Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sacajaweau
Oh this is real news alright. The 9th circuit cannot begin to argue it is a court of law when a 3-judge panel upholds a decision without any reference to much less analysis of the law in force, the statutory interpretation, according to accepted cannons of interpretation, an analysis of the applicability to the order, and an effort to determine which parts of the order might be in violation of which parts of the statute and further any effort to conform the statute to the U.S. constitution.

No competent judge could read either the lower court decision or the appellate panel decision and conclude that appropriate judicial review was conducted.

47 posted on 02/10/2017 5:40:32 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: AndyJackson

True. They never even quoted the USC Title and Section #’s or the CFR.


64 posted on 02/10/2017 5:49:12 PM PST by Lumper20 (Muslims, Latinos, Asians etc. Assimilate means learn English plus OUR WAYS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson

True. They never even quoted the USC Title and Section #’s or the CFR.


65 posted on 02/10/2017 5:49:14 PM PST by Lumper20 (Muslims, Latinos, Asians etc. Assimilate means learn English plus OUR WAYS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson

True. They never even quoted the USC Title and Section #’s or the CFR.


66 posted on 02/10/2017 5:49:14 PM PST by Lumper20 (Muslims, Latinos, Asians etc. Assimilate means learn English plus OUR WAYS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson

The 9th circuit cannot begin to argue it is a court of law when a 3-judge panel upholds a decision without any reference to much less analysis of the law in force, the statutory interpretation, according to accepted cannons of interpretation, an analysis of the applicability to the order, and an effort to determine which parts of the order might be in violation of which parts of the statute and further any effort to conform the statute to the U.S. constitution.

*************************************************

That’s why I don’t think Trump should give them another chance. They have no intention of reversing the decision, they just want a chance to clean up their mess and actually try to site some law with a better written decision.


77 posted on 02/10/2017 5:54:37 PM PST by kara37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson

Plus, the plaintiffs had no standing in the matter.

That was the be all and end all when it came to demands to see 0bama’ long-form birth certificate. Standing should be just as important here.


101 posted on 02/10/2017 6:13:57 PM PST by Two Kids' Dad (((( More and More Winning! ))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson

What the hell does this all mean????!


108 posted on 02/10/2017 6:21:34 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson