|
Replies: 65
| visibility 948
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Appellate Court affirms ruling against Muslim ban
May 25, 2017, 2:54 PM
|
|
I mean "travel ban"!
SEE YOU IN COURT
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Don't be spreading liberal lies. Take the high road.***
May 25, 2017, 3:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
What, it doesn't count because it was the Ninth Circuit?
May 25, 2017, 4:44 PM
|
|
Oh WAIT! It was the Fourth Circuit this time. (For those of you playing along at home, that's the circuit South Carolina is in.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
There is no Muslim ban, nor is there a proposed Muslim ban.***
May 25, 2017, 5:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Don't be spreading liberal lies. Take the high road.***
May 25, 2017, 8:43 PM
[ in reply to Don't be spreading liberal lies. Take the high road.*** ] |
|
Ban upheld by 10-3 in the 4th District. That circuit is over district courts in District of Maryland, Eastern District of North Carolina, and the Middle District of North Carolina....hardly a liberal court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60043]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22503
Joined: 5/24/17
|
Re: Don't be spreading liberal lies. Take the high road.***
May 25, 2017, 10:03 PM
|
|
Eastern NC/Middle NC now lean heavy Left due to transplants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111603]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73759
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Don't be spreading liberal lies. Take the high road.***
May 25, 2017, 10:37 PM
|
|
yup. those pesky interstate highways in middle and eastern NC have brought in transplants. Only thing to do now is get rid of them, or possibly build walls at the Virginia border.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Fun quote
May 25, 2017, 5:18 PM
|
|
From page 57:
As a candidate, Trump also suggested that he would attempt to circumvent
scrutiny of the Muslim ban by formulating it in terms of nationality, rather than religion.
On July 17, 2016, in response to a tweet stating, “Calls to ban Muslims from entering the
U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional,” Trump said, “So you call it territories. OK?
We’re gonna do territories.” J.A. 798. One week later, Trump asserted that entry should
be “immediately suspended[ed] . . . from any nation that has been compromised by
terrorism.” J.A. 480. When asked whether this meant he was “roll[ing ]back” his call for
a Muslim ban, he said his plan was an “expansion” and explained that “[p]eople were so
upset when I used the word Muslim,” so he was instead “talking territory instead of
Muslim.” J.A. 481.
Significantly, the First Executive Order appeared to take this exact form, barring
citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. And
just before President Trump signed EO-1 on January 27, 2017, he stated, “This is the
‘Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.’ We all
know what that means.” J.A. 403. The next day, presidential advisor and former New
York City Mayor Giuliani appeared on Fox News and asserted that “when [Trump] first
announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission
together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’” J.A. 508.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/171351.P.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46323
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Still not a Muslim ban. No matter how many times it's
May 25, 2017, 5:27 PM
|
|
repeated, or who says it. That is a matter of fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
It's an unconstitutional non-Muslim-ban.***
May 25, 2017, 5:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46323
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I don't think it's unconstitutional, either.
May 25, 2017, 6:10 PM
|
|
Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 03/16/17 02:45 PM EDT 344
1,828
1.8K
Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban
© Getty
Here we go again. Two federal judges have struck down the key provisions of President Trump’s revised travel ban. There will be more to come, as constitutional challenges are brought to courts around the nation.
This time there will be no revised new executive order. The president will stick with this one and have his Justice Department appeal it, first to the circuit courts and then the Supreme Court.
President Trump cited my statements on television in support of his prediction that the Supreme Court would rule in his favor:
“Even liberal Democratic lawyer Alan Dershowitz — good lawyer – just said that we would win this case before the Supreme Court of the United States.”
I did say that, even though I do not support the ban as a matter of policy. There is a difference, of course, between a law being bad policy and being unconstitutional. Oliver Wendell Holmes once described the role of the lawyer as making “prophecies of what the courts will do in fact.” But as Yogi Berra once quipped “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” It’s even harder if the prediction is about what eight, or possibly nine, justices will rule in a given case.
Having said that I will venture a prognostication: I think the justices will uphold the major provisions of the order, if the case gets to them. It may not, because the order is a temporary ban that may expire before it reaches the High Court, thereby making the case moot.
It is also uncertain, if the case does get there, whether it will be decided by eight or nine justices. This will depend on the comparative speed of the case and the confirmation process for Justice designate Neil Gorsuch. Senate Democrats may try to stall his nomination until after the travel case reaches the justices, on the assumption that he would vote to uphold the ban.
If the case reaches the Supreme Court, a major issue will be whether campaign rhetoric delivered by Donald Trump, when he was a private citizen running for president, may be considered by the courts in deciding on the constitutionality of an executive order. The lower courts gave considerable, indeed dispositive, weight to these anti-Muslim statements in deciding that the travel ban was, in reality, a Muslim ban that would violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion.
Under that reasoning, had the identical executive order been issued by President Obama, it would have been constitutional. But because it was issued by President Trump, it is unconstitutional. Indeed any executive order issued by President Trump dealing with travel from Muslim countries would be constitutionally suspect because of what candidate Trump said. In my view, that is a bridge too far. It turns constitutional analysis into psychoanalysis, requiring that the motives of the president be probed.
Most political leaders have mixed motives underlying their actions: they want to protect the security of the nation; they want to appeal to their political base; they want to keep campaign promises; they want to win.
Trump campaigned on the pledge that he would specifically address the issue of “Islamic Terrorism” — a term President Obama refused to use. Trump believes that radical Islam is the major source of the terrorist threat faced by the U.S. It would follow from this view, that the countries that pose the greatest danger of allowing terrorists to reach our shores are countries that sponsor terrorism and do not vet their citizens for terrorist ties.
Most prominent among these nations is Iran, which is the largest promoter of terrorism and which has targeted and continues to target the United States. It is entirely natural to include “The Islamic Republic of Iran” on any list that is designed to deal with terrorism. The same is true, to varying degrees, of the five other predominantly Muslim countries on the Trump list: Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya.
The fact that all these countries are predominantly Muslim — indeed, most have established Islam as their official state religion — does not suggest religious discrimination. Those are the very countries that pose the greatest danger of terrorism, in the view of the Trump administration. They are not the only such countries, but if others were added to the list, they too would be predominantly Muslim countries.
But what about France or Belgium or England? They too have experienced Islamic inspired terrorism. But these countries have far better vetting procedures. It is not a coincidence that when the Obama administration devised a list, for a different but related purpose, of countries that posed a risk of unvetted terrorists, it was the identical list initially employed in the original Trump travel ban.
When Willie Sutton was once asked “why do you pick banks to rob,” he replied “because that’s where the money is.” Not all the money, but enough of it to prioritize banks. Similarly, when asked why these six countries were prioritized, the Trump administration responds, “because that’s where the terrorists are,” — not all of them but these countries aren’t vetting them properly.
The inclusion of the six Islamic countries in the travel ban is rational. It may not be the best list. Perhaps there should be no country list at all. But that is a judgement allocated by Congress and the Constitution to the executive branch. It is subject, of course, to the constraints of the Constitution. But the judicial branch will generally defer to the executive branch on matters involving national security, unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.
In my opinion, that high threshold has not been reached in this case. So I predict the Supreme Court, if it gets the case, will find the new executive order constitutional.
Alan M. Dershowitz is professor emeritus at the Harvard Law School and author of "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law" and "Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/324336-to-block-trumps-ban-hawaii-judge-uses-psychoanalysis-not-legal
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Dershowitz thinks that intent doesn't
May 25, 2017, 6:19 PM
|
|
matter for 1st Amendment purposes. He's wrong as a matter of law, as the opinions (including today's) have noted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46323
Joined: 4/23/00
|
But not the opinion of the supreme court, at least yet.
May 25, 2017, 7:09 PM
|
|
I disagree anyway, not that it matters, but the intent of the ban, as we have it, is clearly and unquestionably not meant to keep Muslims from entering the U.S.. He may or may not have been looking for a way to do that, but he did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Actually yes the opinion of the Supreme Court.
May 25, 2017, 8:21 PM
|
|
Not in terms of this case, but in terms of First Amendment jurisprudence, yes, it looks to intent.
Trump and others admitted multiple times, even after campaign mode, that he was trying to ban Muslims. And the effect has a disparate effect on Muslims with no believable secular purpose.
What Trump OUGHT to do is conduct that investigation of vetting methods, the thing he said he wanted to do during the travel ban. If that was the legitimate reason, he should be wrapping it up by now, and we can get past the executive order and on to a permanent solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46323
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I was only talking about this case when I said "Not in the
May 26, 2017, 12:15 AM
|
|
opinion of the supreme court". We may see.
So, as I understand it, had Trump never said those things about banning Muslims, and had only ever framed it as a ban against people from areas of the world known to be hot beds of terrorism, there would be no basis for an unconstitutional ruling, and barring other findings, the order would be in effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
He would have had a much easier time of it, yes.
May 26, 2017, 8:41 AM
|
|
Again, all he wanted to do (according to him) was temporarily stop travel while he investigated the vetting process. If he wasn't lying, then he's almost done investigating, and this issue should become moot.
If he wasn't lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Probably. Though if he didn't campaign on banning
May 26, 2017, 8:46 AM
|
|
How is it a "Muslim" ban if millions of Muslims can still freely enter the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Auschwitz wasn't filled in a day.
May 26, 2017, 8:46 AM
|
|
Seriously though, this has been covered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Auschwitz wasn't filled in a day.
May 26, 2017, 9:11 AM
|
|
Just because you've deflected from it over and over doesn't mean it's been rebutted....
If keeping Muslims out of this country was the goal somebody needs to be fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Well so far . . . everyone who's looked at the case has
May 26, 2017, 9:19 AM
|
|
agreed.
Worth noting there were 24 Christians killed in a terrorist attack in a country Trump has financial interests in. Egypt ain't on the list.
If keeping Americans safe was the goal, somebody needs to be fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Gonna nominate this as the most stupid post of the day...
May 26, 2017, 9:48 AM
[ in reply to Auschwitz wasn't filled in a day. ] |
|
and that's saying something in a long thread with Jhop! (and yes I saw your "seriously" in the post)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Gonna nominate this as the most stupid post of the day...
May 26, 2017, 10:35 AM
|
|
Dang Robert you're a bigger idiot than I am....
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
flow certainly is a wordy ######.***
May 26, 2017, 10:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
truff hurt somebody's feewings***
May 26, 2017, 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22388]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31282
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The Muslim hate he spewed on the campaign trail got him.
May 25, 2017, 5:47 PM
|
|
Just like his public statements about obstructing the Russia investigation will be used against him.
Dude needs to learn, but I don't think he can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
And do you think that's good for our democracy?....
May 26, 2017, 9:39 AM
|
|
meaning that due to campaign rhetoric, the POTUS has his power/duty to protect us limited. I think it's a very dangerous path to go down.
Let's change the scenario slightly.
Let's say the POTUS says all kinds of bad things about Indonesia and even Indonesians during the campaign trail (thinks Indonesians don't belong here, doesn't like that they're Muslim, etc...).
3 months into office he gets all kinds of intel of various plots against the US coming out of Indonesia and his security team recommends shutting down immigration and visas from Indonesia until they can get a better handle on the threat, etc...
So the POTUS issues such an executive order and some one sues based on equal protection or whatever and courts puts a hold on the EO citing this case. Terrorists get in on a travel visa blow up a bunch of people and so on.
Now, the POTUS' ability to protect the country and do his duty is being usurpted by the courts based on something he SAID during the campaign.
I think that is dangerous and wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
His rhetoric towards Muslims was more dangerous and wrong.
May 26, 2017, 10:08 AM
|
|
And I don't agree with the courts becoming legislators, but the law was clearly designed to disproportionately effect Muslims.
Considering none of the banned countries had anything to do with 9/11 hi-jackers, the idea that it was because of terrorism was dubious. It was a fast and easy way to claim he kept his promise to his muslim-hating base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't think any 9-11 hijackers came from Syria either...
May 26, 2017, 10:34 AM
|
|
but you're not claiming ISIS isn't a terrorist threat, are you?
It's not clear to me that the EO was designed to disproportionately Muslims. As noted in my other post below, what you are basically saying then is the current POTUS has lost his power to control immigration for any majority Muslim nations. Considering that's where most of the terror threats are coming from these days, that just doesn't sound like a very good thing to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
We have been contributing to terrorists threats there.
May 26, 2017, 3:23 PM
|
|
Syria was secular before we purposely helped stoke a sectarian war there.
We chose mostly Shia countries because we are sucking up to Saudi Arabia.
Trump's base is chaotically ignorant about what's taking place. They hate Islam, because they think it's the source of terrorism but Trump is heavily enabling wahhabism (psycho version of Islam), and overthrowing secular/moderate governments by funding jihadists.
We are literally creating our own problem and blaming a billion innocent people around the world for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
I am probably the only liberal that supports he ban...
May 25, 2017, 5:55 PM
|
|
Then again, I think all religion is man made BS and bad for planet Earth. Islam is without question a problem though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: I am probably the only liberal that supports he ban...
May 25, 2017, 6:37 PM
|
|
That's not very thoughtful of the millions of people that have seen a positive change in their life because of their faith....
Jesus said "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
You can deny he was God but you can't deny he's still changing people's lives for the better 2000 years later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
It's all in your imagination.*****
May 26, 2017, 2:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: It's all in your imagination.*****
May 26, 2017, 6:15 AM
|
|
What's in my imagination? That a carpenter from the little old town of Nazereth made an impact on the world greater than any human being that ever lived and sparked a religion that still changes lives for the better today DESPITE the fact that it's followers have been severely persecuted all throughout its history?
That is reality....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
It is all man made BS. All religion is.*****
May 26, 2017, 8:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 1/8/13
|
Re: It is all man made BS. All religion is.*****
May 26, 2017, 9:09 AM
|
|
Jesus agreed with you....
Matthew 23: 1-12
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
You're very late with that maneuver. It's been done to death
May 25, 2017, 8:23 PM
|
|
and it's been rebutted repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
maybe repeatedly, but never effectively!!***
May 26, 2017, 9:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Appellate Court affirms ruling against Muslim ban
May 25, 2017, 8:54 PM
[ in reply to Re: Appellate Court affirms ruling against Muslim ban ] |
|
>If it's a Muslim ban why are hardly any of these countries included?
A better question is why did Trump campaign on "A temporary ban on All Muslim Immigration...." ??
An even better question is if it's mean to protect Nationa Security, then why doesn't the ban extend to Saudi Arabia (9/11), Iraq (Isis, Al-Queda), Egypt ( Moslim Brotherhood), Pakistan or Afghanistan (Taliban, Al-Queda, Isis) ??
It's not about either, it's just Trump playing to his base by keeping a campaign promise. (banning Muslims).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Appellate Court affirms ruling against Muslim ban
May 25, 2017, 9:17 PM
|
|
So you have no answer for why a "Muslim ban" includes only ONE country in the top 10 in Muslim population?
Millions of Muslims around the globe would still be able to hop on a plane and come to the United States....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
The court answered your question.
May 25, 2017, 10:03 PM
|
|
From pages 62-63 of the opinion:
In support of its argument that EO-2 does not single out Muslims, the Government notes
that these six countries are either places where ISIS has a heavy presence (Syria), state
sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or safe havens for terrorists (Libya,
Somalia, and Yemen). The Government also points out that the six
Designated Countries represent only a small proportion of the world’s majority-Muslim
nations, and EO-2 applies to everyone in those countries, even non-Muslims.
This shows, the Government argues, that EO-2’s primary purpose is secular.
The trouble with this argument is that EO-2’s practical operation is not severable
from the myriad statements explaining its operation as intended to bar Muslims
from the United States. And that EO-2 is underinclusive by targeting only a small
percentage of the world’s majority-Muslim nations and overinclusive for targeting
all citizens, even non-Muslims, in the Designated Countries, is not responsive to
the purpose inquiry. This evidence might be relevant to our analysis under Lemon’s
second prong, which asks whether a government act has the primary effect of
endorsing or disapproving of religion, but it does not answer
whether the government acted with a primarily religious purpose to begin with. If we
limited our purpose inquiry to review of the operation of a facially neutral order, we
would be caught in an analytical loop, where the order would always survive scrutiny. It
is for this precise reason that when we attempt to discern purpose, we look to more than
just the challenged action itself. And here, when we consider the full context of EO-2, it
is evident that it is likely motivated primarily by religion. We do not discount that there
may be a national security concern motivating EO-2; we merely find it likely that any
such purpose is secondary to EO-2’s religious purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: The court answered your question.
May 26, 2017, 6:10 AM
|
|
Again, if it was motivated primarily by religion millions of Muslims wouldn't still be able to travel freely to the US....common sense here....
I don't care what some liberal judge who just wants to oppose anything the right does says....and that's all it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
It wasn't some liberal judge.
May 26, 2017, 8:37 AM
|
|
It was 10 judges in one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: It wasn't some liberal judge.
May 26, 2017, 8:44 AM
|
|
How is it a "Muslim" ban if millions of Muslims can still freely enter the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
OK, one last time.
May 26, 2017, 9:07 AM
|
|
He wanted a Muslim ban but they told him it would be illegal. So he asked everyone to figure out how to ban Muslims without it being illegal.
The solution was to make it all about "danger," and pretend to focus on terrorism. But the ban was still focused on Muslims, not danger. In terms of "danger," the ban was both overinclusive (capturing multitudes of people who presented no danger) and underinclusive (ignoring nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are clearly connected to terrorism).
In creating this "not-about-Muslims-but-yeah-it's-really-about-Muslims" ban, Trump's fans could celebrate and Trump wouldn't get shot down in the courts.
And his plan would have worked, if it weren't for those meddling kids. And by "meddling kids" I'm referring to Trump and his elite squad of brain-damaged nincompoops who announced to everyone what the whole plan was.
(Skip to 3:40)
https://youtu.be/NF2k11QQW0g?t=220
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: OK, one last time.
May 26, 2017, 9:12 AM
|
|
Of course it has nothing to do with the thousands of people killed and millions effected by terrorists attacks....we just hate brown people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
If you're going to ignore the answer, why ask the question?***
May 26, 2017, 9:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Using that "logic", the POTUS no longer has the power...
May 26, 2017, 9:46 AM
[ in reply to The court answered your question. ] |
|
to limit immigration from any majority Muslim country because of what he said during the campaign.
That is a horrible abuse of power by the courts and greatly infringes on Constitutional and statutory duties of the Executive.
We SHOULD not want the courts to be deciding the validity of the Executive's security concerns. The goes down a very dangerous road!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Mmmm... no.
May 26, 2017, 10:37 AM
|
|
It wasn't just what he said on the campaign. It's also what he said as president. And what others said, e.g. Giuliani, who really screwed the pooch.
But it wasn't even just all of that. There's also the fact that Trump unnecessarily banned travel for a multitude of people, some of whom had been here legally for work, school, etc. (The revised order tried to narrow down the ban to avoid these people, I think.)
At the end of the day, the POTUS has the power to limit immigration. But the POTUS does not have the power to discriminate against a religion, and every indicator says this was about Muslims.
Finally, and for the umpteenth time, the point of the ban was to be temporary, to give Trump's monkeys 90 days to review the vetting process. So... they all done with that? Or was it a lie? (I.e., see above re: indicators that this was about Muslims.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
The 2nd order did narrow it and this ruling was on the...
May 26, 2017, 11:08 AM
|
|
2nd order (EO-2).
The temp ban question is a good one, and as discussed, I don't have an answer for where they're at on evaluating the system. I haven't seen that put to the admin yet (I'd be surprised if it hadn't, I just haven't seen/heard it).
With all of that said though....if a new EO came out just banning immigration from one prominently Muslim country tomorrow, wouldn't the same suits be brought and the same rulings be made under this "logic". And if so, isn't that dangerous as ####?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That's probably why we've never had a candidate run
May 26, 2017, 11:11 AM
|
|
on a platform of deporting 12 million people and banning from entry millions more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I do believe we've had folks run on enforcing immigration...
May 26, 2017, 11:19 AM
|
|
laws.
The banning Muslims was idiotic to think or to say. I just don't think political rhetoric should be weighed by the courts in a case like this. I think it's very dangerous from a security perspective.
I'm not happy about Trump being POTUS, but doesn't mean we should strip the administration's power to protect the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I think not weighing political rhetoric in situations like
May 26, 2017, 11:20 AM
|
|
this is very dangerous from a civil rights perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't think you're looking past the present case...
May 26, 2017, 11:25 AM
|
|
or your dislike for Trump.
Can you not envision a scenario where this could prove dangerous for the country. I don't think the courts should be weighing in intent based on political rhetoric on issues of national security where the Constitution clearly gives the POTUS the power to use his discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You have a point. That's why running on statements like the
May 26, 2017, 11:27 AM
|
|
ones Trump made is so dangerous for the country. It kills your credibility with the world and affects your ability to govern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
But the credibility should be with the public...
May 26, 2017, 11:54 AM
|
|
shouldn't have an impact on the courts. The courts are ruling (or should be ruling) on the office/government and not the individual as it pertains to the POTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The courts have ruled on intent for years.***
May 26, 2017, 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
There may he some, but im not aware of any....
May 26, 2017, 3:55 PM
|
|
With this specific subject/nature.
Of course courts include intent on general cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Your last bit is the important part.
May 26, 2017, 11:09 AM
[ in reply to Mmmm... no. ] |
|
They've had 90 days, if they haven't done anything then it proves that the ban was not about security and only about checking off a campaign promise. The fact that nothing appears to have been done in this period per the reason for the ban makes it invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Not sure how we can say what has or hasn't been done....
May 26, 2017, 11:21 AM
|
|
at this point. Unless you know something I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
If they'd done something I'm sure it would have been listed
May 26, 2017, 11:35 AM
|
|
as an accomplishment. Because this administration like to tell us about its accomplishments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
maybe, but that's an assumption...
May 26, 2017, 11:55 AM
|
|
i think someone need to put the question to the administration and let's get an answer from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33612
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We've litigated this long enough.
May 26, 2017, 11:37 AM
|
|
Crump needs to nominate a SCOTNet and have a vote.
IMO, the SCOTUS is operating just like the legislation. They've gained power over the years and aren't about to give it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 65
| visibility 948
|
|
|
50
