Appeals Court Denies DOJ Request On Stay For Travel EO

[Kathianne]

Looks like it will go to SCOTUS pretty quickly if the 9th doesn't reverse ruling. The states have until tonight at !!:59pm to respond to what the DOJ is arguing.

DOJ has until Monday to respond to the states.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-files-appeal-washington-judges-travel-ban/story?id=45274114

[NightTrain]

The 9th Circuit has been left-leaning for a long time now, so I think the odds are better than good that this will end up in SCOTUS.

And that means that Gorsuch's opposition will be fierce.

[Kathianne]

The 9th Circuit has been left-leaning for a long time now, so I think the odds are better than good that this will end up in SCOTUS.

And that means that Gorsuch's opposition will be fierce.

Unless they reverse the stay, it will go to SCOTUS. I'd expect SCOTUS to rule by early next week at the latest.

Heck, even if they do reverse the stay, it's a near certainty the states will appeal to SCOTUS.

[fj1200]

Robart is a Bush appointee.

[Kathianne]

Robart is a Bush appointee.

Did someone say differently? I was speaking of the 9th Circuit which refused to lift the stay early this morning.

[fj1200]

Did someone say differently? I was speaking of the 9th Circuit which refused to lift the stay early this morning.

Nope. Just interesting.

[NightTrain]

Here's some interesting background on Robart :


Robart received his undergraduate degree from Whitman College in Washington state, and his law degree at Georgetown. He applied for a seat on the bench, received a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, and was recommended for the position by both his state’s senators at the time.

During his brief confirmation hearing in early 2004, Robart faced little questioning from senators about his history, temperament or views on the law. Leahy at the time complained he felt Republicans were rushing through nominees too quickly, given their reluctance to confirm nominations made previously by former President Clinton.


Trump's immigration ban: How we ended up back where we were 9 days ago ... for now
Speaking to senators, Robart noted he served as an aide to former U.S. Sens. Scoop Jackson (a Democrat) and Mark Hatfield (a Republican) before joining a private law firm in his home state of Washington, rising to become the firm's sole managing partner.


In his testimony, Robart said he saw the law as a way to help people who feel they’ve been wronged, or that the odds are unfairly stacked against them. As part of his firm’s commitment to providing free legal services, Robart said he often assisted Southeast Asian immigrants with legal problems at no cost.


“Working with people who have an immediate need and an immediate problem that you are able to help with is the most satisfying aspect in the practice of law,” he told the Judiciary Committee in 2004. “If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the Senate, I will take that experience to the courtroom with me, recognizing that you need to treat everyone with dignity and respect, and to engage them so that when they leave the courtroom they feel like that had a fair trial and that they were treated as a participant in the system.”


Trump tweetstorm disparages judge for 'ridiculous' opinion, warns it could lead to 'death and destruction'
During a hearing last year, Robart strongly criticized the Seattle police union after citing FBI statistics showing that blacks were disproportionally killed by police officers: "Forty-one percent of the casualties, 20% people of the population… black lives matter," Robart said, sighing and shaking his head, according to a video recording of his ruling.


Robart criticized the police union for rejecting a new contract because officers felt they weren’t being paid enough to follow new rules intended to make their conduct less racially biased and more constitutional.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/seattle-judge-used-broad-power-to-halt-executive-order-1486232039

Definitely got a liberal streak to him. That's not unusual in Seattle, though.

[Black Diamond]

Robart is a Bush appointee.
Souter, Stevens, Roberts.

[NightTrain]

DOJ fired back, and we'll see what happens tomorrow in the 9th.

Sure would be nice to have Gorsuch seated in case things don't go well.

A long article, but the DOJ people put together some pretty convincing arguments.


<cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; word-spacing: 2px;">In fact, while Judge Robart decreed that the interests of Washington State would be harmed by the Trump order, the government argued that the interests of the presidency, and of the Constitution, would be harmed by Judge Robart's decision. "Judicial intrusion on the political branches' exclusive authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in itself constitutes irreparable injury," the Department argued.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; word-spacing: 2px;">By the end of the Justice Department's 24-page brief, Judge Robart's, and the state of Washington's, argument lay in tatters.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/justice-department-demolishes-the-case-against-trumps-order/article/2613988
</cnt>

[fj1200]

Here's some interesting background on Robart :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/seattle-judge-used-broad-power-to-halt-executive-order-1486232039

Definitely got a liberal streak to him. That's not unusual in Seattle, though.

Let the bloodletting begin:


He spoke of the police — their training and accountability and leadership. “The men and women who go out and walk around Seattle and proudly wear the Seattle Police Department uniform,” he said, “ … are entitled to know what they may and may not do.”He breathed in again. Then he spoke of protests against police that had spread across the country, and FBI statistics showing that black people are twice as likely to be shot dead by police as their share of the population would warrant.
“Black lives matter,” the judge said.
His words, the Seattle Times noted (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/in-tongue-lashing-federal-judge-wont-let-guild-hold-police-reform-hostage/), caused “a startled, audible reaction” in the courtroom. Here was a federal judge echoing a slogan used by protesters.
Robart was not done. “Black people are not alone in this,” he went on. “Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans are also involved. And lastly and importantly: Police deaths in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Minneapolis and let’s not forget Lakewood, Washington, remind us of the importance of what we are doing.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/04/meet-the-bush-appointed-federal-judge-who-halted-trumps-executive-order/?tid=pm_national_pop&utm_term=.95851bbf3e12

Sometimes things just don't go the populists way.


Souter, Stevens, Roberts.

And? Roberts; that flaming lib. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Today and beyond:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444673/ninth-circuit-oral-argument-trump-travel-ban


...

As our Monday editorial points out, the appellate court could duck the issue of the TRO’s propriety as not yet ripe for review, sending the matter back to Robart for further proceedings (during which the suspension of the ban would presumably remain in place). The panel is more likely, though, to rule on whether the restraining order is appropriate. To uphold the TRO, the panel would presumably have to conclude that the administration is likely to lose on the merits – a finding that would be untenable if the law is followed, and that Robart purported to make without addressing the clear law on which the president’s executive order explicitly relies. Such a ruling would not be a final determination of the merits, but it would be a strong indication of the panel’s view of the merits.

The law is strongly on the Trump administration’s side, but that may not make any more difference to the famously left-leaning Ninth Circuit than it did to Judge Robart. (See Rich’s excellent column on Robart’s ruling, here.) If the administration loses before the panel, it could seek rehearing en banc. It is unusual for a Circuit to grant such a rehearing. In most Circuits, it means a review by all the active judges; because the Ninth Circuit is so large (with 29 active judges, as well as 19 senior judges), en banc review is limited by rule to 11 active judges (the chief judge and 10 others).

If the administration loses in the Ninth Circuit, it could appeal to the Supreme Court. There seems to be a prevailing assumption that, because the High Court’s four left-leaning justices vote as a bloc, there would be a 4-to-4 stalemate, which would mean that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would be sustained. As I argue in a column this morning, there are reasons to doubt that the justices would deadlock in this case – I believe there is a strong possibility that Justice Kennedy would vote with the left-leaning bloc.




Related link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444670/travel-ban-anthony-kennedy

[Gunny]

Today and beyond:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444673/ninth-circuit-oral-argument-trump-travel-ban



Related link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444670/travel-ban-anthony-kennedy

"untenable if the law is followed". :bang3:

[revelarts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQZS3prZmP4



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQZS3prZmP4

boom.

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYSTyrK71U

larger portion of proceeding

[Abbey Marie]

The 9th Circuit has been left-leaning for a long time now, so I think the odds are better than good that this will end up in SCOTUS.

And that means that Gorsuch's opposition will be fierce.

9th has been lefty since I can remember.

[fj1200]

9th has been lefty since I can remember.

Even the Bush appointee voted to deny. At this point they should probably drop the appeal given a potential 4-4 tie at SCOTUS leaves the lower court ruling in place. He should just write a better order IMO.

[gabosaurus]

The current SCOTUS has rarely heard cases that have been rejected unanimously by lower courts. Trump needs to come up with a Kristallnacht pretty quickly if he wants to reverse public opinion on this issue.

[NightTrain]

The current SCOTUS has rarely heard cases that have been rejected unanimously by lower courts. Trump needs to come up with a Kristallnacht pretty quickly if he wants to reverse public opinion on this issue.

You really have no clue as to what you're trying to talk about here, do you?

[Abbey Marie]

Even the Bush appointee voted to deny. At this point they should probably drop the appeal given a potential 4-4 tie at SCOTUS leaves the lower court ruling in place. He should just write a better order IMO.

I agree. Take a bit of time and do it right. There are plenty of lawyers who can craft a more bullet proof order. Of course, Dems will fight any enforcement he pursues.

Trump still needs to learn that running the Executive branch is very different from running his own corporation.

Bush appointees have been known to disappoint...

[fj1200]

The current SCOTUS has rarely heard cases that have been rejected unanimously by lower courts. Trump needs to come up with a Kristallnacht pretty quickly if he wants to reverse public opinion on this issue.

Wouldn't you think Röhm Putsch is more fitting? :poke:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/judges-threatened-immigration-order/

[NightTrain]

I agree. Take a bit of time and do it right. There are plenty of lawyers who can craft a more bullet proof order. Of course, Dems will fight any enforcement he pursues.

Trump still needs to learn that running the Executive branch is very different from running his own corporation.

I surfed around watching lawyers discussing why the 9th Circus didn't actually address the law giving Trump the power he has, and it all seems to boil down to the Green Card holders being included in the original EO.

While the Green Card holders were excluded from the EO later, it's not in the original that the courts are working from - deliberately ignoring the modification later, but that's another debate.

Apparently, all Trump has to do is withdraw the EO, and issue another one with the Green Card exemption, and he'll be in the clear.

I totally get why he's frustrated and wants to fight and win with his original in order to rub Robart's and now the 9th Circuit's noses in their decision, but that's not doing any good.

IMO, withdraw and re-issue, settle it, and get back to work.

[fj1200]

I agree. Take a bit of time and do it right. There are plenty of lawyers who can craft a more bullet proof order. Of course, Dems will fight any enforcement he pursues.

Trump still needs to learn that running the Executive branch is very different from running his own corporation.

Bush appointees have been known to disappoint...

Sometimes bad EO is just bad EO and judges shouldn't be partisan rubber stamps for either side. Nevertheless Dems gonna Dem, just don't hand them the ammo to shoot you.

[jimnyc]

Not 100% sure I agree with him, but Dershowitz is a smart cookie.

----

Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court

This week, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz told NewsMaxTV that he expects Donald Trump to lose his appeal to undo the stay of his executive order freezing travel from seven mideatern countries, but to win the next time at the Supreme Court.

"I do not believe that this order constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution," the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told "Newsmax Prime" host J.D. Hayworth. "The fact that they picked seven Muslim states, those are the states that have high levels of terrorism.

"We're talking about Islamic terrorism.

"When you focus on real victims or real perpetrators — and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that doesn't create a constitutional problem.

"The case will go to the Supreme Court," the professor emeritus said. "It may split 4-4 — and that will be interesting, because we also have a case in Massachusetts where you have a liberal judge who went in favor of the Trump administration, even though generally he's regarded as quite liberal in his views."

"So, I think that the Trump administration will ultimately win on that issue, at least as it relates to people who have never been in the United States," Dershowitz concluded.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/09/dershowitz_trump_will_win_travel_ban_case_at_supre me_court.html

[NightTrain]

Not 100% sure I agree with him, but Dershowitz is a smart cookie.

----

Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court

This week, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz told NewsMaxTV that he expects Donald Trump to lose his appeal to undo the stay of his executive order freezing travel from seven mideatern countries, but to win the next time at the Supreme Court.

"I do not believe that this order constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution," the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told "Newsmax Prime" host J.D. Hayworth. "The fact that they picked seven Muslim states, those are the states that have high levels of terrorism.

"We're talking about Islamic terrorism.

"When you focus on real victims or real perpetrators — and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that doesn't create a constitutional problem.

"The case will go to the Supreme Court," the professor emeritus said. "It may split 4-4 — and that will be interesting, because we also have a case in Massachusetts where you have a liberal judge who went in favor of the Trump administration, even though generally he's regarded as quite liberal in his views."

"So, I think that the Trump administration will ultimately win on that issue, at least as it relates to people who have never been in the United States," Dershowitz concluded.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/09/dershowitz_trump_will_win_travel_ban_case_at_supre me_court.html


I'd be all for taking this as it is to SCOTUS if Gorsuch were seated. But as it stands now, a 4-4 split upholds Robart's TRO.

Seems to be risky, given that a withdrawal and re-issue would effectively settle this... take the fight all the way once all 9 justices are working.

[jimnyc]

I'd be all for taking this as it is to SCOTUS if Gorsuch were seated. But as it stands now, a 4-4 split upholds Robart's TRO.

Seems to be risky, given that a withdrawal and re-issue would effectively settle this... take the fight all the way once all 9 justices are working.

That's what I think, it goes 4-4. Perhaps different if the 9th was in there already.

Funny how the judge laughed that none were arrested here... and some always bring up Saudi Arabia as who REALLY are the terrorists, and responsible for 9/11.... How many from there have been arrested? We KNOW that ISIS is ALL over the place in Syria and Iraq - how many have been arrested here?

Being proactive is what helps, not waiting for something to happen. Remember the liberals, and how GWB could have prevented 9/11?

I don't mind if this fails... but I hope they come up with something else... perhaps a vetting system that basically takes so long and makes it so hard, that it would effectively be the same. At least for refugees we know nothing about.

[NightTrain]

There's a bill right now to split up the 9th Circuit and create a new 12th Circuit.

It would give California & Hawaii to the 9th, and AK, WA, OR and ID to the 12th. And guess who chooses Fed Judges? A 12th Circuit would get off to a very nice start.

We could finally be free of that awful court... they've been screwing Alaska for years with their ultra liberal meddling. Environmentalist nutjobs absolutely love taking their cases there.