U.S. attorney general Jeff Sessions mocks Hawaii as just "an island in the Pacific"

[yoma]

Because the challenge has no factual legal basis. The powers of the presidency are nearly limitless in this regard, like it or not. He could ban left handed red heads if he wants, or people with uni brows. It doesn't matter why, because the law is it what it is, and the powers are among some of the most sweeping of any found in our government.

The judges have every right to challenge it, but they will lose at the SCOTUS, and they will lose HARD. I look forward to the gloating over the 9-0 decision. It will be glorious.

Glorious Leader's glorious ban was torn to hell not just once, but twice by a thankfully observant Judicial system. If you honestly think the SCOTUS will endorse these bans, and at a 9-0 ruling no less, then you have some comically large and thick blinders glued to your face.

Maybe Trump should just ban all Federal judges from the US, but don't worry, he can just base it on their individual appearances, beliefs, and shoe sizes to keep things legal. Clearly you believe His Grace's power extends that far.

[Ragedaug]

He didn't call Hawaii an island. I mean, it's all linked in the very first post of this thread, with quotation marks to boot, yet here we are 4 pages later arguing about whether he was right or not about something he never said.

But yeah, find a thread to pick at, even if you are the one who put the thread there. (looking at you time.com)

[yoma]

He didn't call Hawaii an island. I mean, it's all linked in the very first post of this thread, with quotation marks to boot, yet here we are 4 pages later arguing about whether he was right or not about something he never said.

But yeah, find a thread to pick at, even if you are the one who put the thread there. (looking at you time.com)

"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power."

Oops, ruined your point, sorry about it.

[Ragedaug]

"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power."

Oops, ruined your point, sorry about it.

You just proved my point. Please show me where he called Hawaii an island.

...still waiting

Take your time..probably running some deep analytics on that sentence to figure it out. time.com said he said it, so it must be there. I'll wait.

[Tijuana]

Glorious Leader's glorious ban was torn to hell not just once, but twice by a thankfully observant Judicial system. If you honestly think the SCOTUS will endorse these bans, and at a 9-0 ruling no less, then you have some comically large and thick blinders glued to your face.

Maybe Trump should just ban all Federal judges from the US, but don't worry, he can just base it on their individual appearances, beliefs, and shoe sizes. Clearly you believe His Grace's power extends that far.

It factually has yet to be decided on, even the first ban. The decision he lost was the temporary stay until decided, not the EO itself. The case was later dropped, in the hopes that a more clear EO would result in a return to judicial honesty. It did not.

The new ban is still working it's way through the appeals process, and it will lose 3-0 in the 9th Circus, then win 9-0 in the SCOTUS.

The law is clear, to anyone being honest about it.

From Title 8 of the US code:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate"

I know it may seem strange to you but, sometimes (read: all the fucking time), even judges succumb to partisan politics that have no legal basis. Thankfully, the SCOTUS, while holding different views, generally does not engage in the levels of activism the lower courts do. They use at least some restraint.

[yoma]

You just proved my point. Please show me where he called Hawaii an island.

...still waiting

And the idiot poster above me doesn't grasp the topic. But see, I didn't call anyone in particular an idiot, just the poster above me.

Infracted - Minor Flaming

[Ragedaug]

And the idiot poster above me doesn't grasp the topic. But see, I didn't call anyone in particular an idiot, just the poster above me.

No idea what you are taking about now, but I see you are in full retreat from answering my question now. I don't blame you.

[yoma]

It factually has yet to be decided on, even the first ban. The decision he lost was the stay until decided, not the EO itself. The case was later dropped, in the hopes that a more clear EO would result in a return to judicial honesty. It did not.

The law is clear, to anyone being honest about it.

From Title 8 of the US code:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate"

I know it may seem strange to you but, sometimes (read: all the fucking time), even judges succumb to partisan politics that have no legal basis. Thankfully, the SCOTUS, while holding different views, generally does not engage in the levels of activism the lower courts do. They use at least some restraint.

It's up to judges to interpret that written law and make it applicable to modern times. Trump could sign an EO banning federal judges based upon their profiles (nationality, race, religion, etc). Being the president does not give one the universal right to be a racist asshole.

- - - Updated - - -

No idea what you are taking about now, but I see you are in full retreat from answering my question now. I don't blame you.

You see, you're taking offense, but I clearly wasn't talking about you. Nor was anyone talking about Hawaii clearly. /sarcasm

[Ragedaug]

Being the president does not give one the universal right to be a racist asshole.

Correct, you don't have to be president, birth gives you that right.

- - - Updated - - -

You see, you're taking offense, but I clearly wasn't talking about you. Nor was anyone talking about Hawaii clearly. /sarcasm

Offense to what? you haven't said anything offensive to me. Silly, yes, but not offensive. You talked about ruining my point while proving it. So, thanks.

[Tijuana]

It's up to judges to interpret that written law and make it applicable to modern times. Trump could sign an EO banning federal judges based upon their profiles (nationality, race, religion, etc). Being the president does not give one the universal right to be a racist asshole.

- - - Updated - - -



You see, you're taking offense, but I clearly wasn't talking about you. Nor was anyone talking about Hawaii clearly. /sarcasm

Oh but it does, in this case. The law plainly allows for him to define the ban as he sees fit. Also, neither ban factually mentions race. The second ban factually never mentions religion.

Look, the point is not if the ban is a good thing, or right and moral. I personally find it to be wholly pointless.

The point is when you have SWEEPING powers, such as those defined in the relevant law, it's just silly to think a judge can win based on the choosing of certain nations. By this logic, which is wrong and will lose, it would have been illegal to ban Germans during WWII, or South Africans during Apartheid, or Russians during the Cold War. Why do Liberals have just complete and total disdain for the law, if they are so into authoritarianism?

[yoma]

Correct, you don't have to be president, birth gives you that right.

- - - Updated - - -



Offense to what? you haven't said anything offensive to me. Silly, yes, but not offensive. You talked about ruining my point while proving it. So, thanks.

So, Sessions mentions an island in the Pacific that contains a federal judge that cock-blocked Trump's EO, but that could be any ol' island I guess. You got me.

[xifeng22]

I live in Hawaii and to be frank we are a bit different than the mainland. Yes the youngest and largest island is named Hawaii (though locals just call it "The Big Island"). Also as a majority Democratic state most people here don't really care for this administration (though I would appreciate having less Filipinos everywhere (no offense but it is kind of alienating when you are only a handful of people in a work place who doesn't know any of the Filipino languages) especially the immigrants (who have a bad reputation here)).

Also the fact that people thousands of miles away from us separated by ocean basically rule us (Hawaii was a successful kingdom before it was annexed by the US for trade reasons and for Pearl Harbor) creates friction between mainlanders and locals. If any white people want to experience discrimination and/or racism just come to Hawaii and be a dick (mainland whites are the most discriminated group here but only if you act like an ass, most of the time people don't care about race here).

[yoma]

Oh but it does, in this case. The law plainly allows for him to define the ban as he sees fit. Also, neither ban factually mentions race. The second ban factually never mentions religion.

Look, the point is not if the ban is a good thing, or right and moral. I personally find it to be wholly pointless.

The point is when you have SWEEPING powers, such as those defined in the relevant law, it's just silly to think a judge can win based on the choosing of certain nations. By this logic, which is wrong and will lose, it would have been illegal to ban Germans during WWII, or South Africans during Apartheid, or Russians during the Cold War.

It's still up to the courts to interpret those laws, no matter how sweeping they may be. Two federal judges so far have interpreted Trump's EO as extending beyond his Executive powers. Even if this made it to the SCOTUS, idk why you think they would rule any differently.

[Ragedaug]

So, Sessions mentions an island in the Pacific that contains a federal judge that cock-blocked Trump's EO, but that could be any ol' island I guess. You got me.

You are talking in circles now and don't make any sense. Sessions says the judge is sitting on an island. That is factually correct. Which part of the Hawaiian Islands is not an island? Sessions never called the island that the judge was sitting on Hawaii.

So time.com says "he said x" while quoting him not saying 'x' and all the GOP-haters go running full speed with their their head ducked down as far as it will go and get surprised they keep running into crap and falling over.

[yoma]

You are talking in circles now and don't make any sense. Sessions says the judge is sitting on an island. That is factually correct. Which part of the Hawaiian Islands is not an island? Sessions never called the island that the judge was sitting on Hawaii.

So time.com says "he said x" while quoting him not saying 'x' and all the RNC-haters go running full speed with their their head ducked down as far as it will go and get surprised they keep running into crap and falling over.

I already said you are right. He never said the word "Hawaii." I guess that means we'll never know which island he was talking about. Maybe he meant Cuba. Even if it is in the Caribbean. This is Sessions we're talking about.

[Tijuana]

It's still up to the courts to interpret those laws, no matter how sweeping they may be. Two federal judges so far have interpreted Trump's EO as extending beyond his Executive powers. Even if this made it to the SCOTUS, idk why you think they would rule any differently.

Because I have read the law, and it leaves no room for being interpreted differently. Literally the only way this could make it past an actual judge, and not a partisan liberal hack, is if you could somehow challenge the legality of the existing 1965 law. This is not a case that is difficult or complex. It is completely partisan, and has no basis in law, according to legal experts like Alan Dershowitz (the famously bleeding heart liberal who teaches law at Harvard).

Read the law. Can you not agree, that it is sweeping? If you don't like the original law, then ok, I guess I get it. Sort of. I mean, that sounds potentially dangerous to strip the Commander in Chief of the right to restrict entry in to the land he is tasked with defending.

But, the law reads like it reads, and to me, it's pretty clear.

[Trifle]

Oh but it does, in this case. The law plainly allows for him to define the ban as he sees fit. Also, neither ban factually mentions race. The second ban factually never mentions religion.

I think that law gives him the right to do it (which is what he hinged his executive order on), but there are other laws that place limits on what he can do (ie. religious discrimination bad) and then you need to work out which laws have precedence during conflicts etc. which is where the court cases come in.

Ideally (I mean for supporters of his, personally I think the whole thing is a pointless, stupid mess) he'd have passed it as a law rather than an executive order, which would make it much harder (although not impossible) to overturn at a judicial level, but then he'd need to have actual support to get it passed and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Edit: the second ban didn't factually mention religion in the document itself, but there was plenty of evidence that it was motivated by religion (eg them admitting to such on national TV) which is why it was still struck down.

[Ragedaug]

I already said you are right. He never said the word "Hawaii." I guess that means we'll never know which island he was talking about. Maybe he meant Cuba.

I don't think it matters. Maybe try to figure out the point he was trying to make and see if it has merit.

Session isn't trying to say that Hawaii is distant and unimportant, but instead his point is that the Judge on the island doesn't have to worry about terrorist threats like mainland folks do, so it's asinine that that Judge who's not worrying about the threat would be the one to remove the attempt to have more control over terrorists getting into the country.

There's multiple places in Session's point that you could take issue with. But saying "Hawaii isn't an island!!" or saying "he hates Hawaiians!!" or "he doesn't think Hawaii matters!!" in response to what he said just makes one look dull.

[yoma]

Because I have read the law, and it leaves no room for being interpreted differently. Literally the only way this could make it past an actual judge, and not a partisan liberal hack, is if you could somehow challenge the legality of the existing 1965 law. This is not a case that is difficult or complex. It is completely partisan, and has no basis in law, according to legal experts like Alan Dershowitz (the famously bleeding heart liberal who teaches law at Harvard).

Read the law. Can you not agree, that it is sweeping? If you don't like the original law, then ok, I guess I get it. Sort of. I mean, that sounds potentially dangerous to strip the Commander in Chief of the right to restrict entry in to the land he is tasked with defending.

But, the law reads like it reads, and to me, it's pretty clear.

Perhaps in the hands of a competent president, this law would make sense. Trump has revealed how dangerous sweeping laws like this one truly are. Federal judges are seeing this and taking action. Maybe the law needs changed, or maybe we need someone who won't abuse it. I prefer the latter.

[xifeng22]

If I recall the main reason the judge here blocked the ban was because it would hurt tourism (which is a huge part of the economy here). Even though we don't get too many tourists from the Middle-East, people may cancel trips in protest to the ban. Also I think we don't like those damn haoles on the mainland bossing us around so there is also that.