to the refugee ban, Kennedy said, they should be filed to the nation's highest court by noon on Tuesday. The Trump administration made an emergency application to the Supreme Court Monday, asking for a stay on an earlier ruling by an appeals court, which effectively reinstated a 120-day ban on entry to the United States by almost all refugees. The lower court ruled last week that refugees could enter the country if a U.S.-based resettlement agency agreed to accept their cases.

The forthcoming ruling by the nine justices of the full Supreme Court could decide the fate of up to 24,000 refugees. If the decision goes against the refugees and their advocates, “We will fight it,” said Neal Katyal, a lawyer involved in defending would-be refugees and other travelers blocked from coming to the U.S. by President Trump's executive orders. In Monday's court filing, the Justice Department said the pending appellate court ruling “will disrupt the status quo and frustrate orderly implementation of the (presidential) order's refugee provisions.” Federal attorneys did not seek any immediate action Monday against a separate part of last the ruling issued last Thursday by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court said Trump's ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries should not apply to the grandparents, aunts, uncles or cousins of legal U.S. residents.

Latest twist

Court action this week marked the latest twist in the prolonged legal battle over the president's immigration policies. Just after taking office in late January, President Trump issued an executive order that would have blocked nearly all refugee arrivals. After court challenges that stymied his plan, the president issued an amended version of his order in March that barred travelers from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, a move Trump argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the federal government could exclude prospective refugees who did not have a “bona fide” relationship to people or entities in the United States, prompting litigation over the meaning of that phrase.


The sun flares in the camera lens as it rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington

Resettlement agencies argued that their commitment to provide services for specific refugees should count as a "bona fide" relationship. The Trump administration said it should not, meaning such refugees would be barred. Apart from the question of what constitutes “bona fide” relationships, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in October about whether Trump's travel ban discriminates against Muslims, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

By the numbers

As lower courts and the Supreme Court weighed in on the travel and refugee bans in recent months, the U.S. refugee program has lurched from an ambitious projection of 110,000 arrivals for the year, to just a few hundred arrivals a week. Through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, fewer than 52,000 will have entered the United States during the previous 12 months — a population close to Trump's stated desire to cap arrivals at 50,000. The administration is expected to announce in the coming weeks what the maximum number of refugee arrivals for the coming fiscal year will be.

https://www.voanews.com/a/justice-de...n/4024197.html
__________________
The water's always turbulent where two great rivers meet.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to waltky For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2017, 11:01 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,927
Thanks: 6,150
Thanked 8,759 Times in 5,046 Posts
Default Re: 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Question: Our constitution is clear about discrimination against any person on religious grounds. So, in the case of nations that are theocratic, how does it separate that (sic religion) from denial of entry on the basis of nationality from a State that is our sworn enemy?

Here, on USA soil, any semblance of religion on State property and State matters create hyperbolic angst amoung Liberals who cannot then apply that axiom to foreign lands. Why not? Are they confused, or just determined to put our Republic in danger?

As long as the Progressive use this ambiguity to their political advantage, our nation will be divided by smear propaganda and a calumny of racism. And our borders open in the name of racial parity. Recognition of our enemies be dammed. The SCOTUS must find a clever way to define this separation of State from Religion as it occurs in foreign lands such that we can again determine whom is allowed to become our neighbors and future Americans.

Seems to me that WE THE PEOPLE, who by Contract and Covenant are self ruled,ought to have a hand in that choice.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2017, 11:11 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,362
Thanks: 9,646
Thanked 14,668 Times in 8,865 Posts
Post Re: 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Question: Our constitution is clear about discrimination against any person on religious grounds. So, in the case of nations that are theocratic, how does it separate that (sic religion) from denial of entry on the basis of nationality from a State that is our sworn enemy?
Here, on USA soil, any semblance of religion on State property and State matters create hyperbolic angst amoung Liberals who cannot then apply that axiom to foreign lands. Why not? Are they confused, or just determined to put our Republic in danger?

It's funny how right-wingers are all willing for U.S. citizens to be "in danger" from LARGER threats like guns...
Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker
School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.
Source: Everytown for Gun SafetyResearch
All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
Source: Gun Violence Archive
How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence - BBC News

Compare that to the risk from refugees from any specific country.
What's their kill rate?


You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist

So while we should try to screen refugees to the best of our ability, let's be real about what actual "risk" is involved...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2017, 11:53 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,747
Thanks: 7,308
Thanked 6,169 Times in 3,750 Posts
Default Re: 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

It's funny how right-wingers are all willing for U.S. citizens to be "in danger" from LARGER threats like guns...
Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker
School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.
Source: Everytown for Gun SafetyResearch
All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
Source: Gun Violence Archive
How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence - BBC News

Compare that to the risk from refugees from any specific country.
What's their kill rate?


You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist

So while we should try to screen refugees to the best of our ability, let's be real about what actual "risk" is involved...
Is there something in your rant that even remotely relates to increased vetting of people from high risk countries?

There is nothing wrong with a country, any country, reserving the right to review the requests from citizens of other countries desiring to enter the country.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2017, 02:54 PM
GetAClue's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 840
Thanks: 1,195
Thanked 693 Times in 374 Posts
Default Re: 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

It's funny how right-wingers are all willing for U.S. citizens to be "in danger" from LARGER threats like guns...
Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker
School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.
Source: Everytown for Gun SafetyResearch
All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
Source: Gun Violence Archive
How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence - BBC News

Compare that to the risk from refugees from any specific country.
What's their kill rate?


You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist

So while we should try to screen refugees to the best of our ability, let's be real about what actual "risk" is involved...
The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in our Constitution. If you don't like it, start a campaign to have it amended.

However, the obligation to accept any and everyone and not be allowed to discern between those you will and won't accept is not covered by the Constitution. The Constitution gives that power to Congress who has since abdicated that power to the office of the President. If progressives don't like that, take it up with your Congress person or Senator.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2017, 04:07 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,927
Thanks: 6,150
Thanked 8,759 Times in 5,046 Posts
Default Re: 9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in our Constitution. If you don't like it, start a campaign to have it amended.

However, the obligation to accept any and everyone and not be allowed to discern between those you will and won't accept is not covered by the Constitution. The Constitution gives that power to Congress who has since abdicated that power to the office of the President. If progressives don't like that, take it up with your Congress person or Senator.

The right of free assembly is also guaranteed by the Constitution. And that encompasses the right of free association. With the exception of stipulations to Ex-cons that cannot be abridged and yet, through manipulation in the Courts we now must associate with everyone equally.

Not exactly the intention of the founders as they considered it a human right to be with those with whom you are comfortable and of like mind. A logic that applies to freedom of faith and by extension freedom to assemble and freedom to reject those with whom you may not agree.



From WIKI;
Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members. Freedom of Association, The Essentials of Human Rights describes the right as coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights

I personally do not find Homosexuality agreeable any more than substance or drug abuse. One is illegal and one is immoral but do I have the right to reject both behaviors. Unless they come to my place of business.
But this thread is about rejecting those individuals who represent a threat to our nation. Not because of their religion but because of their country of origin. And the confusion comes from the country of origin having rules and laws about associations with non believers, a question of faith compliance, to the degree of committing harm tour country in the name of faith.

Do we really have to question the legitimacy of repelling such threats in the name of equality under the law? How does a foreigner achieve rights of free assembly, a blanket waiver as it were, when their identity of nationality and religion are one in the same?
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
9th, ban, circuit, court, declines, quickly, reinstate, travel

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0