Patterico's Pontifications

Ding.

Patterico (115b1f) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:36 pm

You can just see the tweets to come:

‘Ninth short circuits w/loser judgement. Next U.S. terror death on them. Who ate my strawberries? Buy Ivanka.’

“They fought me at every turn…” Capt. Queeg [Humphrey Bogart] ‘The Caine Mutiny’ 1954

DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:46 pm

A day ending in y, you expected logic from the ninth circuit, perhaps with kozinski, diarmiud and a third tba but that would be a trifecta

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:50 pm

Not an analysis, but a summary.

It’s a per curiam opinion, meaning that it’s essentially unanimous.

II. While ordinarily TROs are not appealable, in this case the TRO “possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction” because (a) the parties vigorously contested the legal basis in briefs and arguments before the district court, (b) the TRO has no expiration date, and (c) no hearing has been scheduled; even though there’s a briefing scheduled, (d) the TRO will remain in effect for longer than fourteen days.

III. Washington has standing.
— Washington has proprietary standing as the owner of the state universities, which are harmed because faculty and students who are members of the seven countries cannot enter the country.
— the opinion DOES NOT ADDRESS the question of parens patriae standing.

IV. The EO is reviewable by courts, even though the government says it isn’t.
— “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability”
— “Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewwable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.”
— this includes matters of national security. “while counseling deference to the national Security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s ‘authority and expertise in [such] matters does not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals’, even in times of war.”

V. When responding to a motion for a stay of a preliminary injunction, the court is required to look at:
(1) whether the applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits
(2) whether the applicant will be irreperably injured absent a stay
(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injur the other parties
(4) where the public interest lies.

VI (a). The government is not likely to win on the merits
— it has “not shown that the Executive order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel”; indeed it “argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause”
— fifth amendment procedural due process applies to “‘all persons within the United States, including aliens’, regardless of ‘whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent'”
— fifth amendment procedural due process applies to certain aliens attempting to reenter the US after travel abroad
— the government has claimed that the issue of lawful permanent residents is moot because the white house counsel issued authoritative guidance syaing the EO doesn’t apply to them, but there’s no authority establishing that the white house counsel has the authority to issue an amended EO superseding the one signed by the President; nor has the government established that the white house counsel’s interpretation is binding on all executive officials

VI (b)
— even if the lawful permanent residents were no longer part of the case, Washington would continue to have potential claims regarding the due process rights of other persons in the US, including non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the US but wish to temporarily depart, and people with a relationship with a US resident or an institution which might have its own rights to assert

VI (c)
— the government has argued that the TRO should be limited in scope to just the LPRs and previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad or who wish to leave the US and return
— but this limitation on its face leaves out aliens who are here unlawfully, and those aliens have due process rights
— the limitation also leaves out claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens ability to travel to the US
— there might be persons covered by the TRO who have no viable due process claims, but the government’s proposed scope limitation leaves out at least some who do

VI (d)
— the government has asked that the geographic scope of the TRO be limited
— but this creates a fragmented immigration policy which would run afoul of the constitutional requirement for uniform immigration law

VII. the government has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the religious discrimination claim
— it’s well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the law may be considered in evaluating establishment and equal protection claims
— in light of the evidence of Presidential statements going to intent, the government cannot demonstrate a strong enough likelihood of success to stay the order

VIII.
— the government has submitted no evidence to rebut the state’s argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occuppied for years
— the government has also pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has attacked the US
— given this, the TRO poses no irreperable injury to the government
— but the states *have* demonstrated that they will suffer irreperable injury

aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:53 pm

Queeg’s strawberries. That’s hilarious, DCSCA.

DRJ (15874d) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:53 pm

Now can one of you lawyers tell me who is in charge of immigration law? Why was this never an issue with other presidents? If blocking people by country is illegal how do we block enemies at war? Who the hell makes up these stupid rules? Does this mean or immigration laws have to be passed by judges? So by law we can’t keep foreigners out of we describe which foreigners we’re trying to protect ourselves from?

Obviously I’m no lawyer but does the law preclude common sense?

Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:57 pm

That is super helpful, aphrael. Thanks!

Tom Ryberg (2c5752) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:57 pm

Push back 1
Constitution 0

AZ Bob (f7a491) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:00 pm

Over at PowerLine there is a discussion that nobody connected with the case on either side knew the most fundamental of facts concerning the case,
and that the DOJ lawyer was a last minute draft when the people who should have been in court recused themselves likely unnecessarily.

I would like a system where the 9th judges would be held personally responsible for any wrongdoing by anyone who gets into the country who wouldn’t have if the EO was upheld or only partially suspended.

A noted bioethics Prof, who made his living telling doctors what they should do, said that being liable for their actions would have a “chilling” effect on the field…

I say good to that, people who get to tell others what to do should be accountable for the consequences.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:03 pm

clifton’s grade A ivy league judgefilth by way of both princeton and yale

canby’s a perverted lil yale boy god knows what happens under his robes (think bush family levels of perversion)

friedland’s a fascist pussyhatter from berkeley

failmerica you are so judged lol

happyfeet (28a91b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:07 pm

Something about putting burdens on backs and then refusing to help lift the additional weight with even a little finger.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:07 pm

Rev. Hoagie: i’m no expert on immigration law, but I’ll give it a shot.

The fundamental *legal* problem with the President’s EO is that, because *as worded* it applies to legal permanent residents and to aliens currently present in the US who wish to depart and return, and because it provides no process to be followed to protect their rights (which are constitutionally protected because the 5th amendment applies to all *persons* present in the US), it is unconstitutional as applied to them.

An EO which excluded everyone from the seven countries but those two groups, and which provided a process by which members of those two groups could challenge attempts to exclude them, would *probably* pass muster, although there is some lack of clarity because of the allegation that the ban is prompted by an improper discriminatory motive.

In answer to your question, there weren’t problems with previous administrations because (a) they never issued orders which denied due process to people who are legally entitled to it, and (b) they weren’t being headed by someone whose public proclamations made it *plausible* that there was an improper discriminatory motive. (Note that I say plausible; I don’t know if there was an improper discriminatory motive or not – but I think President Trump’s statements make it a topic for investigation, which was not the case for Presidents Obama or Bush).

In my view, without getting into the substantive decision to exclude aliens from the seven named countries, this executive order was a clusterf*ck. Worse: the problems should have been easy to spot and fix before the EO was released, so why weren’t they? And the problems would be easy to fix with a new EO, so why haven’t they been?

aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:07 pm

Out: Common Sense and acting in the best interest of America and Americans

In: Leftwing court/politicians/media opposition to same

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:07 pm

The Disloyal Opposition.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:08 pm

Obviously I’m no lawyer but does the law preclude common sense?

Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:57 pm

============================================

Surely, you can’t be serious.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:10 pm

Shirley, coronello, yes flentjes was way out of his league, but ultimately the judges operated in a field of epistemic closure, rigorously enforced by the news mrdia

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:12 pm

If the problem with the order was limited, would a different circuit perhaps blocked the implementation of the order with respect to those classes inappropriately denied due process?

If nothing could have been taken at face value before, less than nothing can be taken at face value now.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:13 pm

Any nation that is unwilling or unable to act in its own self-interest – and do it without apology – is doomed and probably not worth saving.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:13 pm

Judge gorton was able to see reason ‘its easy if you try’ they are just like judge walker, or the judges who blocked prop 187

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:15 pm

Had there been another, perhaps more adept lawyer familiar with the matter other than August Flentje, could this have gone the other way and been salvaged? How much was the executive order was a clusterf*ck itself and how much was bad representation on the part of the federal government?

Dana (023079) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:16 pm

Judge Napolitano:

“This is an intellectually dishonest piece of work that the 9th Circuit has produced tonight, because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States, when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction––foreign policy––exclusively to the president.”

elissa (0c5899) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:16 pm

> would a different circuit perhaps blocked the implementation of the order with respect to those classes inappropriately denied due process?

The only possible answer to ‘perhaps’ is ‘possibly’ 🙂

I think the big problem is that the government has a hard time proving an irreparable injury if the executive order is enjoined.

> Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:16 pm

It’s about time teh people told the media that we’ve had more than enough of their unadulterated horseshi+ and disregard every utterance out of their pieholes. They are Fredo to us.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:17 pm

Dana – a different lawyer would likely have done a better job. But, since the question of the effectiveness of the OLC’s attempt to modify the EO after it was signed was not really discussed during the hearing, and since that question turns out to be crucial to the outcome, I think the answer to your question is “not enough”

aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:18 pm

remember this case was argued by some loser whose biggest goal in life has been to work at the famously corrupt and incompetent failmerican department of justice

happyfeet (28a91b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:18 pm

It’s going to be a long forever,
because even if some how Pence takes over,
he will become the worst president ever,
and so on.
“They” will not be satisfied until Barack II is installed as emperor.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:18 pm

Its a long marathon and this is but one step,

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:20 pm

More like a lamb discussing dinner plans with wolves, I think, and not only because it’s the Ninth Circuit. The judiciary has been given far too much power by greedy litigants and lazy legislatures and executives and they’re using it to the hilt.

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:21 pm

“This is an intellectually dishonest piece of work that the 9th Circuit has produced tonight, because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States, when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction – foreign policy – exclusively to the president.”

well, these judgesluts do intellectually honestly have much beliebers that the perverted Roberts court will rubber stamp pretty much effing whatever

constitution lol

happyfeet (28a91b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:21 pm

Dana,
As I mentioned before, the PowerLine crew thought appropriate representation might have made a big difference,
of course, my thought, the only difference might have been that the government’s case was masterful and correct, but that the 9th being the 9th ruled against them anyway.

Goodnight

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:23 pm

Good news story of the day… “ACCOUNTABILITY: Grand jury indicts 146 more people on felony rioting charges from Inauguration Day. “A press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. says the 146 people were facing charges relating to incidents that occurred in the four-block area from the intersection of 13th and O Street NW to the intersection of 12th and L Street NW on January 20. Of the 230 people arrested and charged with felony rioting connected with Inauguration Day, 209 have now been indicted.”

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/256933/

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:23 pm

Dana@20, I asked essentially that same question back on the other thread. Looking at the ruling (strictly as a layman) it is not easy to see what they would have believed or accepted from the DOJ lawyer.

Also there is another contributing option/explanation besides “bad representation” and “EO clusterf*ck”according to a number of experts– and that is “9th Circus”.

elissa (0c5899) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:24 pm

More like the cow in the restaurant at the end of the universe

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:24 pm

If Trump resigned, Pence could re-issue a cleaned-up order, free from any taint of anti-Muslim animus, and the country would be safe.

Why does Donald Trump continue to put the country at risk by remaining in office?

Dave (711345) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:25 pm

hate that cow

happyfeet (28a91b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:25 pm

What goes around, comes around. How was Texas able to block Obama’s amnesty order, with one District Judge and one Fifth Circuit panel?

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:25 pm

Nah, Dave,
We know better.
Three seconds after taking the oath Pence will be the new picture on the cover of Nazis Today.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:28 pm

All over this open range that was once known as the United States there are federal courthouses with chambers and the like. And on most every one of those courthouses are illegal doors and windows, hindering the legal easement and Christian commerce of we free range undefined legal entities.

To it. by this legal ruling officers of the court have no right to bar our passage.

papertiger (c8116c) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:31 pm

As trump pointed out, and crazy noted much of the answers were foundvin Horton’s decision, but remember the judges that unanimously voted to aide Lisa murkowski, same deal

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:32 pm

Papertiger: what? Your comment at 38 seems … unmoored … in the actual reasoning used in the ruling.

aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:33 pm

Judge Napolitano:

“This is an intellectually dishonest piece of work that the 9th Circuit has produced tonight, because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States, when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction––foreign policy––exclusively to the president.”

It would be as if a judge could stop the President from going forward with D-Day.

AZ Bob (f7a491) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:35 pm

There want much reasoning just assertions,

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:35 pm

If these judges were around in WW II, we would have lost.

AZ Bob (f7a491) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:36 pm

It free form verse, aphrael.

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:36 pm

With apologies to JFK: “I believe this nation should prepare itself, before this decade is out, of placing Mike Pence in the presidency, and returning Trump safely to Bellevue.”

“Captain, I’m sorry, but you’re a sick man. I’m relieving you as captain of this ship under Article 184.” – XO Steve Maryk [Van Johnson] ‘The Caine Mutiny’ 1954

DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:38 pm

If I were President Trump I’d issue an EO that all doors at Federal Courts be removed.

Out Queeg the mutts in robes. Or how do you like them strawberries, snowflake?

papertiger (c8116c) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:40 pm

Trump purchased 90 days coverage against responsibility for terrorist attacks rather cheaply. I don’t know whether Tillerson will be able to successfully choke off State dissent on much tougher vetting procedures but it will be a wonderful opportunity to make a list of people for assignment to windowless offices in Kyrgyzstan.

Rick Ballard (5e8a41) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:40 pm

Dan McLaughlin provides a pretty good explanation of why the Court ruled against Trump’s refugee order in six bite-sized pieces:

Fifth, and most importantly, the court upheld the TRO against Trump’s immigration order on grounds of religious discrimination against Muslims, even though the order is neutral on its face, without really deciding the issue:

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims…The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.

Dana (023079) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:40 pm

Just so the Trumpkins, here, don’t go off their feed from melancholy, here’s a story about a Mexican being deported.

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:42 pm

the thing is though that muslims like to kill americans

i have links

happyfeet (28a91b) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:43 pm

I think that summary mischaracterizes the quote, Dana.

The quote is saying “the States’ claims raise serious allegations”, but then says “in light of … our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihod of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim” “we reserve consideration”.

They punted on the subject of religious discrimination. They’re saying that because the due process issue is sufficient to deny the motion for a stay, they aren’t going to decide the issue of the religious descrimination claim.

The bit about the seriousness of the states allegations is dicta, not necessary to the holding.

aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:43 pm

Again that is assertion piled upon assertion, if the gift succeeded in laghalam (sic), why couldn’t it otherwise.

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:52 pm

There’s this building in downtown Sacramento I worked on for over a year, the Attorney General’s building.
I know for a fact you need to have a pass to get by the security at the front desk in order to have access to the elevators. Once in the elevator, you need a card with a magnetic strip to access any of the offices.

By what legal right do these people bar my way? They discriminate against me – and I don’t need a green card – I’m a legal citizen of the state of California.

Where does this power come from?

Not from the ruling of the Ninth Circuit, that’s for sure.

papertiger (c8116c) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:52 pm

if immigration is such a cool thing
then how come saudi arabia, sudan, yemen, iran, and all the rest are so restrictive about it

this is a question for thinking people to think about

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:58 pm

Well they have but a wall on the border with yemen, but the kingdom keeps a discreet underclass of people who ‘do work Saudis won’t do’

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:01 pm

And if Jeffrey Dahmer could eat twelve people, what’s our problem with cannibalism, can anybody tell me?

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:02 pm

Donald Trump: For The Lowest ~~Common~~ Denominator!

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:04 pm

aphrael–I think your several statements about the possibility of the administration essentially abandoning this EO and issuing a new one instead of taking this one to a supreme court that is missing a member is the right way to go. I think that is the safest long term solution even if it leaves the doors open a little longer than they should be. The president has got to take his executive power back. He has to win this larger issue even if it means a temporary hiatus in the process. Not that a new improved EO wouldn’t still be challenged but perhaps for different, easier to defend reasons.

elissa (0c5899) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:05 pm

what i like best about president hillary’s administration is how she never had one

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:07 pm

if immigration is such a cool thing
then how come saudi arabia, sudan, yemen, iran, and all the rest are so restrictive about it

So you want America to be more like those countries?

Dave (711345) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:08 pm

the thing i like best about team nevertrump is that there’s actually a trump

they lost
so they’re angry
so what
they’re losers
greece is the word that you heard
and it will be repeated in case you didn’t hear it the first time you sanctimonious clowns

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:12 pm

You know the difference between a realtor and a circuit court judge?

A realtor follows a strict code of ethics.

papertiger (c8116c) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:15 pm

LOL

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:17 pm

Interesting the Caine Mutiny smack going down.

The mutineers (in the film anyways) were reprimanded for thinking they knew everything and never giving the captain a fair chance.

I guess they would have called Trump ‘Ol Orange Stain’.

Harkin (f2f14e) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:17 pm

A realtor follows a strict code of ethics.

The one in the White House sure doesn’t.

Dave (711345) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:19 pm

#60 progressive dave

we should all listen to progressive dave
unless we allow more people from yemen or sudan into our country

then we’ll become MORE like yemen or sudan

this is like math without numbers

if you don’t put more meat into your entree
then it’ll obviously become a vegetarian dish

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:22 pm

Yeah, that’s a dumb parallel, unless you want to apply it to the bureaucracy being sullenly insubordinate and subversive. The best President in the world cannot carry out his duties properly without help from his subordinates, which is what the denouement of the movie, when Jose Ferrer punches out Fred McMurray, is about.

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:24 pm

progressive dave doesn’t even know who herman wouk is

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:28 pm

this is a question for thinking people to think about
There is no need to ponder. Our openess to the outside world is one of the things that maked us better and stronger than them.

Kishnevi (4a5f25) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:28 pm

4. Cutting to the chase here:

It seems to me that the strongest grounds the court gave for maintaining the stay were:

1. Neither matters of immigration nor matters of national security are unreviewable. (immigration would be unreviewable on the grounds that it is like the war power)

2. There is no due process provided, and procedural due process applies to “‘all persons within the United States, including aliens’, regardless of ‘whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent’ and the executive order, in effect, bars travel abroad for certain people present in the United States. (in some cases contrary to existing law)

2a. While the government has said this doesn’t apply to lawful permanent residents, this doesn’t change the wording of the executive order, nor is it clear why the White House counsel’s interpretation should be assumed to be binding on all executive branch officials. In any case they are not the only people affected by the order who might have procedural due process rights, (notice and a hearing) like non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the US but wish to temporarily depart, who now suddenly find rights and privileges previously granted taken away, in some cases in contravention of existing law that says when and how it can be taken away.

2b) And there are U.S. residents or institutions they have a relationship with who might have their own rights to assert, and there are also possible claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens ability to travel to the US, and even by aliens who are here unlawfully, who still have procedural due process rights.

3) As for limiting the geographic scope of the TRO, this creates a fragmented immigration policy which would run afoul of the constitutional requirement for uniform immigration law. (where is that required? There is, not a requirement, but permission to create, a uniform naturalization law, but naturalization is not immigration. Courts have held it makes more sense to have a national scheme – because after all, a person admitted in New York might not be intending to stay in New York, but this is asserting federal jurisdiction on grounds of logic, not the constitution.)

Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:30 pm

65
He is not a realtor, just a salesman who got half the country to accept his most recent product line.

Kishnevi (4a5f25) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:30 pm

i just don’t know how america became america without more immigrants from yemen and sudan

oh wait
yes i do

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:33 pm

It was not Dave, it was DCSCA, who brought up the Caine Mutiny. LOL

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:34 pm

41… pert near, AZ Bob.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:38 pm

how on earth did yemen become as wonderful as yemen did without immigrants from sudan?
… or immigrants from america?

if yemen and sudan are so great, why do their citizens want to leave?
… and why don’t american citizens want to go there?

you people asking these questions are just xenophobes
or maybe you just like old movies

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:39 pm

progressive dave doesn’t know the difference between herman wouk and herman munster

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:43 pm

Yemen was part of the British Empire. Do try not to parade your ignorance too much, there’s a good chap.

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:47 pm

yemen is a garden spot
for people who think saudi arabia is too arabian or too saudi

just make sure you don’t have a typo
because then you’d have semen

… but would that be a typo?

i guess it depends on who is doing the typing

wow

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/9/2017 @ 7:51 pm

Yes Harold Wilson bugiut really worked out, much Somalia across the red sea

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 8:00 pm

I don’t think you could call Aden a “jewel in the crown”. Maybe the lid on the gas can? 😉

nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 8:04 pm

There’s even a parallel engAgement of sorts
http://www.thehistoryherald.com/Articles/Military-History/Wars-Battles-Campaigns/operation-stirling-castle

narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 8:08 pm

Looks like Trump Supporter has finally snapped. Sad! (LOL)

Leviticus (efada1) — 2/10/2017 @ 7:47 am

aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:16 pm

I think the big problem is that the government has a hard time proving an irreparable injury if the executive order is enjoined.

“Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.”

Here is where the court got into the actual merits of the policy, because to say there is no irreparable injury is to disagree with the president on matters of policy, because immediate irreparable injury was his political justification for issuing it, and for issuing it so quickly and by surprise.

There was also a bit of logic to that. As the lawyers for the state of Washington argued, to say there was irreparable injury was to say (because nothing had changed on January 20) that irreparable injury had been occuring all the time (for months or years?) till this order was issued (and that was not plausible.)

Sammy Finkelman (96f386) — 2/10/2017 @ 8:11 am

nk @77.

Yemen was part of the British Empire. Do try not to parade your ignorance too much, there’s a good chap.

Only a part of Yemen was part of the British Empire.

That was called the Federation of South Arabia. Further east, along the coast was the Aden Protectorate. They were both administered by the British government on India. In 1971, (or was that 1967?) the two together were granted independnce and became a Marxist dictatorship, the Republic of Southern Yemen, the first time the British directly turned over control to a dictatorship. Or rather the Marxists took over in 1969, and many refugees fled to the other Yemen in 1971. When Southern Yemen became an independent country, the island of Socotra for included.

Yemen, to the northwest, was a separate country, a monarchy, ruled by the Ottoman Empire from 1849 to 1918, with a mostly undefined land border, once you got about 150 to 200 miles inland, and upported by Saudi Arabia against Egypt’s Nasser, who used poison gas in his war there around 1962. He eventually gave up the insurgency. After he won, and it became a republic ruled by a general. (I need to check more almanacs and other sources. Nobody is really keeping track of things.)

Most of the Jews there, a very old Jewish community, were taken to Israel in the 1950s. Some remained, but they are now really all gone now. The last group was evacuated not long ago. Yemen was also the place were old manuscripts of the Koran were found, that predated the standardization of its text in 903 CE. And other manuscripts of other works, tat the world did not know about.

In 1979, there was an invasion of Yemen by Southern Yemen, and this came right at the time of the conclusion of the negotiations of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and Jimmy Carter sent arms to Saudi Arabia, which caused the invasion to come to an end before even the arms arrived, IIRC. As a consequence, Saudi Arabia could not oppose the peace treaty, and it went through without disturbing Egypt’s relations with the rest of the Arab world. They still remained opposed to the 1978 Camp David agreement, or what agitation there was, was about that.

In 1990, Southern Yemen and just plain Yemen (or North Yemen) merged, as a result of the implosion of Communism in eastern Europe (the end of Communism was also responsible for Nicaragua actually holding a fair election – communism ended in Eastern Europe between the time the election was scheduled and the time it took place – although Daniel Ortega is now back in power thanks to a corrupt deal – and also for the end of apartheid in South Africa)

Without central backing and KGB advice, people were afraid to try to establish a strong dictatorship. Now the Chinese, and maybe Saudi Arabia or Putin will help.

On August 6, 1990, the new Yemen abstained from UN Security Council resolutions authorizing military action against Iraq, and as result, 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

There was a rebellion in southern Yemen from May to July 1994 but the North won the civil war, and southern leaders fled abroad and were sentenced to death in absentia.

Various complicated things have happened since 2011. The president survived an assassination attempt but was very very severely injured, and was treated in Saudi Arabia, and later stepped down.

Yemen is now divided between areas controlled by the Iranian backed Houthi rebels, the official government, and al Qaeda. The United States had supported Saudi Arabia’s defense of the goernment but there is a problem in that Saudi Arabia has not abided by the laws of war really, and atacked civilian targets and that’s where things stood when Donald Trump became president.

Barack Obama had approved one raid at what was supposed to be an important al Qaeda target, but scheduled it for after the inaguration, around January 27, because that was the net new moon, and Donald Trump and his advisers OKayed it again, but they were ambushed, and had to bomb the location, and killed non-combatants, including children, and the laptopsd and videos they recovered may not be so valuable, and Senator McCain is saying it was a failure, but unfortunately, it seems that Donald Trump has abandoned his war with the intelligence agencies, and he’s arguing via Twitter with McCain. Bad!

Sammy Finkelman (96f386) — 2/10/2017 @ 9:10 am

I don’t think McCain is a very trustworthy person when it comes to national security issues

happyfeet (28a91b) — 2/10/2017 @ 9:14 am

Trump first claimed that saying ii was a failure did not give credit to the man who died. McCain said the attempt to rescue him from prison in Vietnam failed – they went to a prison that was no longe being used – but that did not disrespect or impugn their sacrifice,or words to that effect. Trump then used the argument that McCain criticizing it would embolden the enemy. Like as if they are not going to make their own decisions about whether or not it was a failure.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/trump-hits-mccain-for-criticism-yemen-raid.html

“Several of [the Trump tweets] cracked me up,” McCain said later Thursday.

Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 2/10/2017 @ 12:33 pm

2/9/2017

Ninth Circuit Upholds TRO Halting Trump’s Immigration Order

86 Responses to “Ninth Circuit Upholds TRO Halting Trump’s Immigration Order”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out