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

[aaron2020 11,651]

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

Somebody should remind people that concentration camps are meant to keep people in, not out, and conversely walls are meant to keep people out, not in.

 

Seriously though, as soon as they bring up concentration camps they instantly lose me to the conversation. You can't seriously discuss anything with people like that.

More lies.

 

Palestinians are not allowed freedom of movement out of the West Bank.  They must get special permission from the Israeli military to leave.

 

The wall does not surround Israel.  It surrounds the West Bank to contain the Palestinians inside and keep them out of Israel.  Your Alt-fact of inside and outside is a lie.

[aaron2020 11,651]

Hey OriZ,

 

Still waiting for an answer to this.  Where did I claimed to be good at all this law thing as you claimed?  If you want to continue to distort things, I am more than happy to point you to real facts.

[aaron2020 11,651]

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-prevents-thousands-palestinians-leaving-west-bank-679620281

 

How is preventing Palestinians from entering Jordan keeping them out of Israel?  Seems like it's about keeping the Palestinians INSIDE of the wall.

[OriZ 3,157]

lol thanks for the link to a site that defends the muslim brotherhood, believes they should not be considered terrorists, and calls people 'secular fanatics'. However, what I said before about this discussion still stands.

[aaa2zzz 27]

This case was decided by a three judge panel. As I write this, the 9th Circuit is asking for an en banc meeting (all of the judges),to review the ruling,  apparently based on the request of Chief Judge Thomas (Clinton appointee), in that court, because there is some dissension there that (correctly) this ruling was way, way out of line. And, as often happens, one of the parties (the Trump Administration) plans to ask as well.  Even Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz agrees. 

"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.

“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.”

Other than a couple of odd-ball cases in the 9th Circuit, case law is pretty solid that persons who are non-citizens including green card holders have no constitutional rights to enter the USA. Period. 

If you examine the motions in Washington and Virginia, including the one which is the topic here, the basis for relief sought is not that green card or visa holders have the right to enter the USA. Not at all. The basis that not letting non-citizens with student visas enter the USA will adversely impact the state universities 

As argued in the Virginia case (1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB   ): "That impairment will hamper the ability of Virginia’s colleges and universities to attract and retain foreign students in the future and result in a significant loss of tuition revenue to the Commonwealth. The Executive Order also hinders the travel of faculty members and other educational personnel employed by Virginia’s public colleges and universities. Faculty members and students who are unable to travel likely will be forced to forfeit their grant moneys."

In other words, the EO reduces the tuition and grant money the universities can get.

Now is it clear what this is about?

The answer to the OP is that the judges did a hack job. 

 

[aaron2020 11,651]

9 minutes ago, aaa2zzz said:

This case was decided by a three judge panel. As I write this, the 9th Circuit is asking for an en banc meeting (all of the judges),to review the ruling,  apparently based on the request of Chief Judge Thomas (Clinton appointee), in that court, because there is some dissension there that (correctly) this ruling was way, way out of line. And, as often happens, one of the parties (the Trump Administration) plans to ask as well.  Even Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz agrees. 

"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.

“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.”

Other than a couple of odd-ball cases in the 9th Circuit, case law is pretty solid that persons who are non-citizens including green card holders have no constitutional rights to enter the USA. Period. 

If you examine the motions in Washington and Virginia, including the one which is the topic here, the basis for relief sought is not that green card or visa holders have the right to enter the USA. Not at all. The basis that not letting non-citizens with student visas enter the USA will adversely impact the state universities 

As argued in the Virginia case (1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB   ): "That impairment will hamper the ability of Virginia’s colleges and universities to attract and retain foreign students in the future and result in a significant loss of tuition revenue to the Commonwealth. The Executive Order also hinders the travel of faculty members and other educational personnel employed by Virginia’s public colleges and universities. Faculty members and students who are unable to travel likely will be forced to forfeit their grant moneys."

In other words, the EO reduces the tuition and grant money the universities can get.

Now is it clear what this is about?

The answer to the OP is that the judges did a hack job. 

 

Bwaaaa!!!!! You have no clue what it means to hear a case en banc.  It's not because the full court disagrees.  In many instances, an en banc court will confirm a 3 judge panel to counter political pressure.  

 

[aaa2zzz 27]

29 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

Bwaaaa!!!!! You have no clue what it means to hear a case en banc.  It's not because the full court disagrees.  In many instances, an en banc court will confirm a 3 judge panel to counter political pressure.  

 

Hmm, actually I DO have a clue what it means. I am familiar with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Most common reason for en banc is when the 3-judge decision is in conflict with a decision of the Supremes (not the singing group, but the Supreme Court) or most of the other circuits (as is the case here). I am not admitted in the Western District of Washington, but in other districts in the 9th Circuit. So, I have good reason to "have a clue." And you, what law school did you attend? I hope not one of those matchbook ones.  

 

Rule 35. En Banc Determination

 

(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.

(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:

(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

(2) Except by the court's permission:

(A) a petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing produced using a computer must not exceed 3,900 words; and

(B) a handwritten or typewritten petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing must not exceed 15 pages.

(3) For purposes of the limits in Rule 35(b)(2), if a party files both a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, they are considered a single document even if they are filed separately, unless separate filing is required by local rule.

(c) Time for Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee's brief is due. A petition for a rehearing en banc must be filed within the time prescribed by Rule 40 for filing a petition for rehearing.

(d) Number of Copies. The number of copies to be filed must be prescribed by local rule and may be altered by order in a particular case.

(e) Response. No response may be filed to a petition for an en banc consideration unless the court orders a response.

 Call for a Vote. A vote need not be taken to determine whether the case will be heard or reheard en banc unless a judge calls for a vote.

[aaron2020 11,651]

18 minutes ago, aaa2zzz said:

Hmm, actually I DO have a clue what it means. I am familiar with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Most common reason for en banc is when the 3-judge decision is in conflict with a decision of the Supremes (not the singing group, but the Supreme Court) or most of the other circuits (as is the case here). I am not admitted in the Western District of Washington, but in other districts in the 9th Circuit. So, I have good reason to "have a clue." And you, what law school did you attend? I hope not one of those matchbook ones.  

 

Rule 35. En Banc Determination

 

(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.

(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:

(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

(2) Except by the court's permission:

(A) a petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing produced using a computer must not exceed 3,900 words; and

(B) a handwritten or typewritten petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing must not exceed 15 pages.

(3) For purposes of the limits in Rule 35(b)(2), if a party files both a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, they are considered a single document even if they are filed separately, unless separate filing is required by local rule.

(c) Time for Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee's brief is due. A petition for a rehearing en banc must be filed within the time prescribed by Rule 40 for filing a petition for rehearing.

(d) Number of Copies. The number of copies to be filed must be prescribed by local rule and may be altered by order in a particular case.

(e) Response. No response may be filed to a petition for an en banc consideration unless the court orders a response.

 Call for a Vote. A vote need not be taken to determine whether the case will be heard or reheard en banc unless a judge calls for a vote.

PM me your law school.

 

Please point me to the conflict with SCOTUS. 

 

Please point me to the conflict with other circuits.  

 

Please look at 35(a)(2).  An en banc proceeding may be ordered when it involves a question of exceptional importance.  In no way does this rule indicates that the en banc panel would disagree with the 3 judges.

 

Where is your "way, way out of line" coming from?  Back it up counselor.  

Edited February 14, 2017 by aaron2020

[aaron2020 11,651]

P.S.  Putting your statement in GIANT FONT does not enhance your argument.

[Merle 458]

24 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

P.S.  Putting your statement in GIANT FONT does not enhance your argument.

Dude, I  think you need to go to the medicine cabinet and get a chill pill.

[TBoneTX 46,262]

Administrative action has been taken against a member for multiple TOS violations against multiple participants in this thread.  Please return to civil discussion of the topic.

[yuna628 9,736]

As I'd mentioned in another thread (perhaps?) an en banc has been filed, but it means nothing really consequential as of yet as it explains here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/why_might_9th_circuit_judge_have_requested_en_banc_rehearing_vote_on_immigr  A poster has posted the terms of what one means, and that reveals nothing about the purpose for this en banc, or even how they would rule. The context of the case makes sense to do so citing reasons a1 and a2 as it fits into that description. As for Alan Dershowitz, it's important to keep in good context of his legal opinion of the issue without misquoting his entire thought. His feeling is actually that the case, if reaching SCOTUS could be only half legal. That means a portion would be ruled unfavorably for the Trump administration. This is an opinion shared by many, but there are also many who find his argument for being half legal is also incorrect, that it would be found entirely illegal - and that there are a few reasons why he comes to a false conclusion. When observing this case it's important to find a wide range of analysis from Constitutional lawyers from all three schools of thought on the subject (illegal, half legal, and legal)... and as I said there's a plethora of well-reasoned commentaries on the subject, if persons should want to read them.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On 2/14/2017 at 7:19 AM, yuna628 said:

As I'd mentioned in another thread (perhaps?) an en banc has been filed, but it means nothing really consequential as of yet as it explains here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/why_might_9th_circuit_judge_have_requested_en_banc_rehearing_vote_on_immigr  A poster has posted the terms of what one means, and that reveals nothing about the purpose for this en banc, or even how they would rule. The context of the case makes sense to do so citing reasons a1 and a2 as it fits into that description. As for Alan Dershowitz, it's important to keep in good context of his legal opinion of the issue without misquoting his entire thought. His feeling is actually that the case, if reaching SCOTUS could be only half legal. That means a portion would be ruled unfavorably for the Trump administration. This is an opinion shared by many, but there are also many who find his argument for being half legal is also incorrect, that it would be found entirely illegal - and that there are a few reasons why he comes to a false conclusion. When observing this case it's important to find a wide range of analysis from Constitutional lawyers from all three schools of thought on the subject (illegal, half legal, and legal)... and as I said there's a plethora of well-reasoned commentaries on the subject, if persons should want to read them.

Also worthwhile noting is that -- in the words of the 9th Circuit -- an en banc hearing is not uncommon, even those that are sua sponte:

 

Quote

En banc calls, including sua sponte en banc calls, are a common occurrence. In an average year in the Ninth Circuit, there are approximately 1,500 requests by parties for rehearing en banc. Typically, there are approximately fifty requests each year by a judge for a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc. On the average, the Ninth Circuit hears between 15-25 en banc cases a year

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/10/En_Banc_Summary2.pdf

 

But WHATEVER! Trump's gonna give us a much more beautiful new executive order next week and moot that janky old one: https://nyti.ms/2ln970C

 

But oh no! Maybe they can't!

 

Quote

 

It is not clear that the issuance of a new and narrower executive order will make the case before the Ninth Circuit moot or that the court will agree to vacate the decision even if it did.

The Supreme Court has said the “voluntary cessation” of a government action does not usually make a case moot if the government remains free to resume the conduct after the case is dismissed.

 

Bummer, man.