US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6792

On February 08 2017 07:43 Antyee wrote:

Democrats made it only require 51 votes instead of 60, so she's right.
"On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted 52–48, with all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against, to eliminate the use of the filibuster against all executive branch nominees and judicial nominees other than to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation."

The White House has released a list of 78 terrorist attacks that it says were underreported. The Trump administration, under fire for immigration restrictions and other policies it says are designed to curb terrorism, has portrayed the media and other institutions as playing down the threat.

But the list, which was released on Monday night and details episodes from September 2014 to December 2016, includes dozens of attacks that were heavily covered in the press, including The New York Times. (Examples are included in the list below.)

On February 08 2017 07:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I might be missing context on how the whole American Senate works, but why does a vote in 2013 matter for a vote now?

On February 08 2017 08:03 Antyee wrote:
So, zlefin is the only one who managed to put 1+1 together, but even he doesn't care.

On February 08 2017 08:06 zlefin wrote:

doesn't care about what?
I think everyone knew what you were trying to say on that part (i.e. put 1+1 together), but they were pointing out other probable flaws in your statement.
I care about the devos confirmation, I don't care about parsing the issues in your statement and figuring out what exactly you meant to try to argue with/correct you.

The mother of a backpacker who was stabbed to death in Australia has criticised the White House for labelling her death a "terror attack".
Mia Ayliffe-Chung, 20, who was killed at a hostel in Queensland in August, did not die as a result of terrorism, police have said.
Despite this, her death was included on a list of 78 alleged "terror" attacks released by the Trump administration.
Rosie Ayliffe said Mia's death must not be used to persecute innocent people.

The White House released the list of attacks to back up Mr Trump's claim the media was "under-reporting" attacks committed or inspired by the Islamic State group.

The list included the Bataclan theatre attack in Paris, the shootings in Sousse, Tunisia, which killed 30 British tourists, and Ms Ayliffe-Chung's murder.

The 20 year old, from Wirksworth, died from multiple stab wounds, during the attack at Home Hill, near Townsville.
Australian police have ruled out the possibility her death - which was widely reported by media in the UK and abroad - was the result of a terror attack...

French national Smail Ayad, 29, has been charged with the murder of Ms Ayliffe-Chung and that of Thomas Jackson, 30, from Cheshire, who was also stabbed and later died in hospital.
Mrs Ayliffe added: "The possibility of Mia and Tom's deaths being consequent to an Islamic terror attack was discounted in the early stages of the police investigation."

On February 08 2017 08:10 Antyee wrote:

Well, DPM admitted not finding the context, so no, he didn't managed to do that;and you yourself said you don't care to seek clarification.
When you need 60 votes because of the filibuster, having a tie has no meaning.
You see, the same thing can be read differently depending on how malicious you are.

On February 08 2017 08:49 On_Slaught wrote:
How is the 9th circuit argument going? Can't listen in. Any interesting arguments?

6:08 PM ET
Julie Hirschfeld Davis
Flentje is citing an argument the president’s team has been making from the beginning when criticized on this order — it was Obama who chose these seven countries, not Trump. While it is true that the list of countries corresponds to one Obama made that would require visas, he never sought to bar entrants from those countries. It’s a big difference.

6:12 PM ET
Judge Clifton’s line of questioning points to an irony in the Trump administration’s defense of this order: Trump is essentially arguing that this order is needed because Obama was too lax, but in doing so, he is relying on an action Obama took to substantially toughen procedures for people from these countries.
6:27 PM ET
Flentje is basically arguing that this is the wrong lawsuit to test the order. Other claims, brought by individuals blocked from coming into the country, would be better to litigate, he says.
“I’m not sure I’m convincing the court,” Flentje says in a bit of understatement.

6:27 PM ET
Flentje: Even if the court thinks some applications of the executive order are problematic, the restraining order is overly broad.
Friedland: The states are claiming that the executive order violates the Establishment Clause. If that’s true, wouldn’t it be invalid on its face?
Flentje says this court should immediately stay the injunction as to people who aren’t inside the United States and don’t have ties to the country yet.
Flentje’s point is that non-citizens abroad who don’t have ties to the U.S. do not have constitutional rights.
Now Noah Purcell, the solicitor general for the state of Washington, is arguing.
6:46 PM ET
They are now discussing whether the order amounts to unconstitutional religious discrimination. Judge Clifton notes that the seven countries amount to less than 15 percent of Muslims worldwide.
Clifton: “I have trouble understanding why we are supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected as residents of those seven countries” and where the connection to terrorism for those seven countries “is kind of hard to deny.”
6:48 PM ET
Purcell cites public statements from Trump and his top advisers as sufficient evidence at pleading stage to go forward. He hints that if they get to discovery they may find more stuff in private communications among government officials.
6:55 PM ET
Canby has asked fewer questions than Friedland, though. I agree it appears that he’s the swing vote.
To translate into plain English, if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to predict, at this point I’d guess that this will be a 2-1 ruling rejecting the Trump administration’s request that the 9th Circuit lift the temporary restraining order.