No, the two 9th circuit courts you're talking about never mentioned the law when they ruled against it, they just said "the administration hasn't granted enough information for me to fully understand it"
No, they said they've provided no evidence. There's a difference. The court was actually rather brutal in their ruling.
the Constitution doesn't grant any rights to people living outside the US, only to US citizens
Yes, it does, and in fact has been held so by the Supreme Court:
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."
Read up on the Boston court's ruling on the ban or Texas' Amicus Brief to better understand exactly how the EO perfectly fits into a legal place (just like similar orders did for Clinton 12 times and Obama 19 times, including his last-week push to ban legal Cuban refugees from coming here).
I am very familiar with the case in Boston and the two cases are not the same, nor do they have the same scope. The Boston case is actually quite unimportant, two graduate students. Compared to what was brought by Washingtion and Minnesota, and was also later restrained in Virginia. Possibly other states, as well, but I haven't researched that much further.
The Washingon/Minnesota case is SPECIFICALLY about the rights of people that hold either green cards or visas and were banned from coming to or coming back to the country:
They specifically complain of damage to state university systems “by stranding our university students and faculty overseas,” and say the ban would cost the states tax revenue. They also argue that it is unconstitutional and that there is no evidence it was needed for national security reasons.
I know EXACTLY what is going on in this case.
just like similar orders did for Clinton 12 times and Obama 19 times, including his last-week push to ban legal Cuban refugees from coming here
Obama never banned a soul and I implore you to prove me wrong.
If the results were actually checked with an audit rather than a recount, those irregularities would have been investigated rather than just quickly passed over.
That's a mighty big leap of faith ... so, absolutely ZERO conclusive evidence of massive voter fraud, that's what I expected.
view the rest of the comments →
p0ssum ago
No, they said they've provided no evidence. There's a difference. The court was actually rather brutal in their ruling.
Yes, it does, and in fact has been held so by the Supreme Court:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights
So, you're wrong there. Period.
I am very familiar with the case in Boston and the two cases are not the same, nor do they have the same scope. The Boston case is actually quite unimportant, two graduate students. Compared to what was brought by Washingtion and Minnesota, and was also later restrained in Virginia. Possibly other states, as well, but I haven't researched that much further.
The Washingon/Minnesota case is SPECIFICALLY about the rights of people that hold either green cards or visas and were banned from coming to or coming back to the country:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-read-washington-and-minnesota-s-1486498516-htmlstory.html
I know EXACTLY what is going on in this case.
Obama never banned a soul and I implore you to prove me wrong.
That's a mighty big leap of faith ... so, absolutely ZERO conclusive evidence of massive voter fraud, that's what I expected.