User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Ninth Circuit Sides With Trump on Border Wall

  1. #1
    Senior Member Achievements:
    1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    mrclose's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    195
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked: 698
    Rep Power
    1503250

    Ninth Circuit Sides With Trump on Border Wall

    The infamously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just sided with the Trump Administration on a border wall case, as The Hill reports:
    A California-based federal appeals court on Monday sided with the Trump administration in lawsuits brought by states and environmental groups challenging the U.S. government’s authority to expedite construction of barriers along the border with Mexico.
    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling said the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 gives the Department of Homeland Security broad authority to construct the border barriers and waive environmental laws in the process.
    The ruling affirms a district court’s decision that allowed the federal government to construct wall “prototypes” and replace 14 miles of primary fencing near San Diego and replace similar fencing along a three-mile strip near Calexico, Calif.
    The appeals court decision also narrows the path for environmental groups to launch legal challenges to President Trump’s proposed border wall.
    Ninth Circuit Sides With Trump on Border Wall
    "When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead."

    "It is difficult only for the others."

    "It is the same when you are stupid."

    ~ Anonymous ~

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to mrclose For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019),HawkTheSlayer (02-11-2019),Montana (02-11-2019),navigator2 (02-12-2019),Rutabaga (02-11-2019),teeceetx (02-12-2019)

  3. #2
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,605
    Thanks
    7,810
    Thanked: 21,124
    Rep Power
    21474864
    The 9th circuit would have ruled differently if it were possible to do so.

    But it's not possible, President Trump is well within bounds on this issue.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019),HawkTheSlayer (02-11-2019),mrclose (02-11-2019),RMNIXON (02-11-2019)

  5. #3
    VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredRecommendation Second Class
    Overall activity: 87.0%

    Traddles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    20 Miles SE of Facebook
    Posts
    8,789
    Thanks
    2,604
    Thanked: 11,003
    Rep Power
    20066604
    Since this is an intentional nuisance lawsuit I would expect the plaintiff states to waste more of their taxpayers' money by appealing to the full panel of the appeals court and then the US Supreme Court.
    Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. - David Burge, Iowahawkblog

    Think of the Press as Democratic Operatives with Bylines and it All Makes Sense - Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit blog

    Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats. - Jim Treacher

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Traddles For This Useful Post:

    Sled Dog (02-11-2019)

  7. #4
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 0%

    goodpen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,249
    Thanks
    1,021
    Thanked: 6,700
    Rep Power
    10149339
    Yes they probably do so. However it is "news" to hear the 9th court actually upheld something the far left doesn't want.

  8. #5
    Banned Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 12.0%

    Don29palms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks
    6,334
    Thanked: 4,302
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    The 9th circuit would have ruled differently if it were possible to do so.

    But it's not possible, President Trump is well within bounds on this issue.
    If it was a 2-1 vote 1 of the clowns in the 9th circus court did rule against.
    Last edited by Don29palms; 02-11-2019 at 07:44 PM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Don29palms For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019)

  10. #6
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,605
    Thanks
    7,810
    Thanked: 21,124
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Quote Originally Posted by Don29palms View Post
    If it was a 2-1 vote 1 of the clowns in the 9th circus court did rule against.
    Yeah. There's one that's always out there someplace, Lost in Space.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019),Don29palms (02-11-2019)

  12. #7
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteran
    Overall activity: 44.0%

    RMNIXON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    34,322
    Thanks
    20,858
    Thanked: 40,764
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21474876
    You may recall that during the Obama years there were some groups promoting Vigilantism at the border. And the Courts were very quick to rule that Border Security is a Federal matter only even when very lax about it.

    So now they are stuck. You can't argue the reverse when Trump is doing what he can to get the job done at the Federal Level. And this is also why Sanctuary laws should be struck down by the Courts and SCOTUS. There is no local or State right to harbor illegals who have broken Federal law.
    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

    - Ronald Reagan

  13. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to RMNIXON For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019),Kris P Bacon (02-11-2019),mrclose (02-11-2019),navigator2 (02-12-2019),Rita Marley (02-11-2019),Rutabaga (02-11-2019),Sled Dog (02-11-2019),teeceetx (02-12-2019)

  14. #8
    Senior Member Achievements:
    1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    mrclose's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    195
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked: 698
    Rep Power
    1503250
    As usual, the left wanted to ignore the SC and take a chance with their favorite ... The ninth circuit!

    The following is from Dec. 2018 and contains all the usual snide remarks from the source. 8)

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would not hear a challenge to the Trump administration's proposed border wall brought by environmental groups who say construction could threaten endangered animals and violate environmental laws.

    The groups asked the court to reject a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that provides the executive branch with sweeping powers to waive environmental laws if those laws impede construction of barriers and roads near the border.


    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would decline to hear a challenge to the Trump administration's proposed border wall brought by environmental groups who say construction could threaten endangered animals and violate environmental laws.

    The groups asked the court to reject a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that provides the executive branch with authority to waive environmental laws if those laws impede construction of barriers and roads near the border.

    The law was expanded by Congress in 2005 to give the Department of Homeland Security authority to waive "all legal requirements" that could stand in the way of border construction.

    But because they will not hear the case, a February ruling by a federal judge in San Diego will remain in place.

    That ruling in favor of the government was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump said the Indiana-born judge could not be impartial in a case concerning Trump University because he was "Mexican." But, in February, Trump cheered Curiel's ruling as a legal victory.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/supr...rder-wall.html
    "When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead."

    "It is difficult only for the others."

    "It is the same when you are stupid."

    ~ Anonymous ~

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mrclose For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019),Kris P Bacon (02-11-2019),navigator2 (02-12-2019)

  16. #9
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,605
    Thanks
    7,810
    Thanked: 21,124
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Well, it looks like they're going to need the courts. Trump is only getting 1.3 billion for the wall, which means he's going to have to find the money somewhere else.

    It's actually a lot worse than that. Here, read:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/law...h-13b-for-wall

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019)

  18. #10
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,605
    Thanks
    7,810
    Thanked: 21,124
    Rep Power
    21474864
    According to this link ^^^, 66% of the immigrants detained last year already had existing criminal records. In 2016 that figure was 86%.

    President Trump was right, they're sending us their criminals.

    It's not a racist statement, it's a FACT.

    That's two-thirds at minimum, and up to 5/6 of the entire illegal immigrant population during the last three years.

    Would anyone like to tell me this is not a crisis?

    @Taylor? @Indlib? @Forreal? Anyone?

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Brat (02-11-2019),Kris P Bacon (02-11-2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •