|
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 08 2017 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
i dont really care what the courts say on this one becuz their standard is the wrong one.
low bar to pass when u ask if eo can fit into terrorism etc box, but not consider harm/benefit.
sometimes laws r just wrong and voters bear the responsibility for causing the bad outcome
Can you explain this a bit more?
|
Source
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has granted an easement allowing the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under the Missouri River north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, paving the way for construction of the final 1.5 miles of the more than 1,700-mile pipeline.
In doing so, the Army cut short its environmental impact assessment and the public comment period associated with it.
In a Jan. 18 notice published in the Federal Register the Army had said it would accept public comments on the project through Feb. 20, still nearly two weeks away.
On Jan. 24, President Trump signed a memorandum encouraging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite the review and approval process, and last week the Army said that it had been directed to expedite its review of the route.
In a letter to Congress announcing the decision, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Paul Cramer cited the president's memorandum, saying that "consistent with the direction" in the memo, his agency would "waive its policy to wait 14 days after Congressional notification before granting an easement."
|
On February 08 2017 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
i dont really care what the courts say on this one becuz their standard is the wrong one.
low bar to pass when u ask if eo can fit into terrorism etc box, but not consider harm/benefit.
sometimes laws r just wrong and voters bear the responsibility for causing the bad outcome
Well, we're dealing with the 9th Circus, so I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to overturn the TRO. I just want to see how they explain away Trump's statutory authority under 8 USC 1182(f).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 08 2017 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
i dont really care what the courts say on this one becuz their standard is the wrong one.
low bar to pass when u ask if eo can fit into terrorism etc box, but not consider harm/benefit.
sometimes laws r just wrong and voters bear the responsibility for causing the bad outcome Can you explain this a bit more?
the president is generally given a lot of leeway in making immigration decisions, such that the standard of review applied is something like "if there is a legit terrorist motivating reason behind the eo, it's okay."
in other words, having a reason other than religious discrimination is sufficient.
but this is like, if your policy is having this effect, we can disregard all other larger impact.
so in a world where causes and effects are complex, you've got this very weak standard that the court adopted because reasons. (i would guess they are still writing in latin and reading the prior analytics but that's just me.) but yea, they think it's elegant or whatever but to any sensible person it's just uninformative, weak and lol worthy.
the implication though is that we don't have to accept this standard as the end of the matter. look at the consequences of what the order would accomplish. it's clearly a bad policy with high harm to people, low benefit and badly motivated reasoning. so it has low justification.
and this is why i don't care about what the courts have to say on it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 08 2017 09:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
i dont really care what the courts say on this one becuz their standard is the wrong one.
low bar to pass when u ask if eo can fit into terrorism etc box, but not consider harm/benefit.
sometimes laws r just wrong and voters bear the responsibility for causing the bad outcome Well, we're dealing with the 9th Circus, so I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to overturn the TRO. I just want to see how they explain away Trump's statutory authority under 8 USC 1182(f).
i mean, even given trump and giuliani's dumbness, this thing has a good chance of standing up eventually. so yea it's just whatever. president has very broad authority to regulate immigration from statute and case law
|
On February 08 2017 09:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
i dont really care what the courts say on this one becuz their standard is the wrong one.
low bar to pass when u ask if eo can fit into terrorism etc box, but not consider harm/benefit.
sometimes laws r just wrong and voters bear the responsibility for causing the bad outcome Well, we're dealing with the 9th Circus, so I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to overturn the TRO. I just want to see how they explain away Trump's statutory authority under 8 USC 1182(f).
Do you know how much authority each state has re: immigration versus the federal government? I find it weird that it varies so much state by state. I imagine visas are issued by a federal body which is why that EO worked? The TSA is probably also a federal institution so taking a plane specifically to Washington would have the same outcome?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 08 2017 10:24 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 09:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 08 2017 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
i dont really care what the courts say on this one becuz their standard is the wrong one.
low bar to pass when u ask if eo can fit into terrorism etc box, but not consider harm/benefit.
sometimes laws r just wrong and voters bear the responsibility for causing the bad outcome Well, we're dealing with the 9th Circus, so I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to overturn the TRO. I just want to see how they explain away Trump's statutory authority under 8 USC 1182(f). Do you know how much authority each state has re: immigration versus the federal government? I find it weird that it varies so much state by state. I imagine visas are issued by a federal body which is why that EO worked? The TSA is probably also a federal institution so taking a plane specifically to Washington would have the same outcome?
he's saying the 9th circuit is mega lib and they'll prob not overturn it. immigration is entirely federal
|
The washington state solicitor general also got destroyed in the hearing, their case was so bad it might actually be overturned.
|
A wall of dangerous storms is moving across the South, threatening communities in their path with high winds, severe thunderstorms and possible tornadoes.
The National Weather Service warned of severe thunderstorms and hail along the Mississippi coast and issued a series of rapidly updated tornado warnings for parts of Louisiana and Mississippi.
The NWS New Orleans Office is updating its Twitter account here with information for the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, declared a state of emergency after severe storms moved through the southeastern part of the state.
Earlier Tuesday, the National Weather Service confirmed that multiple tornadoes touched down in and around New Orleans. The website for the electricity utility in New Orleans, Etergy, showed that more than 15,000 customers had lost power.
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu told The Associated Press that dozens of people reportedly suffered minor injuries, and a spokesman for the city's Emergency Medical Services described those injured as "walking wounded."
Source
|
On February 08 2017 10:33 biology]major wrote:
The washington state solicitor general also got destroyed in the hearing, their case was so bad it might actually be overturned.
The stay will be overturned? Or the EO will be overturned? I'm casually following this so I'm not all with the news coming out.
|
On February 08 2017 10:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A wall of dangerous storms is moving across the South, threatening communities in their path with high winds, severe thunderstorms and possible tornadoes.
The National Weather Service warned of severe thunderstorms and hail along the Mississippi coast and issued a series of rapidly updated tornado warnings for parts of Louisiana and Mississippi.
The NWS New Orleans Office is updating its Twitter account here with information for the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, declared a state of emergency after severe storms moved through the southeastern part of the state.
Earlier Tuesday, the National Weather Service confirmed that multiple tornadoes touched down in and around New Orleans. The website for the electricity utility in New Orleans, Etergy, showed that more than 15,000 customers had lost power.
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu told The Associated Press that dozens of people reportedly suffered minor injuries, and a spokesman for the city's Emergency Medical Services described those injured as "walking wounded." Source
Could you imagine if President Trump had to deal with a Hurricane Katrina equivalent? I really hope that the Chinese don't fabricate natural disaster hoaxes.
|
On February 08 2017 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 10:33 biology]major wrote:
The washington state solicitor general also got destroyed in the hearing, their case was so bad it might actually be overturned. The stay will be overturned? Or the EO will be overturned? I'm casually following this so I'm not all with the news coming out.
the stay
|
On February 08 2017 11:01 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 08 2017 10:33 biology]major wrote:
The washington state solicitor general also got destroyed in the hearing, their case was so bad it might actually be overturned. The stay will be overturned? Or the EO will be overturned? I'm casually following this so I'm not all with the news coming out. the stay
Wow. How can they be doing such a bad job on this? It should have been an open and shut case for them to get this thrown out or a TRO on it. Were they unprepared or was some other conspiracy at play here?
|
On February 08 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 11:01 biology]major wrote:On February 08 2017 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 08 2017 10:33 biology]major wrote:
The washington state solicitor general also got destroyed in the hearing, their case was so bad it might actually be overturned. The stay will be overturned? Or the EO will be overturned? I'm casually following this so I'm not all with the news coming out. the stay Wow. How can they be doing such a bad job on this? It should have been an open and shut case for them to get this thrown out or a TRO on it. Were they unprepared or was some other conspiracy at play here?
Its actually the opposite. Its much harder for trump to lose than it is for him to win. He has the statute and precedent on his side. The plaintiffs need to manufacture novel legal arguments about how a Muslim ban is illegal (no precedent that religious tests in immigration are bad) plus prove its actually a Muslim ban (which they can only do with suspect evidence), and then draw a distinction between this an previous immigration stays from the same or similar countries. Its a very high standard for them to cross. All the Trump administration has to do is say, "read the order, its basically the same as Obama's and Bush's and Clinton's and Bush I's and Reagan's and Carter's..."
|
If you look at the Boston judge's order, it becomes very obvious why the granting of the stay is such an anomaly and why the plaintiffs have a very uphill case.
|
On February 08 2017 10:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 10:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A wall of dangerous storms is moving across the South, threatening communities in their path with high winds, severe thunderstorms and possible tornadoes.
The National Weather Service warned of severe thunderstorms and hail along the Mississippi coast and issued a series of rapidly updated tornado warnings for parts of Louisiana and Mississippi.
The NWS New Orleans Office is updating its Twitter account here with information for the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, declared a state of emergency after severe storms moved through the southeastern part of the state.
Earlier Tuesday, the National Weather Service confirmed that multiple tornadoes touched down in and around New Orleans. The website for the electricity utility in New Orleans, Etergy, showed that more than 15,000 customers had lost power.
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu told The Associated Press that dozens of people reportedly suffered minor injuries, and a spokesman for the city's Emergency Medical Services described those injured as "walking wounded." Source Could you imagine if President Trump had to deal with a Hurricane Katrina equivalent? I really hope that the Chinese don't fabricate natural disaster hoaxes.
FEMA is basically all Obama appointees still, but Homeland's top 2 Trumpees have been approved. I suspect there wouldn't be too much change in response compared to Sandy. This did however point out to me that Zinke (Interior) who is less controversial than cold water on a hot day, remains unconfirmed.
|
I want them to uphold the stay just to see the mental gymnastics on display. Ninth circus does have a reputation to uphold after all!
|
Well, this explains why Flentje sounded remarkably unprepared.
Just hours before mounting the biggest defense of the young Trump administration, the Justice Department swapped lawyers.
The U.S. said the two top lawyers representing the U.S. would not take part in Tuesday’s hearing, because of their past relationship with one of the world’s biggest law firms, Jones Day. Instead, August Flentje, a longtime Justice Department lawyer, will argue the administration’s case.
The lawyers who stepped aside worked until recently at Jones Day, which filed a brief on Monday opposing the administration’s order to bar U.S. entry to people traveling from seven majority-Muslim countries. The executive branch doesn’t have “unreviewable authority” to suspend the admission of a class of aliens, Jones Day argued in a brief on behalf of several constitutional scholars.
At least a dozen lawyers have joined the administration from Jones Day, a Cleveland-based firm with 2,500 lawyers in offices around the world. Other Jones Day alumni include Donald McGahn, the White House general counsel. That has raised the possibility of appearances of conflict on a range of matters, including for the two attorneys who have until now led the government’s defense of the immigration ban.
Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Readler joined the administration in recent weeks from Jones Day. Francisco and Readler didn’t sign on to the brief the U.S. filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing “out of an abundance of caution, in light of a last-minute filing of an amicus brief by their former law firm,” the government said.
The filing put Flentje and Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler atop the list of U.S. lawyers. Flentje has worked for the Justice Department’s civil division for most of his 19-year career there. Kneedler, who has been with the solicitor general’s office since 1979 and served as deputy there for the past 24 years, has argued more than 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Justice Department declined to comment beyond its court filing. Jones Day didn’t respond to requests for comment.
It’s standard practice for lawyers who join a new administration to distance themselves from any matter that involves their law firms. What’s rare is that an administration would need its solicitor general and Justice Department to defend a signature action just weeks into its first term, when affiliations with previous employers are so fresh.
At the Justice Department, Francisco and Readler have led the administration’s effort to get a San Francisco-based appellate court to restore the executive order on immigration while a Seattle court examines its legal foundations. In Tuesday’s telephone hearing, the Justice Department lawyers will face off with lawyers from state attorneys general from Washington, Minnesota and Hawaii, who want the immigration ban to remain suspended as its merits are under review.
The role of Francisco and Readler after Tuesday’s argument is unclear.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-07/trump-team-shuffles-lawyers-in-hours-before-travel-ban-hearing
|
Wouldn't the plaintiffs be able to use the fact that it actually is a Muslim ban and is only being worded differently in the media because of the backlash? The wording was done carefully for this very reason, it would be harder to overturn. Being that Obama only slowed down and didn't halt completely remains the key difference. If he had included Saudia Arabia or Pakistan or UAE it would be different I suppose. But it does nothing to try and sugarcoat it. It's a Muslim Ban and if it is granted, it will radicalize a lot of people.
|
On February 08 2017 11:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Wouldn't the plaintiffs be able to use the fact that it actually is a Muslim ban and is only being worded differently in the media because of the backlash? The wording was done carefully for this very reason, it would be harder to overturn. Being that Obama only slowed down and didn't halt completely remains the key difference. If he had included Saudia Arabia or Pakistan or UAE it would be different I suppose. But it does nothing to try and sugarcoat it. It's a Muslim Ban and if it is granted, it will radicalize a lot of people.
No. The judges have to look at the language of the order, which is controlling. Public statements on the order or stuff from the campaign aren't relevant. And it very clearly isn't a Muslim ban when looked at this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
