In His Worst Defeat Yet, Court Rules Trump Actions On Muslim Ban Violated The Law

[Gothmog]

This is an interesting opinion in that it does not rely on First Amendment/Establishment clause violations to find the EO void. Here is a link to the opinion http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/17-15589.pdf This case found that the Executive order was void on the basis statutory construction and not due to a violation of the establishment clause http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/12/worst-defeat-yet-court-rules-trump-actions-muslim-ban-violated-law.html

NBC’s Pete Williams reported, “This is a ruling basically saying the President violated the law in this executive order.”
This ruling is different, because the judges ruled that Trump failed to meet the essential standard for using his power, “In suspending the entry of more than 180 million nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year. The President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority: The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.’”

In other words, the ruling went beyond the legality of the ban, and discussed the legality of the President’s actions, and found that he broke the law. Trump did not demonstrate that the refugees were detrimental to the interests of the United States.

The Trump White House conception of unlimited executive power was dealt a huge blow in this ruling. The President does not have unlimited power. He can’t dash off an executive order and ban Muslims to fulfill a campaign promise.

There are checks and balances, and once again, our Judicial Branch as limited the power of Executive who demands no limits.

[Gothmog]

1. Ninth Circuit upholds block on Trump's travel ban

The fact that the 9th Circuit decided this case on statutory grounds will make it harder for the SCOTUS to overturn the case http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/12/ninth-circuit-upholds-block-on-trumps-travel-ban-239433

The 9th Circuit judges did not weigh in on whether the orders violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Instead, they resolve the case on narrower grounds: namely, that the facts the president marshaled in his orders are too flimsy to meet the standard federal immigration statutes require to implement a halt to visa issuance for nationals of particular countries.

As they marshaled evidence for their conclusion, judges turned to a notable source: a tweet Trump sent just a week ago.

“That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” Trump said online on June 5.

“Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the ‘countries’ that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s ‘travel ban,’” the judges wrote, quoting the presidential tweet in full and noting that the White House has declared that such messages are official statements of the president.

[rock]

2. "... entry of these classes of people would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

WHAT??? Isn't his word good enough? Extreme

[Cha]

3. Yay! Mahalo, Goth!

[Gothmog]

4. Analysis Anything Trump tweets can be (and just was) used against him in a court of law

This also makes me smile. Trump's tweet will definitely be used in SCOTUS briefs on the First Amendment/Establishment clause claim http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-anything-trump-tweets-can-be-and-just-was-used-against-him-in-a-court-of-law/ar-BBCzTuZ?li=BBnb7Kz

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Monday afternoon not to reinstate the president's travel ban for people from six majority-Muslim countries. A lower court paused the ban shortly after the Trump administration issued a second version. (The first met its death by the 9th Circuit, too, though this version is expected to go to the Supreme Court.)

The crux of three-judge panel's argument was this: The administration failed to prove the travel ban is so necessary for public safety that it can temporarily curtail people's liberties. And on this key part, it cited one of the president's tweets:

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-fix%2Fwp%2F2017%2F06%2F12%2Fanything-trump-tweets-can-be-and-just-was-used-against-him-in-a-court-of-law%2F

.....We knew Trump's own words could come back to haunt him on this. Now we know his tweets can, too. The judges listened to hours of arguments from the Trump administration's official lawyers, and their opinion is 86 pages long. But one, 140-character tweet from the president can upend all of that.

[erronis]

6. Some lawyers will do ANYTHING for $$$$s including massaging his shrunken id.

If words are going to hurt his tiny lowness, it's fortunate that he only knows about 100. We don't need to get wrapped up in endless discussions about what "it" is, or what "is" might have been.

[L. Coyote]

5. Is this an impeachable offense we can add to the growing list?

Happy Birthday Donnie Boy.

[Gothmog]

7. 9th Cir. Appeals Court ruled unanimously, "basically saying the president violated the law" w/ his t

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

8. For this thread