Why did the 9th Circuit court ignore 8 U.S. Code § 1182?

[jg121783 3,915]

8 U.S. Code § 1182 states the following;

 

“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.”

 

Seems pretty easy to understand to me. Even a 10 year old could understand it. So why couldn't the 9th Circuit court understand it? This type of legislating from the bench is why 80% of their rulings are overturned. 

[TBoneTX 45,273]

Wasn't mention of the statute absent from the ruling?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Because 8 USC 1182 doesn't contain that paragraph? Just spitballing but that code covers various reasons specific people can be denied entry, it doesn't seem to give the so-called President blanket powers of exclusion based on vague prejudiced feelings of Islamaphobia.

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

Because 8 USC 1182 doesn't contain that paragraph? Just spitballing but that code covers various reasons specific people can be denied entry, it doesn't seem to give the so-called President blanket powers of exclusion based on vague prejudiced feelings of Islamaphobia.

Actually it is there word for word. Search for "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President" and you should have no problem finding it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Perhaps you missed it (if you even looked for it).

 

This has nothing to do with "islamaphobia". Only a small percentage of Muslims world wide are affected and it is not exclusive to Muslims.

[Unidentified 2,930]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Actually it is there word for word. Search for "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President" and you should have no problem finding it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Perhaps you missed it (if you even looked for it).

 

This has nothing to do with "islamaphobia". Only a small percentage of Muslims world wide are affected and it is not exclusive to Muslims.

This is directly from the Executive order:

 

(b)  Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.  Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

 

The countries we're talking about here are predominantly Muslim which makes Christianity a minority religion "in the individual's country of nationality. 

 

[aaron2020 11,651]

Stop repeating Alt-facts.  

 

There is this little document that trumps the Federal Codes.  It's called the US Constitution. Executive orders following the Federal Codes still must comply with the Constitution.  Executive orders that violates the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution are unlawful.

 

You have zero understanding of the law.  A 10 years old would not make the mistake in thinking the Federal Codes trumps the US Constitution.

 

Furthermore, the 9th Cir. hears about 12,000+ cases a year.  Less than 0.1% goes up for review in front of SCOTUS.  SCOTUS overturns about 70% of the cases it reviews.  That's not an 80% if their rulings getting overturned.

 

Thanks for your take on the law.  However, Federal judges appointed by Carter, Obama, & G.W. Bush probably have you beat.  What do a bunch of Ivy League law graduates know.  No one is better at the law than you.

 

Sad.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by aaron2020

[yuna628 9,676]

I'd be happy to provide some very good legal commentary by various legal scholars and constitutional lawyers (both conservative, liberal, and libertarian) that disagree with the OP's reading of the law and why it does not exactly apply in this case. It would be quite a mashup and a lot of reading though, if you're willing. I know a lot of text freaks people out on a regular basis... An over-reach is an over-reach and it is dangerous for people to support that of any President.

 

Aside that, there is a motion of en blanc filed on the case, so we'll soon see if there are any changes, complete agreement, or dissent of the rest of the judges on the court.

Edited February 12, 2017 by yuna628

[spookyturtle 9,465]

10 hours ago, jg121783 said:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 states the following;

 

“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.”

 

Seems pretty easy to understand to me. Even a 10 year old could understand it. So why couldn't the 9th Circuit court understand it? This type of legislating from the bench is why 80% of their rulings are overturned. 

 

Wait until Trump goes after the Philippines. Then I'll bet those same 10 year olds won't understand it. 

[ready4ONE 5,400]

6 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Actually it is there word for word. Search for "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President" and you should have no problem finding it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Perhaps you missed it (if you even looked for it).

 

This has nothing to do with "islamaphobia". Only a small percentage of Muslims world wide are affected and it is not exclusive to Muslims.

It could be, I was looking at it on my phone and it is quite lengthy. Unfortunately for the so-called President his EO's are not Royal Decrees handed down from God and not to be questioned. The OE in question was nearly exclusively based on paranoid Islamaphobia and was indeed questioned in a manner that was quite Constitutional.

 

The Donald is not in a position of dictatorship no matter how clearly he wishes he were. His response tells us all we need to know regarding his lack of respect for the Constitution.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

2 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

 

Wait until Trump goes after the Philippines. Then I'll bet those same 10 year olds won't understand it. 

It remains to be seen if he will be in office long enough to 'go after' the Philippines. Seems he has already done a great job egging on NK and Iran into missile testing and his boasting about the world respecting him is already proving false, even amongst our steadfast allies.

[aaron2020 11,651]

When given real facts, those with alt-facts seem to disappear.  JG has been on VJ but guess he missed this thread (if he even looked for it).

[Merle 458]

8 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

It remains to be seen if he will be in office long enough to 'go after' the Philippines. Seems he has already done a great job egging on NK and Iran into missile testing and his boasting about the world respecting him is already proving false, even amongst our steadfast allies.

Yea because Iran and NK were just shaking in their boots while Obama was president. 

[aaron2020 11,651]

29 minutes ago, Merle said:

Yea because Iran and NK were just shaking in their boots while Obama was president. 

Yeah, it's much better to antagonize our allies like Australia and be in bed with the Russians.

 

This is so much better.  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/trumps-off-the-cuff-remarks-to-world-leaders-leave-diplomats-aghast.html

Edited February 13, 2017 by aaron2020

[Merle 458]

15 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

Yeah, it's much better to antagonize our allies like Australia and be in bed with the Russians.

 

This is so much better.  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/trumps-off-the-cuff-remarks-to-world-leaders-leave-diplomats-aghast.html

That wasn't my point. NK and Iran were doing the same stuff under Obama that they are doing now. Obama had no problem antagonizing Israel as well. The last I checked they are one of our biggest allies in that part of the world. Do I need to post proof?

Edited February 13, 2017 by Merle

[aaron2020 11,651]

51 minutes ago, Merle said:

That wasn't my point. NK and Iran were doing the same stuff under Obama that they are doing now. Obama had no problem antagonizing Israel as well. The last I checked they are one of our biggest allies in that part of the world. Do I need to post proof?

Bibi is also a fascist.  The wall around the West Bank looks fantastic.  World's largest concentration camp.  You are right, we shouldn't antagonize Israel over this or building illegal settlements which violates international laws, UN resolutions, and human rights.

 

Please post your proof that Obama antagonized Israel.  I will post why Obama was right each and every time when Israel decided to violate international laws and UN resolutions.

Edited February 13, 2017 by aaron2020