Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[Breccia]

If the goal of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, why would it only have one of the top ten Muslim countries on it?

You are still sticking with the argument that it's not a Muslim ban, because it doesn't ban all Muslims.

This is just as poor of an argument now, as it was before.

The ban, on 7 Muslim countries, that has special priority for Christians getting through by Trump's direct admission, is a Muslim ban. Claiming that the ban wasn't aimed at Muslims, despite Trump's specific statements to the contrary, is just as foolish as saying "Oh yeah? If the KKK is so racist, how come they don't go south of 110th street and just pick a black neighborhood at random for lynchings? They haven't done that, so they must not be racist against blacks".

When someone calls for a religious test to enter the US, or a Muslim registry, or says he wants to ban Muslims, etc etc. it doesn't just throw doubt on your argument, it destroys it. The courts used Trump's words and actions as evidence. Their opinion outweighs yours.

The two main points the judges cited (not me, they declared these the main reasons in many interviews) are that it is discriminatory and does not make us safer. They said those are the main points, not me.

Well that sounds like someone who hasn't read the decision. There were a lot more than two points. Even if I were to cede that you refuted their two main points, which no you haven't, but even if I were, that still leaves about 20 pages of "no" that you haven't even touched yet.

Would you care to weigh in on the 5th Amendment due process issue?

How about the part where they call out the government, when they chose not to provide any evidence of risk, and when they said the E.O. wasn't reviewable?

How about the part where, after it was issued, different officials claimed it had different effects on different people (such as green card holders)?

How about the part where they cited, specifically, states could challenge on the ground of losing international students?

I can throw a few more of these at you, but since you specifically said you expect people to honor their word while supporting Donald Trump, it'll take me a while to decide if you're actually capable of having a serious conversation about anything.

[Wells]

And it is perfectly constitutional.

If only we had some kind of body of legal experts to determine this.

[Shadowferal]

Why do we have laws? That is a power authorized by law, and a set of judges don't like the law, and think they should be able to rewrite at will. That isn't a dictatorship, dumbass.

You've not learned anything about civics..

The Judicial Branch has the right to review any bullshit EO.
If you don't like the US Constitution and it's enumerated checks and balances then find another country where your kind of tyranny thrives.

[Bdatik]

And it is perfectly constitutional.

Why do you get to determine what is and is not Constitutional?

[Jastall]

It wasn't a law it was an executive order. And it is perfectly constitutional. No one has a right to enter the US, and if there is reason to believe there will be a problem, that is why we have a president to do that. I don't care if it isn't "fair". Life isn't fair and foreigners have no expectations for rights in this country, only their own.

An EO is a piece of legislation even if it's not a law passed by Congress, and the Court did very much have the authority to rule on it. They cover all that in the ruling itself, preceding jurisprudence included.

Also, the written law you talk about that gives the President such powers has a provision, written clear as day, that discrimination is not a valid reason for the exercise of this power. Law is complex, and countless exceptions exist both written and unwritten. Picking up one paragraph of text somewhere and going ''see? I win'!!'' is the surest way of being instantly laughed out of a Law course, let alone an actual freaking courtroom.

For someone who bitches about activist judges, you sure seem to know jack shit about your own laws and judicial customs. I'm glad people in the know make these decisions, rather than randoms off the internet.

[cubby]

Even if you only thought it was illegal, by virtue of saying "I don't think it's legal", wouldn't that make pressing forwards a dumb idea? Wouldn't you need to know it's legal to mount a defense of the EO? I mean, it doesn't look like there was a very good one offered.

I'm with you Breccia - the Asst/Acting AG acted appropriately - at her level decisions are all judgement based. In my post you quoted I was clarifying a legal nuance.

[Melusine]

Why do you get to determine what is and is not Constitutional?

Because I've read the law and understand the spirit upon which it was written. Something occurs, and the longer it goes untouched, the more problems it causes. Generally, the way things are done, the president acts using his best discretion, and congress moves to create law, for or against at a later time.

I know some of you think it is about discriminating against Muslims, but the fine line is this: ISIS and al-Qaeda have warned the entire world they would be sending operatives into other countries, and this is one very easy way to do it, and Germany is a perfect example of what happens when you invite a bunch of people into your country that have incompatible beliefs to that of the host country. Trump puts a moratorium on immigration rom those areas as our country strengthens its vetting process to determine who is who, and then the moratorium expires, and business occurs as usual, and we are less susceptible to getting caught with our pants down as another Pulse occurs.

What the language does not say is "Fuck those damn Muslims, they can just stay the hell out of our country, forever!!!" But the opponents of this executive order seem to think that it does, and you're wrong. It just amazes me how easy libtard politicians can convince this many people the sky is falling, but there is one undeniable truth. A lie can make it half way around the world, while truth is just getting its shoes on.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm with you Breccia - the Asst/Acting AG acted appropriately - at her level decisions are all judgement based. In my post you quoted I was clarifying a legal nuance.

Wrong. The appropriate action would be to resign her position, stating that it is against her beliefs. That is the exact same thing that clerk of courts, Kim, what's her name should have done when she was denying gays marriage certificates in defiance of the law. If you can't follow the orders of your boss, you leave.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, life isn't fair, your opinion doesn't really matter to what was decided by the appeal courts. Checks and balances.

Legislating from the bench is what occurred here. Read up on that subject....

[Shadowferal]

I know some of you think it is about discriminating against Muslims, but the fine line is this: ISIS and al-Qaeda have warned the entire world they would be sending operatives into other countries, and this is one very easy way to do it, and Germany is a perfect example of what happens when you invite a bunch of people into your country that have incompatible beliefs to that of the host country. Trump puts a moratorium on immigration rom those areas as our country strengthens its vetting process to determine who is who, and then the moratorium expires, and business occurs as usual, and we are less susceptible to getting caught with our pants down as another Pulse occurs.

What the language does not say is "Fuck those damn Muslims, they can just stay the hell out of our country, forever!!!" But the opponents of this executive order seem to think that it does, and you're wrong. It just amazes me how easy libtard politicians can convince this many people the sky is falling, but there is one undeniable truth. A lie can make it half way around the world, while truth is just getting its shoes on.

One paragraph says it doesn't ban muslims, while the other says banning them is justified...congrats on your cognitive dissonance.

Yeah...not even an argument when the ban is being used to discriminate, regardless of language.

[cubby]

Wrong. The appropriate action would be to resign her position, stating that it is against her beliefs. That is the exact same thing that clerk of courts, Kim, what's her name should have done when she was denying gays marriage certificates in defiance of the law. If you can't follow the orders of your boss, you leave.

You are incorrect. The correct choice was the one she made. She felt it was an illegal action (and she was correct, as the courts have demonstrated). At her level of Executive Service those calls are all judgement based - that's what they get paid for. And she was the Acting AG - she doesn't just do whatever the President tells her - she has to make sure it follows the law, and her duty extends to actually saying no to the President when he is wrong. Which she did.

Her actions were entirely correct - in every aspect.

[Deleted]

Legislating from the bench is what occurred here. Read up on that subject....

Yep, the courts decided differently from your legal bench opinion. It's good that you admit that.

[Melusine]

One paragraph says it doesn't ban muslims, while the other says banning them is justified...congrats on your cognitive dissonance.

Yeah...not even an argument when the ban is being used to discriminate, regardless of language.

That's not cognitive dissonance, and you're being disingenuous.

When I say the fine line between what you perceive to be discrimination, which it is, in a sense, but not against Muslims, but against terrorist operatives, that we have been warned WILL be among the refugees to infiltrate the country from our enemies, but unfortunately, these foreign operatives ARE Muslims, too. The enactment of a vetting process to ensure the foreign operatives are not the ones making it here is vastly different from "Fuck those damned ragheads, they are bad and need to just need to stay home..." That's why the moratorium is not a permanent one. It is there to set up the process to allow actual refugees here, and not do what Germany did, and that has turned into a fucking nightmare for them. We don't need that here.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, the courts decided differently from your legal bench opinion. It's good that you admit that.

I see you didn't bother reading up on the subject..... nice work (lack of...)

- - - Updated - - -

You are incorrect. The correct choice was the one she made. She felt it was an illegal action (and she was correct, as the courts have demonstrated). At her level of Executive Service those calls are all judgement based - that's what they get paid for. And she was the Acting AG - she doesn't just do whatever the President tells her - she has to make sure it follows the law, and her duty extends to actually saying no to the President when he is wrong. Which she did.

Her actions were entirely correct - in every aspect.

That wasn't her job. It would have made a much better statement, especially knowing she had the ear of the media, to resign and tell the American people why she resigned. Disobeying the President turned her into a villain, not a hero. Of course, those who don't understand her position and actually think she was justified in disobeying her primary function as attorney and advisor, not as an undermining agent.

The section of the law that deals with this is here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Look at the terrorism section. Now, we do not have a crystal ball to see which one of them are actual refugees, and which are moles, and you can blame al-Qaida and ISIS for giving us all the heads up that there would be infiltrators mixed in with actual refugees, which may just be a way to fuck with us, and there are none, or there are going to be legions of them, we don't know, and the fact that we aren't talking about a permanent ban is rather telling....

For further analysis, read here:

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/tr...onstitutional/

Have a nice day.

[Magicpot]

That's not cognitive dissonance, and you're being disingenuous.

When I say the fine line between what you perceive to be discrimination, which it is, in a sense, but not against Muslims, but against terrorist operatives, that we have been warned WILL be among the refugees to infiltrate the country from our enemies, but unfortunately, these foreign operatives ARE Muslims, too. The enactment of a vetting process to ensure the foreign operatives are not the ones making it here is vastly different from "Fuck those damned ragheads, they are bad and need to just need to stay home..." That's why the moratorium is not a permanent one. It is there to set up the process to allow actual refugees here, and not do what Germany did, and that has turned into a fucking nightmare for them. We don't need that here.

- - - Updated - - -



I see you didn't bother reading up on the subject..... nice work (lack of...)

- - - Updated - - -



That wasn't her job. It would have made a much better statement, especially knowing she had the ear of the media, to resign and tell the American people why she resigned. Disobeying the President turned her into a villain, not a hero. Of course, those who don't understand her position and actually think she was justified in disobeying her primary function as attorney and advisor, not as an undermining agent.

The section of the law that deals with this is here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Look at the terrorism section. Now, we do not have a crystal ball to see which one of them are actual refugees, and which are moles, and you can blame al-Qaida and ISIS for giving us all the heads up that there would be infiltrators mixed in with actual refugees, which may just be a way to fuck with us, and there are none, or there are going to be legions of them, we don't know, and the fact that we aren't talking about a permanent ban is rather telling....

For further analysis, read here:

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/tr...onstitutional/

Have a nice day.

I don't get what's so hard to understand - You don't get a say in whether the EO is constitutional or not. The checks and balances decide that, as is their station. That you dismissively call that "legislating from the bench" if you don't agree doesn't make it so. In comparison, you know jack shit about the constitution so you're really not permitted to have an opinion on the subject either way.

[cubby]

That wasn't her job. It would have made a much better statement, especially knowing she had the ear of the media, to resign and tell the American people why she resigned. Disobeying the President turned her into a villain, not a hero. Of course, those who don't understand her position and actually think she was justified in disobeying her primary function as attorney and advisor, not as an undermining agent.

The section of the law that deals with this is here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Look at the terrorism section. Now, we do not have a crystal ball to see which one of them are actual refugees, and which are moles, and you can blame al-Qaida and ISIS for giving us all the heads up that there would be infiltrators mixed in with actual refugees, which may just be a way to fuck with us, and there are none, or there are going to be legions of them, we don't know, and the fact that we aren't talking about a permanent ban is rather telling....

For further analysis, read here:

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/tr...onstitutional/

Have a nice day.

You still don't understand her function - you're arguing the law as you see it - which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your links are also irrelevant (but I love that you cite a newspaper as a source more substantial than an Acting U.S. Attorney General, lol).

Until you address the overriding issue - her role as the Attorney General, you continue to miss the point. Her position allows her to make judgement calls on the legality of actions - she isn't a blind follower like people lower down the totem pole (this is admin law, btw - in case you want to look it up). At the Executive Service level, she provides judgement on what she believes is legal, and therefore actionable. She is under no obligation to follow what she believes to be an illegal order.

When you catch up, let me know, and we can have a real discussion. Until you understand how the top echelons of the DoJ function, that won't be possible.

[Deleted]

I see you didn't bother reading up on the subject..... nice work (lack of...)

And again, you are admitting your legal bench opinion right here. Unless, of course, you are part of Trump´s legal team (I doubt).

[ranzino]

Just a reminder: the two parties involved were instructed to file their opinion until 11:00 am PST on Thursday, ca. 25 h from now.

Any educated guess what the opinions will look like ?
Is Washington State & friends cool about another legal battle or will they argue "enough is enough", because they won 2 times already and a Supreme Court decision, started by the appellants, is unlikely ?
Feels government like they would be better prepared now and they could convince a full bench ( 6 out of 11 is all they need AFAIK) ?

i know it's armchair guess, but we have nothing better to do for sure ?

[Breccia]

Is Washingston State & friends cool about another legal battle

Almost certainly. This is now a political issue and their stance on it is important -- especially, as you pointed out, as they've already won twice and are likely to win a third time.

[ranzino]

Almost certainly. This is now a political issue and their stance on it is important -- especially, as you pointed out, as they've already won twice and are likely to win a third time.

Well, they could sit it out. Without "full bench" ruling and government yet not so eager to call upon Supreme Court, the last ruling is in their favor. Why risk a new ruling by 11 out of 25 judges ?

[Breccia]

Well, they could sit it out. Without "full bench" ruling and government yet not so eager to call upon Supreme Court, the last ruling is in their favor. Why risk a new ruling by 11 out of 25 judges ?

I'm not sure it's a big risk, to be honest. The 3-0 ruling was extensively against Trump. I don't remember reading a single thing that Trump's side actually put forth that the court accepted.

Let's talk about this mathematically. There are 25 balls in a box, some white, some black. You reach in and pull out 3 white. You are asking, if you put them back and pull out 11, what are the odds you get at least 6 white?

I counter with, if the balls are majority black, what are the odds you lucked out and got 3 white?

If there are 13 or more black balls, the odds of getting 3 white are about 9% and it drops quickly from there. In fact, getting 3 white balls is 50/50 chance only if 20+ of the original balls were white in the first place. So, to be looking at an 11-judge court to be a bad risk, you'd have to say the odds they lucked out and got 3 that sided with the ban was 9% or so. Based on that decision handed down, I am not sure you can say that was the case.

Just for the sake of completion, if you weigh each black/white result (25-0 to 0-25) by how likely such an event is, based on you getting three white, there's an 87% chance that there are 16 or more white balls in the box. At 16-9, the odds of an 11-seat court ruling 6+ white, 5- black, is over 90% and it increases dramatically from there.

Obviously, this is pure probability and not as complex as a legal ruling. I'm just saying, based purely on such a decisive, extensive ruling by a 3-0 court, I don't see 11-0 being a big risk.

[ranzino]

I'm not sure it's a big risk, to be honest. The 3-0 ruling was extensively against Trump. I don't remember reading a single thing that Trump's side actually put forth that the court accepted.

Let's talk about this mathematically. There are 25 balls in a box, some white, some black. You reach in and pull out 3 white. You are asking, if you put them back and pull out 11, what are the odds you get at least 6 white?

I counter with, if the balls are majority black, what are the odds you lucked out and got 3 white?

If there are 13 or more black balls, the odds of getting 3 white are about 9% and it drops quickly from there. In fact, getting 3 white balls is 50/50 chance only if 20+ of the original balls were white in the first place. So, to be looking at an 11-judge court to be a bad risk, you'd have to say the odds they lucked out and got 3 that sided with the ban was 9% or so. Based on that decision handed down, I am not sure you can say that was the case.

Just for the sake of completion, if you weigh each black/white result (25-0 to 0-25) by how likely such an event is, based on you getting three white, there's an 87% chance that there are 16 or more white balls in the box. At 16-9, the odds of an 11-seat court ruling 6+ white, 5- black, is over 90% and it increases dramatically from there.

Obviously, this is pure probability and not as complex as a legal ruling. I'm just saying, based purely on such a decisive, extensive ruling by a 3-0 court, I don't see 11-0 being a big risk.

Nice math.

I was asking because the call for a "full bench" was sua sponte aka an inside job: one of the judges ( means one of the 22 not involved) was not so cool with the last ruling. If the last team of 3 would be also among the 11 benchers, it looks good: only 3 more of the same opinions and Trump wil be pissed off again.
at least one dissenting vote among 11 is expected.

[Breccia]

one of the judges ( means one of the 22 not involved) was not so cool with the last ruling.

I don't think that means he automatically gets a seat on the bench of 11.

In any event, pure probability won't solve this. It just indicates that, barring evidence to the contrary, if you got 3 who agree on your first try, getting 6+ out of 11 is actually a pretty safe bet.