Thursday evening, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ruling of U.S. District Judge James Robart that suspended the action of President Donald Trump’s executive order barring immigrants from 7 Muslim majority countries. The ruling will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The decision means that previously barred refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries can continue entering the U.S. which in fact is happening now in the U.S. after Trump’s ban was halted by Judge Robart.
The three Judge panel consisted of Judges Richard R. Clifton, William Canby and Michelle T. Friedland, who when listening to the case, brought tough questions to both sides of the argument by the Justice Department and by Attorney Generals for states who enjoined to argue on behalf of the immigrants. Due to the controversial case, security for the three Judges have had to be increased. When the case was argued, President Trump had argued that Judge Robart, who initiated the suspension of the executive order was a “so called Judge” and that if an act of terror occurred Trump stated that “If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”
Continue to read at; http://thedailyvoicenews.com/2017/02/09/u-s-appeals-court-upholds-suspension-of-trumps-executive-travel-ban-order/
As President Trump continued his attacks on the judicial system, his nominee for the Supreme Court has been making the rounds meeting with Senators on Capitol Hill. Judge Neil Gorsuch spoke of how the language President Trump used to describe fellow Judges as being “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” The comments were repeated by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who the Trump administration attacked as maligning the actual comments of Judge Gorsuch but a spokesman for Gorsuch admitted the conversation did take place and yes, he did in fact say the attacks on fellow Judges are disheartening.
The ruling Thursday night, was a unanimous by the three judge panel. Within moments of the ruling President Trump tweeted the following message, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” The court in their rejection of the administration’s claim that it did not have the authority to review the president’s executive order stated that, “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreview ability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the court said. The judges also noted that the states had raised serious allegations about religious discrimination.
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban,