U.S. judge extends halt on Trump travel ban

Dec 2015
12,380
7,601
In Your Heart!
#1
That can only show that the Hawaiian Federal Judge has much better sense on this matter. It is obviously the right decision and is another blow to Trump. The good thing is that he can't tell the Federal Judge "You're Fired!" He'll just have to continue taking his lumps on this matter. If it turns into an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court it may well become a game of Chess with the Federal Judge declaring "Checkmate!" on the Trump ruling and his administration.








----------------------------------------

U.S. judge extends halt on Trump travel ban - ABC News
By David Caplan

"A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday extended the order blocking President Trump's controversial travel ban until the state's lawsuit is resolved."
"U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued the ruling after hearing arguments."
 
Likes: 1 person
Feb 2016
4,098
578
Kannapolis North Carolina
#3
That can only show that the Hawaiian Federal Judge has much better sense on this matter. It is obviously the right decision and is another blow to Trump. The good thing is that he can't tell the Federal Judge "You're Fired!" He'll just have to continue taking his lumps on this matter. If it turns into an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court it may well become a game of Chess with the Federal Judge declaring "Checkmate!" on the Trump ruling and his administration.








----------------------------------------

U.S. judge extends halt on Trump travel ban - ABC News
By David Caplan
The judge can be removed.
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
33,034
27,373
Kansas
#5
Incorrect. Court of appeals could rule in favor of that judge the defendants can then appeal to the supreme court.
The Supreme Court almost never hears appeals when there is no conflict to resolve in the lower courts.

Their job is to determine the law when various rungs of the latter have interpreted it differently.


All to date have said that Trump's XO has little chance of constitutionality based on executive intent and practical effect. That reasoning has survived appeal to date.

If it continues to do so, it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will act.
 
Feb 2016
4,098
578
Kannapolis North Carolina
#6
The Supreme Court almost never hears appeals when there is no conflict to resolve in the lower courts.

Their job is to determine the law when various rungs of the latter have interpreted it differently.


All to date have said that Trump's XO has little chance of constitutionality based on executive intent and practical effect. That reasoning has survived appeal to date.

If it continues to do so, it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will act.
Ninth circuit being overturned higher that any court says otherwise.
 
Feb 2016
4,098
578
Kannapolis North Carolina
#7
Generally speaking the appellate court examines the record of evidence presented in the trial court and the law that the lower court applied and decides whether that decision was legally sound or not. The appellate court will typically be deferential to the lower court's findings of fact (such as whether a defendant committed a particular act), unless clearly erroneous, and so will focus on the court's application of the law to those facts (such as whether the act found by the court to have occurred fits a legal definition at issue).

If the appellate court finds no defect, it "affirms" the judgment. If the appellate court does find a legal defect in the decision "below" (i.e., in the lower court), it may "modify" the ruling to correct the defect, or it may nullify ("reverse" or "vacate") the whole decision or any part of it. It may, in addition, send the case back ("remand" or "remit") to the lower court for further proceedings to remedy the defect.

In some cases, an appellate court may review a lower court decision "de novo" (or completely), challenging even the lower court's findings of fact. This might be the proper standard of review, for example, if the lower court resolved the case by granting a pre-trial motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment which is usually based only upon written submissions to the trial court and not on any trial testimony.

Another situation is where appeal is by way of "re-hearing". Certain jurisdictions permit certain appeals to cause the trial to be heard afresh in the appellate court.

Sometimes, the appellate court finds a defect in the procedure the parties used in filing the appeal and dismisses the appeal without considering its merits, which has the same effect as affirming the judgment below. (This would happen, for example, if the appellant waited too long, under the appellate court's rules, to file the appeal.)

Generally, there is no trial in an appellate court, only consideration of the record of the evidence presented to the trial court and all the pre-trial and trial court proceedings are reviewed—unless the appeal is by way of re-hearing, new evidence will usually only be considered on appeal in "very" rare instances, for example if that material evidence was unavailable to a party for some very significant reason such as prosecutorial misconduct.

In some systems, an appellate court will only consider the written decision of the lower court, together with any written evidence that was before that court and is relevant to the appeal. In other systems, the appellate court will normally consider the record of the lower court. In those cases the record will first be certified by the lower court.

The appellant has the opportunity to present arguments for the granting of the appeal and the appellee (or respondent) can present arguments against it. Arguments of the parties to the appeal are presented through their appellate lawyers, if represented, or "pro se" if the party has not engaged legal representation. Those arguments are presented in written briefs and sometimes in oral argument to the court at a hearing. At such hearings each party is allowed a brief presentation at which the appellate judges ask questions based on their review of the record below and the submitted briefs.

In an adversarial system, appellate courts do not have the power to review lower court decisions unless a party appeals it. Therefore, if a lower court has ruled in an improper manner, or against legal precedent, that judgment will stand if not appealed – even if it might have been overturned on appeal.

The United States legal system generally recognizes two types of appeals: a trial "de novo" or an appeal on the record.

A trial de novo is usually available for review of informal proceedings conducted by some minor judicial tribunals in proceedings that do not provide all the procedural attributes of a formal judicial trial. If unchallenged, these decisions have the power to settle more minor legal disputes once and for all. If a party is dissatisfied with the finding of such a tribunal, one generally has the power to request a trial "de novo" by a court of record. In such a proceeding, all issues and evidence may be developed newly, as though never heard before, and one is not restricted to the evidence heard in the lower proceeding. Sometimes, however, the decision of the lower proceeding is itself admissible as evidence, thus helping to curb frivolous appeals.

In some cases, an application for "trial de novo" effectively erases the prior trial as if it had never taken place. The Supreme Court of Virginia has stated that '"This Court has repeatedly held that the effect of an appeal to circuit court is to "annul the judgment of the inferior tribunal as completely as if there had been no previous trial."'[14] The only exception to this is that if a defendant appeals a conviction for a crime having multiple levels of offenses, where they are convicted on a lesser offense, the appeal is of the lesser offense; the conviction represents an acquittal of the more serious offenses. "[A] trial on the same charges in the circuit court does not violate double jeopardy principles, . . . subject only to the limitation that conviction in [the] district court for an offense lesser included in the one charged constitutes an acquittal of the greater offense, permitting trial de novo in the circuit court only for the lesser-included offense."[15]

In an appeal on the record from a decision in a judicial proceeding, both appellant and respondent are bound to base their arguments wholly on the proceedings and body of evidence as they were presented in the lower tribunal. Each seeks to prove to the higher court that the result they desired was the just result. Precedent and case law figure prominently in the arguments. In order for the appeal to succeed, the appellant must prove that the lower court committed reversible error, that is, an impermissible action by the court acted to cause a result that was unjust, and which would not have resulted had the court acted properly. Some examples of reversible error would be erroneously instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case, permitting seriously improper argument by an attorney, admitting or excluding evidence improperly, acting outside the court's jurisdiction, injecting bias into the proceeding or appearing to do so, juror misconduct, etc. The failure to formally object at the time, to what one views as improper action in the lower court, may result in the affirmance of the lower court's judgment on the grounds that one did not "preserve the issue for appeal" by objecting.

In cases where a judge rather than a jury decided issues of fact, an appellate court will apply an "abuse of discretion" standard of review. Under this standard, the appellate court gives deference to the lower court's view of the evidence, and reverses its decision only if it were a clear abuse of discretion. This is usually defined as a decision outside the bounds of reasonableness. On the other hand, the appellate court normally gives less deference to a lower court's decision on issues of law, and may reverse if it finds that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard.

In some cases, an appellant may successfully argue that the law under which the lower decision was rendered was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, or may convince the higher court to order a new trial on the basis that evidence earlier sought was concealed or only recently discovered. In the case of new evidence, there must be a high probability that its presence or absence would have made a material difference in the trial. Another issue suitable for appeal in criminal cases is effective assistance of counsel. If a defendant has been convicted and can prove that his lawyer did not adequately handle his case and that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the lawyer given competent representation, he is entitled to a new trial.


A lawyer traditionally starts an oral argument to any appellate court with the words "May it please the court."

After an appeal is heard, the "mandate" is a formal notice of a decision by a court of appeal; this notice is transmitted to the trial court and, when filed by the clerk of the trial court, constitutes the final judgment on the case, unless the appeal court has directed further proceedings in the trial court. The mandate is distinguished from the appeal court's opinion, which sets out the legal reasoning for its decision. In some jurisdictions the mandate is known as the "remittitur".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_procedure_in_the_United_States
 
Feb 2016
4,098
578
Kannapolis North Carolina
#9
It hasn't been overturned yet, and you also have the Maryland ruling.

If it gets overturned, this probably ends up in the Supreme Court. If it doesn't, it won't.
It hasn't been overturned yet because the supreme court hasn't gotten involved yet.
Because this is a constitutional issue the supreme court will review it. and the ban will go into effect.
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
33,034
27,373
Kansas
#10
It hasn't been overturned yet because the supreme court hasn't gotten involved yet.
Because this is a constitutional issue the supreme court will review it. and the ban will go into effect.
Again, that rarely happens. The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to review conflicting rulings and uphold one of them.
 

Similar Discussions