The 9th Circus turned judicial precedent upside down to uphold the lower court improper ruling on the temporary entry restrictions.

They failed to cite the Constitution, which explicitly grants the Executive Branch power over immigration. They failed to cite or address the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act which further defines the power of the Executive Branch over immigration and entry. They failed to cite the 2015 SCOTUS ruling on Hussein's EO covering the exact same seven nations that upholds the authority of the Executive to control immigration and entry. They erroneously expanded Constitutional protections to non-citizens outside U.S. jurisdiction. They held or implied a strict scrutiny standard of review to a national security and explicitly authorized Executive Branch action that did not impact actual Constitutionally protected rights instead of the appropriate rational basis test. And, they applied the standard of review for a TRO completely backwards requiring the gov't show irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits in order to defend the EO, not on the plaintiff to show that in being granted the TRO.

It's an abhorrent ruling by any legal standard. Based upon any one of the above, that ruling should never have happened and should be quickly set aside by an en banc panel or the SCOTUS. Had it been written by even a first year law student on a Constitutional law exam, that student would have failed the course and rightfully so.

Yet, and would this not be a delicious irony, the equally abhorrent ObamaCare ruling by the SCOTUS may be the final dagger that overturns the 9ths insanity. How and why?

In King v. Burwell, Roberts twisted logic into a pretzel and came out with a gem that mandated the SCOTUS must interpret the governmental action in a way that is consistent with what the government says was the intended goal of the action. That's judicial deference to a degree that - in the case of ObamaCare - literally rewrote the act and defied even the text of the act and any rational understanding of provisions (calling a tax something other than a tax in order to have it not be a tax and therefore Constitutional) in order to uphold the government action. He goes even further to expound upon why, even when the text and language of the act is plain - and the "plain meaning test" has been one applied for a LONG, LONG time by the SCOTUS - that the SCOTUS has to twist to application in context in order to uphold the government action if the plain meaning alone would be violative of the Constitution. Think about that for a second...

In this instance, the plain meaning of the Constitution is clear: the Executive branch has the authority to control immigration and entry. The plain meaning of the 1952 INA is clear: Congress specifically authorizes the POTUS and the Executive branch to take actions exactly as they have just taken. The plain meaning of the 2015 SCOTUS ruling is clear: the POTUS has the authority to take actions exactly like those just taken. And, even if the actions taken did not have all that plain meaning support, the SCOTUS - under the precedent of King v. Burwell has to bend over backwards to interpret the governmental action in such a way as to uphold, or even rewrite, it in deference to the Executive branch action.

Watching Roberts and the SCOTUS try to get themselves out of that Gordian knot will be interesting.

evidently no one on the 9th Circuit considers the Constitution at all when they decide cases. An En Bloc 9th Circuit decision would only uphold the three judge panel's decision.
The Supremes, with only 8 members may, or very well may NOT over ride the 9th. Right now, it's a crap shoot.

Take it back to the lower court and fight on the merits. The statute is clear that the POTUS has unwavering authority to do this.

During the interim gut the 9th like a carp. Otherwise the left will challenge everything he does there.

The left is going to challenge everything regardless. The ruling on the TRO is important because of that.

Rescind, Rewrite, Repeat!!

Jay Seckulow on Hannity says if it now goes to the SC its almost certain to be 4-4.

He says if the EO is rewritten accepting green card holders and resubmitted it still fails a crooked court, but would pass in the SC 8-0.

Lets hope someone is listening. He also said the atty who rep. the EO was not the sharpest tool in the shed and 2 better lawyers were somehow not available. He figures the atty really didnt care how the ruling went.

[bleep] all this noise. Gloves off. Start jailing Judges. I'm sure there is some legality that makes it okay for the President to do so. We're way past what happens IF a dirty bomb comes through and well into the WHEN.

When is Soros publicly hanged for Treason?

THAT!!!!

K Ann Conway said they were taking it to the SC.

This is going to SOP for the next 4 or 8 years.

Now the question is whether the Democrats will do anything possible to delay Gorsuch, because until we get a 9th justice they can stop much of what Trump wants to do.

That is exactly why litigating the TRO ruling has to happen. If it does not, then the TRO route will be taken at every turn.

McConnell needs to schedule the Gorsuch hearings now and get them underway.

The 9th Circuit refers to the USA as a "Constitutional Democracy", not as a "Constitutional Republic".

What they don't like to hear/know, they will simply ignore.

I'll go out out on a limb & say that as the court stands now, the 9th will be upheld.

If Gorsuch (or someone else) is on the SCOTUS when the case eventually gets to them, the the odds change & maybe it will be overturned.

I might be wrong & hope that I am for the sake of the law in this country, but I'm not optimistic.

Roberts has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before & it wouldn't surprise me to see him do it again.

MM

.........."9th Circus" don't need no stinkin' constitution.

With Roberts and Kennedy, there is still no guarantee of a proper ruling even with Gorsuch confirmed. For that matter, until I see a track record for Gorsuch as a Supreme Court justice, I'll reserve judgment about him as well. Justices appointed by Republicans are a real hit and miss track record whereas liberals ALWAYS get what they're looking for in their SCOTUS appointments.

Hater.