|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 26 2018 22:58 Plansix wrote:
It appears Trump is very grump with Harley Davidson for publically announcing they will be moving more production to the EU. And he has vaguely threatened to levy additional taxes against them because of it.
Ah, yes, vote for Donald Trump. Make America... shut down its businesses again?
For reference. What "The Aura" is, I'll never know.
|
Where was his outrage about them closing the plant and buying back their stocks after his celebrated tax cuts? Oh that's right this has his name on it hence his lashing out.
|
Border patrol has suspended the zero tolerance policy due to a lack of resources to detain the overwhelming number of people. It appears Jeff Sessions put this policy in place and never got more money to cover the bill. And I think this is also the border patrol being the adults in the room, because NPR is reporting the White House seemed caught off guard by the announcement. The commissioner of border patrol said the system the Obama administration set up in 2014 was effective, so we know the White House didn't vet his comments.
|
Travel ban upheld, though only 5-4 at first look. Still, they retain some small amount of self-respect, and I thought they might.
edit:so far this term, those who voted for Trump for the judges have been rewarded. I should acknowledge that as someone who didnt think that would be the case
edit:korematsu comparisons still going strong. absurd.
|
As discussed before, words matter... especially when they are the Presidents words. His supporters using his exact language, which was expected. Brings that old 'animals' discussion back into view, especially since Trump has since called them invaders and they were infesting the country.
|
On June 26 2018 23:20 Introvert wrote:
Travel ban upheld, though only 5-4 at first look. Still, they retain some small amount of self-respect, and I thought they might.
edit:so far this term, those who voted for Trump for the judges have been rewarded. I should acknowledge that as someone who didnt think that would be the case
Meh, the third travel ban was designed for the sole purpose of surviving this test after getting their asses kicked on the last 2. That it took them 3 iterations to get it barely legal should embarrass any defender of the administration. Tho that is expected when Miller and Bannon are writing your orders.
Also, I'm not sure how winning this helps Republicans. It changes little immigration wise while being one of the biggest issues for Dems and will go a long way towards working up their base.
|
Not shocking. The conservative court has already shown to have a resistance to arguments based around racism in both the gerrymandering case and this one. McConnell’s theft of that seat is paying dividends. I expect more challenges to civil rights protections to make their way up to the court in the coming decades to slowly erode them.
|
Both of the dissents are quite good, and Kennedy's concurrence is some wet fish cowardice
|
I have a feeling I am going to look back on the 5-4 split of conservative to liberal justices with wistful fondness in the coming years. It is going to be 6-3 or 7-2 in the next decade given the pace of things.
|
Nah, Kennedy will holdout until this years elections and then Senate Dems will block Trump until he can be removed.
(One can hope, at least  )
|
It's the right decision. Rational basis review of a facially neutral foreign policy decision where congress has given the president plenary authority to act. It should be a layup to affirm the decision. The fact that the case made it as far as it did is a strictly a function of liberal judicial overreach.
EDIT: Plus, it's not like the case is over. Only the preliminary injunction has been set aside.
|
Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions.
|
On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:
Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions.
First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet).
|
pity the admin is wasting the court's and everybody else's time and money on a poorly thought out and racist travel ban rather than actually working on serious and reasonable immigration reform. but that's what people voted for.
|
On June 27 2018 00:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:
Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions. First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet).
Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again.
The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were.
The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
|
Everyone with intellectual integrity knows the ban has anti-Musim animus; Trump didn’t make his promise for shits and giggles (he’s a man who follows through on his promises, after all). But the court’s executive power precedent is firmly behind the pretextual foreign policy justification for the ban. The court doesn’t inquire into whether there was pretext. But it seems like the competing interest of religious liberty rights is a strong one. These federalism related cases are very interesting, I will say that.
|
On June 27 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 00:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:
Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions. First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet). Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again. The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were. The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
|
Yeah, Dauntless, I do not share this “conservative”(though I know several conservatives who would us stronger language to describe it) viewpoint that the president can say whatever he wants about his plans so long as the language on the page is good. The executive branch is responsible for enforcement these laws and executive orders. Both matter and what he says is relevant in the case. Otherwise we set up a scenario when the President can claim to be removing due process from deportation cases and then come up with a legal justification after the fact for why Judges are not necessary to safeguard civil liberties.
|
On June 27 2018 00:49 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, Dauntless, I do not share this “conservative”(though I know several conservatives who would us stronger language to describe it) viewpoint that the president can say whatever he wants about his plans so long as the language on the page is good. The executive branch is responsible for enforcement these laws and executive orders. Both matter and what he says is relevant in the case. Otherwise we set up a scenario when the President can claim to be removing due process from deportation cases and then come up with a legal justification after the fact for why Judges are not necessary to safeguard civil liberties.
Yeah, by your logic we should invalidate the Civil Rights Act because Lyndon Johnson said racist things. Please.
|
Johnson didn’t say that the Civil Rights Act was his implemtstion of his racist views. And it’s actually the opposite of racist. Trump made one of his biggest promises and followed through on it to the extent he could get away with it. To ignore his promise is to wrap a blindfold around your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
