Let me correct several blatant factual misstatements in Larry's post.
1. The 9th Circuit is not overturned much, if at all, just like most circuit courts of appeal. The US Supreme Court only hears cases it wants to hear, and accepts via a cert petition. If it takes cert, it has generally seen something it doesn't like and is more likely to reverse. Nevertheless the following two statements are true, and Larry's post is entirely incorrect:
a. Only a very small minority of the 9th's decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.
b. I believe of the 13 circuits, the 9th is the 4th or 5th "most overturned" when the Supreme Court accepts cert.
While the 9th is viewed as a liberal circuit, one of the three judges on this panel who voted to strike down the EO as unconstitutional was a Reagan or Bush appointee (as was the trial judge).
Note also Larry's statement that "the left filed its complaint in the 9th Circuit" is misleading/inaccurate as well. To begin, there were challenges in other district courts, including in the 4th Circuit, which is viewed as moderate now (and a few years ago was one of the most conservative circuits in the country). Second, it wasn't the "left" that filed this particular complaint. It was THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND MINNESOTA, who believed their citizens were being harmed by the EO.
2. Larry is flat out wrong that other district courts would not agree with the Republican appointee district court judge who made the initial ruling in this case. At least two other district courts (one in the DC area and one in LA) also made similar rulings.
Larry also attempts to claim the moral high ground by arguing, as usual, that the Constitution clearly stands in President Trump's favor. This show either a willful intent to mislead, or simple ignorance.
This is certainly some opinion, but it is opinion backed by many constitutional scholars (and, of everyone on this board, I'm probably the only one to ever try a First Amendment case in federal court so I have some experience here). The Constitution certainly gives the President the power to issue orders related to immigration. However, it is a basic principle of constitutional law that those orders cannot violate other provisions of the Constitution (Larry, please show the proper respect and capitalize the word Constitution)
Here, there the courts (and most commentators) agree there are two violations, one strong and one a bit weaker:
1. The EO denies people with existing visas/green cards the right of re entry into the US without due process, meaning an opportunity for the affected person to challenge what is essentially a revocation of his visa. This is a clear constitutional violation of the Due Process clause.
2. The EO includes religious based preferences and is therefore a violation of the First Amendment. This one is a bit weaker, although given Trump's bluster about a "Muslim ban" is probably correct as well.
Larry, it's fine to offer opinion and engage in discourse, but please do not be so arrogant and dismissive about things you clearly got wrong, and clearly know very little about.
Thank you.
