|
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 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions since I'm clearly missing something.
https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/status/829834278401880064/photo/1
If I read this correctly the 9th circuit allowed the numerous statements by Trump to want a Muslim ban to be used as evidence that this EO was intended as a Muslim ban, which violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clause
|
Given that the court declined to rule on the religious issue and couched its opinion in Due Process terms, I think the focus of this appeal is more related to the over breadth of the order and the extent to which it deprived both citizens and non-citizens of liberty interests in their residency status or the status of their families. There's also an indication that the government has been unable to make a showing as to the specific threat supposedly addressed by the order and have been accordingly unable to substantiate the claim that emergency or severity of risk justify the sweeping deprivation of immigration rights.
|
On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". It turns out that if you say over and over that you want to do an unconstitutional thing then when you subsequently try and find a loophole that allows you to do it you can't claim that it was never your intention to do the unconstitutional thing and it's just a happy accident.
This is a pretty good assessment. The smoke screen of "its about nationality and dangerous nations" doesn't really hold up.
|
On February 10 2017 09:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". That is such a stretch, given the trump administration has the exact same justification as Obama administration for targetting the 7 countries. I think it is fairly obvious that there was a religious discrimination element at the start, but once candidate trump realizes that that is not legal (understandable since he has 0 political experience), he should be allowed to change his stance to protect the country how he sees fit. The Trump administration just went one step further than the obama admin and just straight banned people from entering.
it seems disingenuous to claim that the trump administration has the exact same justification as the obama administration, when this thread has gone over the considerable differences between what they did in each case.
also, just because he changes his "official" stance doesn't necessarily change what the actual purpose is. just because you claim to be using a legitimate purpose doesn't mean your claim can't be called out for being a lie. at any rate though, we'd need to review the rulings in detail, and I don't know how much detail is put up in findings for these temporary things.
PS this looks to have the full text of the ruling already:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/09/trump-travel-ban-ruling-read-the-federal-appeals-court-decision/
let us know what you find once you've read the ruling.
|
|
|
On February 10 2017 09:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". That is such a stretch, given the trump administration has the exact same justification as Obama administration for targetting the 7 countries. I think it is fairly obvious that there was a religious discrimination element at the start, but once candidate trump realizes that that is not legal (understandable since he has 0 political experience), he should be allowed to change his stance to protect the country how he sees fit. The Trump administration just went one step further than the obama admin and just straight banned people from entering.
The court disagreed with that assessment. Obama's order was specific to Iraq and had to do with a systemic error causing bio-metric information about refugees not to be updated fast enough. It was caused by two refugees finger prints being found on an IED, but that data based was not updated before they were approved. The order was specific crafted to address that issue and only slowed down the process so they could bring the data based up to date.
|
United States43580 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". That is such a stretch, given the trump administration has the exact same justification as Obama administration for targetting the 7 countries. I think it is fairly obvious that there was a religious discrimination element at the start, but once candidate trump realizes that that is not legal (understandable since he has 0 political experience), he should be allowed to change his stance to protect the country how he sees fit. The Trump administration just went one step further than the obama admin and just straight banned people from entering.
I'm seeing a lot of people bringing up the Obama restriction but unless I'm missing something I'm just not seeing the relevance. I thought it went like this.
1. Immigration from those countries is allowed.
2. A bad apple sneaks in (the infamous Bowling Green Massacre) which indicates that the screening process has gone wrong
3. Everyone already in is allowed to stay, pause for everyone not in so that they can be screened again because it's clear that the process needs careful review to find out what the fuck happened to cause 2.
4. Inquiry finds issues, recommends fixes.
5. Everyone not in gets rescreened with the new improved process to try and avoid more massacres.
6. Process fixed, pause is unpaused.
I don't see how that's any kind of precedent. They said "it's clear we fucked up in at least one case, we don't know how many other cases we fucked up, we're gonna do them all again with new non fucked up standards, sorry guys, hang around, this is probably going to take a while". The "Obama ban" was just a delay while they doublechecked all their shit and redid all the work that was halfassed previously.
|
|
|
If she could just subtweet Trump for the next 4 years that would be the best. Nothing else. Just that.
|
On February 10 2017 09:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:13 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". That is such a stretch, given the trump administration has the exact same justification as Obama administration for targetting the 7 countries. I think it is fairly obvious that there was a religious discrimination element at the start, but once candidate trump realizes that that is not legal (understandable since he has 0 political experience), he should be allowed to change his stance to protect the country how he sees fit. The Trump administration just went one step further than the obama admin and just straight banned people from entering. it seems disingenuous to claim that the trump administration has the exact same justification as the obama administration, when this thread has gone over the considerable differences between what they did in each case. also, just because he changes his "official" stance doesn't necessarily change what the actual purpose is. just because you claim to be using a legitimate purpose doesn't mean your claim can't be called out for being a lie. at any rate though, we'd need to review the rulings in detail, and I don't know how much detail is put up in findings for these temporary things. PS this looks to have the full text of the ruling already: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/09/trump-travel-ban-ruling-read-the-federal-appeals-court-decision/let us know what you find once you've read the ruling.
It doesn't matter, candidate trump saying "all muslims should be banned " was a private citizen and was in a campaign. His word and his knowledge are loosely tethered to reality at that point. He has discrimination in his heart towards muslims, that much I know, but this 7 country ban was a legal way to still reach his national security objective. It is such an unfair stretch by the courts to assume his intent against muslims.. when it only encompasses 15 % of the muslim population. Some harvard law professor on cnn is going hard against this decision by the courts, saying the state of washington essential gave incredible standing to people who don't even live in the US and have no contact with the US.
The attorney who tried to defend the EO will surely be fired trump style though.
|
Speaking of the Supreme Court:
Chuck Cooper, the conservative Supreme Court litigator, is withdrawing his name from consideration to be the next solicitor general, opening the door for the husband of Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway to be appointed to the role.
“I am deeply honored by any consideration that I may have received by Attorney General Sessions and President Trump for appointment as the Solicitor General, but I have asked them to discontinue any further consideration of me for that critically important position,” Cooper said in a statement Thursday.
Cooper, a onetime clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, is a confidant of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and helped prepare him for his confirmation hearings. He was one of two finalists for the position.
In an interview on Thursday afternoon, Cooper told POLITICO that he wasn’t prepared to undergo the grueling confirmation process. “Life is too good and too short,” he said.
In his formal statement on the decision to withdraw, Cooper added: “After witnessing the treatment that my friend Jeff Sessions, a decent and honorable man who bears only good will and good cheer to everyone he meets, had to endure at the hands of a partisan opposition that will say anything and do anything to advance their political interests, I am unwilling to subject myself, my family, and my friends to such a process.”
Source
|
United States43580 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:18 zlefin wrote:On February 10 2017 09:13 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". That is such a stretch, given the trump administration has the exact same justification as Obama administration for targetting the 7 countries. I think it is fairly obvious that there was a religious discrimination element at the start, but once candidate trump realizes that that is not legal (understandable since he has 0 political experience), he should be allowed to change his stance to protect the country how he sees fit. The Trump administration just went one step further than the obama admin and just straight banned people from entering. it seems disingenuous to claim that the trump administration has the exact same justification as the obama administration, when this thread has gone over the considerable differences between what they did in each case. also, just because he changes his "official" stance doesn't necessarily change what the actual purpose is. just because you claim to be using a legitimate purpose doesn't mean your claim can't be called out for being a lie. at any rate though, we'd need to review the rulings in detail, and I don't know how much detail is put up in findings for these temporary things. PS this looks to have the full text of the ruling already: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/09/trump-travel-ban-ruling-read-the-federal-appeals-court-decision/let us know what you find once you've read the ruling. It doesn't matter, candidate trump saying "all muslims should be banned " was a private citizen and was in a campaign. His word and his knowledge are loosely tethered to reality at that point. He has discrimination in his heart towards muslims, that much I know, but this 7 country ban was a legal way to still reach his national security objective. It is such an unfair stretch by the courts to assume his intent against muslims.. when it only encompasses 15 % of the muslim population. Some harvard law professor on cnn is going hard against this decision by the courts, saying the state of washington essential gave incredible standing to people who don't even live in the US and have no contact with the US. The attorney who tried to defend the EO will surely be fired trump style though.
I was apparently wrong on my explanation for what it's worth. They didn't rule on whether it was a religious ban.
|
Baiiiiiiiiiiit. But she pretty much set Trump up to burn her with something along the lines "But I'm 1-0 in running for president, how about you?"
|
It is only legal if the courts say its legal. And the court also get to decide on what can be used as evidence of the true intent of the order. That includes campaign statements.
|
Obama's case was a pause on immigration where a process was fucked up in an explicit and clearly demonstrable way, with a clear plan on how to actually fix that process.
Trump's case is a pause on immigration to implement some nebulous concept of "extreme vetting" that has no specific details, with no effort whatsoever to demonstrate any problems with the current system, coupled with Trump repeatedly in the past showing intent to do something unconstitutional.
If you're gonna lie to the teacher about your homework, at least do the reading so she can't tell you're obviously bullshitting. Maybe if he actually bothered to detail a plan about what "extreme vetting" entails and why it's an improvement over current immigration checks, and took the time to not totally botch the implementation of his EO, it would have passed.
|
The long and short of it is that the regulatory state has built in a large number of justification-based checks on itself that require government actors to routinely provide reason for their actions in a variety of ways, whether that be mere record-keeping requirements ala FOIA or the complex system of administrative legal principles and customs that underpin agency action legality. Most of these justification mechanisms are not routinely publicized and are not well understood by the majority of the public, so they operate in the background for the most part.
Now that Trump is President, however, many of these long-standing mechanisms are not being implemented properly, which leads to a slowing of government and an overall frustration of the executive's agenda. To make matters even worse for Trump, Gorsuch is a stated critic of Chevron deference to agency actions in courts and conservative lawmakers are eager to reel in executive power via statutes to that end, further empowering the courts to limit the unilateral authority of the executive.
This 9th Circuit decision will be the first of potentially many where the executive is found to provide insufficient reasons for its policies.
|
On February 10 2017 09:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:18 zlefin wrote:On February 10 2017 09:13 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". That is such a stretch, given the trump administration has the exact same justification as Obama administration for targetting the 7 countries. I think it is fairly obvious that there was a religious discrimination element at the start, but once candidate trump realizes that that is not legal (understandable since he has 0 political experience), he should be allowed to change his stance to protect the country how he sees fit. The Trump administration just went one step further than the obama admin and just straight banned people from entering. it seems disingenuous to claim that the trump administration has the exact same justification as the obama administration, when this thread has gone over the considerable differences between what they did in each case. also, just because he changes his "official" stance doesn't necessarily change what the actual purpose is. just because you claim to be using a legitimate purpose doesn't mean your claim can't be called out for being a lie. at any rate though, we'd need to review the rulings in detail, and I don't know how much detail is put up in findings for these temporary things. PS this looks to have the full text of the ruling already: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/09/trump-travel-ban-ruling-read-the-federal-appeals-court-decision/let us know what you find once you've read the ruling. It doesn't matter, candidate trump saying "all muslims should be banned " was a private citizen and was in a campaign. His word and his knowledge are loosely tethered to reality at that point. He has discrimination in his heart towards muslims, that much I know, but this 7 country ban was a legal way to still reach his national security objective. It is such an unfair stretch by the courts to assume his intent against muslims.. when it only encompasses 15 % of the muslim population. Some harvard law professor on cnn is going hard against this decision by the courts, saying the state of washington essential gave incredible standing to people who don't even live in the US and have no contact with the US. The attorney who tried to defend the EO will surely be fired trump style though.
first off, he's in a campaign, that's not exactly private citizen territory. tha'ts stating what you will do if elected.
second, I provided the ruling text, so read the ruling before making a decision, for all we know they ignored the issue of intent entirely.
if your INTENT is discriminatory, then it doesn't matter what method you use to try to cover it.
again, just read the dang ruling before deciding on the manner, as oyu just saw earlier today, be careful making assumptions, no need to assume what the basis of the ruling was when you can just read it yourself.
|
Trump repeatedly called for a Muslim ban. Giuliani admitted on national TV that he was charged with coming up with a way for a Muslim ban to be legal. You've got the guy admitting to whacking a guy on television after his boss told him to whack him, then saying "no no no, just an accident". This isn't difficult to understand.
|
Tom Perez is walking back his comments about the primary being rigged for Hillary. This is one way to not get the chair.
|
On February 10 2017 09:29 farvacola wrote:
The long and short of it is that the regulatory state has built in a large number of justification-based checks on itself that require government actors to routinely provide reason for their actions in a variety of ways, whether that be mere record-keeping requirements ala FOIA or the complex system of administrative legal principles and customs that underpin agency action legality. Most of these justification mechanisms are not routinely publicized and are not well understood by the majority of the public, so they operate in the background for the most part.
Now that Trump is President, however, many of these long-standing mechanisms are not being implemented properly, which leads to a slowing of government and an overall frustration of the executive's agenda. To make matters even worse for Trump, Gorsuch is a stated critic of Chevron deference to agency actions in courts and conservative lawmakers are eager to reel in executive power via statutes to that end, further empowering the courts to limit the unilateral authority of the executive.
This 9th Circuit decision will be the first of potentially many where the executive is found to provide insufficient reasons for its policies.
I look forward to the limiting of the executive branch so congress is finally forced to do things again. Besides whine about executive power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
