Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

You don't get it. The party felt Ryan's plan sucked, because it did. Did you think that it was expected to pass? Gee you are dense.

bobebgtime Loc: Virginia

Trump’s been in office for two months and he can’t do anything without the left bitching. Which most accept the democrats will hound trump as long as he is president.

But I do find funny you speak of obama as if his presidency as a success other than being the catastrophe it was. obama did nothing in two terms but fuck up the country.

Travel Ban One - quashed
Travel Ban Two – quashed
What a shock, The Judges is your typical political correct cowards and appointed by obama.

The Wall - not happening
You don’t know what will happen.

The AHCA - can't even get his own party to pass it.Obama care - still the law of the land.

Obama care was a total failure and will continue only to get worse.

His Budget - dead on arrival
His Budget hasn’t even been voted on.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

What you fail to understand is that unlike the demo-krauts we do not walk in lockstep , we do not stop free speech , we do not march around with communist shouting pigs in a blanket kill the police .. You must be so proud

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

President Hillary a shoe in ,, mission accomplished ,, President Trump !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JW

The Hawaiian judge has overstepped his authority. He knows it, he will eventually be overturned and if we have an attack waiting for the ban, hopefully he will be tried as an accomplice.

Wall funding is still coming. The man hasn't been in office for long enough for the dust to settle.

A budget has to be passed, the government has to be funded, no budget has ever passed without modifications.

I am personally grateful that ObamaCare is still in force. I want to see the Democrats' faces when the whole damn system implodes.

We are finally supplying the Kurds and we are making a serious effort to take command and control away from ISIS. That is something never once even attempted under Obama.

If I can offer you some advice, pay a little less attention to what you are reading and a bit more to digging into the facts that are at issue, what is actually happening and how things work in Washington D.C. It will get you a lot closer to the mark with fewer surprises.

Ricko Loc: Florida

docadhoc-the left has been outmaneuvered once again and they are not able to recognize same. Trump realized that this proposed bill, purposely watered down to pass the Senate with 51 votes, was not the way to go and asked that it be pulled. Why take the democrats off the hook with a bill which requires two more phases neither of which would get the 60 votes needed in the Senate? Let the democrats deal with the ACA implosion. Then come up with an all inclusive bill which will accomplish all of the goals,to include the Freedom Caucus proposals and one by Rand Paul to form buying groups in lieu of individual purchases, and let the democrats filibuster same if they choose to and assign them the blame. To pass a skeleton bill just for the sake of passing something is just not smart. As you pointed out this is the first inning. America First !!!

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Cool Breeze

We have only just begun! It's about time Democrats! Get Busy!

Cool Breeze

Its about time this dick tater Trump start wearing a jockey strap.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

A new Judge just over turned the decision on the Travel Ban...it is a green light now!

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Yes we know so he can later hand it over to you..for your LUNCH BOX! Yum YUM for YOU again.....and again....Stenchie!

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Yes and yes. I wouldn't lift a finger to bail the left out. Let it disintegrate and thank them publicly for dumping on the people they are supposed to care about. I'd milk it dry against them.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

You better do something because when the ACA folds it will be entirely your fault.

And all the yak in the world can't change it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Five 9th Circuit Judges Dish Out Ruthless Take Down to Anti-Trump Travel Ban Decision

by Robert Barnes | 8:56 am, March 16th, 2017

In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban. The five judges included the famed, and most respected intellectual amongst the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski. The others included Jay Bybee, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta. Nobody other than the original panel came to the defense of the original panel decision, a less than promising start for future approvals of district court interference in Presidential immigration policy.

The language of the opinion was almost Scalian: the five Ninth Circuit judges noted their “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors so bad that the “fundamental” errors “confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.” The district court questioned any judge issuing a “nationwide TRO” “without making findings of fact or conclusions of law” on the merits of the matter and conducting published opinions on seminal matters of national security based on “oral argument by phone involving four time zones.”

Aside from the procedural defects of the process, the five panel jurists then noted the deep legal problems with the panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin. The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law” so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.

The five judges note some of the absurdities in the original 3-judge panel decision: claiming a consular officer must be deferred to more than the President of the United States; claiming first amendment rights exist for foreigners when the Supreme Court twice ruled otherwise; the claim that people here could claim a constitutional right for someone else to travel here, a decision specifically rejected by the Supreme Court just a year ago; and analogous Trumpian kind of immigration exclusion was uniformly approved by Circuit courts across the country in decisions issued between 2003 and 2008. As the five panelists conclude, the overwhelming precedent and legal history reveals a court simply cannot “apply ordinary constitutional standards to immigration policy.”

The five judges don’t quit there, though. They go on to identify other “obvious” errors. As the 5 judges note, the 3-judge panel hid from the most important statute, noting the 3-judge panel “regrettably” “never once mentioned” the most important statutory authority: section 1182(f) of title 8. Additionally, the 3-judge panel failed to even note the important Presidential power over immigration that all courts, Congress, and the Constitution expressly and explicitly gave him in all of its prior precedents.

Unsatisfied with that harsh condemnation, the five judges go even further. The judges concur with the Boston judge’s understanding of “rational basis” review, and condemn the Seattle judge’s and the 3-judge panel’s misapplication and elemental misunderstanding of what “rational basis” is. As the 5 judges note, “so long as there is one facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.” The issue is whether a reason is given, not whether a judge likes or agree with that reason. That means the executive order sufficed, and no further consideration of the reasons for Trump’s order were allowed.

The five judges still weren’t finished. Next up, the ludicrous suggestion the President had to produce classified and national security information to explain and explicate publicly all the empirical reasons he felt the order needed for safety rationales. As the five judges panel note, judges are not New York Times editors here to substitute for the President at their unelected will. A gavel is not a gun; a judge is not the commander in chief. And, again the 5 panel judges noted the Supreme Court specifically condemned just this kind of demand from judges — demanding classified information to second guess executively privileged decisions. As the court concluded, “the President does not have to come forward with supporting documentation to explain the basis for the Executive Order.”

The panel wraps up its ruthless condemnation of its fellow 3-panel decision by noting their errors are “many and obvious,” including the failure to even “apply the proper standard” of review. As the five judges wisely note: “we are judges, not Platonic guardians,” and the great losers of the 3-panel decision are those that believe elections matter and the rule of law deserves respect, as both were sacrificed for results-oriented judges who ignored the law and evaded the historical precedent to try to reverse the policy outcome of the recent election.

Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law.