It is important to note that a court cannot just arbitrarily lay out a judgement or statement. For a court to decide a case, someone must bring a case to the court AND the court must determine that it has some jurisdiction in the case. If no one complains, there is no case. Also important is that in cases like this the burden of proof is on the government at the higher level. The order of rights are from the citizen, local, state, and federal in that order: so the rights of the state should take precedent over those of the federal government. There are always exceptions determined by precedent, jurisdiction, and zone of authority and this is all in very simplistic terms for a complex subject, but that is the basic principal.

Had there been any clear error in the lower courts ruling, or if the court of appeals determined that the scope or jurisdiction were improper, or if the federal government been able to support on merit, the appeals court would not have decided as they did. The chance of the supreme court hearing the case and arriving at a different result is very small and would constitute a political loss for president Bannon and the Republican party (and the Donald). It is not very likely that any sane politician would risk a loss at that level. Far better to fall back and accomplish the desired result a different and more supportable way.

On the other hand, President Bannon and the Donald have not shown significant signs of either sanity or political acumen to date, so we will have to wait and see.

H.A. Goodman - CLINTON STAFFER ADMITS PROTESTS ABOUT IDENTITY POLITICS NOT POLICY: Democrats Protest for Nothing

So, if the dems really are this out of touch and inept - Trump2020 - they have no real message except for 'Trump is bad.' - Remind me again how'd that work for them last time?

This "PROTESTS ABOUT IDENTITY" is a phrase unfamiliar to me. Can you describe what that is about?

A bit broad of a question but I will do my best. In the first sense, the identity of the party itself and what it stands for is what I would first think about. The second is 'identity politics' from google:

Which is what the dems have been running on for at least a decade now. There is no real rationality or appeal to common sense. It is just basically pandering to a certain group - 'vote for us, because we are your party because nobody else is.' - and this is also my theory now - identity politics is what you have the rise of the SJW (Social Justice Warrior) movement, and also PC(Political Correctness).

So besides just outright cheating the Bernie supporters - the dems have been using identity politics, and even shaming Trump supporters (Clinton's basket of deplorables comment) which was one of the several reasons why they lost so badly.

And even after the major loss, the dems are still using the exact same strategy of identity politics, shifting blame on others for their loss, and just outright arrogance and refusal for any serious introspective and change, which has pretty much fractured the party - and why you now see a movement called Justice Democrats - which I am hoping has a great big chance. I myself am neither truly a rep. or dem - I vote whoever I feel in my book is better - and I like the platform of the Justice Dems. - for one main reason - no corporate money allowed.


-edit

H.A. Goodman - CLINTON STARTS TWITTER BATTLE WITH TRUMP ON IMMIGRANT BAN: Ignores HRC Iraq, Libya, Regime Changes

Lionel Nation - Fake News, Fake Outrage, Fake Politics, Fake Indignation, Fake Science, Fake Religion, Fake Concern, tl;dw - everything is fake - it is fashionable to be outraged now, for no reason.

H.A. Goodman - HILLARY CLINTON OFFICIALLY RUNNING AGAIN 2020: Politico Proves Hillary Clinton Will Run Again 2020.... I don't even.....


http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...t-again-214766
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...l-run-n2252257

Banning entry by any person from Iran by the Carter administration was not problematic because no one objected to the ban.

In the current case, the original court determined that the persons filing the action had 'standing' and would suffer harm/damage by the ruling.
Without that, the court would not have ruled the way it did. The appeal by the Trump administration simply stated that banning people from the specified countries was a matter of 'national security' and they were given the opportunity to show/explain that reasoning. They did not show in any way that this was the case even though the court gave them that opportunity. Whether the case could be made that enacting this ban immediately was necessary for 'national security' is unknown since it wasn't done and no ruling on that was made by the court. Why Trump Administration chose not to respond to the court is known only to them.

If we go back to the basic concept - any country has the right to allow or not allow anyone from any origin of country - that is why you effectively have a visa - a sort of permission to enter - the country in question has every right to either approve or deny entry - because a passport is not a guarantee at all, even if you have a 'powerful passport' say from the US or UK or other nation - even if say you did not need a visa, the host country has every right to deny access. Of course the chances of that are usually slim , but again from a legal argument - if one is not a citizen or any sort of permanent resident status, just on some sort of visa - or applied for one - the right for them to be refused entry is legally sound - just because one has a passport and visa, again that does not guarantee entry - and it is at the discretion of the country itself.

The problem (in the bar-anyone-from-Yemen case) is that the Congress did expressly(!) authorize what the President did.

Those who didn't like what he did simply shopped-around the Federal Court circuit until they found someone who agreed with their point-of-view, then appealed it and declared a pyrrhic victory. Just as they've always been used to doing.

Unfortunately: the paragraph is explicit, and the President's actions – unpopular though they might have been with some Californians – strictly adhered to it.

Furthermore, this is not new law.

The Constitution doesn't say that the President has executive authority "as long as the [West Coast] Circuit Court agrees with whatever he is doing." His authority comes from the Constitution and the Congress. If the Board of Directors resolves that the CEO is authorized to act in a certain way – then, (s)he is.

The Congress said that, if you are an alien, you can be denied entry, no matter what document you hold in your hand and no matter how it is stamped. Furthermore, the Congress said that the decision can rest with the President alone, who does not have to further explain his actions and who is not accountable with regard to its consequences to you.

I think that it's a seriously inadequate law. But, there it is.

The Court simply didn't like what the President did. They asked "if it was necessary." And then they decided, on their own non-existent(!) authority, to return things back to "the way they were for years." In other words, to roll-back the President's proclamation.

Unfortunately for them, USC §1882(f) provides for no such thing. It doesn't say that the President can do this "if he can convince the Court that it is 'necessary.'" Neither does he have to convince anyone else that it needed to be done "now." The Law does not say that the Executive has to explain himself in any way whatever. It says that the President has the authority to find, and then to "by proclamation" do, until he changes his mind.

There is nothing to "appeal" here. The law is as explicit as it could be. Those who disagree with the Proclamation unfortunately have no legal basis to argue – and the Court has no standing. It can only say that the law is Unconstitutional, despite the fact that such Presidential prerogatives have been used many times before in times of both Peace and War, and most nations of the world have something very similar to it.

"This is, today, the Law."

"Wanna change things?" You bet! I agree!

However, there is only one Branch of American Government™ that can actually do such a thing: "The Congress." Not the Executive, and, not(!) the Court.

"Yes, the Congress could, if it wanted to, change the Law by ten o'clock AM noon tomorrow." (The extra two hours having been spent waiting to over-turn a Presidential veto ...)

But no one else can do it for them. Not the Executive, and, not(!) the Court.

Presidential Trump?
Bullhorns - Trumpwatch

I have been pretty much independent for most of my life and have only been following the two major parties closely for the last twelve years (before that I tried to vote for the best MAN (or Woman) not the party. In this time I am not really clearly seeing what you describe. I do see some "those guys do not stand for you so join us" noise, but that has been there since the 1960s from ALL parties.

Thank you for that explanation.
I am seeing a lot of misinformation in all threads that touch on politics, including a large number who think that passing a law makes judicial decisions invalid. I must say that this is only something I have seen in the last 9 years, and makes no sense at all. It is always good to read traffic from someone (no matter their party affiliation) that is reasonable and sane.

At this point the dems have been so done in by their own incompetence and identity politics, they still refuse to acknowledge the situation that they are in. The fact also that you see such rhetoric against Trump - quite frankly for someone like me, it is having the opposite effect, because it is nothing more than nonsensical babble. Its Trump, so lets do everything we can to get him out - and you see this with the collusion of media. Again, I didn't vote for him, but at this point lets leave him be and see what happens, and for fsck's sake protest on his policies, and not just because 'waah, Trump bad!..' The 'racist' argument does not work anymore, and other youtubers that I have been checking out make a good point, it has lost it's meaning and when real racism does come around, then what? It is pretty much the Boy Who Cried Wolf too many times.

I myself tried and try to stay away from being left or right. Somethings to me I agree with the left, such as Gay Marriage - I don't care, doesn't affect me - but at the same time what repels me and should any normal sane person who has at least 2 brain cells active, that this demented 'social justice' movement, shutting down debate - and going as far as twisting science for their ends, just pisses me off to no end - see this: Feminist Site Declares Chromosomes and Biological Sex Do Not Exist - or tl;dw - basically the gist then is the biological proof of male and female is somehow false because trans reasons - outright IGNORING basic scientific *FACT* that an organism say human or otherwise is genetically setup to be a female or male on a biological level. So yea, these people are cancerous, and just a minor example of how the democrats have been infested by this 'SJW' movement that is just off-putting - and what my opinion is one of the reasons for Trump - so blame them, because I sure as hell do!

Another interesting analysis from Styxhexenhammer666 - Politico Claims Clinton Will Run Again on the "Is Female" Platform: I Completely Disagree

-edit

Speaking of racism: BLM's Khogali Rambles About Wiping Out the White Race

It's too easy for someone to snarl that someone else is doing something really bad, for reasons that you decide, and then to challenge this person to prove to your satisfaction that he is not doing what you have already concluded must be the case. This is a lot of the problem with the "politically correct" standard.

I'm also waiting for someone to remind the Honorable Court that "protection of the practice of religion" has nothing to do with whether or not someone might be a risk. Someone might be described as "Jewish" who is not a practitioner of the Jewish religion, and "Muslim" who does not set foot in a mosque. And so on. Likewise, the phrase "due process of law" does not mean that the Honorable Court is to be the party that decides whether anything that the other two Branches decides to do may in fact be carried out. Ditto, "equal protection under the law."

We also don't need Andrew Jackson's sentiment: "then let him enforce it."

What we instead need to do is to establish what it really does mean. Starting with the very simple principle that Courts exist to interpret and to enforce law as written by Congress, and as it applies to plaintiffs. An alien who is denied entry to a country or who is expelled from it for immigration reasons has not been "wronged" by the enforcement of a law ... or an Executive proclamation ... that adversely influences him or her. And if the law gives the President "discretion," the "equal protection" clause does not deny him that prerogative, let alone selectively at the pleasure of some Court.

The Court cannot proscribe a "legal remedy" that is, in fact, lawmaking (exercise of legislative power) or executive (creating or attempting to anull or to change the lawful actions of the Executive). "You sit on a Federal bench. No one elected you to Congress, nor are you the President." Article 3 applies to you, not Articles 1 or 2.