Just re-write it and resubmit it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

this fuckin dude is dense as mud. not that i care much on this one... the more he pounds his head in the sand with this and that fuckin wall the better for everyone. even if the wall costs 50bil to build... whatever, thats cheap compared to what he could be worrying about

what the courts said is trump needs to rewrite it and submit it through congress, because he doesn't have any urgent reason to submit this as executive order.

In that case if you think about it the system is sort of working. Checks and balances.

Communism, now worse than religion.

The judicial does not have the right to overthrow powers given specifically to the president under the law passed by Congress. The most disgusting thing about this whole thing is when these people come on TV and champion the Constitution when they just trampled on it.

Trump's order was 100 percent legal. The opposition to it is political. But these courts are filled with such left wing wackos that you don't even know if this went to the Supreme Court if you could hope for better than a 4-4, which would be a loss as the ruling would revert to the lower court.

The thing is though, Trump makes Bush II look thoughtful.

I'm going to guess you didn't heed the advice to study up on what 'very clear' means. Let me save you a bit of time this go-around ...

I'm a dumbass.

And Ike, the merits of Trump's EO have yet to be ruled upon in court. The recent hub-ub has to do with a temporary restraining order granted by a US District Court Judge--a particular kind of preliminary injunction--enjoining immigration officials from enforcing Trump's EO for a short period, pursuant to a lawsuit filed in that court. The 9th District's ruling yesterday was on an emergency appeal by White House lawyers to stay the TRO (effectively nullifying it) while the matter is adjudicated.

The courts have remained mum on the merits and lawfulness of the EO itself, and just yesterday an unnamed judge in the 9th Circuit requested a vote be taken on whether to consider the order denying Trump's request of a stay of the original TRO "en banc" which is a super-duper, actual legal thing that I'm not qualified to pontificate on. Though from what little I've read, it would be a larger panel of the 9th Circuit coming together to vote on whether to overturn the decision of the smaller panel of 9th Circuit judges.

For reference, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is colloquially known as "the 9th Circus", because of a perceived tendency towards incredibly liberal, "activist" decisions.

The executive order Trump did will not stand up in court.

Depends on which court gets a hold of it. I think the due process claims of visa holders is very solid, but if a court starts arguing that would-be refugees from other nations have a right to due process in this country (as the 9th began to argue in its opinion on staying the TRO), that would be judicial activism at its worst.

Other than that, I think the claims of "Muslim ban"--outside of not being an actual ban on Muslims--aren't sure to hold up in any non-zany court. Remember, on issues such as these regarding national security and foreign immigration, courts show deference to the expertise of the Executive, which might necessitate only a rational basis review of the order, rather than strict scrutiny. I think the crux of Trump's order wins out under rational basis scrutiny.

What exactly needs to be re-written? I'm not so sure even the due process claims of visa holders would survive a rational basis test, even if it was just that portion of the order being scrutinized.

What is the legitimate purpose of the ban?

National security, specifically having to do with the threat of foreign terror.

Have they actually provided any data or even anecdotal evidence to support that?

We many times have said, and but weeks ago repeated, that rational basis review in equal protection analysis "is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices." FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). See also e.g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486 (1970). Nor does it authorize "the judiciary [to] sit as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines."

...

Further, a legislature that creates these categories need not "actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification." Nordlinger, supra, at 15. See also e.g., United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 179 (1980); Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 528 (1959). Instead, a classification "must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification."

The Fifth Amendment protects aliens within the United States from “invidious discrimination by the Federal Government.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982) (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77); see also Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 69 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 21 -9- 118 U.S. 356, 369, (1886) (“[Equal Protection is] universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”). There is a distinction, however, between the constitutional rights enjoyed by aliens who have entered the United States and those who are outside of it. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).

The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a “fundamental sovereign attribute” realized through the legislative and executive branches that is “largely immune from judicial control.” Chi Thon Ngo v. I.N.S., 192 F.3d 390, 395 (3d Cir. 1999), amended (Dec. 30, 1999) (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953)). Federal classifications based on alien status are evaluated using rational basis review. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 (1976) (considering whether a law that made distinctions based on alien status was “wholly irrational”); Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703 F.3d 483, 486–87 (9th Cir. 2012)(determining that a regulation that treated immigrant religious workers differently than other visa applicants would be evaluated using rational basis review); Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 748 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (upholding a regulation issued in response to the Iran hostage crisis that required non-immigrant alien Iranian students to Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 69 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 21 -10- provide information to Immigration and Naturalization Services Offices).

Rational basis review examines whether the “classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 216. It is “not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319–20 (1993) (quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)). Under rational basis review, a classification is permissible “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis.” Id. (quoting Beach Communications, 508 U.S. at 313).

Plaintiffs contend that the EO discriminates on the basis of religion and was designed to exclude Muslims from the United States. They further allege that it singles out citizens of seven different countries. At oral argument, plaintiffs relied on “astonishing evidence of intent” from President Trump which, in their view, demonstrates that EO was “substantially motivated by improper animus.” See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 233 (1985) (holding that a provision in the Alabama Constitution violated equal protection even through it was facially neutral because it was motivated by animus). Defendants responded that the cases examining improper animus involve equal protection claims against states, which may be reviewed with strict Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 69 Filed 02/03/17 Page 10 of 21 -11- scrutiny, while the federal government classification of nonresident aliens in this case is subject to rational basis review.

Because the EO involves federal government categorizations with respect to non-resident aliens, rational basis review applies. According to the EO, its purpose is “to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists . . . .” Exec. Order 13,769 § 3(c). The EO specifically asserts that permitting aliens from the countries identified in section 217(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12), to enter “would be detrimental to the United States.” The order provides a “reasonably conceivable state of facts [which concerns national security and] that could provide a rational basis” for the classification. Heller, 509 U.S. at 319–20. Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 225.