Patterico's Pontifications

3/15/2017

Federal Judge Blocks President Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:42 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Yet again. This time, just hours before it was go into effect:

A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday issued a sweeping freeze of President Trump’s new executive order temporarily barring the issuance of new visas to citizens of six-Muslim majority countries and suspending the admission of new refugees.

In a blistering, 43-page opinion U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson pointed to Trump’s own comments and those of close advisors as evidence that his order was meant to discriminate against Muslims and declared there was a “strong likelihood of success” those suing would prove the directive violated the constitution.

Watson declared that “a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

He lambasted the government in particular for asserting that because the ban did not apply to all Muslims in the world, it could not be construed as discriminating against Muslims.

“The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson wrote. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

Hawaii had filed a lawsuit, which includes this:

Watson’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state of Hawaii. Lawyers for the state alleged the new travel ban, much like the old, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it was essentially a Muslim ban, hurt the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent and damaged the state’s robust tourism industry.

Unsurprisingly, as pointed out on the Twitters, Judge Watson is an appointee of President Obama…

–Dana

342 Responses to “Federal Judge Blocks President Trump’s Revised Travel Ban”

  1. These judges. So much power…

    Dana (023079)

  2. shocking

    the lil judgeslut is grade A harvardtrash

    undergrad and law school both

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. When it comes to discrimination, your intent does matter. When it comes to determining your intent, your claims that you wish to discriminate on the basis of, say, religious belief, also matters.

    Trump won the campaign, but the way he won lost him a lot of battles in the future. Some people may think it’s OK to ban muslims, but that would take amending away the first amendment to the US Constitution. Trump will never be successful at this stuff because of his ridiculous commentary on his intentions.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  4. Another fellow who doesn’t question the policy, he rants about Trump’s motivation. The ACLU isn’t interested in protecting the rights of Americans, the US Constitution or the safety of American citizens. They are proponents of far left ideology and anything that undermines the moral, Judeo-Christian foundation of the USA.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. So when we ban travel from and to North Korea and Burma, we are violating the Establishment Clause because it affects Buddhists? And Cuba because it affects atheists and Santeria?

    Anyway, it’s easy to throw a strike when there’s no batter at the plate and the umpire is on your team. Hopefully, this time, Sessions will assign lawyers who know what they’re and make a good record for appeal.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. Watson’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state of Hawaii. Lawyers for the state alleged the new travel ban, much like the old, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it was essentially a Muslim ban, hurt the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent and damaged the state’s robust tourism industry.

    In other words, Hawaii is butt-hurt that this could upset their income.

    Bill H (383c5d)

  7. And again they ignore congress’s own rudesignation on the subject, the documents are in the other thread.

    narciso (02f62d)

  8. It wasn’t targeting Muslims, it was specifically targeting six problematic nations. Anyone who argues otherwise is missing the big picture.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. And we know who the plaintiff and what his motivation is, it’s not economic, it’s Hijra invasion by immigration.

    narciso (02f62d)

  10. I think Congress could ban any migration except for Aztecs under 4’8″ tall and the First Amendment would not apply at all. The Establishment Clause is not a license to foreign missionaries or pilgrims.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. …and some brain matter.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. This is why I watch the magicians,andothervfare, they don’t make any pretense to be real

    narciso (02f62d)

  13. In other words, Hawaii is butt-hurt that this could upset their income.

    Bill H

    That’s one way to put it. Seems like a completely legitimate reason to file a lawsuit. A president promising to ban the Muslims seems like a stupid reason for Hawaii’s tourism and other industries to suffer. Perhaps this is just a noisy distraction to make Trump seem like a valiant fighter against the left, on something with almost no real benefit to this country. Meanwhile, the real immigration challenge is going to be lost.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  14. Both Judge Watson and former President Obama graduated from Harvard Law in the same year. Obama then appoints him to the bench. Yeah, a dispassionate lawyer just trying to evenly and disinterestedly apply the law.

    JVW (5de783)

  15. Prof kingsfield would say Watson’s head is full of mush, and would be surprised he made it past one l.

    narciso (02f62d)

  16. These hack judges make me sad.

    mg (31009b)

  17. Economic hardship to the states is only for standing and only colorable at that. For a TRO when the judge is hearing only from one side. It is not the same as a cause of action — that a State’s economic or diversity or humanitarian interests can interfere with the heretofore absolute authority of Congress over immigration and foreign relations.

    nk (dbc370)

  18. They’ll need some other hook, such as invidiousness that violates the Constitution and that would be radically new (judge-made) law. The current state of the law is that we owe nothing to non-citizens outside our borders.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. This knavery is what neuhaus warned in the first things symposium 20 years ago.

    narciso (02f62d)

  20. Bill H (383c5d) — 3/15/2017 @ 5:54 pm

    Hawaii is butt-hurt that this could upset their income.

    Except that that’s not true. It is conceivable, maybe, that there might be one person or two at their colleges affected by this. The tourism claim is ridiculous. DO any tourists to Hawaii come from Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria or Iran? Even Iran.

    The essential problem with this is that none of the travel that Trump wants to stop is, in fact, detrimental to the United States (given all the otehr precautions taken) Trump is just amending the law by presidential fiat and that power that he’s exercising wasn’t given to the president of the United States with the idea that he would utilize it without good reason. But that there is no good reason for any of this may not be a legal claim.

    This version is different from the previous one in that:

    1) Iraq is off the list.

    2) It does not apply to citizens of the 6 named countries who are also citizens of some other country.

    3) It does not revoke any visas (except those issued after Jan 27, the date of the frst order)

    4) It takes effect 10 days after it is signed.

    5) Syrian refugees are not banned permanently. There is only the ban on all refugees for 120 days.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  21. The ruling has little to do with the Executive Order but mostly to do with the campaign. Democrats have had trouble accepting their losses going back to the Civil War.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  22. Also,

    6) There is no indicated preference for taking refugees from religious groups that are miinorities in their country of origin.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  23. As POTUS, Trump has plenary power, the power to make these decisions. Rogue judges do not. It is not a ban on Muslims, the EO specifies six countries that either have no viable government and/or are known terrorist states. It’s pure, unadulterated horsesh*t to argue otherwise.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Black were dissenting, strongly, against judicial overreaching fifty years ago. I can’t remember which one mentioned Jackson’s “Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it”, warning about loss of respect for the courts’ judgments if that continued, in an opinion.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. They don’t care Sammeh,the lead atty, katyal defended ubl’s driver, Hamdan, who waz detained with a standard issue equipment in Afghan sedans, a rocket launcher.

    narciso (02f62d)

  26. Bill H… isn’t that hit on Hawaiian tourism something that they are openly pointing to as part of their pushback?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. I have to confess, though, that I had a very nice judge and an even nicer State’s Attorney, today, so it’s not ALL bad. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  28. The pause doesn’t effect 85% of all moslems, but here again is the lawfare you saw in the harrith and al silmi instances

    narciso (02f62d)

  29. Ot if you liked homeland this is why it’s no good this season, a cuny professor who is a Soros fellow.

    narciso (02f62d)

  30. Ben Shapiro (no Trump lover he) on twitter:

    “This decision is truly ridiculous. It’s basically “We hate Trump, so f*** the law.”

    Harkin (8d55f0)

  31. Where in the Constitution does it allow the states to overrule immigration decisions? I’m asking because when Texas and Arizona decide to jail illegals and build a wall I want to hear how that’s the sole purview of the federal government.

    NJRob (54da42)

  32. ‘It is not a ban on Muslims, the EO specifies six countries that either have no viable government and/or are known terrorist states. It’s pure, unadulterated horsesh*t to argue otherwise.” Col. Haiku

    Amen.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  33. With all due respect to the courts, the President is Commander-in-Chief, these countries are among those that the 9/11 AUMF applied to, and his order is related to that war. Trump would be well within his rights to ignore the court’s unconstitutional aggrandizement of its powers.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. I will point out that we are engaged in armed conflict in Syria. The President’s war powers are not fanciful.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  35. Say, when do these Gorsuch hearings start anyway?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. If you liked homeland this is why it’s no good this season

    Stopped watching half-way through the second episode. Good to see my impression wasn’t hasty.

    Showtime has done this before. The first season of Sleeper Cell was EXCELLENT. The second season became an exercise in moral equivalence.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  37. March 20th at last count.

    narciso (02f62d)

  38. I hate when they do that, the second season did indulge in some of that,

    narciso (02f62d)

  39. DO any tourists to Hawaii come from Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria or Iran? Even Iran.

    Well, at least one student came from Kenya, once upon a time.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  40. But it also showed the nature of the enemy and the complicity of our good friends in the kingdom.

    narciso (02f62d)

  41. Another so-called judge.

    AZ Bob (5b0c5f)

  42. I am willing to bet that this decision had less to do with Trump’s statements about radical Islam than they do about this judge’s statements about Trump.

    Someone ought to investigate that.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  43. But it also showed the nature of the enemy and the complicity of our good friends in the kingdom.

    The second season of Sleeper Cell was about how the US government was just as evil as al Qaeda. I kid you not.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  44. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

    To me, that takes down Trump’s whole facade right there. Trump couldn’t help but reveal his intentions of banning Muslims. Only discriminating against some of them doesn’t prove anything. He’s lost this before it began, simply because he’s a bigmouth.

    It’s interesting to see the logic play out here. It’s where law and philosophy (logic) intersect.

    Tillman (a95660)

  45. This also goes to show that Congress needs to reform the Article III courts, eliminating individual judges’ powers to enjoin federal authorities, and requiring a panel of non-senior appellate judges to rule on the merits before the Executive can be stopped from exercising his authority.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  46. To me, that takes down Trump’s whole facade right there.

    FDR made no secret of his dislike for Jews. So, I guess he should have been stopped from declaring war on Germany since Jews were German citizens in disproportionate numbers. The facade of being against Nazis was just a dodge.

    /sarc (which is all that comment deserves)

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  47. Tillman needs some help understanding plenary power granted a president on matters of protecting the homeland. Typical lefty.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  48. A reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that Judge Watson’s ruling was aimed at disfavoring a President towards whom the judge has strong objections.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  49. Add to that, fdr had a 20 year old anti Japanese animus.

    narciso (02f62d)

  50. If the judge, even once, has said anything critical or dismissive of President Trump, his order should be vacated by the same logic that animates his order.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  51. I’m keeping with hickory, it’s past time to ignore these zampolit masquerading as jurists.

    narciso (02f62d)

  52. 48. That’s ridiculous on several levels Kevin.

    Tillman (a95660)

  53. The “tourism, etc” argument cannot be allowed to stand as a basis for standing as it allows states to have standing on nearly any issue whatsoever. If an infinitesimal effect on any state function, or private entity withing the state, is sufficient to establish the harm needed for standing, then the entire idea of standing is kaput.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  54. Tilman,

    So is your argument and the judge’s screed that underlies it. The judge has no power to enjoin the actions of the commander-in-chief on ANY matter that even tangentially relates to an ongoing war.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  55. I’m keeping with hickory, it’s past time to ignore these zampolit masquerading as jurists.

    Were it not for the upcoming Gorsuch coronation, I’d agree. But by the time this reaches the Supreme Court, he’ll be a justice.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  56. Hawaii seems an excellent location for the next one or two thousands Syrians that must be allowed in. They could even fly across the Pacific and would not even have to stop on US soil.

    Mike K (f469ea)

  57. So even though the ban came down many days ago, the judge waited until just before it would go into effect to issue his order – to maximize the impact in case he was reversed by the 9th Circuit. That is… injudicious.

    If they can take Trump’s campaign rhetoric into account to determine the true motives behind a policy, does that mean every gun control bill by people who made intemperate remarks about America being better off with severely limited private gun ownership is unconstitutional?

    Every environmental reg by Obama, who said he intended to bankrupt coal companies, was motivated by animus rather than a desire to protect the environment?

    This line of reasoning is insane.

    Trump’s travel ban is not, and never was, a pure manifestation of his id. All policy represents compromise among dozens of factors. Pleasing various interest groups, not upsetting the public, etc. Trump’s desires are just one factor out of many in what form the travel ban ultimately takes.

    Make no mistake: leftists intend for this new line of reasoning to go in one direction only: blocking Republicans from getting stuff done. And, I shouldn’t need to remind you, how quickly, and on such thin evidence, that leftists jump to conclusions about our motives.

    If the travel ban is blocked because Trump is racist, then anything Mitt Romney wanted to do is also unconstitutional because you will remember that they called him–Mittens!–racist. Remember, they said the Tea Party was racist. The Tea Party! We are all terrible racists and nothing we do will ever be legitimate in their eyes. A judicial doctrine that enshrines leftist prejudices as the law of the land… No! Hell No!

    Daryl Herbert (7be116)

  58. As you might note from the link at 12, effendi sheikh doesn’t intend this to stay in hawaii.

    narciso (02f62d)

  59. Trump could carve out an exception for Hawaii, and perhaps declare that all visa applicants wishing asylum in Hawaii will be approved.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  60. LEt’s say that a President talked about religious “bitter clingers” and how they loved their guns, who then goes on to issue an executive order that affects gun possession. I guess that could be blocked.

    Or maybe his agencies just issue orders that require religious people to obtain abortion insurance. If the President has, in any way, derided those who oppose abortion, well any state can get an injunction. Right?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  61. And not only their own residents. Fewer people being born in California affects Texas’ tourism industry, so abortion laws in California are now federally suspect.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  62. 48. “That’s ridiculous on several levels Kevin.”

    Tillman (a95660) — 3/15/2017 @ 8:40 pm

    Their reliance on magical thinking is a common malady that affects this breed.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  63. They found a same judge on the 9th circuit jay bybee.

    narciso (02f62d)

  64. Well sanity is,a relative term in the 9th circus.

    narciso (02f62d)

  65. @28 Colonel Haiku

    I’d like to know how many Hawaiian tourists the six banned countries produced.

    Pinandpuller (bd3fda)

  66. @67

    Sorry, I was just watching Amy Shumer.

    Pinandpuller (bd3fda)

  67. Kevin M, narciso

    I was just catching up on Billions tonight and Mark Cuban was on this episode. He made some comments about not inheriting his money and being able to spot bullsh*t so I figured that was a shot at Trump.

    Pinandpuller (bd3fda)

  68. I remember when that doc and the nurse came back from ebola-land and thought they ought to be able to bowl in Brooklyn or go on trail rides in Maine without stopping in quarantine. I suppose a Hawaiian judge might have a particular problem with that.

    Pinandpuller (bd3fda)

  69. An ebola epidemic in New York would SURELY impact Hawaiian tourism…

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  70. Just another hack lawyer trying to legislate my life. Lawyers and the herd they attract are bad for America.

    mg (31009b)

  71. When judges can meddle in other branches of govt. all lawyers should be disbarred.

    mg (31009b)

  72. Maybe Trump should send them all to Hawaii

    crazy (d3b449)

  73. Yes the guy who was shorting airline stocks while his colleagues were dying.

    narciso (825758)

  74. Kevin @ 61:
    That sounds a lot like my Greek island(s) solution (debt forgiveness in exchange for housing refugees).

    urbanleftbehind (e8c1dc)

  75. Ok, mg, let’s do it without lawyers. F**k the law that says whether the President can or cannot do this! Let’s analyze it without the f***ing law:

    1. I’ll trust any judge over a loon like Trump and the traitor Ryan;
    2. State’s rights! The states have the right to control who their residents and visitors are. We can keep out any damn foreigners we please no matter what the federal government says, and we’ll let in anyone we damn well please no matter what the f***ing federal government says.

    nk (dbc370)

  76. “After Trump secured the nomination, Obama’s people filed a wiretapping request. As he was on the verge of winning, they did it again. After he won, they are doing everything they can to bring him down.

    It was always going to come down to this.

    One is the elected President of the United States. The other is the Anti-President who commands a vast network that encompasses the organizers of OFA, the official infrastructure of the DNC and Obama Anonymous, a shadow government of loyalists embedded in key positions across the government.

    A few weeks after the election, I warned that Obama was planning to run the country from outside the White House. And that the “Obama Anonymous” network of staffers embedded in the government was the real threat. Since then Obama’s Kalorama mansion has become a shadow White House. And the Obama Anonymous network is doing everything it can to bring down an elected government.”

    http://politichicks.com/2017/03/daniel-greenfield-obamas-third-term/

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  77. Way way OT, but this made me think of DCSCA’s assertions about military expenditures and their inherent expandability: http://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-general-says-ally-used-231540367.html

    urbanleftbehind (e8c1dc)

  78. exPEND-ability

    urbanleftbehind (e8c1dc)

  79. And the plot – and it is a PLOT – thickens…

    https://spectator.org/how-john-brennan-and-some-brits-tried-to-tip-the-election-to-hillary/

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  80. Typical judge shopping. Need to impeach the lot of them and start over.

    On the other hand, the budget looks like a good start.

    NJRob (43d957)

  81. Sorry, I was just watching Amy Shumer.

    Pinandpuller (bd3fda) — 3/15/2017 @ 10:14 pm

    Now… there’s a REAL waste of time.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  82. Right you want to guess Watson’s,I ever was influenced by bell and ogletree of critical legal studies, it’s too much of a coincidence.

    This is ubl’s drivers atty, propping up one of the flying sheikhs remember them.

    narciso (69bae6)

  83. Watson is import from people’s republic having been a us atty in the late 90s

    narciso (69bae6)

  84. I would have assumed a “Derrick Watson” was another type of minority, or a white southerner. We dont get those kind of names on white boys in the Chi.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  85. What’s the word for native born Hawaiian?

    narciso (60c2d3)

  86. I should defer to Steve 57, or other well traveled men of accomplishment, but here goes:
    Kanaka is for native (but only kanakas should refer to each other as kanakas, much like the N word) and Haole is a non-native (particularly a whitey).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  87. We’ll see how it shakes out. A bunch of clowns are hollering for the end of checks and balances – no surprise there. More sophisticated observers realize that the law may be on Trump’s side, but that may not be enough. If Trump can manage to make a competent legal argument, he might see this EO proceed to enforcement. If not, it will fizzle out again.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  88. nk (dbc370) — 3/16/2017 @ 6:50 am

    The states have the right to control who their residents and visitors are. We can keep out any damn foreigners we please…and we’ll let in anyone we damn well please

    Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the United States constitution, and see also what Article I, section 8, Clause 4 says and does NOT say, and the Tenth amendment.

    no matter what the federal government says,

    Unless the federal government says they are no longer foreigners. Article I, section 8, Clause 4, and Artivle IV, Section 2, Clause 1, and the Fourteenth amendment, Section 1,. clause 1 in the middle. (privileges and immunities)

    Sammy Finkelman (3ce3e5)

  89. However, the Congress also has the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, (Artivle I, Section 8, Clause 3) and thus prevent, or attempt to prevent, foreigners from reaching a state in the first place, or at least paying anyone else to transport them, at least legally; and there’s also aspects of national defense possible here (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) and see also Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (th necessary and proper clause)

    However, the Congress is not the same thing as the president, and we get into issues of how much power can be delegated and, if so, do the president’s declarations (for instance, that admisisons of some certain classes of foreigners would be detrimental) have to be factual, or significant or mean anything. If it doesn’t have to mean anything, is that too much delegation?

    Sammy Finkelman (3ce3e5)

  90. 79.

    “After Trump secured the nomination, Obama’s people filed a wiretapping request. As he was on the verge of winning, they did it again.

    The question here is:

    IS THAT TRUE?

    Sammy Finkelman (3ce3e5)

  91. nk – Can’t someone get rid of all district judges? District judges are not mentioned in the constitution, are they?

    mg (31009b)

  92. Leviticus,

    You claim to want to be a lawyer, but say the law isn’t enough when it comes to a legal decision.

    Hope no one is foolish enough to ever hire you.

    NJRob (8c79fc)

  93. And neither are Appeals Court judges, who only were authorized in 1891. They had something else before. And until 1925, the Supreme Court had to hear every case that was appealed to it (Now they vote. 4 out of 9 are needed to take up a case.)

    At one time, Supreme Court justices “rode circuit”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_circuit_court

    The United States circuit courts were the original intermediate level courts of the United States federal court system. They were established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. They had trial court jurisdiction over civil suits of diversity jurisdiction and major federal crimes. They also had appellate jurisdiction over the United States district courts. The Judiciary Act of 1891 (26 Stat. 826, also known as the Evarts Act) transferred their appellate jurisdiction to the newly created United States circuit courts of appeals, which are now known as the United States courts of appeals. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the circuit courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S. district courts.

    During the 100 years that the Justices of the Supreme Court “rode circuit”, many justices complained about the effort required.[1] Riding circuit took a great deal of time (about half of the year) and was both physically demanding and dangerous. However, “members of Congress held firm to the belief that circuit riding benefited the justices and the populace, and they turned a deaf ear to the corps of justices that desired to abolish the practice”.[1]

    The Judiciary Act of 1869 established a separate circuit court (and allowed the hiring of judges specifically to handle the cases) but the act required that Supreme Court justices had to ride circuit once every two years. However, this came to a final end in 1891 when the Circuit Courts of Appeals Act (Evarts Act) was passed.[1]

    The net result of riding circuit was that, in many cases which ended up before the Supreme Court, a member of the Supreme Court had already heard the case and issued a ruling. In a real sense, the Supreme Court was, in such cases, acting as an en banc panel; i.e. hearing a case upon which one of their members had already passed judgment…

    …Each circuit court was composed initially of two Supreme Court justices and the district judge of the district, although in 1793 Congress provided that a quorum of one justice and one district judge could hold a court. After 1802, only one justice was assigned to each circuit, and a quorum could consist of a single justice or judge. This “circuit riding” arrangement meant that the Supreme Court justices spent the majority of the year traveling to each district within their circuit to conduct trials, and spent far less time assembled at the capital to hear appeals. The burden of circuit riding was somewhat alleviated by the appointment of circuit judges under the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, but not abolished until the creation of the intermediate courts of appeals in 1891.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ce3e5)

  94. He went to unicorn law school.

    narciso (03b8dc)

  95. I went to a law school that teaches you that marks on paper are interpreted by human beings. But by all means, go hire a lawyer who doesn’t understand that. See how far it gets you.

    Or just keep whining about how unfair it is that judges keep interpreting the law one way when it’s OBVIOUS that the law should be interpreted another way. That’s really effective and endearing, too.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  96. Who are you gonna believe? Me, or these so-called judges?

    Leviticus channeling Trumpkins (efada1)

  97. mg, the federal courts and their jurisdiction are 99% Congress-created. All the Constitution mandates is a Supreme Court with original (trial court) jurisdiction in cases involving foreign diplomats and lawsuits between two states. Everything else, including the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is by statute enacted by Congress.

    nk (dbc370)

  98. Apparently the judge has NOTHING in his argument but “I don’t trust this evil President’s motives.” This makes the ruling wholly political and, frankly, an abuse of power worth of impeachment.

    What we are seeing here is a coup: a coup by the New Class; by the Democratic Party; by far leftists embedded in the bureaucracy and the federal judiciary. Our duly elected president has issued an order that is plainly within his constitutional powers, and leftists have conspired to abuse legal processes to block it. They are doing so in order to serve the interests of the Democratic Party and the far-left movement. This is the most fundamental challenge to democracy in our lifetimes.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/a-liberal-coup-is-in-progress.php

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  99. Ok, mg, let’s do it without lawyer

    That’s pretty much what the Hawaii judge did. The ONLY basis for his order is that he believes that Trump has a hidden agenda and is ruling against that agenda.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  100. Similarly, a judge could have ruled against the Iraqi AUMF:

    “The court determines that the President is lying about WMDs and is really just getting revenge for a plot against his father. Therefore the AUMF is declared invalid and the armed forces are directed to refuse all orders regarding conflict with Iraq.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  101. You can’t totally blame the courts for the power grab. The crapweasels in Congress and the White House have not only let them do it, they encourage them to do it. A good example is McCain-Feingold. Republicans and Democrats passed it; the Shrub signed it; then they left it up to the Supreme Court to strip out all the crap that violated the First Amendment.

    Look at the exclusionary rule. (Like Miranda?) It’s a rule of evidence and the federal rules of evidence are enacted by Congress under its authority to regulate the proceedings of the federal courts. But has any Congressweasel or White House denizen attempted to overturn it by statute? Nope. Only Chief Justice Warren Burger asked that, and he was ignored.

    Fack is, your democratically-elected representatives are not totally comfortable with democracy even when they’re in charge of it. They want a Boss to tell them what to do, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  102. Kevin, by “hidden agenda” you of course mean the stuff Trump actually was shouting, right?

    He sought to shutdown immigration on the basis of religious belief. He sought assistance from Rudy on how to ban muslims legally. This kind of nutty crap has painted his administration into a corner. Leviticus is right. Trump’s statements on his intent mean we can’t just trust his claims about his intentions.

    Of course, this is why Trump should have simply let Congress do its job and signed an action into law.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  103. Leviticus’s joke raises a great point as well. When Trump calls the judicial branch “so called judges” he is making a political move on a political issue, and he’s doing it very poorly. The Supreme Court, if this ever gets to them, will want to assert the judicial branch as co-equal, and Trump makes it hard for them to agree with him.

    Trump likes to humiliate those who disagree with him, and this has gotten him into the oval office, but so far he’s been unable to govern as a result. No one but his sychophants wants him to succeed. While there will be more blaming and insulting, there will not be much success.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  104. “The ONLY basis for his order is that he believes that Trump has a hidden agenda and is ruling against that agenda.”

    – Kevin M

    Bullsh*t. The judge specifically noted that this had nothing to do with a “hidden” agenda, and everything to do with numerous statements that Trump himself made indicating invidious intent toward members of a particular religion. Now everyone wants to pretend that Trump never made those statements, or that they don’t matter to this analysis. Well, he did make them, and the opinion quotes authoritative precedent allowing the judge to consider them in the TRO analysis.

    Once again, Trump has been hoisted on the petard of his own idiocy.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  105. Because he was exactly right on, they did the same with the detainee cases under w, same mo the atty in hamdan, then Hamdi and boumedienne, wiping out 140 years of precedrnt.

    narciso (7658f4)

  106. Kevin, by “hidden agenda” you of course mean the stuff Trump actually was shouting, right?

    So what if he was. Next time, it will just be a statement. Time after that it will just be an inkling. The precedent that a court can rule, based SOLELY on political statements 1) impacts the first amendment in its core area of political speech and 2) opens the door to ALL KINDS of external information about motive and belief.

    And, sadly, there are still people who cannot differentiate rhetoric and hyperbole from later sober action. We call these people “stupid” if we are kind, “intellectually dishonest” if not.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  107. “Words mean things.”

    – Some nerd, probably

    Leviticus (efada1)

  108. Yhecdesignation of those six countries was established by Congress for ample reasons, but I guess justice JAckson was wrong after all.

    narciso (7658f4)

  109. OK, I stand corrected. The judge inferred that the basis for these orders was an agenda evidenced by previous political rhetoric and this inference was the SOLE BASIS for his injunction.

    You really don’t see the problem with that?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  110. “Later sober action,” like not including Saudi Arabia on the “anti-terrorist” list. Gotcha.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  111. Shorter, from the Court: “Hey, you political candidates: Watch what you say. Even if the voters like it, Big Brother is listening!”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  112. yes you’ll cite john adams but it doesnt coumt.

    https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/issues/hawaii-hires-al-qaedas-best-lawyer-lead-suit-trump/amp/

    narciso (7658f4)

  113. It’s not the province of the Courts to tell Congress the President which foreigners he may consider enemies of the United States. Sometimes, not even which citizens. Korematsu has never been overruled.

    nk (dbc370)

  114. narciso,

    How is he “exactly right on”?

    Citizens are a statistically more significant threat than just banning “muslims” while pretending you’re not. The very way Trump is so two faced on this speaks to how wrong he realizes he is.

    A lot of people seem to think that when their party holds the White House, that their president has some kind of absolute authority over things like immigration. I’ve read that a few times… Trump as president has complete authority on the matter of immigration. Folks who say stuff like this should never consider themselves conservatives, because they are rejecting the concept of limited government. Partisanship does not outrank the US Constitution, itself created specifically because our government does not have absolute authority over anything. We are not ruled by men or parties, we are ruled by law. One of the most important laws is that our government can never prohibit the free exercise of religion. Trump cannot “ban muslims”.

    It’s up to a finder of fact to determine if that’s what he did, but to say there’s evidence that this is what he wanted to do is an understatement.

    This is one of many ways that Trump’s fans have left the conservative movement to create an alternative right wing. This is why the term “Alt-Right” is useful for conservatives who want to criticize this partisanship and dishonesty.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  115. yeah see how far that gets you

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  116. Because that wouldn’t be considered declaring Muslim off limits right, the cradle of Islam itself!

    narciso (7658f4)

  117. “Later sober action,” like not including Saudi Arabia on the “anti-terrorist” list. Gotcha.

    “Look, squirrel!”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  118. When it comes to discrimination, your intent does matter. When it comes to determining your intent, your claims that you wish to discriminate on the basis of, say, religious belief, also matters. Trump won the campaign, but the way he won lost him a lot of battles in the future.

    Are you SURE you want to allow campaign rhetoric to substitute for legal argument? Because I happen to remember a certain healthcare bill that was sold on the basis of “If you like your doctor, you can keep them” and “The mandate is not a tax”. According to your reasoning, any judge would now be able to strike it down as unconstitutional whenever they felt like it…

    SaveFarris (3c0029)

  119. Right banning citizens is a much easier question, as with David bier this is a very dishonest argument.

    narciso (7658f4)

  120. It’s not the province of the Courts to tell Congress the President which foreigners he may consider enemies of the United States. Sometimes, not even which citizens. Korematsu has never been overruled.

    nk

    If that’s all he’s doing. Too bad his lips were loose with the grandiose promises to the alt-right in the campaign, or he wouldn’t have to waste so much time on this kind of lawsuit, and the next and the next after that.

    But Trump wants the fights and the press. He seeks an outraged base, afraid of terrorists killing them because of the democrats/al qaeda/brown people. When all his supporters are screaming about that, they aren’t worried about amnesty or Trump care or results.

    New York values indeed.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  121. “The judge inferred that the basis for these orders was an agenda evidenced by previous political rhetoric and this inference was the SOLE BASIS for his injunction. You really don’t see a problem with that?”

    – Kevin M

    Not really. We’re talking about a TRO against the Government. As a general matter, I don’t find those particularly alarming – I guess I’ve gotten more conservative in my old age, like everyone always said I would.

    In addition, the judge in this case did what judges do constantly: find that one prong of a three-prong test is not met, and decline to analyze the rest. I tend think they should show the work for all three prongs, but there are some reasonable jurisprudential reasons for declining to do so.

    Finally, and importantly: there was nothing ambiguous about Trump’s statements. Take the facts of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye then throw in a bunch of statements from Hialeah city officials about a “Santeria ban,” and you basically have this situation.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  122. “Shorter, from the Court: “Hey, you political candidates: Watch what you say. Even if the voters like it, Big Brother is listening!”

    – Kevin M

    More like “Hey, you political candidates – watch what you say. The First Amendment protects rights beyond speech.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  123. Are you SURE you want to allow campaign rhetoric to substitute for legal argument? Because I happen to remember a certain healthcare bill that was sold on the basis of “If you like your doctor, you can keep them” and “The mandate is not a tax”. According to your reasoning, any judge would now be able to strike it down as unconstitutional whenever they felt like it…

    SaveFarris (3c0029) — 3/16/2017 @ 10:41 am

    I love how you assume I want Obamacare to be preserved because I criticized Trump. LOL you guys.

    But no, your argument sucks. When you say you want to violate the first amendment, that’s an argument you wanted to violate the first amendment. When you overpromise on the benefits of Obamacare in some dumb way that has nothing to do with the constitution, that really doesn’t impact its constitutionality. Obamacare should have been struck down on numerous grounds, such as the House not originating it, its weird tax/penalty BS, and it being an egregious overstep, far out of the bounds of a federal government (but then Wickard).

    So by all means strike them both down. A nation where I can practice my religion and buy whatever insurance I want is a nation I prefer over Trumpcare and muslim bans.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  124. The judge is a political hack, I’ve pointed out this is not about tourism or graduate students, it’s in keeping with the legal arm of the moslem brotherhood.

    narciso (7658f4)

  125. “LEGAL INSURRECTION: Hawaii TRO and 9th Circuit En Banc Denial effectively strip Trump of executive powers. “At this point, only the Supreme Court can restore presidential powers.”

    Makes you wonder what Hawaii TRO and the 9th thought of President Obama’s “pen and phone.” ‘

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/259921/

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  126. “The judge is a political hack.”

    – narciso

    Cool. See how far that argument gets you. Maybe throw a few more exclamation points on it for effect, though.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  127. narciso, I think it’s “So called judge is a political hack”

    It’s nice that Trump’s fans are beginning to recognize that being a political hack is a bad thing so I do encourage the concept.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  128. To recap:

    * Candidate Trump declares that radical Islam is a clear and present danger.
    * Candidate Trump suggests a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, based on distrust of the Democrat administration.
    * Candidate Trump is lambasted by all the usual suspects for being a bigot.
    * Candidate Trump says that he doesn’t hate Islam, he loves America and wants to protect her.
    * Candidate Trump is lambasted by all the usual suspects for being a bigot.
    * Trump is elected President by voters who have heard all this.
    * President Trump issues an EO blocking entry by nationals of 6 Middle East countries.
    * President Trump is lambasted by all the usual suspects for being a bigot.
    * A court rules, for reasons it does not explain, that the EO is the product of a bigoted mind and must be enjoined.
    * President Trump issues a far more limited EO blocking the issuance of visas to nationals of 6 Middle East countries.
    * President Trump is lambasted by all the usual suspects for being a bigot.
    * A court rules that the EO is the product of a bigoted mind and must be enjoined.

    This of course could be the pattern for many things. Don’t like Trump’s budget? Play the bigot card. Even IMAGINED bigotry will do, like Kayne saying W doesn’t like black folk. If the bigot card isn’t handy, try the liar card.

    THIS is the country you want?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  129. This just in: Trump’s Executive Branch seeks to STRIP JUDICIAL POWERS over the FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!

    “At this point, only the guys who agree with me will be right” says LEGAL INSURRECTION.”

    File under “Limited Government used to be a thing the GOP supported when it wasn’t in power.”

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  130. “At this point, only the Supreme Court can restore presidential powers.”

    Not true. The powers remain. It is up to Trump to insist on them.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  131. THIS is the country you want?

    Kevin M

    Good question.

    The answer is no. Trump will indeed face a lot of legal challenges due to his incompetent commentary, often raising a lot of valid questions about whether he is violating the constitution. File under things that aren’t my fault. I didn’t even vote for the jackass.

    I imagine President Pence would have a much easier time running things than Trump. Binary choice!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  132. I don’t particularly care for trump, eleventy, but this very modest pause is perfectly reasonable.

    narciso (7658f4)

  133. “At this point, only the Supreme Court can restore presidential powers.”

    Not true. The powers remain. It is up to Trump to insist on them.

    Kevin M

    You really think it’s a valid presidential power from a democrat president to ban Mormons with green cards from re-entering the country, simply because the president determined, in the face of facts to the contrary, that they are a threat?

    Remember when you grant absurd powers to one side, you’re granting it to both sides.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  134. Leviticus believes that personal animus overrides the rule of law and the Constitution. That’s why he’s a leftist.

    Muh feelings.

    NJRob (43d957)

  135. Leviticus believes that personal animus overrides the rule of law and the Constitution. That’s why he’s a leftist.

    Muh feelings.

    NJRob

    LEFTIST LEFTIST LEFTIST

    … ahem the guy is arguing for limited government so NJRob is the leftist right now

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  136. So, you say you don’t, then you justify the result you want by the actions that you say you don’t want. Ends justify means. Good to know.

    It is sad that you do not see the ENDLESS problems with courts making decisions based on statements, or more accurately media reports of statements, that candidates have made on the hustings. They say lots of things that are just red meat for the crowd. Even if courts attempt to differentiate rhetoric from agenda, not all will see things the same way.

    Endless endless problems. Weaponizing the federal courts is yet another leftist attack on the Republic.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  137. Immigration is an enumerated power, in that document which is over ‘s hundred years old’

    narciso (7658f4)

  138. Because they miss Obama…

    “What we are seeing here is a coup: a coup by the New Class; by the Democratic Party; by far leftists embedded in the bureaucracy and the federal judiciary. Our duly elected president has issued an order that is plainly within his constitutional powers, and leftists have conspired to abuse legal processes to block it. They are doing so in order to serve the interests of the Democratic Party and the far-left movement. This is the most fundamental challenge to democracy in our lifetimes.”

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/a-liberal-coup-is-in-progress.php

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  139. Someone is playing with a hell of a straw man. Green cards? Citizens?

    We’re talking about foreigners from a fracking terrorist state.

    They have ZERO rights here.

    Period.

    NJRob (43d957)

  140. I wonder which side of the issue Cruz, Gohmert, etc. are on?

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  141. Troll power, NJRob… troll power.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  142. Someone believes conservatives support open borders and unlimited immigration. That we don’t have a right to decide who is allowed to come here and to say otherwise is big government.

    I can’t begin to imagine how stupid a thought that is. And it’s all because of irrational hatred and personal distaste of an individual who won the Presidency. Stupid.

    NJRob (43d957)

  143. You are right Colonel. It’s just sad to see how far down the rabbit hole some have gone.

    NJRob (43d957)

  144. “Leviticus believes that personal animus overrides the rule of law and the Constitution”

    – NJRob

    I don’t know whose “personal animus” you’re referencing, and I doubt you do either. “The Constitution” has a number of specific provisions – which are being “overridden”? Unless you believe in a truly unlimited executive (staunch conservative that you are, after all) you believe in limitations on executive power. Limitations to executive power come from the Legislature, and from the Judiciary. Separate powers, with boundaries maintained by checks and balances. Civics 101.

    A judge has issued a TRO. The executive can appeal, and other judges can assess. If the Legislature thinks the Judiciary has mis-interpreted the law, the Legislature can change the law if it wants to. If the Legislature thinks the Judiciary has mis-interpreted the Constitution, the Legislature can amend the Constitution if it wants to.

    This is “the rule of law,” if you ever want to be more specific.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  145. This is dissapointing, re the nsc and I don’t buy the figleaf about Turkish interests, they wanted to cripple an effective fighter.

    narciso (7658f4)

  146. ahem the guy is arguing for limited government

    No he’s arguing for more power to the unelected judicial branch at the expense of the elected ones. He’s also arguing against the Executive’s power as the Executive, insisting that courts need have a veto, which can be cast for imaginative reasons (such as imagining that a candidate’s statements are the main motivation in a later action).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  147. Green cards? Citizens?

    Neither needs a visa to enter the USA. This order was only about issuing visas.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  148. You keep coming back to “imaginative reasons.” You continue to ignore Trump’s very real words on this topic. The judge saw it differently.

    So, appeal. Win your appeal. Change the law, if need be. Republicans control both houses of the legislature, and will soon have a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

    Go about the day-to-day business of governing in a system deliberately designed to impede rash executive action.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  149. This will be Exhibit #1 next time someone talks about “politicizing the Courts.” Obama has weaponized them. The idea that Obama is attempting to run a shadow government is gaining strength, it seems.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  150. Also, I’ve been arguing against an expansionist executive since the early Obama years. Back when you guys were arguing for the same thing. And now, with Trump at the helm, come the tears about obstructionism of a popular Executive.

    You’re not fooling anyone.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  151. You continue to ignore Trump’s very real words on this topic. The judge saw it differently.

    And you continue to ignore that it is new (and terrible) to use MEDIA REPORTS of what a candidate said to pass judgement on the legality of an order that does not even touch upon the discrimination asserted.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  152. Yeah, “shadow government” is definitely the soundest conclusion to draw from this judge’s TRO.

    Maybe go win the appeal? Just a thought. I mean, you have the power of the mighty unstoppable DOJ behind you, after all.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  153. But go ahead. Correct me. Over the years candidates have said all kinds of hot-headed things. Find me a single instance of a court using a candidate’s rhetoric to declare an otherwise constitutional law or order invalid.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  154. Maybe go win the appeal?

    Maybe go impeach the judge?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  155. I would love to see the GOP with 70 seats in the Senate and the first order of business is the mass conviction of every Obama-appointed judge.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  156. But that would be wrong.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  157. “You continue to ignore that it is new (and terrible) to use MEDIA REPORTS of what a candidate said to pass judgement on the legality of an order.”

    – Kevin M

    “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.[]” SAC ¶ 38, Ex. 6 (Press Release, Donald J. Trump for President, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7, 2015), available at https://goo.gl/D3OdJJ)).

    Leviticus (efada1)

  158. “Maybe go impeach the judge?”

    – Kevin M

    Go for it. It’s a free country. There’s nothing remotely impeachable about issuing a TRO you don’t like, but give it your best shot.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  159. Maybe DOJ should challenge Judge Watson’s presumed impartiality and push for his recusal given his nakedly partisan TRO.

    crazy (d3b449)

  160. maybe we should stop nominating these obnoxious harvardfilth constitution-haters to important jobs

    ever thinka that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  161. Maybe Trump should call this judge a “Mexican,” as an exercise in “candidate rhetoric.” It would be as accurate as his previous exercise in “candidate rhetoric” with respect to Judge Curiel.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  162. I understand why Kevin M doesn’t want Trump’s statements to be taken at face value. Trump says a lot of really stupid, unconstitutional things. Maybe he should focus less on throwing unconstitutional red-meat promises to mouth-breather base and focus more on laying the difficult, detail-oriented groundwork of effective policy implementation.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  163. It was short hand for curiel’s clear conflict re amnesty related issues.

    narciso (7658f4)

  164. Oooh, “short hand.” Nice. That’s even more vague than “candidate rhetoric.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  165. “Maybe he should focus less on throwing unconstitutional red-meat promises to mouth-breather base and focus more on laying the difficult, detail-oriented groundwork of effective policy implementation.”

    Or he could declare all lawyers under the age of 30 to be persona non grata and consign them to re-education/rehabilitation “camps”.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  166. I’m sure he’d love to. Thank God for the Constitution, right? Can I get an amen?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  167. And short hand not germane to a cosumer fraud case involving real estate investment (if Judge Curiel had say either won big or lost big as a applicator of Bob Kiyosaki’s programs then sure). That was an insult witout bearing on the case he oversaw.

    urbanleftbehind (c8adc7)

  168. “In order to offset a proposed $54 billion bump in defense spending, the administration wants to take a chunk out of most other federal agencies, often in the most cartoonishly villainous ways possible. Eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Check. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps people pay their heating bills? Gone. The Chemical Safety Board, which investigates chemical accidents at federal facilities? See ya.

    But those sort of programs amount to rounding errors in the context of the federal budget. The big proposed hits are to the State Department (nearly 30 percent), Environmental Protection Agency (31 percent), Agriculture Department (21 percent) and Department of Labor (20 percent).

    And again, this is all to fund a 10 percent increase for the Pentagon, not even to reduce the precious deficit that conservatives always pretend to be worried about.”

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-03-16/donald-trumps-skinny-budget-is-ridiculous

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  169. How ’bout a one-way bus ticket instead?

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  170. Tell ’em pension shortfall’s coming and it’s bringing Hell with it…

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  171. No amen for the Constitution, Haiku? Sad!

    Leviticus (efada1)

  172. You has a sad when it’s convenient…

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  173. Besides, you live in New Mexico and a coyote won’t eat a New Mexican lawyer…

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  174. So… no worries…

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  175. I’m just happy to live in a country with checks and balances.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  176. Except yer mouth writes checks that yer azz can’t cash… or somethin’ like that…

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  177. “Or somethin’ like that.” Another good one! “A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States… or somethin’ like that.”

    Trump should hire you as a consultant. I mean, it couldn’t hurt, right?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  178. Hmmm… brilliant law professor William Jacobson or brash, young New Mexican wisenheimer/lawyer… binary choice I can live with!!!

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  179. I’ll go with “Judge with the power to decide the case,” for my money. Not that I don’t respect brilliant law professors, of course.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  180. That ain’t worth coyote scat…

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  181. Lawyer on with retainer

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  182. You guys have mounted a really compelling defense of Trump’s EO in this thread.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  183. The law is very clear, thats why Watson doesn’t go near it.

    narciso (7658f4)

  184. @72 Kevin M

    I was thinking more along the lines of a Judge steeped in Molokai and Father Damian lore wanting to put a stop to quarantines.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  185. Weird. Cuz I saw a bunch of caselaw citations in this paragraph:

    “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.”
    Washington, 847 F.3d at 1167–68 (citing Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v.
    City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“Official action that targets religious
    conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the
    requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254–55 (holding that a
    facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative
    history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); and
    Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–68
    (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical
    background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in
    evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory
    purpose)). The Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not “turn
    a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.” McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil
    Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 866 (2005) (citation and quotation signals
    omitted).

    Leviticus (efada1)

  186. One of the things I dislike most about a good many lawyers is that they fight more for so- called rights of people who are not American citizens over rights of actual tax paying American citizens. As narciso writes, the law is clear and a POTUS has plenary power.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  187. Kevin M

    The federal judge who overturned Prop 8 in CA-turns out he was gay! Million to one shot.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  188. Col Haiku

    LBJ created a whole new income stream for lawyers and their retinue of malcontents.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  189. “As narciso writes, the law is clear and a POTUS has plenary power.”

    – Colonel Haiku

    Cool. Go win your appeal.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  190. “Tell it to the judge,” as they say.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  191. We need to get rid of the bad hombres on the federal bench! I’m sure some of them are good people.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  192. Yet if focuses on these 6 countries and not the most populous country Indonesia. Or the kingdom which is the seat of islam

    narciso (7658f4)

  193. If you object to a fairly modest executive order like this, which puts a short delay on people coming into this country however they proclaim themselves or declare themselves, from the Sudan ( designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since ’93), from Yemen (site of ongoing conflict where we suspended embassy operations in 2015), from Libya (an active combat zone), from Iran (designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984), from Syria (designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979), from Somalia (portions of which are known terrorist safe havens and where AQ-affiliated groups operate)… if you object to a relatively short delay when the President of the United States says he needs it to make sure we can adequately vet these people, then you are acting against the best interests of your country.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  194. this EO is one of the best EO’s because of terrorism and it is a good precedent

    there’s no doubt in all of our minds that president food stamp did everything he can to weaponize the syrian terrorism rapefugees and do their unacculturated welfare-loving terror butts all up in it

    the time has come

    papa can you hear me

    for this EO

    papa can you see me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  195. Now… where do you go to get your shred of credibility back?

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  196. The Constitution?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  197. http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/03/16/t
    he-article-ii-power-to-exclude/

    narciso (7658f4)

  198. Spicer is going total ‘Captain Queeg’ on live television in the WH briefing.

    He needs a distemper booster shot.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  199. I believe cruise ships have been used to house refugees in other countries. HI has only taken in 15 refugees-I read that on the Internet.

    Anchor club hijab in front of the judges house and he can keep an eye on them. Greatful refugees can reciprocate. It might lead to chicken flavored Spam as well.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  200. Cool. I’ll see your Josh Blackman blog post and raise you a TRO issued by a federal judge who found that Trump’s invidiously discriminatory EO violated the rights of American citizens and states.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  201. I love how all of you guys still claim to be conservatives.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  202. yeah you love it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  203. Not sufficient punishment we had one impeached, has been in Congress for a decade.

    narciso (7658f4)

  204. there’s no question that John McCain’s a cowardly dangerous brainwashed menace

    the question is why is this ok

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  205. Leviticus seems to think that conservative means roll over and play dead to dictators wearing black robes.

    He’s wrong as usual.

    NJRob (d2e69b)

  206. I would love to see the GOP with 70 seats in the Senate and the first order of business is the mass conviction of every Obama-appointed judge.

    Kevin M (25

    That’s where partisanship has taken the gop. It’s right for Americans to fear this political party.

    Dustin (e76202)

  207. he’s not always wrong sometimes he’s right not wrong

    it depends on the subject, and sometimes it’s kinda subjective

    especially the subjective subjects

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  208. thanks, nk.

    mg (31009b)

  209. @207 I love how a lawyer can be so wrong visavis plenary powers of a Prez and the constitution regarding immigration!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  210. Any man so desperate to bring his MIL into his house is not assimilating to the American culture. Obama for instance.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  211. Colonel Haiku

    Black robes are magical garments like America is magical dirt.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  212. Disney has proven that if you see Goofy without his head it breaks the spell.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  213. Judges and lawyers could teach George Lucas a thing or two about the suspension of disbelief.

    Pinandpuller (aeb9b4)

  214. Magical thinkers agree, pinandpuller!

    “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power.”

    — U.S. Supreme Court in1950.

    [T]he president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    — U.S. Congress in 1952

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  215. Congress can’t authorize the President to do unconstitutional things without amending the Constitution.

    This isn’t hard.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  216. i don’t really know what to think but not eating at McDonald’s isn’t a big lift for me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  217. they get me mostly at airports i guess

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  218. Congress adopted a provision to that effect in 1952. Congress legislates, not the courts. The judges are to look within the four corners of the executive order, not opine on what was said or tweeted. This will be made clear over the next few weeks.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  219. We’ll see. If, at the end of this, the Supreme Court decides that this EO was constitutional, then Trump can proceed to enforce it as law.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  220. In the meantime, he can go f*ck himself.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  221. The court that said it could steal your property And force you to buy a product, that court.

    narciso (c718fb)

  222. If anything is to be feared, it is dictatorial rogue judges who act upon political differences and not the law.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  223. it’s the most constitutional EO ever because of the national security

    we’re lucky we got someone going to bat for us against all these terrorisms

    it’s a nice change for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  224. Colonel Haiku (08efd8) — 3/16/2017 @ 12:56 pm

    if you object to a relatively short delay when the President of the United States says he needs it to make sure we can adequately vet these people, then you are acting against the best interests of your country.

    Do you beleive any otehr president would have crafted this order?

    If not, doesn’t that mean that the true purpose of this thing is to appear to be fulfilling a campaign promise, and does not really have anything to do with trying to to adequately vet people? Now Trump talks about bringing the original one back. But the original didn’t make sense for a good reasons.

    The thing is here, that religion can be a criteria, and it’s actually important to vet Moslem preachers, AND THEY ARE IN FACT VETTED.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  225. The United States does more to establish Christianity by giving special rights of admisison to chinse Christians than anything here – so much so taht it is suspected taht many Chinese go to church in the United states to maintain eligibiility. (the less educated say they are Falun Gong)

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  226. 221. “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power.”

    — U.S. Supreme Court in1950.

    The supreme Court was looking for some source of power, because it isn’t in the constitution. So they invented it, and then n triesd to give Congress some power.

    But anyway this at most may be compared to the war power.

    And what President Trump did here is as serious as using military force. It ought to be justified and not just based on “because I said so”

    But anyway this is not aMuslim ban, even if it pertains mostly to moslems, and ignores North Korea. It is Ialamic terrorists who are trying to do things maybe, and they recruit moslems. Now they are actually not rrying to send people from those countries to the USA right now.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  227. Yes, Sammeh, another Republican would. A Democrat in the mold of Obama or Hillary Clinton would not… too much into virtue signaling and such to have any regard for or place any value in potentially disastrous results over well-intentioned bendover.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  228. Keep in mind, the president normally has access to intel that all of us don’t.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  229. Keep in mind, the President is just a cog in the Constitutional machinery. A co-equal of the judiciary.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  230. If a president – whose chief responsibilities are to protect the homeland and its citizens – is to err, it must be on the side of caution. Otherwise, he or she is not living up to what he or she was sworn in to the office to do.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  231. The judiciary has no plenary powers. A POTUS does.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  232. The day a sh*theel Hawaiian 🌺 or Maryland judge can stop a POTUS from rightfully exercising his constitutional powers is the day we are toast.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  233. A lot of fingers on the right are pointing at the judicial branch right now. Some point at the judges in Hawaii or Washington. Others include the 9th Circuit. Still others point at the judiciary. Although the perps are all judges, I think the blame rests squarely on the legal profession, more generally. The profession has tolerated this sort of nonsense for a long time. This mess is of the profession’s making, where putting the personal ahead of law is simply business as usual. It is only when the Kimberlins of this world take matters into their own hands that there is any outcry.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  234. 237.Keep in mind, the President is just a cog in the Constitutional machinery. A co-equal of the judiciary.
    Leviticus (efada1) — 3/16/2017 @ 3:30 pm

    Only till the Show Trials start, Leviticus. Then he becomes a defendant for “crimes against humanity”.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  235. yo paul ryan i like people who weren’t captured

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  236. Thor makes a good point in 241. They certainly appear to have more than their share of unethical, politically motivated, dishonest people.

    Colonel Haiku (08efd8)

  237. 244.Thor makes a good point in 241. They certainly appear to have more than their share of unethical, politically motivated, dishonest people.

    They all go to leftist law schools with leftist professors who espouse leftist ideology and you are surprised lawyers are mostly leftists, Colonel? The Constitution, therefore the law come in a distant second to leftist ideology. These days non radical leftist lawyers consider themselves moderate to conservative when in reality they are nothing more than old liberals.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  238. Since when is support for checks and balances a “leftist” stance? Since when is opposition to unilateral executive power a “leftist” stance?

    Leviticus (d4d726)

  239. Trump might have more credibility and judges might be more wary of defying him if:
    1. His constituency consisted of more than 20% of the total U.S. population;
    2. He wasn’t a buffoon who lies about anything and everything, no matter how big or how small, all the time.

    Trumpkins might do well to face the reality that the law is the only reason their orange-skinned pansy is in the Oval Office.

    nk (dbc370)

  240. that is too reductive Mr. nk

    too reductive indeed

    this country’s in big trouble and Mr. Trump was the only one running what communicated an understanding of that

    and for this I honor him

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  241. 245… no surprise, Hoagie. None at all.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  242. When I read about the engine and general condition of the auto, I knew there was only one country where this rare vehicle would be found…

    “This 1972 Mazda Bongo is a first generation example with what the seller claims is original bodywork and paint. Capable of hauling a half ton of cargo according to the ad, the van is powered by a rear-mounted 987cc four of 48 HP. Cosmetics are definitely a bit weathered, and the interior could use some sprucing up as well, but these types of things aren’t as important here as they could be with other, less work-focused types of vehicles. Find the van here on Car and Classic in Kavala, Greece…”

    http://bringatrailer.com/2017/03/16/rare-in-lhd-1972-mazda-bongo-f1000/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  243. “…weathered and rear-mounted…” classic!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  244. They can take your private property, force you to buy a product.

    narciso (b9658e)

  245. Reductive
    rəˈdəktiv/
    adjective
    adjective: reductive
    1.
    tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, especially one viewed as crude.
    “such a conclusion by itself would be reductive”
    (with reference to art) minimal.
    “he combines his reductive abstract shapes with a rippled surface”
    2.
    relating to chemical reduction.

    If you say so.

    nk (dbc370)

  246. Occams razor, any coalition would have around 1/5.

    narciso (364e8b)

  247. Judges would have bigger wallets if the clinton’s were selling law products in the Whitehouse.

    mg (31009b)

  248. everything needs to be at best only moderately reductive

    i’m keeping score you guys

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  249. 247.Since when is support for checks and balances a “leftist” stance? Since when is opposition to unilateral executive power a “leftist” stance?
    Leviticus (d4d726) — 3/16/2017 @ 4:48 pm

    If that swipe was some way aimed at me you missed. I never said nor did I intimate “support for checks and balances” or “opposition to unilateral executive power” is leftist. I said the lawyers who graduated from wholly leftist colleges are.

    Trumpkins might do well to face the reality that the law is the only reason their orange-skinned pansy is in the Oval Office.
    nk (dbc370) — 3/16/2017 @ 4:51 pm

    You might do well to face the reality that the law is the only reason anybody sits in the Oval Office. And if the leftists in the media, the celebrity entertainment leftists and you NeverTrumpers get your way a coup will end this Republic. At this point you are no longer opposing a candidate, you are supporting the lefts sedition against the government.

    You do realize at this point you are on the same side as the CPUSA, Nazi Pelosi, BLM and the NY Times, don’t you? The same side as Rosie O’Donnell, George Clooney, Cher and George Soros. I’m on the side of the 20% who don’t want to see nine Ginsburg’s on the court and 200 federal judges from the Law School of the 9th Circuit.

    I don’t give a rats ass about Trump but I do care about solidifying Republican hold on power long enough to get the courts to slow down the leftist juggernaut. Delegitimizing Trump and the Republican Party along with him is NOT a smart move. If you break it you own it.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  250. The writing is up in 50 point font, who is behind the initiative what their objective is, and they refuse to listen.

    narciso (364e8b)

  251. Did the same thing with Zimmerman, remember? I have no respect, whatsoever, for either Scot or Biondi.

    The other thing is that whatsername said she would not seek the death in any case, not just this one, and the voter elected her anyway.

    nk (dbc370)

  252. That’s a keeper, Hoagie!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  253. Apples and oranges, this was a cold blooded premeditated murder, he was enabled by family and friends through the month long manhung

    narciso (d1f714)

  254. You were on fire with 258, Hoagie! Truth be told, the lines have been drawn and we know where all of the posters on PP stand. We know who the Vichy are and who comprise the true Resistance to the dismal blue tide.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  255. And if … you NeverTrumpers get your way a coup will end this Republic.

    Who here among the NeverTrumpers has called for a coup? Who has even expressed support for a coup? Don’t be bashful, name some names.

    You do realize at this point you are on the same side as the CPUSA, Nazi Pelosi, BLM and the NY Times, don’t you?

    Except I’m not. I don’t support Trump, but I don’t support any of those others, either. I bet some of those groups drink beer and eat pizza…so if you drink beer and/or eat pizza, you’re on their side, right? Of course not. But that’s the logical fallacy you’re trying to pass off here.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  256. Manhunt, his enablers got off on reduced bond off course.

    narciso (d1f714)

  257. There’s never been a “solution” to prosecutorial discretion. You elect the person you think best and hope for the best. Scott and Biondi are wrong, and any death penalty imposed on this guy will be overturned, unless they take away all, yes a-l-l, death-penalty eligible cases from this prosecutor as long as she is in office … and follow me on this … regardless of whether the substitute prosecutor decides to pursue the death penalty or not in those other cases. And even there, they might be violating Florida’s venue statute.

    nk (dbc370)

  258. Political grandstanding.

    nk (dbc370)

  259. Hoagie… Think of it as a “peaceful” demonstration where some young, naive students are demonstrating peacefully, not breaking windows, or destroying property, just slinging profanities and potty-mouth First Amendment exercises. And then the Blac Bloc shows up with their masks, their brass knuckles, their torches, their sledge hammers. The formerly peaceful demonstrators are spellbound, fascinated by what they are seeing, but not fleeing, they’re swallowed up by the Marxist anarchists and they become part of the whole, shameful, goddam fracas. Despite their protestations to the contrary. No one is buying it. They were part of it.

    That – in a nutshell – is Never Trump associating with the enemy you’ve named.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  260. Why is apparently wrong for crime victims to seek justice, or worse to actually prevent them from becoming victims of terrorism. Another local example is how they whitewashed the Orlando shooters long list of association, which suggest he will not be the last.

    narciso (d1f714)

  261. I don’t have the energy to do a post about this Hawaii decision.

    I thought the new EO was much better than the old one. From media reports I have read the opinion sounds suspect but I don’t like to criticize court decisions without reading them. And I have a lot of stuff going on right now.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  262. Who here among the NeverTrumpers has called for a coup? Who has even expressed support for a coup? Don’t be bashful, name some names.

    Oh they hate naming names and getting specific. They like to accuse their opponents of all sorts of horrible stuff, which reveals a lot about the imagination of the Trump fan, but challenge them to be specific and they just toss out a few more insults and scurry away.

    I asked Hoagie who the “leftists” were he kept referring to and he basically had a stroke trying to backpeddle away from what he was saying.

    But no, Trump’s opponents (the majority of America) are not in favor of a coup. We respect the rule of law. As nk said above, Trump is pretty fortunate to have civil opponents.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  263. To Trumpkins, Trump is George Washington.
    In his own mind, he’s Andrew Jackson.
    In the real world, he’s Larson E. Whipsnade.

    nk (dbc370)

  264. Ignoring what the law, and the justification for this mist nartoe of pauses, as general Kelly described it, now more expansive screening would target European nations of north African origin, but that would certainly not do,

    narciso (d1f714)

  265. Dustin, every time I see the over-the-top tough-guy rhetoric from certain quarters, I feel like James Garner in this clip:

    You better remember my name

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  266. Given the current state of affairs, the death penalty may actually be a moot point for any case currently in the pipeline.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/floridas-death-penalty-fix-governor-46040705

    kishnevi (d99923)

  267. Citizens of other countries have no right to be here. It’s as basic as that.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  268. Col H, do you realize you are saying that opposing Trump because he is not for true limited government is a Leftist thing?

    kishnevi (d99923)

  269. No, I have not said that, I disagree.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  270. Larson E. Whipsnade

    I’ll have to Google that. Is that a really stupid guy? ‘Cause if so then yeah.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  271. Googled. Shady con artist. Yeah that too.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  272. I’m saying you lay down with dogs, don’t be surprised if you get a bad case of fleas. I’m saying you use the same tactics and communicate with many of the same talking points and invective used by the usual suspects, don’t be surprised if there’s a perceived association. It’s not true of all, but it is true of many.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  273. Yes that was a fix prompted by useless band of philosopher kings in Tallahassee the ones that mandate the release of 500 or a 1,000 convicts, fir the children.

    narciso (d1f714)

  274. For those who are not W.C. Fields fans and also don’t Google:

    Fields plays Larsen E. Whipsnade, the owner of a shady carnival that is constantly on the run from the law. The whimsical title comes from a line spoken by Fields about ten minutes into the film. Whipsnade says that his grandfather Litvak’s last words, spoken “just before they sprung the trap”, were: “You can’t cheat an honest man; never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump.” The line expands on his character’s comment to his daughter in the musical Poppy (1923): “Let me give you just one bit of fatherly advice: Never give a sucker an even break.” (This is the title of a subsequent Fields film, made in 1941.) The character name is obviously a play on “larceny”, a point which Fields reinforces at one point when someone calls him “Larceny Whipsnake”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can't_Cheat_an_Honest_Man

    nk (dbc370)

  275. I have a growing appreciation of what the new administration has been trying to set in motion. Not all of it. But most of it. Given the pushback by the entrenched statists, if the Trump team is able to accomplish even a portion of it, I will be very pleased.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  276. Between bill Clinton and Obama, the full shanghaiing has been complete, that’s leaving out the hiked café standards that made way for a field of fiberglass coffins the cra revisions, the shutting of prime teource development land.

    narciso (d1f714)

  277. And since we’re at Comment 288:

    Without looking it up, who called whom “My Little Chickadee”? That’s two questions: 1) Who? 2) Whom?

    nk (dbc370)

  278. lol, Rev.

    mg (31009b)

  279. It seems like the sky has been falling every day since the November election and yet the sky never seems to land. Enough already, effing Democrat operatives with bylines.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  280. I think it was W.C. Fields. And about Mae West?

    Sammy Finkelman (ea6ca0)

  281. The media whining about the budget is a pretty good example. If he does more conservative shit like that he can get me on his side for a while. Just don’t pretend you like to read, mmmkay, Donnie? We all know you don’t read. It’s not seemly to pretend.

    I hate everybody today. Also I have a headache.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  282. I’m saying you lay down with dogs, don’t be surprised if you get a bad case of fleas. I’m saying you use the same tactics and communicate with many of the same talking points and invective used by the usual suspects, don’t be surprised if there’s a perceived association.

    Well, since I’m not lying down with dogs, I’m not worried about fleas. I don’t support Trump, but I’m not actively working against him. You don’t get to define what I believe in or stand for.

    If you perceive me to be on the side of Pelosi, et al., then your perception is wrong. Now that I’ve set you straight, if you say it again, I’ll assume you’re arguing in bad faith.

    Without looking it up, who called whom “My Little Chickadee”? That’s two questions: 1) Who? 2) Whom?

    I believe the “who” was W.C. Fields and the “whom” was Mae West. I could be wrong, though.

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  283. Did I say I was talking about you, Patterico? When I do, I will let you know I am. You also left out “it’s not true of all, it is true of many.”

    I was responding to kishnevi.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  284. nk @262 and 268. It’s Bondi, not Biondi.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Bondi

    Sammy Finkelman (ea6ca0)

  285. Man, did I misread that. Show’s want waking up at 3:45am and working for 12 hours will do for me. My apologies, Patterico.

    Hey, Chuck. I responded to kishnevi… also a continuation of post 270.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  286. Shows what

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  287. Mae West (who) to Fields (whom). Last line in the movie of the same title.

    What a babe! Another great line of hers:
    Judge: Young lady! Are you trying to show contempt for this court?
    Mae West: No, I’m doing my best to hide it.

    nk (dbc370)

  288. And since I wasn’t responding to anything you wrote, Chuck, I guess you’re just exercising your right to virtue signal.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  289. Did I say I was talking about you, Patterico? When I do, I will let you know I am. You also left out “it’s not true of all, it is true of many.”

    Did I say I thought you were talking about me somewhere? I don’t even know what you’re talking about. If you think I was mad at you about something it’s a miscommunication. I think I see why. The first part of my comment 292 was kind of a response to you and the second part was really a separate comment and just something I randomly said, on account of I have a headache.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  290. Patterico,

    Read 296. It explains all.

    Locke (43d957)

  291. this is the type of thing you can expect when the trial of O.J. Simpson is taken for a stand in as starry decisis.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  292. @ the Colonel, #283:

    I’m saying you use the same tactics and communicate with many of the same talking points and invective used by the usual suspects, don’t be surprised if there’s a perceived association.

    If you’re smart enough to see this, why are you in bed with alt-right people, who would rather co-opt Alinksy’s ideas than defeat them?

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  293. Apparently the Maryland judge wants to double the quota of refugees, just because.

    narciso (d1f714)

  294. I asked Hoagie who the “leftists” were he kept referring to and he basically had a stroke trying to backpeddle away from what he was saying.

    I didn’t back peddle from anything Dustin. I answered “You and Dave” to start. From my perception. Just so you know Dustin, if you ask me something and I see it I will answer. I don’t see everything. You began calling my character into question because something else was more important in my life than your stinkin’ question so I missed it. You’re the one who needs to “man up” and realize the world does not revolve around you or your questions and ridiculing someone for not bowing to your wishes is for…..leftists.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  295. Well Dave, man of mystery and tillman are certainly on the left, Dustin seems to be staking out the mcmuffin position of irrelevance Sean sean to be on that same ledge

    narciso (d1f714)

  296. My only point narciso, was I had a lot of stuff going on this week from testing to maintain my position on the lung transplant list to visits with my Penn pulmonologist. I was a bit disposed but even if I weren’t not answering someone’s question is not reason for attack. And repetitious attack at that.

    And yes, I forgot Tillman.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  297. Hang in there, Hoagie, trollers gonna troll. It’s basically “Trump bad, Republican Party is enemy of people, fire BAD!” Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer Trollery 101. I sincerely hope your health and wellbeing improves!

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  298. My favorite trolled… https://youtu.be/V8YBuwmtzYE

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  299. @244 Colonel Haiku

    Does the legal profession bend (some) people or are (some)bent people attracted to the legal profession?

    Some people are d*cks. Some people become d*cks. Some people have d*cks thrust upon them.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  300. Zero justification for this decision. It must be ignored. The Constitution does not apply to aliens on foreign land.

    NJRob (43d957)

  301. If Trump hadn’t made a whole dramatic announcement, or dramatically disrupted travel for some people, there would have been no court case.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1)

  302. Bologna. It will be a battle against entrenched statists, Democrats and Democrat Operatives With Bylines every step of the way.

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  303. This is dedicated to all our Snowflakes who insist they’re just “moderate-conservatives”.

    Oh, and the Colonel and narcisco will love it.

    https://youtu.be/ur07OFbHs9c

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  304. Col. H, completely offtopic, but you’d be the local expert on this.

    What the &*(&^ does the line “drive a Chevy like a Cadillac” supposed to mean? The way I was brought up, it should be the reverse, except if it was, the words would be totally out of beat with the music.

    kishnevi (870883)

  305. “Zero justification for this decision. It must be ignored. The Constitution does not apply to aliens on foreign land.”

    – NJRob

    The petitioners are a US state and a US citizen, to whom the Constitution does apply and who have demonstrated standing sufficient to merit the TRO.

    But sure, ignore the orders of a federal judge while jawing about “the rule of law.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  306. Anwar Al aulaqi was a us citizen, he was also an unlawful combatant against us.

    narciso (d1f714)

  307. Standing does not equal cause of action.

    nk (dbc370)

  308. Probably means drive that Chevy with pride… or it could be drive that Chevy Cavalier like a Cadillac Cimarron, kishnevi.

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  309. Which was a pimped out Cavalier, lol.

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  310. Great stuff Hoagie!

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  311. My first car was a Buick Skylark. The next two were new Chevy Cavaliers. I spent so much on brakes, transmission, etc. for them that the next four cars have all been Corollas. Maybe five. I think I have spent as much on maintaining all of them combined as I did on the two Cavaliers.

    kishnevi (870883)

  312. “Standing does not equal cause of action.”

    – nk

    But a request for injunctive relief is a cause of action, no?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  313. Corollas are the roach of the automobile world. An overall OK car, but damn you see a bunch of 20+ year old Corollas in certain areas. My niece has had multiple problems with the Cavalier descendant Chevy Cruze.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  314. That’s the argument. Whether it should have been granted. All we have is a party which is disadvantaged by the law. Most every law disadvantages somebody. Foreigners have no right not to be disadvantaged by American immigration rules and neither do the several states.

    nk (dbc370)

  315. You had skin in the game there, kishnevi! I stopped buying GM cars in the late 70s after a particularly sour experience with a new ’78 Buick Turbo Regal SportCoupe.

    Corollas – and Toyotas in general – have been rock solid for years. I has a sad hearing about the Cruze, ulh, they were supposed to be an improvement!

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  316. I need conjunctive relief, cuz the stench from teh bench is making my eyes water.

    Colonel Haiku (384e8e)

  317. The petitioners are a US state and a US citizen, to whom the Constitution does apply and who have demonstrated standing sufficient to merit the TRO.

    But sure, ignore the orders of a federal judge while jawing about “the rule of law.”

    Leviticus (efada1) — 3/17/2017 @ 10:37 am

    Their claim applies to foreigners in a foreign land. No cause of action.

    As to the rest of your BS, I assume you’ll stand up in support of existing law with the Korematsu decision since it’s still controlling law.

    NJRob (4fcdef)

  318. nk (dbc370) — 3/17/2017 @ 11:32 am

    Foreigners have no right not to be disadvantaged by American immigration rules and neither do the several states.

    but if there is some other legal impediment to the president of he federal goernment doing something, being disadvanaged it gives the severak states, if not the foreigners, standing to sue.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1)

  319. Donald Trump retweeted this, thinking it lends support to what he did.

    But nothing he did does anything about that.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/841955896452304896/video/1

    FOX & friends
    @foxandfriends

    FOX NEWS ALERT: Jihadis using religious visa to enter US, experts warn (via @FoxFriendsFirst) pic.twitter.com/pwXeR9OMQC

    3:15 AM – 15 Mar 2017

    Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1)

  320. “Foreigners have no right not to be disadvantaged by American immigration rules and neither do the several states.”

    – nk

    But citizens (like Elsikh) do have the right not to be disadvantaged by American immigration rules on an invidiously discriminatory basis, right? At least that’s the argument.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  321. someone asked me how could a “small” judge undo the whole thing? That’s a good question. Of course the same thing happened the other way with DAPA, and the only reason it didn’t happen with DACA is that nobody sued. Maybe various people had some hman feelings.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ea6b3)

  322. ttps://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/17/about-those-co-equal-branches-of-government/

    narciso (d1f714)

  323. 9th Circuit today issues order denying en banc review of earlier panel decision on first EO and temporary restraining order issued in Washington.

    As predicted here by someone (me), the Order is accompanied by a vehement dissent from Judge Bybee pointing out all the issues the panel decision simply ignored in upholding the district court’s TRO.

    But the fight has now moved to the Hawaii decision and the Maryland decision. DOJ appealed the Maryland decision today to the more conservative 4th Circuit, and I expect next week they will appeal the Hawaii decision to the 9th Circuit.

    That will — hopefully — set up a split between circuits, and allow them to take it to the Supreme Court.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  324. I’d take my chances living with exactly zero lawyers left on earth.

    mg (31009b)

  325. Well, how much of the Earth can you live on? How about a part of it that’s got no lawyers? Say Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan — they got no lawyers to speak of at all. Iran, Iraq, and Syria? They have some lawyers but you’d never know it.

    nk (dbc370)

  326. One of the downsides of the legal profession is that its practitioners can make one very distrustful of language.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1981 secs.