It’s legal. It’s temporary. obama did it. Carter did it. Get over it

@Greg: 94

Judge James L. Robart is generally viewed as a conservative jurist, not some sort of liberal activist.

LOL a BLM supporter and he’s conservative?

@RedTeam: Trump “I respect Putin” O’Reilly “He’s a killer” Trump You think “our country is so innocent?

Did you catch the young gay Conservative doing the rounds on Fox. Started an uproar at two Cal. campuses–said he loves Trump—think he’s on to something RT?

respecy?? that’s funny RW

“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS

Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”

Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”

Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR

No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has.

Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)

If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.

Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.

Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.

Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.

@July 4th American, #110:

We saw how all-powerful Congress is over the past two years of republican-majority control.

Trump’s travel ban just got shut down by a federal judge, who stopped him in his tracks. If Trump’s action is eventually upheld, it won’t be by Congress or the Executive Branch. It will be by a higher court, exercising it’s Constitutionally-defined powers.

Congressional republicans had best not get too full of themselves. They’ve got their cushy jobs only so long as the people put up with them. Watch what happens if they screw up health care, screw up Dodd-Frank, roll back women’s rights, and stand by as Trump leads us into a couple of geopolitcal disaster.

Since when is it unconstitutional to deny entry into the US to non citizens?

Seattle Judge is Wrong and Overreached With Nationwide Injunction on Travel Ban

by Robert Barnes | 11:45 am, February 4th, 2017

Two different courts, on opposite coasts, ruled in opposite directions on Friday. A Boston federal court affirmed Trump’s executive order as “bona fide”; a Seattle federal court enjoined it. Both spoke to requests for “nationally” effective rulings. Can federal courts give conflicting directions to government employees? Did Homeland predict this in their screenplays?

The Seattle decision overstepped the traditional boundaries of district court authority, especially when sister courts are ruling on the same issues. Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit warned against issuing a national order in just these kind of cases.

Unlike state courts, federal courts enjoy the possibility of national reach in their decision. Due to the risk of conflicting decisions within the courts, venue-shopping by litigants (note how the ACLU, CAIR and the Attorney Generals aren’t suing in any Trump states), and the interference with the executive branch of government in their daily duties, the Supreme Court established precedents — precedents being what constitutes “evidence” for lawyers about what the law says — to limit this problem from occurring.

First, the Supreme Court warned against issuing any relief not individually and specifically necessary to the plaintiffs before the court. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). The Seattle judge’s ruling goes way beyond that, trying to apply his order to people all around the world. It appears the Seattle judge thinks the people voted him President of the United States. Welcome to the ego of federal judges.

Second, the Supreme Court warned against issuing any such relief against the executive branch, especially in military, immigration, or foreign policy concerns, given how precarious such orders can threaten security, and interfere with day-to-day functions of the executive branch.

Noting that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs,” the Supreme Court warned against extending its reach beyond “the particular federal plaintiffs” in the case. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975). The Seattle order tries to apply itself to millions of people around the globe. And folks think only brain surgeons look in the mirror and see God.

Third, as the Ninth Circuit, that governs the Seattle court, repeatedly ruled: a federal court should not issue rulings beyond its jurisdiction when other courts have also issued rulings on the matter. AMC Entm’t 549 F.3d at 770. The “principles of comity” compel that a court should not grant national relief when doing so would “create tensions” with courts in other circuits and “would encourage forum shopping.” The Ninth Circuit further reinforced that: “A federal court…may not attempt to determine the rights of parties not before the court”. What kind of case was that the Ninth Circuit said not to extend your ruling beyond the plaintiffs in front of you? An immigration case. Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); Nat’l Cir. for Immigration Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984).

The Supreme Court already reversed an order just like the Seattle order. In 1993, a few folks challenged the don’t ask, don’t tell restrictions on gays in the military. Shock, shock, they filed the suit on the west coast. Shock, shock, a liberal judge tried to convert it into a national injunction. Guess what happened? The Supreme Court reversed, issuing a stay of all parts of the injunction that “granted relied to persons other than the named plaintiff.” Dep’t of Defense v. Meinhold, 510 U.S. 939 (1993). Notably, that decision to stay the injunction was 9-to-0, unanimous. That is how obvious the precedents — the evidence of the law — is in this instance.

Just like every Senator looks in the mirror and sees a President, many federal judges look in the mirror and see a philsopher-king who the world should accept as a benevolent ruler. They aren’t. His biggest name to fame has been controversial rulings and statements in the Amherst expulsion case and a black lives matter controversy. Judge Robart might make an interesting President. But America didn’t elect him President. He’s never been elected to anything. His judicial superiors are about to remind him of that.

Trump vs Judge Robart: What Happened?
National Review Online ^ | February 5, 2017 | Dan McLaughlin

It’s never a dull day in Donald Trump’s Washington. There’s a lot to unpack in Saturday’s controversy over the temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington (based in Seattle) against portions of President Trump’s executive order on refugees, and Trump’s ensuing tweets in response. For now, let’s start with what happened.

Judge Robart’s decision, handed down Friday night, did four things. First, it concluded that the States of Washington and Minnesota had legal standing to challenge the executive order. Judge Robart seems to have accepted the argument that the states could sue as “parens patriae” (a legal concept that basically says the state can sue as if it is the parent of its citizens) on behalf of various groups of their residents – groups that work with refugees, residents who already have visas or green cards, businesses who want to employ refugees, and possibly the refugees themselves. This is questionable on a number of levels, as the asserted “harms” to some of these groups are too attenuated to create standing for them to sue on their own, and others (i.e., refugees who have not been admitted previously to the country) are not Washington or Minnesota residents unless and until federal immigration law says so – begging the entire question. The states were relying largely on a U.S. Supreme Court case that had allowed Puerto Rico to sue on behalf of Puerto Ricans suffering certain types of discrimination by U.S. states, but in that case there was no question that the Puerto Ricans were both residents of the suing government and citizens of the United States with legal rights here. Judge Robart’s decision appears to draw no distinction between green card holders (who aren’t even mentioned in the order and against whom the Administration is no longer trying to enforce it) and people seeking to enter the country for the first time.

Second, it temporarily enjoined the Administration from enforcing Sections 3(c) and 5(a)-(c) of the order (the ones containing a 90-day halt to admissions to the United States from seven specified countries, a 120-day suspension of the refugee admission program, and an indefinite suspension of refugees from Syria in particular). This is a nationwide injunction, which may sound broad, but if a federal court concludes that a national federal policy violates a federal statute or the constitution, it can’t very well leave it in place in some states and not others. The injunction appears to apply to completely restore Obama Administration policy, with the exception that it leaves in place Section 5(d), which imposes a cap of 50,000 refugees overall compared to Obama’s 2017 goal of 110,000 refugees.

Third, it temporarily enjoined Section 5(e) of the order “to the extent Section 5(e) purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” Section 5(e), the only part of the order to address religion, states among other things that “the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution…” Taken to its logical conclusion, the idea that the government cannot consider religious minority status in determining who faces persecution requires it to be blind to reality: Judge Robart’s order, if in place in 1943, would have prohibited the United States from considering Jewish refugees from Germany to face a higher threat of persecution than German refugees from Germany. And yet, ​this is the only part of the order that references religion at all, so it’s hugely important to the legal case against it.

Why? The federal government can act if (1) it has been given the power and (2) that power isn’t restricted by someone’s rights. And the courts can stop an action that exceeds either of these only if (3) someone has standing to challenge the action.

As a matter of power, there is no question that Congress has effectively total power to exclude anyone it wants from the United States, subject to collision with some enforceable rights; Article I establishes that power. And it has a lot of leeway to delegate aspects of that power to the president, either ordering him to enforce rules or empowering him to fill in the gaps. The president currently has a fair amount of authority in this area (not unlimited; President Obama, for example, likely exceeded his authority by a blanket assertion that he could turn “prosecutorial discretion” into an affirmative grant of legal status). It’s debatable whether Trump has been given all the authority he needs to issue this order – Andrew McCarthy says yes, while Patterico says no.

But if he does have the authority, then the only remaining question is one of rights. Yet, in a line of cases running from the Court upholding the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1889 to a 1972 case effectively holding that prospective Communist immigrants have no right to raise free speech challenges to their exclusion on grounds of political viewpoints, the Court has taken the position that Congress’ plenary power in this area is not restricted by any individual rights, since foreigners have no such rights to enter the country (the 1972 case also held that Americans don’t have constitutional rights to demand the admission of an immigrant).

That seems to leave challengers hanging their entire hat on the idea that any preference for religious minorities in refugee admissions violates the Establishment Clause, on the theory that this is the effective equivalent of turning federal immigration law into a state church. This is a novel argument (its novelty is one reason I think Sally Yates had no good-faith basis to conclude that the order was unenforceable) but it matters for standing-to-sue purposes because the Court has long allowed a much broader array of people (effectively, any taxpayer) to sue over Establishment Clause violations than any other Constitutional violation.

It’s unfortunate that Judge Robart’s decision, like the one handed down last weekend in the Eastern District of New York, includes nearly no legal reasoning or explanation, such that we could judge why he found the order unconstitutional or illegal. Federal district judges often issue very summary orders when they are asked to rule on an emergency basis on a request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, so expecting a scholarly opinion is unrealistic. But with the order halting a nationwide Executive Branch policy in its tracks and sure to be used as a political club, it should not have been too much to ask the court to provide some clue to its reasoning for just saying “this is illegal.”

Fourth, this is a TRO: it applies only until the court can hold a more complete hearing, which it scheduled for Monday. The Administration has, however, already filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit (a very large Circuit full of liberal judges but also some very conservative ones and some idiosyncratic libertarians, so until you see the panel you can’t guess what they’ll do). At this point, what Judge Robart does or thinks is likely to quickly become moot. But with the Supreme Court still divided 4-4, it’s possible (depending on the timing of the appeals) that the Ninth Circuit might end up getting the last word nationwide.

Article 3, Section 2, gives CONGRESS the Absolute Authority to control what the Judiciary can take up.

No, it most certainly does not. This is pure bilge water. Congress has NO such authority.

This troll is indicative of the morons on the left. Gee, the Constitution establishes Congress before any other branch, wonder why. The Constitution grants Congress the power to create the courts and to determine their functions.

This troll has his head so far up his who who he would not know if he was self fornicating.

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

The judge is wrong in this instance. He overstepped his judicial boundary.

Where is the constitutional relevance? It does not exist. You should go back to self fornicating.

Trump’s directive contains elements that are illegal and in direct violation of U.S. Code governing immigration:

U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part I › § 1152:

(1) Nondiscrimination

(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

He’s essentially ordering federal employees to break the law. You can’t expect any conscientious federal judge to overlook that little problem. The Trump administration should have run the directive by a competent legal review team before issuing it.

It wasn’t 60,000 to 100,000 jihadis who had their visas summarily and arbitrarily pulled by the yo-yo in the White House.

Tuff shit, they can go pound sand. They do not have Constitutional rights.

Discrimination is not discussed in his order. He references paren patriae. And that does not hold based on precedent.

@Greg: The visa thing was worked out, is the left just itching for improperly vetted persons to come into this country and open fire on another Christmas Party? All President Trump is trying to do is protect US citizens.
Unlike Obama who allowed the Jihad bride in after she lied on her application about former address on a marriage visa. Perhaps we could check their social media, ect to find out if they are tweeting about death to America.
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This code was written in 1952 and passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, and signed by a Democratic president. In addition, American statutory law requires asking immigrants seeking asylum what their religious beliefs are.
When was this law changed?
The temporary AG did not cite the law that she was going to defend the refugees with, she went on feelings, that is refusing to do your job and she deserved to be fired.
Dont be in such a rush to have US citizens killed Greggie just because you FEEL you need to resist.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2783916/syria-aleppo-dolls-bombs-assad/

@July 4th American: Oh but it seems every stinky little district Judge gets a full briefing daily and can over rule the POTUS on security issues of every citizen in the USA. Next he decides where to put troops.
It doesnt matter how many Presidents have done this exact thing in the past, Trump has done it now its bad. Lets all worry about non citizen Visa workers and if their widdle feewings are hurted, especially when our college kids would like to fill those jobs and pay off their student loans.

@July 4th American: There is sufficient evidence “you know who” is behind all the lawsuits. Former President Soros has his nose out of joint since he lost he election.

In a major blow to the ACLU, a federal judge in Boston refused to extend an order which temporarily put a stop to a portion of Trump’s controversial “extreme vetting” immigration order. Judge Nathaniel Gorton, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, decided not to renew the temporary restraining order which was set to expire on Sunday. This ruling is significant because it is the first time that the Trump administration has scored a victory after a series of orders nationwide slamming the ban.

The ACLU argued that the Executive Order violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution because it favors Christians over Muslims. However, the judge found that nothing in the order “compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”

In addition, he found the plaintiffs lacked standing. “Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United States and consequently, any future implementation of Section 5 (b) would not personally affect them,” the judge wrote.

Judge Gorton found that while the Fifth Amendment protects “invidious discrimination by the Federal government” against aliens, there is a difference between the constitutional rights enjoyed by non-citizens who have entered the U.S. and those outside of it.

“The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is largely immune from judicial control,” the judge wrote (citations omitted). In other words, the President has the right to make immigration decisions, without interference from the courts.

The court’s previous temporary order, which has now been lifted, stopped the deportation not only of two college professors, but also ordered the government to stop blocking deportation of others “similarly situated.” The case is being handled by attorneys from the ACLU and was originally brought on behalf of Mazdak Pourabdollah Tootkaboni and Arghavan Louhghalam, Iranian nationals and associate professors at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. They are both lawful permanent residents of the United States. The case was amended to include five other Iranian nationals and Oxfam America. The judge found that in light of the Trump administration’s statement that the order was not intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, the claims for injunctive relief by the professors are now moot.

This is breaking news. LawNewz will update accordingly.

Judge who halted Trump’s immigration order has done pro bono work for refugees

And once declared from the bench “black lives matter”. Oh by the way, Judge James Robart, who issued the ruling halting the immigration order on a nationwide basis, is also a Bush appointee, which just goes to show that you can’t tell everything you need to know about a judge by who appointed him. Maybe the pickings were slim in Seattle. By August 2016, it was already well understood by anyone paying attention that “black lives matter” didn’t just mean black lives matter – which of course they do – but rather it was a rallying cry for violent anti-police…

@Greg:

The issue is Trump’s authority and powers as president, not the rights and powers of the United States as a nation.

:Greg, I know you don’t think this is true, but when this gets decided, you’re going to find out, as all Dimocrats will, that Republican presidents have the same authorities as Dimocrats and Liberals and Socialists do.
Deciding if immigrants from a particular country can be banned is a presidential duty.

@kitt, #143:

Let me see… What did Obama do? Oh, yeah. He rescinded a long-standing policy that allowed any illegal immigrant from Cuba who set foot on U.S. soil to remain here indefinitely. Simply set foot on our shores, and you are automatically immune from immigration law. So, you’re arguing that policy made sense?

But Syrians, who have actually gone through the legal process of obtaining a visa, or of obtaining refugee status—some even holding Green Cards—get summarily turned away by presidential proclamation?

In a major blow to the ACLU, a federal judge in Boston refused to extend an order which temporarily put a stop to a portion of Trump’s controversial “extreme vetting” immigration order. Judge Nathaniel Gorton, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, decided not to renew the temporary restraining order which was set to expire on Sunday. This ruling is significant because it is the first time that the Trump administration has scored a victory after a series of orders nationwide slamming the ban.

The ACLU argued that the Executive Order violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution because it favors Christians over Muslims. However, the judge found that nothing in the order “compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”

In addition, he found the plaintiffs lacked standing. “Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United States and consequently, any future implementation of Section 5 (b) would not personally affect them,” the judge wrote.

Judge Gorton found that while the Fifth Amendment protects “invidious discrimination by the Federal government” against aliens, there is a difference between the constitutional rights enjoyed by non-citizens who have entered the U.S. and those outside of it.

“The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is largely immune from judicial control,” the judge wrote (citations omitted). In other words, the President has the right to make immigration decisions, without interference from the courts.

@Greg: 144 the same process that got the Jihad bride in, I am so impressed.The proceedures and investigation of the refugees must be reviewed, even those that are doing the vetting must be checked out.

Let me see… What did Obama do? Oh, yeah. He rescinded a long-standing policy that allowed any illegal immigrant from Cuba who set foot on U.S. soil to remain here indefinitely. Simply set foot on our shores, and you are automatically immune from immigration law. So, you’re arguing that policy made sense?

The Cubans assimilate.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article118282148.html

@Greg: If Obama can do this to the evil Cubans legally, why cant Trump do what he is doing ,and why did not Obama, always the political activist do this earlier in his terms? And without announcing his benevolent protection of the States, Trump has high ground as he ran on this policy and has the approval of his voters who look to Europe and their migrant woes. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/illegal-immigrants-accounted-for-nearly-37-percent-of-federal-sentences-in-fy-2014/
I am happy to see you agree something needs to be done about the illegal alien population.

Here are the key government arguments in the Reply:

The Executive Order is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees. Relying on his express statutory authority to suspend entry of any class of aliens to protect the national interest, the President has directed a temporary suspension of entries through the refugee program and from countries that have a previously identified link to an increased risk of terrorist activity, see 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12). The purpose of that temporary suspension is to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks. As a different district court recently concluded, that objective provides a “facially legitimate and bona fide” justification that satisfies any constitutional scrutiny that applies. Louhghalam v. Trump, Civ. Action No. 17-10154-NMG,
Order 18-19 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017); see id. at 10-11, 15-16.

1. As an initial matter, the State cannot challenge the denial of entry or visas to third-party liens. It is well-settled that a State lacks authority to sue “as the representative of its citizens” to protect them from the operation of federal law. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 485-86 (1923); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 324 (1966)….

2. Even if it could establish standing and a right of judicial review, the State would be unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims.

a. Congress has granted the President broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” into the United States, and independently broad discretion over the refugee program under 8 U.S.C. § 1157. The exclusion of aliens is also “a fundamental act of sovereignty * * * inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” …

b. The State continues to argue that Section 3(c)’s temporary suspension of the entry of aliens from seven countries contravenes the restriction on nationality based distinctions in 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). But that restriction applies only to “the issuance of an immigrant visa,” Id., not to the President’s restrictions on the right of entry. It also has no application at all to aliens who hold or seek nonimmigrant visas, such as student visas or work visas. And § 1152(a)(1)(B) permits, as here, a temporary suspension of entry pending completion of a review and revision of procedures for processing visa applications….

c. The State asserts that the Order violates the constitutional rights of lawful permanent residents (LPRs). Response at 10, 15 & n.3, 16. But the Order does not apply to LPRs. Exhibit D. It applies only to aliens who lack LPR status. And most of those aliens are outside the nited States and have never been admitted to this country. The Supreme Court “has long held that an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982)…..

d. The State’s constitutional challenges lack merit.

i. The State first asserts that the Order violates the Establishment Clause and equal protection principles because it was assertedly based on animus against Muslims. That is incorrect. There are two separate aspects of the Order challenged here, and both are neutral with respect to religion. First, Section 3(c) temporarily suspends entry of aliens from seven countries previously identified under 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12). Those countries were identified by Congress and the Executive Branch as being associated with a heightened risk of terrorism.

———————-

Government Reply in Support of Stay – 9th Circuit – Trump Immigration Executive Order by Legal Insurrection on Scribd