"The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to Count IV, in which plaintiffs allege that the EO violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706."
"The F-1 plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim."
"Therefore, because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims, an extension of the restraining order at the present time is not warranted."
"For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6)."
Trumps' case before the 9th circuit will be heard Tuesday. And, the evidence has changed in that assumptions were made by Robarts' based upon non-existent evidence. Watch closely. You are correct in that it might go to thew Supreme Court.
What you didn't do was read the case files. They were independent events, but based upon the same core arguments. Robart's ruling referred to evidence that doesn't exist.
"The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to Count IV, in which plaintiffs allege that the EO violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706."
"The F-1 plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim."
"Therefore, because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims, an extension of the restraining order at the present time is not warranted."
"For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6)."
LuluOn 2/05/17, Lulu wrote: > What are you laughing at? The Gorton decision came down 2 > days ago and was superseded by the Robert decision. > > On 2/05/17, EasTexSteve wrote: >> In a major blow to the ACLU, a federal judge in Boston refused >> to extend an order which temporarily put a stop to a portion >> of Trump’s c...See MoreOn 2/05/17, Lulu wrote: > What are you laughing at? The Gorton decision came down 2 > days ago and was superseded by the Robert decision. > > On 2/05/17, EasTexSteve wrote: >> In a major blow to the ACLU, a federal judge in Boston refused >> to extend an order which temporarily put a stop to a portion >> of Trump’s controversial “extreme vetting” immigration order. >> >> "The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not shown a >> likelihood of success on the merits with respect to Count IV, >> in which plaintiffs allege that the EO violates the >> Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706." >> >> "The F-1 plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are >> likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim." >> >> "Therefore, because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they >> are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims, an >> extension of the restraining order at the present time is not >> warranted." >> >> "For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any >> injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining >> order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6)." >> >> LOLOL! >> >> http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-060c-d96b-a7fe- > 1efd89b00000
On 2/05/17, Lulu wrote: > What are you laughing at? The Groton decision came down 2 > days ago and was superseded by the Robert decision. > > On 2/05/17, EasTexSteve wrote: >> In a major blow to the ACLU, a federal judge in Boston refused >> to extend an order which temporarily put a stop to a portion >> of Trump’s controversial “extreme vetting” immigration order. >> >> "The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not shown a >> likelihood of success on the merits with respect to Count IV, >> in which plaintiffs allege that the EO violates the >> Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706." >> >> "The F-1 plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are >> likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim." >> >> "Therefore, because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they >> are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims, an >> extension of the restraining order at the present time is not >> warranted." >> >> "For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any >> injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining >> order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6)." >> >> LOLOL! >> >> http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-060c-d96b-a7fe- > 1efd89b00000
Why do Democrats think that they are able to pick and choose which laws should be followed? California should secede. Then, they could open their borders to anyone and everyone. They could even take in as many refugees without vetting as they wanted.
Of course, if you believe that all the money from the “Doc Fix” really goes directly to poor Medicare patients and children, you probably still believe in the tooth fairy.
H.R.1171--Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization
H.R. 1172--Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans
H.R. 1293--Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009
H.R. 1803--Veterans Business Center Act
H.R. 2352--Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act
and probably more.
On 2/05/17, such as? wrote: > On 2/05/17, Who has rejected attempts to help military > personnel, ETS C wrote: >> >> The republicans in Congress have defeated many bills >> intended to help military personnel, both active duty and >> retired. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2/05/17, EasTexSteve wrote: >>> On 2/04/17, Lulu wrote: >>>> I don't really think Berkeley students are the ones we >>>> have to worry about ending up below the poverty line. >>> >>> I noticed you dodged the issue of the BLM rioters. I'm >>> glad to know that they aren't below the poverty line. >>> Puzzling though, how they have all that free time on >> their >>> hands. >>> >>> If you're worried about who is below the poverty line, >>> then you can probably start with military personnel. They >>> actually work defending this country, while their >> families >>> have to resort to food stamps.
"Trump’s executive order has unleashed chaos, harmed lawful U.S. residents, and alienated potential friends in the Islamic world. Yet without the dreamy liberal refusal to recognize the reality of nationhood, the meaning of citizenship, and the differences between cultures, Trump would never have gained the power to issue that order."
"Liberalism and nationhood grew up together in the 19th century, mutually dependent. In the 21st century, they have grown apart—or more exactly, liberalism has recoiled from nationhood. The result has not been to abolish nationality, but to discredit liberalism."
"German chancellor Angela Merkel’s August 2015 order to fling open Germany’s doors is the proximate cause of the de-democratization of Poland since September 2015, of the rise of Marine LePen in France, of the surge in support for Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and—I would argue— of Britain’s vote to depart the European Union. The surge of border crossers from Central America into the United States in 2014, and Barack Obama’s executive amnesties, likewise strengthened Donald Trump."
I excerpted paragraphs from The Atlantic and changed the order, for emphasis. While it's very unsettling not knowing what Trump and Bannon are going to do, liberals must face what they have been doing that has largely caused Trump's election, and the election of the next GOP or populist President, if we survive that long. Second, Congress has been working (?) on immigration issues for many decades but obviously both parties get something out of looking the other way, not enforcing our own immigration laws. Why not just abolish immigration laws if we don't want to enforce them? Why do we have them?
However, LTL is now essentially saying, "If you can get here, not get caught, get a job, and contribute; you can stay!" Adding that extra does not change the insanity of this policy.
And about "I don't know that anyone is really suggesting that we open our borders." What a line of crap! Yes, this is advocating open borders, and it does so by default because you have no laws that you are enforcing. Just wait until there is a massive famine, war, or whatever in Central or South America, and you will discover the foolishness of this thinking.
On the other side of the coin, ETS wrote, "it's called standing in line and going through the process like everyone else wanting to come in legally." By the way, those who come here legally have often spent five to ten thousand dollars in legal bills. And now your response is "Oh, let them stay, because I cannot stand the harshness of enforcing the law." It is no wonder conservatives think some liberals are "bleeding hearts."
Again, this country, and the sanctuary cities in particular, are advocating and currently have open borders - that is, if you can get here you can stay!
A story: I once set at lunch with a group of college instructors. They discussed how they like the illegals because they like the ethnic food from their restaurants. One even said he like how cheaply he could get his lawn and garden work done. All I could think was, "You would not be so happy if the country was being flooded with Masters Degree college graduates who could compete for your job.
And therein is the annoying part of those who say "Oh, but they contribute!" Often they contribute by taking a job from an American Citizen or at the very least depress their wages. Yet, what I see from the "they contribute" crowd is a fantasy-like denial of the hard economic facts regarding what is happening. They are happy and blissful so long as it is not happening to them.
PS: You do not have to seal the borders the way some imagine. You simply start enforcing employment laws. Although this would have to be done in a way to avoid economic disruption, if you put the Americans who employ the illegals in jail, the problem would diminish very quickly. Those laws are already on the books!
Not at all. I didn't say that and resent the implications. We have a president who has strongly implied and demonstrated that he will behave as a loose canon, implementing new and untested strategy on a whim. He seems perfectly willing to undermine existing laws, substituting crackdowns on new and un-vetted policies to stir contention. There are no assurances that he would not attempt to change policies and deport people who have been here lawfully for years. His administration has hinted strongly and he has stated that Muslims need to go. There have been suggestions of doubling the income threshold for HB1 visas. His administration has simultaneously made proposals, however informal that they would apply tests for people who are disabled, "wrong" religions, etc and remove them. The president defines anyone who reaches this shore as an "illegal immigrant."
I support sound border control. I support sound legal deportation practices. I do not support erratic, vague rantings of our impulsive child president and his supporters. I do not and will not support the tools of division that are allowing this disrespectful signature stamp and his buddy Bannon to exert pressure tests on our Constitution.
> And about "I don't know that anyone is really suggesting that > we open our borders." What a line of crap! Yes, this is > advocating open borders, and it does so by default because you > have no laws that you are enforcing. Just wait until there is > a massive famine, war, or whatever in Central or South > America, and you will discover the foolishness of this thinking.
I would like to see diplomacy and border control, but I don't trust this administrations ability to engage in diplomacy. I have seen small indications the administration seeks to undermine the American work force while strengthening profit avenues for his Wall St buddies. I have seen indication that this administration favors helping their Wall St buddies over the environment. If Trump actually would say and follow up with anything trustworthy and diplomatic, he might actually be able to work toward the goal of safety but he blatantly pushes division.
-ltl
> On the other side of the coin, ETS wrote, "it's called > standing in line and going through the process like everyone > else wanting to come in legally." By the way, those who come > here legally have often spent five to ten thousand dollars in > legal bills. And now your response is "Oh, let them stay, > because I cannot stand the harshness of enforcing the law." > It is no wonder conservatives think some liberals are > "bleeding hearts." > > Again, this country, and the sanctuary cities in particular, > are advocating and currently have open borders - that is, if > you can get here you can stay! > > A story: I once set at lunch with a group of college > instructors. They discussed how they like the illegals > because they like the ethnic food from their restaurants. One > even said he like how cheaply he could get his lawn and garden > work done. All I could think was, "You would not be so happy > if the country was being flooded with Masters Degree college > graduates who could compete for your job. > > And therein is the annoying part of those who say "Oh, but > they contribute!" Often they contribute by taking a job from > an American Citizen or at the very least depress their wages. > Yet, what I see from the "they contribute" crowd is a > fantasy-like denial of the hard economic facts regarding what > is happening. They are happy and blissful so long as it is > not happening to them. > > > PS: You do not have to seal the borders the way some imagine. > You simply start enforcing employment laws. Although this > would have to be done in a way to avoid economic disruption, > if you put the Americans who employ the illegals in jail, the > problem would diminish very quickly. Those laws are already > on the books! >
"The idea of witchcraft is hardly new, but it has taken on new life recently, partly because of a rapid growth in evangelical Christianity. Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria's 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire."
> ETS, I made my post yesterday, Feb. 5th, two days after
> the 3rd. I know both Robart's restraining order and
> Gorton's decision not to extend his TRO happened on
> Friday. They're independent events, based on two
> different lawsuits. The case will be next heard by the
> 9th Circuit C...See More