{"id":26240,"date":"2017-02-10T12:37:36","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T20:37:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=26240"},"modified":"2017-02-10T12:37:36","modified_gmt":"2017-02-10T20:37:36","slug":"ninth-1-sphincter-0","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2017\/02\/10\/ninth-1-sphincter-0\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth 1 – Sphincter 0"},"content":{"rendered":"

In what I consider to be the best win for decent people, since a walking, talking rectum infested 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Fuhrer’s hateful Muslim ban.  Remarkably, the vote was 3-0, even though one of the judges is a conservative GW Bush appointee.  But will Trump obey the Court?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"0210TrumpAsshole\"<\/p>\n

A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump\u2019s bid to reinstate his ban on travel into the United States from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration\u2019s claim that the courts have no role as a check on the president.<\/p>\n

The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security<\/strong>, said the administration had shown \u201cno evidence\u201d that anyone from the seven nations \u2014 Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen \u2014 had committed terrorist acts in the United States.<\/p>\n

The ruling also rejected Mr. Trump\u2019s claim that courts are powerless to review a president\u2019s national security assessments<\/strong>. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, the court said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is beyond question,\u201d the decision said, \u201cthat the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.\u201d\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

From <NY Times<\/a>><\/font><\/p>\n

Rachel Maddow<\/a> did a far better job of covering the ruling than any of the several accounts I read.<\/font><\/p>\n