|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 05 2017 02:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 02:22 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
I suspect that Trump may be right that the Seattle Order is outrageous. The big tip off is that the Order provides no explanation for its rote conclusion that the Plaintiffs' claims are likely to succeed on the merits. There's no citation to any authority describing the scope of the federal government's power as it pertains to immigration, which is quite substantial. Compare the Seattle Order to the Boston Order, which provides a very clear explanation for why the executive order does not overstep legal bounds with very clear citations to applicable laws. But is he right to question whether the judge is truly a judge, or to say the decision essentially abolishes American law encorcement? Here let's test it. I'm gonna go kill someone... Crap! Still got arrested. why you gotta respond to a decent post with a bad post? needless aggro. xdaunt had a good clear cogent point there.
Heh, sorry to try to have a little fun. Let me take it seriously then:
I don't know much about the legal merits of the case, so xDaunt may be right for all I know (although there are definitely respected legal scholars who have said this order is unequivocally unconstitutional, so I'm not convinced he's right either).
But calling the judge a "so-called" judge is a dumb thing to say. Saying it "essentially takes away law-enforcement" (why the hyphen?) is flat out incorrect. So he's defending Trump, but without actually defending Trump. I was making a light-hearted attempt to talk more about the surprising part of that tweet; we expected him to be critical about the decision, but we didn't expect him to criticize it so dumbly, or with such an absurd lie (although maybe we should have, it's pretty much par for the course, no?)
|
On February 05 2017 02:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 02:25 LegalLord wrote:
I find it rather amusing that a president who was in all likelihood elected by leaks is now getting smacked down hard by leaks. Trump is going to keep having problems with leaks until he gets his people in place. There are still a ton of Obama people in the Administration.
If the nonpartisan grunts are leaking then short of a purge he will continue to have problems. And we haven't even gotten to the hax yet. Russia may or may not continue to hack-n-leak but if Trump continues to antagonize I wouldn't be surprised if China and Iran did.
|
And no, Trump should not attack a judge, even if the judge may be a hack.
|
Unfortunately for Trump a lot of "his" people are the kind of people that will stab him in the back in a heartbeat to progress their own agenda...which can involve leaks. And there are plenty of people who are smart enough to keep their heads down and leak that hate him.
|
A terrorist video released on Friday by the Pentagon to show what it called intelligence gleaned by the recent raid in Yemen actually was made about 10 years ago, it acknowledged.
Defense officials canceled a briefing they had called to discuss the value of the information recovered from Yemen and took the video off the website of the U.S. Central Command. They circulated clips from a video that showed how to prepare explosives without knowing it had already been public.
However, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Defense Department spokesman, stuck by the Pentagon's main argument: Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula remains dangerous and wants to recruit and train people to attack the West.
"Even though the video is old, it shows their intent," he told reporters.
But defense officials declined to release any other, newer intelligence they said was in computers recovered by the American and allied special operations troops who attacked the Yemeni town.
The messaging kerfuffle turned an ongoing counterattack into a damp squib. Critics in Congress and within the national security establishment — speaking without identification in press reports — have called the Yemen raid botched.
They accused the White House of hurrying troops into an operation with bad intelligence, or pressing commanders to go ahead with a raid after it lost its element of surprise.
Spokesman Sean Spicer began to return fire on Thursday: The initial planning began in November, he said, and then the military and intelligence community worked to refine it in the succeeding months through the transition. With a strong case for action, Spicer said, the only thing needed was a moonless night in Yemen, which fell after President Trump's inauguration. Trump ultimately authorized it on Jan. 26.
Source
|
On February 05 2017 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
And no, Trump should not attack a judge, even if the judge may be a hack.
Don't think hacks get confirmed 99-0.
|
On February 05 2017 03:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A terrorist video released on Friday by the Pentagon to show what it called intelligence gleaned by the recent raid in Yemen actually was made about 10 years ago, it acknowledged.
Defense officials canceled a briefing they had called to discuss the value of the information recovered from Yemen and took the video off the website of the U.S. Central Command. They circulated clips from a video that showed how to prepare explosives without knowing it had already been public.
However, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Defense Department spokesman, stuck by the Pentagon's main argument: Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula remains dangerous and wants to recruit and train people to attack the West.
"Even though the video is old, it shows their intent," he told reporters.
But defense officials declined to release any other, newer intelligence they said was in computers recovered by the American and allied special operations troops who attacked the Yemeni town.
The messaging kerfuffle turned an ongoing counterattack into a damp squib. Critics in Congress and within the national security establishment — speaking without identification in press reports — have called the Yemen raid botched.
They accused the White House of hurrying troops into an operation with bad intelligence, or pressing commanders to go ahead with a raid after it lost its element of surprise.
Spokesman Sean Spicer began to return fire on Thursday: The initial planning began in November, he said, and then the military and intelligence community worked to refine it in the succeeding months through the transition. With a strong case for action, Spicer said, the only thing needed was a moonless night in Yemen, which fell after President Trump's inauguration. Trump ultimately authorized it on Jan. 26. Source
So they took a video from the bush presidency and thought no one would notice the difference in technology? And they didn't know that the video was already produced until after they posted it? What is going on in Washington?
|
On February 05 2017 03:27 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 03:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A terrorist video released on Friday by the Pentagon to show what it called intelligence gleaned by the recent raid in Yemen actually was made about 10 years ago, it acknowledged.
Defense officials canceled a briefing they had called to discuss the value of the information recovered from Yemen and took the video off the website of the U.S. Central Command. They circulated clips from a video that showed how to prepare explosives without knowing it had already been public.
However, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Defense Department spokesman, stuck by the Pentagon's main argument: Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula remains dangerous and wants to recruit and train people to attack the West.
"Even though the video is old, it shows their intent," he told reporters.
But defense officials declined to release any other, newer intelligence they said was in computers recovered by the American and allied special operations troops who attacked the Yemeni town.
The messaging kerfuffle turned an ongoing counterattack into a damp squib. Critics in Congress and within the national security establishment — speaking without identification in press reports — have called the Yemen raid botched.
They accused the White House of hurrying troops into an operation with bad intelligence, or pressing commanders to go ahead with a raid after it lost its element of surprise.
Spokesman Sean Spicer began to return fire on Thursday: The initial planning began in November, he said, and then the military and intelligence community worked to refine it in the succeeding months through the transition. With a strong case for action, Spicer said, the only thing needed was a moonless night in Yemen, which fell after President Trump's inauguration. Trump ultimately authorized it on Jan. 26. Source So they took a video from the bush presidency and thought no one would notice the difference in technology? And they didn't know that the video was already produced until after they posted it? What is going on in Washington?
general incompetence?
there seems to be a larger issue that in terms of appointments for position, too much weight is put on ideology compatibility, and not enough weight is being put on simple competence, and whether there are more competent alternative choices.
|
On February 05 2017 03:27 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 03:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A terrorist video released on Friday by the Pentagon to show what it called intelligence gleaned by the recent raid in Yemen actually was made about 10 years ago, it acknowledged.
Defense officials canceled a briefing they had called to discuss the value of the information recovered from Yemen and took the video off the website of the U.S. Central Command. They circulated clips from a video that showed how to prepare explosives without knowing it had already been public.
However, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Defense Department spokesman, stuck by the Pentagon's main argument: Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula remains dangerous and wants to recruit and train people to attack the West.
"Even though the video is old, it shows their intent," he told reporters.
But defense officials declined to release any other, newer intelligence they said was in computers recovered by the American and allied special operations troops who attacked the Yemeni town.
The messaging kerfuffle turned an ongoing counterattack into a damp squib. Critics in Congress and within the national security establishment — speaking without identification in press reports — have called the Yemen raid botched.
They accused the White House of hurrying troops into an operation with bad intelligence, or pressing commanders to go ahead with a raid after it lost its element of surprise.
Spokesman Sean Spicer began to return fire on Thursday: The initial planning began in November, he said, and then the military and intelligence community worked to refine it in the succeeding months through the transition. With a strong case for action, Spicer said, the only thing needed was a moonless night in Yemen, which fell after President Trump's inauguration. Trump ultimately authorized it on Jan. 26. Source So they took a video from the bush presidency and thought no one would notice the difference in technology? And they didn't know that the video was already produced until after they posted it? What is going on in Washington?
I mean, do you have to ask?
Trump has to win. To win on this issue they had to find intelligence that made the bad operation and the death of a Navy Seal worth it. Create a hero story about Trump making the hard choices to protect America ect.
When you cant win fair you fake it. And when your staff is incompetent you fake it bad enough to get caught.
|
On February 05 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
I suspect that Trump may be right that the Seattle Order is outrageous. The big tip off is that the Order provides no explanation for its rote conclusion that the Plaintiffs' claims are likely to succeed on the merits. There's no citation to any authority describing the scope of the federal government's power as it pertains to immigration, which is quite substantial. Compare the Seattle Order to the Boston Order, which provides a very clear explanation for why the executive order does not overstep legal bounds with very clear citations to applicable laws.
I agree, just given how much rationale was lacking from the TRO.
Also, very much looking forward to week three of the Trump administration. I hope the pace doesn't let up!
|
On February 05 2017 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
And no, Trump should not attack a judge, even if the judge may be a hack.
Woah, that's a stronger line than I'd take! I thought it would be asking too much to expect Donald "Counterpuncher" Trump not to attack the judge, just not to lie in that attack or bizarrely suggest he's not really a judge. But you're right, integrity of the judicial branch really should be respected and he shouldn't criticize the judge even truthfully. Funny how I can be determined not to let Trump normalize unacceptable behavior in your mind, and yet I still managed to forget that an ad hominem attack on a federal judge by the POTUS is unacceptable behavior.
Edit: I lack the legal expertise to say, but why do you think the decision wasn't specific in its reasoning that the plaintiff was likely to succeed? My guess was that since this is supposed to be a temporary stay until the case can be decided, then there's still an entire court battle coming up in which the plaintiff's lawyers have to construct and frame their argument about the EO's unconstitutionality, and he was leaving them as much room as possible to decide how they want to frame that. But again, no legal expertise, don't know if that's at all plausible.
|
On February 05 2017 04:07 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I lack the legal expertise to say, but why do you think the decision wasn't specific in its reasoning that the plaintiff was likely to succeed? My guess was that since this is supposed to be a temporary stay until the case can be decided, then there's still an entire court battle coming up in which the plaintiff's lawyers have to construct and frame their argument about the EO's unconstitutionality, and he was leaving them as much room as possible to decide how they want to frame that. But again, no legal expertise, don't know if that's at all plausible.
Have you looked at the opinion? There is literally no explanation for why the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. Judges aren't necessarily required to explain their rulings, but it is generally expected that they do so. And given how much deference that courts are supposed to afford the executive and legislative branches on border entry matters, this judge absolutely should have provided some justification for his interference with the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a swift kick in the ass on appeal.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the order is wrong so much as it looks like it is wrong.
|
TROs/preliminary injunctions are accorded marginally different analyses depending on the specific contours of the appropriate circuit test at issue. Given the 9th Circuit's acceptance of the "serious question" alternative to the typical four (sometimes three) part TRO/preliminary injunction test, it would seem that they adhere to the "sliding scale" attitude towards establishing the elements of a threshold legal order, which is particularly appropriate in the case of a TRO, an order that will only last around 14 days or until the parties can fully brief the merits of a more long lasting preliminary injunction. Where a court conducts a "sliding scale" analysis of the propriety of a TRO/preliminary injunction, they afford each of the elements of the test a weight proportional to what can be established on the pleadings and motion. In other words, a weak showing on the likelihood of success on the merits can be alleviated by a strong showing of irreparable harm or public policy to the contrary of the challenged action.
With that in mind, the Judge's order makes a bit more sense; while the court discuses the likelihood of success on the merits in little detail, it prioritizes the likelihood of irreparable harm done to both State and individual actors and seems to tacitly assert that the harm is great enough to warrant a maintenance of the status quo until the Executive can brief its position. Given the readily accessible images of families torn apart, children missing surgeries, and other seemingly avoidable consequences, this seems reasonable enough.
|
Yeah, but the judge didn't just assign minimal value to the government's interest (which I think is likely an abuse of discretion in this instance), he said that the plaintiffs would win on the merits.
|
I'm not reading where he says much on the merits other than that plaintiffs have satisfied the bare element of the typical test, and by holding that they've met both the Cottrell and Winter tests in the alternative, he covers his pretty threadbare analysis pretty well in discretionary test selection. My guess is that he'll expedite the preliminary injunction hearing to mitigate the impact of whatever results from the interlocutory appeal of the TRO; I also don't know 9th Circuit appeals culture well enough to weigh on the strategics that would have figured into both the Judge and State of Washington's motivations here.
|
Just to clarify, the problem with applying the altnernative analysis in this context is that it allows courts to completely sidestep critical governmental interests. That can't be right, particularly in the context of national security.
|
Well sure, but that argument can be flipped around as well. By disallowing a more flexible test for a TRO, courts limit emergency relief and strengthen the teeth of sua sponte government actions like executive orders that may be prima facie unconstitutional to the degree that they are over broad or lacking in appropriate specificity. I'd bet that the preliminary injunction briefing will at least touch on the breadth of the order and the degree to which it is over inclusive and under inclusive relative to its aim, because if I were the judge, that's where I'd have focused in granting the order.
That said, you aren't exactly alone in criticizing sliding scale approaches to TROs, particularly in the context of government actions, so oh well. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this shortly 
|
On February 05 2017 06:19 xDaunt wrote:
Just to clarify, the problem with applying the altnernative analysis in this context is that it allows courts to completely sidestep critical governmental interests. That can't be right, particularly in the context of national security. Travel ban on random counties is now "National security" I didn't realise that USA has become one of those authoritarian states. The doublespeak is real.
|
On February 05 2017 06:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 06:19 xDaunt wrote:
Just to clarify, the problem with applying the altnernative analysis in this context is that it allows courts to completely sidestep critical governmental interests. That can't be right, particularly in the context of national security. Travel ban on random counties is now "National security" I didn't realise that USA has become one of those authoritarian states. The doublespeak is real.
This is quite important, in this whole discussion nobody has ever bothered explaining what exactly the problems of American security are that warrant this measure. The only thing that seems to count is apparently the vague idea of 'not being safe enough' which seems to be a gut feeling of sorts.
By just pointing to a vague threat out there and public safety you can really justify anything no matter how unlawful or inappropriate. This loops back to the whole problem of politics not operating on reality any more.
|
On February 05 2017 07:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 06:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 05 2017 06:19 xDaunt wrote:
Just to clarify, the problem with applying the altnernative analysis in this context is that it allows courts to completely sidestep critical governmental interests. That can't be right, particularly in the context of national security. Travel ban on random counties is now "National security" I didn't realise that USA has become one of those authoritarian states. The doublespeak is real. This is quite important, in this whole discussion nobody has ever bothered explaining what exactly the problems of American security are that warrant this measure. The only thing that seems to count is apparently the vague idea of 'not being safe enough' which seems to be a gut feeling of sorts. By just pointing to a vague threat out there and public safety you can really justify anything no matter how unlawful or inappropriate. This loops back to the whole problem of politics not operating on reality any more.
This was the judge's point, he wanted facts to support the 'national security' concern, not feelings. I still don't get how a judge is entitled to that opinion since he doesn't have all the relevant intelligence.
Also did anyone else see Trump's prediction on 9/11? Dumb luck or good instinct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
