9th Circuit Tells the WLB to Go Fuck Himself

[Homeless Nutter]

I have a feeling that Trump will get his way in the end.

He already got his way. He got himself into the highest office in the country, despite acting like an incarnation of a comic book villain. He made sure his name/brand will be on everyone's lips for years to come. 

Now he's just making grand, pointless gestures, that he thinks might satisfy his simpleton fan-base. He's throwing sh*t at the wall, knowing full-well, that when most of it doesn't stick - he'll be able to point to his failed attempts and blame those pesky checks and balances, when his angry, fearful and ignorant supporters realize, they're not getting what they wanted.

He knows he promised some outrageous sh*t to some dangerously deluded people. He's just trying to avoid being shot by some disgruntled nut-jobs, for betraying the ideals of KKK, or whatever...

[GUBU]

Anybody see his tweet in response?

I'm paraphrasing "I WILL SEE YOU IN COURT" in all caps.

Does he not understand where they just were? That's like trying to fight a dude for kicking your ass.

When Trump gets his immigration courts that will be the end of this nonsense with the idiots in the 9th Circuit.

So who's going to be the Sophie Scholl to his Volksgerichthof pray tell?

---

If a judge let's Trump's insults influence their decision they are no better than he is.

To be honest, any ruling made by the judges that doesn't take into account both Trumps pronouncements on keeping all muslims out of the country, and his reactions to rulings contra to his wishes will be a one made on incomplete relevant information. Now I'm not saying they'd necessarily make a bad ruling without taking cognisance of his tweets, but they do give a strong indication of his views on legality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What nonsense, pray tell?

Interjecting their personal political views into legal matters (immigration, national security involving foreign and domestic enemies) that the President clearly has the sole right to determine.

lol, your education will be amusing to watch.

[GUBU]

I'm always amused that when a judge's decision goes "our" way they're always "activist judges with a political agenda!"

But when the decision goes "their" way the judge is politically astute and holding to the finest traditions of the law.

The most activist judges in reality are the ones calling themselves "originalists". They interpret constitutional provisions using twentieth century grammar rather than eighteenth and nineteenth century equivalents, thus painting the words of the founding fathers and the framers of the earliest amendments in a light totally contrary to their original meaning. They assume that the original ideals of the founding fathers were of a christian ideology, despite most of the founding fathers writing extensively that the republican system they were creating was expressly secular and that religious motives and organisations should have as little to do with the running of government as possible. They invent reactions the founding fathers and early jurists would have to scenarios and technologies which those same people would never in their wildest imaginations have dreamed of, never mind thought hard enough to come up with a what if scenario.

If these judges are framing their rulings based on what the original ideals of the USA were then I'm a monkey's uncle.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I caught myself snickering derisively while in my car listening to the news on the radio. I would be truly funny if so much weren't at stake.

I see the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in this case, further convincing me that my donation to the ACLU a few weeks ago was a good idea.

I need to write another check.

---

Let's also not forget, these judges ruled conservatively. This was, as ruled, an overreach of the executive branch. Actual conservatives should be happy. This is good for the long haul. There will be another liberal president, and your boy is setting all sorts of precedents that you will not be happy about in the long run.

The court ruled against a republican, but did so in a decision that actual conservatives should be happy about.

Indeed. I applaud almost any ruling which limits governmental power and overreach.

[Amarok]

I'm always amused that when a judge's decision goes "our" way they're always "activist judges with a political agenda!"

But when the decision goes "their" way the judge is politically astute and holding to the finest traditions of the law.

The most activist judges in reality are the ones calling themselves "originalists". They interpret constitutional provisions using twentieth century grammar rather than eighteenth and nineteenth century equivalents, thus painting the words of the founding fathers and the framers of the earliest amendments in a light totally contrary to their original meaning. They assume that the original ideals of the founding fathers were of a christian ideology, despite most of the founding fathers writing extensively that the republican system they were creating was expressly secular and that religious motives and organisations should have as little to do with the running of government as possible. They invent reactions the founding fathers and early jurists would have to scenarios and technologies which those same people would never in their wildest imaginations have dreamed of, never mind thought hard enough to come up with a what if scenario.

If these judges are framing their rulings based on what the original ideals of the USA were then I'm a monkey's uncle.

originalism is bunkum . The day I find one who can rule consistently on an originalist frame is the day pigs can fly.

[Whateverist]

Apparently Trump can only save us from the bad dudes provided we grant him kingly status. He didn't run for president because he thought he had a chance of 'saving us' by constitutional means. He ran his campaign as a shoot-from-the-hip, overbearing asshole believing, if elected, he'd be able to act as president in the same manner. Lets hope there is enough integrity left in the courts to reign in this fat clown.

[popeyespappy]

I'm always amused that when a judge's decision goes "our" way they're always "activist judges with a political agenda!"

But when the decision goes "their" way the judge is politically astute and holding to the finest traditions of the law.

The most activist judges in reality are the ones calling themselves "originalists". They interpret constitutional provisions using twentieth century grammar rather than eighteenth and nineteenth century equivalents, thus painting the words of the founding fathers and the framers of the earliest amendments in a light totally contrary to their original meaning. They assume that the original ideals of the founding fathers were of a christian ideology, despite most of the founding fathers writing extensively that the republican system they were creating was expressly secular and that religious motives and organisations should have as little to do with the running of government as possible. They invent reactions the founding fathers and early jurists would have to scenarios and technologies which those same people would never in their wildest imaginations have dreamed of, never mind thought hard enough to come up with a what if scenario.

If these judges are framing their rulings based on what the original ideals of the USA were then I'm a monkey's uncle.

I'm curious whether you've read much of the material presented to the courts in some of these cases before you decided "originalists" interpret the Constitution using 20th century grammar? I ask because I have read some of the material available, and that is not what I found. In fact the opposite seems to be true. It is often the people arguing against the findings of the "originalists" that are attempting to redefine or limit the meaning of things found in the Constitution.

Take District of Columbia v. Heller for example. Much of what is found in the amicus briefs arguing for an individual right to arms in the Heller was supported by commentary from the time of the founders. The thoughts of Adams, Coxe and Monroe (people who were actually involved in the process) are often cited in support of an individual right.

Arguments supporting a collective right are often backed with commentary from later times. In the case of Heller the state actually argued at one point in a lower court that congress had changed the definition of militia from how it was originally used with later regulation in defense of their case.

[noname]

Trump is fucking ridiculous, and I'd like him to fuck up (as long as it doesn't fuck up anyone's lives), and get impeached, but how is he a "So called president"? He was legitimately elected, and won fairly. Just because his stance on issues are fucking bullshit most of the time, that does not make him illegitimate.

---

Republicans are all whining about "Liberal devil obstruction", while the same people supported republican obstruction during Obama's presidency.

I was mocking trumps tweet calling the judge who stayed his Muslim Ban a so called judge. Despite being legitimately appointed to the job.

Oh yeah, Trump called the judge a "so called judge", but you can see why I didn't see it in context right?

[TheRealJoeFish]

I see nothing in the 9th Circuit Opinion that is legally questionable. A whole ton of the push back is based on an improper understanding of 1) what this court was doing (reviewing a request to rescind a temporary restraining order), 2) what different parts of this opinion were addressing (for instance, Ben Shapiro's analysis (which is of course that this is "Judicial Tyranny") completely conflates issues of standing and issues of merits in a way that's absolutely unbelievable coming from a Harvard Law grad (if indeed he believes it, but that's a different story)), and 3) the specific content of both the EO and the Supreme Court doctrine cited by the Court in support of its position.

I'm'a summarize the opinion for reference, in case anyone's interested, at some point today. If anyone has any specific questions, or disputes the legality of specific portions of the opinion, I'd love to talk about it (that is - for those railing against it, tell me which parts you disagree with and we can discuss the issues surrounding it!).