Appeals court upholds the travel ban suspension

[the_mother_thing]

Isn't this the court that's frequently overturned?

That's what I have read as well. Was looking for stats, but only high level reference is from Faux:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/02/09/ninth-circuit-most-overturned-court-us

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has been a target of Republicans for decades.

It routinely is the most overturned court in the U.S. In 2012, the Supreme Court reversed 86 percent of the rulings it reviewed from the ninth.

Perhaps the most controversial decision was striking down the Pledge of Allegiance due to the phrase “under God.” It also ruled citizens have no constitutional right to own guns and is often over-ruled when showing its disdain for capital punishment.

Critics deride the court, calling it the “Ninth Circus” and the “Nutty Ninth.”

 

[the_mother_thing]

The last time people were gloating and celebrating a perceived "win" before the clock ran out, half the country woke up in a state of shock & disbelief ... just sayin'.

 

[OreoRosies86]

When Brexit happened, I knew electing a fragile, dangerous, unqualified reality star wasn't that out of the realm of possibility in terms of unpredictability. And stupidity.

 

[lovedogs]

The last time people were gloating and celebrating a perceived "win" before the clock ran out, half the country woke up in a state of shock & disbelief ... just saying'.

Not going to apologize for being happy at the continued blow back against an unconstitutional EO. I am wholly unsurprised that 2 courts agree, and it gives me a tiny sliver of hope that "checks and balances" are still working.

 

[katharath]

The last time people were gloating and celebrating a perceived "win" before the clock ran out, half the country woke up in a state of shock & disbelief ... just saying'.

Not going to apologize for being happy at the continued blow back against an unconstitutional EO. I am wholly unsurprised that 2 courts agree, and it gives me a tiny sliver of hope that "checks and balances" are still working.

Regardless of what happens in the future, today is a victory. No shame in being happy about it!!

 

[ruby59]

The last time people were gloating and celebrating a perceived "win" before the clock ran out, half the country woke up in a state of shock & disbelief ... just saying'.

Not going to apologize for being happy at the continued blow back against an unconstitutional EO. I am wholly unsurprised that 2 courts agree, and it gives me a tiny sliver of hope that "checks and balances" are still working.

I agree with this and it is what I have said all along.

Thank goodness in the US we do not have a king, but elected officials who are subject to checks and balances.

That is why I am comfortable with my wait and see approach, knowing that if Trump does go off the rails, there are those who will protect us from him.

 

[chrono]

I hope the check and balance system will continue to work since clearly, the President thinks that the courts should serve his interest and not the people's!

 

[ruby59]

I hope the check and balance system will continue to work since clearly, the President thinks that the courts should serve his interest and not the people's!

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/10/sources-white-house-rewriting-trumps-controversial-travel-ban/21711608/

Trump rewriting travel ban.

 

[Tekate]

I hope the check and balance system will continue to work since clearly, the President thinks that the courts should serve his interest and not the people's!

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/10/sources-white-house-rewriting-trumps-controversial-travel-ban/21711608/

Trump rewriting travel ban.

He may be or he may not be, he may appeal to the supreme court. time will tell.

 

[partgypsy]

Ruby: Probably, and that's a darn shame because many lauded him in his previous nom.

Politics aside - here is what scares me: we don't know what Chump knows, what the CIA knows, what DHS, NSA, etc. knows ... God help us if there is something they know that we don't (by virtue of classification, etc), and another attack, 9/11, etc happens which could have been prevented by this EO ... I HOPE that doesn't happen, but people chewed Bush's butt for not doing enough before 9/11, and now it's the opposite. That's all ... not going to debate it; just putting that out there.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-intelligence-community-232463
According to interviews, when asked how he is preparing for job (reading briefs, reports, security meetings) he says he "watches the news", specifically, Fox news. This is corroborated by insider leaks, that he watches tv, but is not reading intelligence memos (as well as other reports he is supposed to be reading). So apparently we know as much as he does. Maybe more if you read NYT and BBC as well.

 

[ruby59]

I hope the check and balance system will continue to work since clearly, the President thinks that the courts should serve his interest and not the people's!

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/10/sources-white-house-rewriting-trumps-controversial-travel-ban/21711608/

Trump rewriting travel ban.

He may be or he may not be, he may appeal to the supreme court. time will tell.

4-4 tie and he loses.

So that may not be the way to go.

 

[BeekeeperBetty]

He's probably having a hard time with the facet of his personality that is "win at all costs" and the intelligent advice of his establishment aides, like Priebus, advising him to cut his losses and do it again the right way. We'll see how it works out. If the Dems are smart, they will poke his pride until he snaps and decides to double down on the current EO.

 

[ruby59]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319029-trump-not-planning-to-appeal-travel-ban-ruling-to-supreme-court


Still being developed, but it looks like he will not be appealing to the supreme court but rewriting the ban, which is probably a smart move, imo.

 

[lovedogs]

Just read this lovely piece of news. The commentary by the judge made me smile. I love Trump getting what he deserves (even if this is only a tiny sliver of what he really deserves).

Federal District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle denied a request from the Trump administration to postpone any further proceedings in his court over President Donald Trump's travel ban, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether to rehear the case before a larger panel of judges.
"I'm not prepared to slow this down," Robart said, ruling from the bench.
What this means is that the challenge to the travel ban by the states -- Washington and Minnesota -- will proceed the merits in front of Robart.
"I'm not persuaded that call for en banc review by one judge ... ought to interfere with moving this case forward, " Robart said.
As the government argued for postponement, the judge referenced Trump's tweet reacting to the 9th Circuit ruling saying he would "see you in court."
"I'm a little surprised since the President said he wanted 'to see you in court,'" Robart said, later adding, "Are you confident that's the argument you want to make?"
DOJ lawyer Michelle R. Bennett said: "Yes, your honor."

 

[ruby59]

Just read this lovely piece of news. The commentary by the judge made me smile. I love Trump getting what he deserves (even if this is only a tiny sliver of what he really deserves).

Federal District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle denied a request from the Trump administration to postpone any further proceedings in his court over President Donald Trump's travel ban, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether to rehear the case before a larger panel of judges.
"I'm not prepared to slow this down," Robart said, ruling from the bench.
What this means is that the challenge to the travel ban by the states -- Washington and Minnesota -- will proceed the merits in front of Robart.
"I'm not persuaded that call for en banc review by one judge ... ought to interfere with moving this case forward, " Robart said.
As the government argued for postponement, the judge referenced Trump's tweet reacting to the 9th Circuit ruling saying he would "see you in court."
"I'm a little surprised since the President said he wanted 'to see you in court,'" Robart said, later adding, "Are you confident that's the argument you want to make?"
DOJ lawyer Michelle R. Bennett said: "Yes, your honor."

A court where 80% of their decisions are overturned. They should be more concerned with that.

 

[lovedogs]

Just read this lovely piece of news. The commentary by the judge made me smile. I love Trump getting what he deserves (even if this is only a tiny sliver of what he really deserves).

Federal District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle denied a request from the Trump administration to postpone any further proceedings in his court over President Donald Trump's travel ban, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether to rehear the case before a larger panel of judges.
"I'm not prepared to slow this down," Robart said, ruling from the bench.
What this means is that the challenge to the travel ban by the states -- Washington and Minnesota -- will proceed the merits in front of Robart.
"I'm not persuaded that call for en banc review by one judge ... ought to interfere with moving this case forward, " Robart said.
As the government argued for postponement, the judge referenced Trump's tweet reacting to the 9th Circuit ruling saying he would "see you in court."
"I'm a little surprised since the President said he wanted 'to see you in court,'" Robart said, later adding, "Are you confident that's the argument you want to make?"
DOJ lawyer Michelle R. Bennett said: "Yes, your honor."

A court where 80% of their decisions are overturned. They should be more concerned with that.

I don't know if you understand what that figure means. But here is a politifact article to help clear it up. The 9th circuit is not the "most overturned" court, and is not that much higher in terms of overturn rate than others.

Are the overturned more often the average? yes. But are they overturned as much as all the conservative media would have you think? No.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

 

[ruby59]

Just read this lovely piece of news. The commentary by the judge made me smile. I love Trump getting what he deserves (even if this is only a tiny sliver of what he really deserves).

Federal District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle denied a request from the Trump administration to postpone any further proceedings in his court over President Donald Trump's travel ban, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether to rehear the case before a larger panel of judges.
"I'm not prepared to slow this down," Robart said, ruling from the bench.
What this means is that the challenge to the travel ban by the states -- Washington and Minnesota -- will proceed the merits in front of Robart.
"I'm not persuaded that call for en banc review by one judge ... ought to interfere with moving this case forward, " Robart said.
As the government argued for postponement, the judge referenced Trump's tweet reacting to the 9th Circuit ruling saying he would "see you in court."
"I'm a little surprised since the President said he wanted 'to see you in court,'" Robart said, later adding, "Are you confident that's the argument you want to make?"
DOJ lawyer Michelle R. Bennett said: "Yes, your honor."

A court where 80% of their decisions are overturned. They should be more concerned with that.

I don't know if you understand what that figure means. But here is a politifact article to help clear it up. The 9th circuit is not the "most overturned" court, and is not that much higher in terms of overturn rate than others.

Are the overturned more often the average? yes. But are they overturned as much as all the conservative media would have you think? No.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

“The reputation is certainly deserved based on the history of the last 40 years or so,” Hellman said Monday. “It’s been more liberal, by which we mean more sympathetic to habeas petitioners, civil rights plaintiffs, anti-trust cases, immigration cases. But it’s less of an outlier now than it was.”


This does not placate me in the least until they can manage to dial it down to being more moderate.