Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree10Likes
  • 4 Post By lorrie
  • 2 Post By lorrie
  • 3 Post By artist
  • 1 Post By Beezer

Thread: Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Block Travel Ban Ruling

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Block Travel Ban Ruling

    Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Block Travel Ban Ruling



    Friday, 14 Jul 2017 03:49 PM

    U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to block a judge's ruling that prevented President Donald Trump's travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

    Sessions said in a statement that the administration would "reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court" in a bid to overturn Thursday's decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration's temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. The Justice Department could file papers with the high court as soon as Friday.

    "By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court," Sessions Said.

    The Supreme Court last month said the ban could take effect, but that people with a "bona fide relationship" to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

    The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.

    "The truth here is that the government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s stay order defies common sense," said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union involved in challenging the ban. "That’s what the district court correctly found, and the attorney general’s misleading attacks on its decision can’t change that fact."

    The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is not currently in session, but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration's application could be directed either to Justice
    Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request.

    Separately, the Justice Department filed papers in Hawaii federal court saying it would appeal Watson's ruling to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That would give the government a second route to the Supreme Court.

    Earlier on Friday, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert told reporters that the ruling appeared to be "fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported."

    Bossert, speaking aboard Air Force One as the president returned from a trip to Paris, focused his remarks on the part of the ruling that would allow more refugees to enter the country, saying the ruling could be interpreted as "so expansive as to cover every refugee."

    In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government's definition of close family relations as "the antithesis of common sense."

    Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

    The ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.

    The Supreme Court's decision last month revived parts of Trump's March 6 executive order banning travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as refugees for 120 days. The court also agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trum.../14/id/801746/
    Judy, southBronx, Beezer and 1 others like this.


    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty
    by joining our E-mail Alerts athttp://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765
    You are all SCHMUCKS!

    Get that progressive ideologue off the bench!

    Who died and left him in charge of the Nations National Security?
    Last edited by lorrie; 07-15-2017 at 11:51 AM.
    Judy and Beezer like this.


    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty
    by joining our E-mail Alerts athttp://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    the judge is sitting in Hawaii that took in 3 refugees.
    Judy, Beezer and lorrie like this.

  4. #4
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,221

    AG Sessions, Patriotic Immigration Groups React to Hawaii Judge Taking Teeth Out of S

    AG Sessions, Patriotic Immigration Groups React to Hawaii Judge Taking Teeth Out of SCOTUS-Approved Travel Ban



    by IAN MASON
    14 Jul 2017
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
    1,447 comments

    Outraged reactions poured in Friday to federal Judge Derrick Watson’s order effectively nullifying the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of President Trump’s travel ban by holding the administration’s definition of a “bone fide relationship” invalid.

    Watson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, ruled Thursday that narrowly interpreting the term “close familial relationship” from the Supreme Court’s decision reinstating the travel ban.

    The Supreme Court left in place part of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction blocking the travel ban, allowing those from the the six Muslim-majority countries designated in the president’s Executive Order 13780 to enter the United States if they have a bone fide relationship with someone who resides here.

    The State Department quickly issued a guidance limiting that exception to a “parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling” living in the United Sates. Watson found this unexceptable and ruled that the government must continue to allow in fiancés, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins.

    A concurrence by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito had predicted exactly this type of litigation when the Court used such general language in reinstating to travel ban. Dale Wilcox, Executive Director of the patriotic immigration law firm Immigration Reform Law Institute, told Breitbart News:

    Judge Watson’s latest order was absolutely predictable. Given the failure of Roberts, Kennedy, and the liberal justices to state precisely what they meant by “bona fide relationship”, Watson was able to stretch the term out as much as he wanted.

    It’s also exactly what Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito warned about in their concurrence. The others could’ve listened, but didn’t
    .

    “Judge Watson’s order renders the Supreme Court’s decision all but a dead letter,” wrote Center for Immigration Studies’ Andrew Arthur in a Friday post excoriating Watson’s decision.

    Arthur went on to explain that this new, imposed definition could include virtually anyone, as it does not even limit itself to first or second cousins. He writes:

    Most people fail to realize how many relatives we have … In fact, I have (or had, I don’t keep up) two Facebook friends who are cousins I have never met who live in Swabia. I have looked at their pictures, but had to rely on Google translate to understand what they were saying (my German is not good, and their English is non-existent). But, if they lived in Mogadishu, they could apparently come to the United States thanks to me and Mark Zuckerberg.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose Department of Justice is charged with defending the administration’s definition, made his feelings about the order clear in a Friday press release, saying:

    Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal Executive Branch related to our national security. By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the Executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the directive of the Supreme Court.

    The district court has issued decisions that are entrusted to the Executive Branch, undermined national security, delayed necessary action, created confusion, and violated a proper respect for separation of powers. The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation
    .

    The Department of Justice is expected to appeal Watson’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as it did in the case of Watson’s original ruling holding the travel ban unconstitutional.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ed-travel-ban/
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member Beezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    18,641
    NO REFUGEE CHAIN MIGRATION!!!

    PUT THEM IN SAFE ZONE ON THEIR SOIL...YOU PROMISED

    THEY CAN ALL REUNITE WITH THEIR FAMILY THERE AND REBUILD
    Judy likes this.
    TO BECOME AN AMERICAN YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR VALUES ...NOT YOUR LOCATION

    STAY HOME AND BUILD AMERICA ON YOUR SOIL

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-27-2017, 05:44 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-25-2017, 10:57 AM
  3. 16 states ask Supreme Court to revive Trump travel ban
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-07-2017, 09:00 AM
  4. Justice Department will ask Supreme Court to review court’s ruling on Trump travel ba
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2017, 10:34 PM
  5. Trump welcomes Supreme Court ruling
    By lorrie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-23-2016, 10:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •