Trump's Travel Ban

[Bible_Belt]

Not sure how likely this is, but if it goes to the supreme court, and they decide that NOT letting immigrants in is "unconstitutional" that may pose a bit of a problem. Wouldn't that forever eliminate the option of not letting immigrants in?

The court can only rule on the specific issue of the case at hand. Plus, since they're the Supremes and do whatever they want, they may also pick and choose from the various issues, and only issue rulings on some of them. Other times, they take a case and rule that one side wins or loses for procedural issues that do not relate to the actual argument at hand. In the Seattle case, it is the states who are suing, so they could rule for Trump on the state's rights issue, but leave it open for individuals to sue for different reasons.

Furthermore, the Seattle judge issued a ruling on a preliminary injunction. The actual case hasn't happened yet. If the government wins the appeal on the injunction, then the case isn't over. We just go back to trial and start the case. And the previous ruling on the injunction really has no bearing on how the actual case will play out. The standards used are completely different, and much more biased against the party filing the injunction.

Even if you support Trump 100% in everything he does, the larger issue here is executive power - how much is appropriate and Constitutional? If you think the Constitution means the president can do whatever he wants and you're pro-Trump, well then that's great for now. But he's not going to be president forever. And right now it's looking like the next president is going to be the most left-wing radical ever to grace the office. My money right now is on Ellen DeGeneres, since we only elect people who have TV shows. I'd pick Snoop Dogg as her VP; good strong celebrity brand.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Ever since the constitution was created they've been shooting holes in it. You might even say that having a constitution makes it easier for them to get away with murder (whoever "they" are). All they have to do is say it's based on a "constitution" and that interpretation will be upheld by all the government men with guns.

The greatest strength of the U.S. may be our biggest weakness as well. If you look how the laws "based" on the constitution changed over time, and what the meaning of "constitutional" changed over time, you could extrapolate a pretty horrible future in a couple of years.

If this was a political thriller, for example, I could see how a Soros type could exert subtle pressure on the supremes to vote a certain way, or choose special cases, etc.

Any system can be gamed.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

My money right now is on Ellen DeGeneres, since we only elect people who have TV shows. I'd pick Snoop Dogg as her VP; good strong celebrity brand.

He's got my vote.

 

[Trunks]

The appropriate and questionabke power of the executive branch is only an issue to liberals when THEY no longer have the power.

As I asked Jaylan a year ago, when it was HIS ideology holding the power.....what happens when the "wrong" group suddenly holds power? He refused to answer the question because......he thought his ideology would forever hold power.

Having said all that, I do not see how Trump has overstepped his power here.

I don't think the ban itself is unconstitutional, but how it was implemented. Setting that aside, imo it is pointless unless he bans the other Middle East countries that export/support terrorists.

 

[Trunks]

What about the "how" makes it UnConstitutional?

That the green card holders were detained at the airport without being allowed to see a lawyer or hearing.

He basically put the ban on the major exporters or where there are major terrorist activities.

I meant Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Palestine, etc.

 

[Bible_Belt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...or-play-is-shaping-up-as-a-full-blown-fiasco/
Steve Bannon’s first major play is shaping up as a full-blown fiasco

https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence...horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas

NBC is reporting that the document was not reviewed by DHS, the Justice Department, the State Department, or the Department of Defense, and that National Security Council lawyers were prevented from evaluating it. Moreover, the New York Times writes that Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, the agencies tasked with carrying out the policy, were only given a briefing call while Trump was actually signing the order itself. Yesterday, the Department of Justice gave a “no comment” when asked whether the Office of Legal Counsel had reviewed Trump’s executive orders—including the order at hand. (OLC normally reviews every executive order.)

This order reads to me, frankly, as though it was not reviewed by competent counsel at all.

How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact."

 

[Trunks]

How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact."

LOL

 

[Trunks]

LOL the Washington Post. #fakenews

LOL, WaPo kept blasting Trump every day of election year. They even had a model showing how improbable a Trump win would be.

 

[Trunks]

Next stop is appeals court, where that judge can throw out everything the district judge did, or sometimes just part of it.

It remains to be seen how the appeals will go. Sometimes out of the 9 circuits, the left coast being the most liberal of them, there will be conflicting rulings, and those are the cases that the Supreme Court will pick up most quickly, although fast-tracking the case right now is going to be pointless, because there's not a 7th SC member to break the tie. Even when Gorush gets on the Supremes, I honestly think he is going to rule against Trump in this matter, based upon his previous record as a judge.

Seems like you called it again:

"This legal fight will now shift to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – an appellate court with a long legal history that shades to the liberal side."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...gainst-seattle-judges-immigration-order-block

 

[Bible_Belt]

Damn this sh!t moves fast. You know it's an important case when they open up court on a Saturday night. Team Trump lost the coin toss in appeals court, but the appeal is still ongoing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/doj-appeals-travel-ban-ruling/
A federal appeals court early Sunday morning denied the US government's initial request to resume President Donald Trump's travel ban. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makes its final decision after a federal judge halted the program on Friday What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart suspending the ban will remain in place -- for now.

 

[FairShake]

If our homeland goes to sh!t I hope other countries are a little more discerning when it comes to us. We have a lot of killers in our country after all.

 

[Bokanovsky]

What makes you think the average Palestinian would be bent on killing Jews if they became citizens of Israel?

Because that's what happened to jews in every arab majority country. There were millions of jews living in countries like Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Yemen, etc. until the middle of the 20th century. Today, there are virtually no Jews living in the middle east outside of Israel. Some were killed, most were forced to flee. There is no reason to believe that the same thing would not happen if Israel became majority arab.

Trunks, I'm guessing that you've never been to Israel. You should go once, to see for yourself what's going on over there. I guarantee that your view of the Israeli-Palestinian will change completely and you will never ask questions like the ones you've posed in this thread.

 

[Trunks]

Trunks, I'm guessing that you've never been to Israel. You should go once, to see for yourself what's going on over there. I guarantee that your view of the Israeli-Palestinian will change completely and you will never ask questions like the ones you've posed in this thread.

Point taken.

 

[FairShake]

inner city gangs

I am impressed you were able to write this phrase so well one handed what with your other hand shaking a fist at the damn kids on your lawn.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about "inner city gangs" nor was Trump whom I was (for once and only) quoting. I was talking about suburban gangs who consider Langley Virginia their turf. The CIA which stands for "Crackaz in Action" last I checked. That's who other countries fear and loath more than any inner city gangs. They've certainly killed more.

 

[Bible_Belt]

A typical Chicago street gang is about 3 or 4 teenage kids, hardly ever more than a dozen. That's how gangs still exist. When they form large organizations, police inevitably infiltrate them and take out the leaders. So they learned to split into so many fragments, that there is not one big target for law enforcement to pursue. That's also why there are so many murders; there's too many gangs to form an effective truce between any of them.

 

[Bible_Belt]

List of 97 tech companies who signed a petition opposing the travel ban:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/technology/companies-opposed-trump-travel-ban/

 

[BlueAlpha1]

They've certainly killed more.

No, they haven't. Nobody has killed more than Muslims throughout world history. Not one country, nationality, tribe, or government agency.

And if you hate America so much, go back to Africa. Oh, you're mad you didn't come here by choice? You've had 160 years to go back. But you won't. You like your black privilege.

 

[speed dawg]

I am impressed you were able to write this phrase so well one handed what with your other hand shaking a fist at the damn kids on your lawn.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about "inner city gangs" nor was Trump whom I was (for once and only) quoting. I was talking about suburban gangs who consider Langley Virginia their turf. The CIA which stands for "Crackaz in Action" last I checked. That's who other countries fear and loath more than any inner city gangs. They've certainly killed more.

Lost the argument, now here comes the shaming.

Your second paragraph is just freaking stupid. Wake up, sheep.

 

[speed dawg]

List of 97 tech companies who signed a petition opposing the travel ban:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/technology/companies-opposed-trump-travel-ban/

Can't imagine why? Certainly isn't about the safety of the country.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The 97 is now 127; more companies joined the petition.

Wasn't Trump supposed to care about the economy? How is restricting the economy with Muslim hate rules any different than restricting it with those pesky environmental rules he wants to eliminate?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ourt-brief-opposing-immigration-ban/97538208/
"The Order effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies," the brief states. "It hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on business; makes it more difficult for American firms to compete in the international marketplace; and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations—and hire new employees—outside the United States."

That's not capitalism. That's not the free market. The Trumpers go on and on about the evils of the nanny state and big government, which they want to replace with big government in the form of a police state.