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

Skip to comments.

Jeff Sessions Vows to Take Travel Ban to SCOTUS
breitbart ^ | IAN MASON

Posted on 05/25/2017 5:10:13 PM PDT by davikkm

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement Thursday on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision to block President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order, vowing to take the defense of that order to the United States Supreme Court. “President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe,” Sessions wrote in the statement:

The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the decision of the divided court, which blocks the President’s efforts to strengthen this country’s national security. As the dissenting judges explained, the executive order is a constitutional exercise of the President’s duty to protect our communities from terrorism. The President is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; jeff; travelban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

1 posted on 05/25/2017 5:10:14 PM PDT by davikkm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Why not find some republicans to impeach these judges??? Or better yet, move all immigrants from the countries outlined in the executive order to the cities where these judges live...


2 posted on 05/25/2017 5:11:10 PM PDT by davikkm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Removing federal judges requires 67 US Senate votes.


3 posted on 05/25/2017 5:13:37 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

No need to impeach, just take away their jurisdiction and create a new court, appointed by Trump, to hear such matters.


4 posted on 05/25/2017 5:13:42 PM PDT by Defiant (The media is the colostomy bag where truth goes after democrats digest it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Do it and let’s see how Gorsuch does. I believe we can get a 5-4 ruling in favor of the President.


5 posted on 05/25/2017 5:14:13 PM PDT by Uncle Sam 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
The majority, over a forceful dissent, found that even though the order made no mention of disfavoring Muslims, the statements of Trump and his surrogates during the campaign rendered it a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

How did these judges get through high school, let alone law school, with this level of stupidity? So the exact same order would be constitutional but for campaign rhetoric on the campaign trail...insane logic.

6 posted on 05/25/2017 5:14:57 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

It is the only move that remains and the president’s policy will have a good chance at SCOTUS.


7 posted on 05/25/2017 5:15:01 PM PDT by Timpanagos1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
This is beyond a reasonable person's patience.
Play like the dems and roll around and call 911,I've been hit and injured! Why do we continue to roll with the punches and just get get beat up!
8 posted on 05/25/2017 5:15:03 PM PDT by djstex (The REAL News of The Day ... Trump is Our President EVERYDAY! :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Right. Congress can limit inferior court jurisdiction any time they want, just like they expanded inferior court power in the past.


9 posted on 05/25/2017 5:16:03 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

So, he’s back from his three-month vacation?


10 posted on 05/25/2017 5:16:44 PM PDT by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
assuming SCOTUS accepts the case (hard to see how it won't) it'll probably be about a year before a decision is announced.Although I've always assumed that they announce their big decisions in June although I could be wrong on that.

I wonder of the Government could request "expedited" handling of the case...if there's any such thing with SCOTUS.

11 posted on 05/25/2017 5:19:19 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
That they are majority Muslim countries is coincidental.

I think President Trump made his case in his travels this week.

12 posted on 05/25/2017 5:20:11 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

But it’s won’t be on this years docket...it will be next year.


13 posted on 05/25/2017 5:20:59 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Expect Paul Ryan to jump in saying Sessions shouldn’t question the hard-working patriots on the judicial bench.


14 posted on 05/25/2017 5:21:33 PM PDT by TTFlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

The First Amendment Establishment clause extends to all the rest of the world?

The U.S. is required to allow any and all religions into the U.S.?

Utter insanity.

Establishing a religion and preventing people of a certain religion from entering the U.S. are completely different things.

And, that is not even what President Trump is doing. He is not banning Muslims from most places from entering the U.S.

Yes, those judges should be impeached. We simply do not have the political power to do it at present.


15 posted on 05/25/2017 5:23:07 PM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Sessions is too darn polite. He needs to act like a Dim and rub the Manchester Massacre in these judges noses.


16 posted on 05/25/2017 5:23:41 PM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
-- I wonder of the Government could request "expedited" handling of the case...if there's any such thing with SCOTUS. --

The speed of SCOTUS depends on the politics and "urgency." They used to be able to act quickly, and outside of the usual summer vacation schedule they enjoy now.

See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.

Decided: July 31, 1942

17 posted on 05/25/2017 5:30:16 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

.... rendered it a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause....

So, when did it happen that residents of other countries have US Constitutional rights before they set foot on the soil of the USA? It’s a other Trump ambush that sprung.


18 posted on 05/25/2017 5:30:46 PM PDT by Sasparilla ( I'm Not tired of Winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

....I wonder of the Government could request “expedited” handling of the case...if there’s any such thing with SCOTUS...

Yes there is. Otherwise it’s just a big dog and pony show.


19 posted on 05/25/2017 5:32:50 PM PDT by Sasparilla ( I'm Not tired of Winning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

Bad decision, and I’m surprised to see it was supported by a 10-3 majority. Since the ban was only intended for 90 days, long past, will SCOTUS even take it? We know they tend to to avoid cases whenever they can.


20 posted on 05/25/2017 5:34:03 PM PDT by be-baw (still seeking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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