Analysis of Today’s Court Argument on Trump’s Immigration Order, or, Trump Needs to Shut His Yap
I have listened to the oral argument today in the Ninth Circuit regarding the stay of President Trump’s executive order on immigration. My brief takeaway is that Donald Trump may — may! — have talked his way into legal trouble with this one.
First, a couple of preliminary issues, before we get to the merits:
Standing — It sounds to me as though there are not two votes for standing based on parens patriae doctrine, but there are likely at least two (possibly three) votes for standing based on the states’ proprietary interests.
Scope of the order — A lot of time was spent (and possibly wasted) discussing whether the court was going to treat the District Court’s order as a TRO (temporary restraining order), as the District Court characterized it, or as a preliminary injunction, due to the length of the stay already ordered. This probably is not too significant an issue, but may have some relevance as to the length of the injunction if it is left in place. I think the Court may treat it as a preliminary injunction and write what they called a “reasoned opinion” so this can be taken to the Supreme Court with a full legal analysis in place for review.
Merits — So will the stay remain in place or not?
I’m not sure, but I think it will.
My impression is that Judge Canby, the Carter appointee, is going to vote to uphold the TRO.
Judge Clifton, the Bush appointee, sounds ready to vacate the stay as written, but perhaps let a modified stay remain in place as to lawful permanent residents. (More about that below.) His argument — and it was a pretty good one, I thought — was that you can’t really call this a Muslim ban when it affects maybe 15% of the Muslim population in the world. Meanwhile, he notes, there clearly are legitimate reasons to worry about these countries.
If I’m right, that leaves Judge Friedland, the Obama appointee, as the swing vote. She was not as easy to read as the other two judges, but to my ears, she was troubled by the evidence presented by the states about the President’s intent — based on his oft-stated declaration that he was going to institute a “Muslim ban.” If I had to bet, I’d say that evidence is going to carry the day for Judge Friedland. I wouldn’t lay a lot of money down on that bet — but that’s how I’d bet.
I often hear people say: “Who cares what Trump says? What matters is what he does!” As Donald Trump might say: Wrong! This case is a stark reminder that what the President says always matters. It matters to dissidents in countries run by totalitarian dictators. It matters to those dictators themselves, as they assess how far they can push the envelope. It matters to the stock market, which jumps like a golfer with the yips any time Trump puts a company name in a tweet.
And, as this case shows, it may matter to the safety of our country. Because, even if the order is necessary to the security of our country, if the yutz went around making it sound as if he was prejudiced against Muslims — and he did — those very statements could jeopardize the legality of the order.
Donald Trump’s mouth isn’t something we can all be entertained by, without consequence. He needs to get it under control. And, of course, he won’t. Ever.
So. Four years of this.
Finally, I think even Judge Clifton, the Bush appointee, was troubled by the fact that the order, on its face, applies to lawful permanent residents (LPRs). Sure, the White House counsel has told us since that it doesn’t — but the administration has said multiple different things about this, and the order as written still arguably applies to LPRs. I think even Judge Clifton would be on board with staying the executive order to the extent it applies to LPRs. This is an indictment of the chaotic manner in which the order was rolled out — but we already knew that.
P.S. The Court briefly discussed the interplay between sections 1152 and 1182(f) that I have debated with Andrew McCarthy — but showed little interest in the argument, primarily because (as I have always acknowledged) that argument doesn’t affect the treatment of refugees and other temporary visitors. Therefore, it does not allow the court to avoid the greater issues such as religious discrimination, that can be claimed by refugees and temporary visitors. Consequently, I expect this issue to be barely mentioned, if at all, in the final opinion.
[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 2/7/2017 @ 10:06 pmI thought that it is a written executive order that is being challenged. The challengers seem to want to go after statements made during the campaign but these aren’t same as the Executive Order. The opportunity to challenge the Trump campaign statements has passed.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 2/7/2017 @ 10:35 pmEven if it is a “Muslim ban,” it wouldn’t be illegal, would it? I thought discrimination on the basis of religion was illegal only if the victims were US citizens. If they are not US citizens, they have no Constitutional protection to begin with.
Or so I assume, but I’m no lawyer. :-/
sauropod (271cbd) — 2/7/2017 @ 10:45 pmDon’t worry. The lawyers are confused too.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:00 pmObama banned Iraqis and Cubans; Carter banned Iranians. But a 90-day pause on people from very unstable countries has fed the derangement syndrome.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:06 pmPatterico, I can’t quibble with a word of this except that presidential intent is like legislative intent: a squishy thing to hang law on, and particularly when it is filtered through news media DETERMINED to paint everything as ugly as possible. Pick any day and scan the front page of the Washington Post.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:11 pmNow, the irony is that there IS a Muslim “ban” or at least a Muslim Catch-22 as far as the war zones are considered. The idea that there will be a refugee quota, and preference will go to persons who are NOT in the majority will decrease, if not eliminate, mainstream Muslims as refugees from those countries.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:13 pmI’m not a lawyer, and I’m sure it’s more complicated, but we do not allow cruel and unusual punishments on non-citizens, we do not allow them to be compelled to testify against themselves, we do not allow troops to be quartered in their houses without consent, we don’t allow the police to treat them arbitrarily, etc. Most rights in the constitution apply to anyone the government comes in contact with.
Discrimination against non-citizens on the basis of religion would have a chilling effect (I’m not a lawyer, but I know they love to use that term…) on people of the same religion who are citizens. It would make them less able to receive visits from family, to have guests who share their religious beliefs, and it would also send a message that they are second-class citizens, in the same way that “separate but equal” racial segregation did.
Treating people as members of favored or disfavored groups is not the way our country should work. People should be treated according to what they, as individuals, have or haven’t done.
Dave (711345) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:14 pmOf course, outside of those 7 countries it’s unchanged. Although I would think that anyone coming from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Pakistan, etc, are going to get more than a casual glance. BUt that’s no different than what happened to folks coming from Peru and Colombia in the 80’s & 90’s.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:16 pmAll they have done is use Trump’s own words, and the statements on his official website. Unless you think he was inaccurately quoted (not likely to work in a court, and nearly everything is on video), isn’t it pretty silly to try using the standard “blame/attack the media” strategy here?
Dave (711345) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:20 pmI’m not a lawyer, and I’m sure it’s more complicated, but we do not allow cruel and unusual punishments on non-citizens, we do not allow them to be compelled to testify against themselves, we do not allow troops to be quartered in their houses without consent, we don’t allow the police to treat them arbitrarily, etc.
You conflate quite a bit here. Inside the United States and its territories, the Bill of Rights protects all persons. OUTSIDE of the United States, it protects US persons. It does NOT protect Achmed from Yemen while he is in Yemen.
Now, we MAY have laws, regulations, rules, etc that limit out behavior even with Achmed. But they are not forced on us by the Constitution. For example, there is a law against torture that pertains throughout the world.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:21 pmDave,
I have seen plenty of things that “are on video” that are patently false. For example, I can pretty much prove that the famous 47% quote of Romney’s was intentionally edited by Mother Jones or their source to remove the 2 minutes that followed the money quote.
Alternatively, Trump may have said 20 things, 19 of which were innocuous, and the 20th was inflammatory and I guarantee you only see that last one.
They lie. This is why hearsay is not allowed in court.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:25 pmIt would make them less able to receive visits from family, to have guests who share their religious beliefs
And those people may have a claim. Cannot say. Certainly they would have standing to address this in the courts. But the guy outside cannot sue to get in.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:28 pmBut, Dave, it IS NOT A MUSLIM BAN. 85% of the world’s Muslims are unaffected. It’s a moratorium on people — Muslims, Christians, Jews, Yazidi, etc — from a war-torn area which has sent refugees to Europe who HAVE committed terrorist acts, and planned them before they left.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:31 pmIt does not protect anybody who is not subject to the authority of the US, of course.
I think, in general, it does protect people (like Guantanamo detainees, at least to some extent) who are not in the US, but are subject to our authority. The Gitmo detainees are a somewhat different situation, since they are unlawful combatants, but even so they are not without some due process protections.
Dave (711345) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:34 pmDave,
Probably why some of them (e.g. KSM) haven’t been put up a wall and shot already.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:37 pmBTW, does anyone else have a sense that this EO, written and validated by the DoJ, left that kicker in about green card holders just for fun?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:38 pmRound and round we go…
Your argument is silly. It’s like saying “Our racial profiling roadside checkpoint where we *only* pull over black drivers is perfectly legal since we’re only stopping a small percentage of the country’s black population”
What matters is that (practically) 100% of the victims of the ban are Muslims. It doesn’t matter if it is 15% of the world’s Muslim population, 0.1%, or 100%. If the purpose of the ban is to exclude ANY Muslims because they are Muslims, as Trump promised many times during the campaign, the courts could well decide it is unconstitutional.
Dave (711345) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:53 pmIt is central to liberal politics/identity that Republicans are evil, subhuman mutants, and that they need to resist Trump everywhere, or else they’re cowards and, essentially, Nazi collaborators.
My bet is: Judge Friedland would rather some people that she doesn’t mingle with think of her as a virtue-signaling liberal who got this case wrong, than to be thought of by her acquaintances as a Nazi collaborator coward. She won’t come right out and say it; she might not even know that is what is motivating her decision. But if she ever wants to go to another cocktail party, with people that she actually wants to be around, she needs to vote against Trump. I’m betting she won’t throw away her social status to protect an executive order that’s not even all that well thought-out, let alone essential to national security.
Politics is downstream from culture. So is judging.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 2/7/2017 @ 11:53 pmIf Trump’s spoken words are going to be a key element in the judicial emasculation of this administration, we will have gone far beyond 1984. Consider that Obama’s words in support of Obamacare were flat out lies intended to deceive the public. And the written words in that benighted legislation were rewritten by Roberts to provide a veneer of “constitutionality” to what was otherwise plainly unconstitutional. But these actions were taken to further what was considered by the left to be commendable goals. Now we find that uttering Politically Incorrect words, words that, for example, demonstrate the speaker understands that sharia law is incompatible with the United States Constitution, such words could forever disqualify the speaker from making public policy. If this is where we are, there will be no need to hold any elections in the future. There will be only one party, one way of thinking about our problems, and only one possible course of action.
BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:12 amThese seven countries were designated as the targets of this policy because they are failed states. It is not possible to vet people claiming to be citizens or residents of those states using the means normally available in viable entities. This is just one of the many consequences of Obama’s failed foreign policy. And the previous administration knew this, since they were the ones who created the list in the first place.
This whole thing is nothing but partisan politics masquerading as jurisprudence.
BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:25 amPersonally, I expect this flap to die down about five days after Trump leaves office. Which, the way the Left is losing its collective mind, is not going to be until 2024. As for Trump ‘shutting his yap’, he seems to have been elected in large part because of the way he runs his rachet-jaw. I know that I voted for him largely on the basis that if we were being asked to choose between an irresponsible clown and a criminal shrew, i prefered to spend the next four to eight years laughing. Nor has Mr. Trump disappointed me in that regard. In just he few months since the election, he has already been vastly more amusing than Obama was in eight years, or Shrillary has been in her entire miserable existance.
C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:31 amWhat matters is that (practically) 100% of the victims of the ban are Muslims. It doesn’t matter if it is 15% of the world’s Muslim population, 0.1%, or 100%. If the purpose of the ban is to exclude ANY Muslims because they are Muslims, as Trump promised many times during the campaign, the courts could well decide it is unconstitutional.
Let’s say there were riots in Beverly Hills. White folks runamok throwing their jewelry through windows. And the police put a curfew on. You could SAY that it was a “curfew on rich white people” since 99% of the residents of Beverly Hills are rich white people.
But in reality it would be because of where they lived and what was going on.
The RESIDENTS of these countries are predominantly Muslim. There are wars and/or the civil government supports terrorists. True, the most likely perpetrators come from the Muslim population, but the moratorium is not limited to them. It’s just people from these countries BECAUSE of what is going on there and the track record in Europe and here. For a bit of time until the new administration figures out how far the Obama folks had their heads up their asses.
You can call it a Muslim ban if you want to, you could all it a zebra ban if you want to, but it isn’t.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:32 amWhich, the way the Left is losing its collective mind, is not going to be until 2024.
Oh, I figure we’ll get rid of that pesky amendment so we can keep him longer. This is too much fun.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:34 amIf this is where we are, there will be no need to hold any elections in the future. There will be only one party, one way of thinking about our problems, and only one possible course of action.
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer. But it will be a happy place full of balloons and kittens for those that toe the line. Diversity, baby. So long as it’s OUR diversity.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h52/Tiktaalik/SmileFascistiGahanWilson.jpg
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:39 amEvery policy disproportionately affects someone.
The for the last 20+ years, every president has allowed massive illegal immigration from Mexico while preventing similar illegal immigration from other countries.
Is that illegally favoring Christians from Mexico over Muslims from Indonesia? Is that unfairly letting white/brown Hispanics into the country, while disproportionately keeping out black people and Asians?
95%+ of the people who got amnesty were non-Muslims, even though Muslims make up 1/5 of the world’s population. Does that mean every amnesty was a “Muslim ban”?
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:18 amYou forgot the part where the sheriff of Beverly Hills repeatedly went on TV six months ago and promised that, if elected, he would by God keep white people off the streets of Beverly Hills.
And then one week after taking office, for no apparent reason he did it. Because there isn’t any rioting at the moment. The sheriff is just *afraid* there might be rioting if he doesn’t crack down on those white people.
The crux of Patrick’s post is that by idiotically shooting his mouth off, Trump has invited additional scrutiny that would not be necessary if he had kept it shut (or at least, avoided promising to do blatantly unconstitutional things).
Dave (711345) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:28 amThat’s why the motives for the policies matter, and why Trump’s promises to ban Muslims are being examined.
Dave (711345) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:31 amIf I were to delay all immigration from a single country, say Poland, because one quarter of the entire population of the country was infected with a virulent, highly infectious and deadly disease that current tests only caught in 70% of all cases, and the Polish government records of the extent of the problem were rather spotty, would the courts strike down an EO delaying immigration from Poland until such time as we were able to put in place a test that is 90% effective in detecting the disease? What if I, as the President, had spoken openly and frankly about the need to ban all Polish people for just this reason?
The example above is far more restrictive than the actual EO in question, as my example excludes entry by everyone from a single country. But what if the fictional scenario above were true? Would it be morally wrong to institute the ban? After all, the people of Poland are fleeing their home country to get away from the disease. Is it right to argue that we simply must take them in because, well, that is “who we are”, and hey, it might be good for the economy? Would instituting a ban on all visas from all countries to which the disease has spread be wrong?
I ask because I would like to know what the law has to say about such a scenario as presented. Full stop.
Estarcarus (cd97e1) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:34 amThe problem isn’t that they weren’t PC. When you say you want to ban a religion from entering the country, you’re actually refusing to uphold the US Constitution.
I agree that Sharia law is not compatible with the constitution either. After 8 years of Obama they are still charging me interest on my mortgage so I’m pretty sure we do not have Sharia law in the USA after two centuries of Muslims coming here. We also do not have Buddhist law or Mormon law because we share this country with other religious points of view.
Trump made it very clear that he is discriminating on the basis of religion. Facts do not matter to partisans these days, but that’s what he’s doing, and you and everyone else in this thread is aware of it.
Just read the URL: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
Trump’s fans like to troll, and those saying that permitting Muslim immigration violates the US Constitution are just hoping for a loud fight. They don’t care about the constitution. And history’s shown this kind of tactic can be very successful politically. Racism, hear, hatred. That’s the GOP now. It’s working, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. A few judicial appointments are not enough to justify destroying what used to be a conservative movement about every man standing equal before the law.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:41 amThis is a great question. Of course likening a religious view to a virus is why we had to create a bill of rights. religious bigotry is part of human nature, and some people really see the world this way.
But the Supreme Court has a “Strict Scrutiny” test for the government’s interests vs our civil rights. If the interest is strong enough, such as a fourth of Poland having an apocalyptic disease, that would obviously satisfy strict scrutiny, whereas the 0.000001 percent of Muslims entering the country who are terrorists would obviously not satisfy that test.
Controlling immigration in a way that promotes assimilation and success would be a great ambition for a president. Banning people on the basis of religion is disgraceful.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:46 amThe Establishment Clause jurisprudence is a lot more ad hoc than the Free Exercise jurisprudence (which the Court also makes up as it goes along). I think it’s pretty clear that Congress cannot prefer, or discriminate against, any particular religion including atheism. It does not necessarily follow from that, that it has to be religiously neutral in border control or even in granting immigrant status (which are also two different things).
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:18 amAs it relates to parens patriae, the whole world is not America’s children which it has to treat equally and love unconditionally, let alone Washington’s or Minnesota’s children.
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:25 amBanning people based on their practice of religion is not always disgraceful.
Neither would be banning some people based on their interpretation of their holy literature and oral traditions.
Lets say a subset of a worldwide religion likes to believe it is correct to stone women and throw gay people off of the roof. Lets say they also want all Jews exterminated. These activities are practiced according to what they believe is truth revealed and their gods call to action.
Lets say that their religion requires them to disavow our legal system and to vow to replace it with their system (which allows for rape, murder, discrimination)
This religious belief compels and requires practitioners to take these actions and more
I would be all in for banning these people based on their religion as practiced because they are required by faith to be dangerous and hateful.
Trump spoke imprecisely (as usual), and should have narrowed his expression to jihadists
steveg (5508fb) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:26 amReligions don’t have rights. People have rights. And Constitutional rights are the rights of people under the authority of the government of the United States in their interactions with that government. Does that sound good, Your Honors?
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:32 amThat would have been much better. I would use a better word though. Jihad means something different to you than it means to Muslims, even though I know what you’re saying and I agree with you.
If Trump said he wishes to ban from entry those who condone to any degree Islamic extremist violence, and then tailored his immigration policy to that effect, that would be awesome.
But Trump said he wishes to ban all Muslims, period, end stop. That’s not the same thing.
I guess the key word here is practice? But yes, it’s totally disgraceful for a president to say ‘I wish to ban Mormons’ or any other religion. It would be very easy to pick out any specific religion and find something terrible someone had done and say you’re just worried about that. But then why not ban that specific thing?
I agree with this too. We do not owe strangers in foreign countries a spot here. No one but Americans are entitled to be Americans. But Trump’s way of handling this issue has made things worse.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:38 amIf it’s a constitutional issue, wouldn’t that mean Congress doesnt have the power either ?
Israel (441d80) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:05 amPossibly, Israel, although it would take a ballsy Supreme Court to say so. Remember that it was in the original Constitution that Congress could not abolish the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade for a certain time, and then there was the Fugitive Slave Clause. But here we have an explicit Article I power over immigration and naturalization to contend with too.
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:12 amAmerica should only accept those who will benefit her. There must be a competent vetting process in place and the burden of proof – who is this person, what is his/her background – should squarely rest with country of origin and the person.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:57 amI don’t think so, a ideological screen like Gaffney suggested would net many more
narciso (8ece4c) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:01 amThey can and should enact legislation to reform immigration. Should they violate our constitution and morality in doing so? No. But that’s what’s pathetic about Trump. He didn’t need to say he wanted to ban Muslims. He didn’t need to use an obviously unconstitutional EO though I think some executive order would have been a good idea.
Just as Obama’s EO was turned over as easily as this, Trump’s was shut down very easily too. If the legislature were to pass a law properly, limiting our immigration to those who are going to contribute to our country (Muslim or not) and excluding anyone who could be a harm to us, by violence or welfare abuse, I would be delighted because that would be a lasting thing.
but no, Congress can’t ban muslims either either without amending the constitution.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:04 amThey already designated those seven countries, it shows the powers that be are not interested in solving the problem and trawl garbage like the dodgy dossier while preventing us from getting a bead on al raymi
narciso (a94033) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:27 amLOL
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:33 amAs countries not eligible to take advantage of a visa waiver program.
That is all the designation accomplished. Do you understand this? You bring up the designation so often, I’m not sure you do.
Patterico (5890f2) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:38 amWhile you guys argue, others find solutions.
The People’s Cube (thepeoplescube.com) has a fantastically funny “report” on some 10,000 jobs being offered by Hooters for immigrants to show support for Starbucks and AirBnB for not hiring veterans or unemployed Americans. Complete with “staff” photos!!
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:40 amYes, while we discuss politics in the discussion thread of a politics blog. Shame on us. While we do that, Trump is working hard to “ban Muslims”, in his words.
What’s your point? do you understand that blogs are not political activism?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:42 amExcept our current system of education holds atheism as the supreme religion and ruler of all. So that statement is incorrect. Every time the court tells a state they cannot have a christmas tree it further does so.
NJRob (43d957) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:55 amIs it true that not having a Christmas tree = athiesm?
I don’t like Christmas at all or consider it a particularly biblical holiday and I’m not an athiest.
Would NJRob say it was a triumph of athiests if a court struck down a municipal’s reliance on Shariah law?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:04 amIs anything state run media presents true?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/07/cliven-bundy-bunkerville-standoff-trial
narciso (7d5b61) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:07 amStarbucks and AirBnB for not hiring veterans or unemployed Americans
Do you realize that Starbucks and AirBnB operate overseas as well as here? Starbucks has 11,000+ locations overseas. Just one refugee per overseas store would fulfill its promise.
So, unless you know of unemployed vets willing to relocate abroad just to be a barista…..
I do agree that a restaurant offering shellfish staffed by waitresses dressed like Hooters waitresses in Lahore, Kabul, Dubai or Cairo would be an interesting concept.
Kishnevi (c62fd3) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:08 amOn the main topic:
Kishnevi (c62fd3) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:14 amAlthough the appellate judges won’t refer to them, I suspect Trump’s remarks in recent days about so-called judges, etc., will have some influence, but not in a direction Trump wants.
Except Schultz is agitprop all the time, remember the zomelives matter dialog, his rant on guns,
narciso (7d5b61) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:15 amAnd if those were legally permitted to operate that way, they would make a ton of money. Sexual repression is one of (if not the) biggest problem in the Middle East. Islam isn’t actually the problem at all, but rather it’s a symptom of the issues that region would have anyway. If they were all Christians there would still be bombs and beheadings and gays tossed off rooftops. At a basic level, a young man needs to be interested in his future, and it’s healthier for him to have a family he’s trying to take care of. In a land where the wealthy have many wives, and every woman in public is carefully draped and insulated, the regular joes are actually going to wind up being frustrated with their lot in life, to say the least.
At least that’s always been my opinion.
I’ll say I don’t care what Starbucks does, as veterans who fought overseas are worth a hell of a lot more than some coffee pouring job. One of my first jobs after I was in the Army was waiting tables and while it was good for my character I had a lot of skills that were better used in my jobs in the financial sector, in politics, and finally in law enforcement.
I think the problem in education spills over to vets who use the GI Bill. We need to do all we can to push folks into applied science work or skilled trade. I would go so far as to say the GI Bill should only cover English, Poli Sci, Philosophy, Basket Weaving, etc, if the student gets exceptional grades. We do need some English majors, but only the truly gifted and brilliant ones. The rest is just increased customers and business for universities.
But someone struggling to get through an engineering degree is still going to contribute a lot to this country and I would be happy (and feel obligated) to help a vet do that.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:17 amFunny stuff, Hoagie! Illegitimi non carborundum !!!
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:19 am“…what the President says always matters…”
Riiiiiight…
Apparently some have forgotten this little tidbit: “It’s a penalty, not a tax…” spoken by The President himself, not some lackey candidate.
That didn’t seem to matter one iota…now did it?
MJN1957 (6f981a) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:35 amIf the executive branch is not able to preserve its purview over immigration policy against the judiciary, Houston, we got a problem.
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:43 amWhat Trump needs is an EO along the lines of the wording of the exceptions clause in almost all pro-life laws/bills, exceptions that, in effect, afford unrestricted access to abortion. To whit:”Free entry to these U.S.A. is granted except where the safety, interests, and common security of….” Ya’dig?
felipe (b5e0f4) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:45 amThe courts should butt out. Presidents have clear and unambiguous authority to limit the influx of foreign nationals. It’s not only black letter law, it’s obviously the right thing to do to help keep our nation safe from the scourge of barbarian fanaticism.
The insanely angry Left would gladly unravel the fabric of American constitutional government to engineer an embarrassing defeat of Trump’s efforts to safeguard the homeland.
ropelight (8447cd) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:58 amIs there an echo in here? It’s amazing how Trump’s fans always seem to have the same specific thought.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:04 am@44 — you have made this point before but I don’t think it extends to the argument being made.
Pointing out that the 7 countries are identified based on the determinations of Congress and the prior Admin. with respect to the Visa Waiver program isn’t necessarily a claim that the Visa Waiver program extended any kind of authority to act in the manner set forth in the EO.
Its part of the explanation offered in response to the question “Why these seven and not others?” Its part of showing a “rational basis” to the reasoning set forth in the policy, and as a response to the claim that the seven were picked based on a religious animus as argued by Washington.
This very point was made by Clifton in response to that argument. He asked the Washington lawywer “When Congress and the prior Admin. exempted those seven countries from the Visa Waiver program, was that decision made with religious animus? If no, then how can you infer religious animus in the decision set forth in the EO to have it apply to the same seven countries.”
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:10 amLet’s answer that question. Since terrorists seem to come from Saudi Arabia or domestically.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:14 amExactly shipwrecked, the congress has ruled on this level of scrutiny for these country, so why waste another year crafting another law. The courts are intent on throwing out anyways
As with gitmo series of caese, the precedents. On unlawful enemy combatants were crystal clear, yet the levick group kept pushing the courts to forcing more hoops even with the clear evidence before boumedienne
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:16 am57…I’m digging it as I write this, felipe!
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:18 am“BTW, does anyone else have a sense that this EO, written and validated by the DoJ, left that kicker in about green card holders just for fun?”
Kevin,
I would ascribe the President’s fall off his trike to haste rather than malice or incompetence on the part of the OLC. I have little doubt the OLC leaked like a rusted out colander, which gave the opposition time to craft the rebuttal which included the farcical tactics of the acting AG, but the issuance prior to Tillerson being confirmed and less than two weeks after Kelly’s confirmation suggests a political impetus to appear to be doing something decisive rather than a measured act designed to achieve a security objective.
I believe State has the statutory authority to rescind, cancel and set new standards for visas regardless of the issuance of the EO. Tillerson might want to look into the matter.
Rick Ballard (5e8a41) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:20 amWhat a contrast with Judge Gorton’s refusal to continue blocking the EO in Louhghalam et al. v. Trump. Seems like most of the answers DOJ’s Flenjte was searching for were either there or here.
crazy (d3b449) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:20 amMore importantly, from which countries have the terrorists who have perpetrated terror in Europe as well as the homeland come from?
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:23 amMorocco, Algeria, tunisia, Afghanistan, Pakistan going back to 7/7
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:32 amIts the ninth fricken circuit,the prospect of them seeing reasons taxes the improbability drive, with three bags of tea
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:38 amNow imagine an order that considered this countries plus the kingdom or qatar.
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:41 amI continue to be mystified by how any fair-minded individual could assert that 8 USC 1152(a) (the non-discrimination in immigrant visas provision) could invalidate the executive order in light of 8 USC 1182 – not limited to but especially (f).
1152(a) reads, in relevant part:
(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
It is worth looking at the Statutory context – for instance 1153 which deals with various allocations of visa to people with special skills, family members, etc.
This section clearly is designed to eliminate the old national quota system in favor of the modern system.
1182, on the other hand, talks about classes of folks that are inadmissible not just for “immigrant visas” for for any visa / for addition into the US (note these are stated separately). Restrictions include, for example, anyone who is a member of a Communist or Totalitarian party – which may mean an entire nation’s population. It also includes folks with certain communicable diseases.
1182(f) states in relevant part:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The key word is “SUSPENSION” – what that clearly means is that while there are general rules, the President can pause entry for a defined period (I think “indefinite” would likely be illegal – but you could do 6 months and then continuous renew).
So, for instance, if there was a pandemic outbreak in a country of a highly communicable disease – but no determination that every particular individual actually had the disease as required by 1182(a)(1) – the President could STILL SUSPEND entry from that country or region as a result of the risk.
This would not change the overall policy with respect to the usual course of affairs for immigration – the matter addressed it 1152. It’s a case by case authorization of the executive to make temporary restrictions – consistent with the Executive Branch’s Constitutional role in Foreign Policy and defense of the country.
I find the argument to the contrary to not be fair-minded. Frankly, I can’t help but question the motivations of those making the contrary argument – either political / “virtue-signalling” or simple anti-Trump derangement (and I’m no particular fan of Trump’s base “vulgarianism” – but he was elected).
GrantLR (3299f3) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:47 am@ 68 and yet this guy laid out the 9th and SCOTUS precedents that Robart’s ignored in issuing the TRO and I don’t believe came up in last night either.
crazy (d3b449) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:47 amElizabeth Warren lies like a Persian rug.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:53 amFWIW – Muslims are not being banned based on their religion
They are being banned based on their behavior.
Behavior that is incompatible with western democracy, freedoms, etc
Enslavement of women
Sharia law,
Separation of church and state – islam is the government
The demand the we conform to their standards instead of conforming to our culture
and lastly – killing the great satan.
One last question
Joe (debac0) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:01 amWhy do progressives think it is a good idea import such a culture
Dustin, I can see where you’re coming from. And if we could agree on the facts, I would agree with you. However, I question the following:
Your estimate of the number of muslims who are terrorists is a bit too small. Putting your estimate in numbers, not percentages, you seem to think that for every 100 million muslims entering the country, there will be one terrorist. Further you think that this is such an extreme outlier that it would preclude “strict security”, a euphemism concerning a mythical test, yet to be specified, that can determine what is in someone’s heart. The perpetrators of the San Bernardino massacre and the ease with which the female entered our country are hard to explain with your numbers.
My estimate is that given the intentions of muslim jihadists, the likelihood of such a creature worming his or her way into the flow of refugees is disproportionately high. So where you would see one in one hundred million, I would plan on one in one hundred, with another ten refugees secretly supporting the use of terror to overthrow our way of life. Islam is as much a system of governance as it is an individual’s relationship with the creator. The progressives in the western world seem to be unable to cope with this reality. They seem to think welfare payments, daycare centers, and healthcare will cause these devote practitioners to abandon their religion. In truth, these moronic assumptions about human nature serve only to encourage our muslim adversaries. They can wrap themselves in our individual rights and use them as camouflage while waiting for their opportunity to slaughter infidels, and thus fulfill a religious duty.
BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:01 amBob, bear in mind that for most of these countries, my number (intended to be hyperbole) is actually too high as the real number is 0.
Meanwhile, domestic islamofascist terrorists, and those from Saudi Arabia, are quite a bit more than zero.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:03 amThat said, let’s figure out a better way to screen folks. If you were living in Iran today, and you could come to America and learn a skill, and work hard as an American, loving our freedoms, it could be a benefit to the country if you came over. And then there are those who have no interest in assimilating to our country, who hold awful views on freedom, who could be a real problem.
And that really applies to immigration in general, from Ireland or Mexico or Saudi Arabia. I want immigrants who will contribute, and I want to exclude those who will be takers or criminals. And I definitely want a leader who can lead us without clumsily talking about banning Muslims as though he’s Osama Bin Laden’s caricature of W.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:06 amA couple points on “mechanics” of decision being made.
Immediately after the hearing yesterdahy the three judges went into a room to discuss the case and vote.
Once the outcome of the vote was made, the senior judge on the panel decides who will write the opinion/order.
Oddly this panel consisted of two judges who have taken “Senior Status”. As such, they do not get to decide who will write the order.
Unless Judge Friedland is on the losing end of a 2-1 vote, she is going to decide who writes the order, and I’m guessing she is going to write it herself. You heard her comment in the hearing about whether the Supreme Court would be better positioned to respond to an appeal if there was a “reasoned opinion” produced by the Panel, as compared to the bare-bones no-reasoning decision put out by Robart in Seattle.
I’m sure she had her clerks working on the order prior to the hearing based on an expectation that whichever way the vote goes she is going to be in the majority, and will assign the decision to herself. Even if she’s on the losing end of a 2-1 vote, the opinion being written could be a dissent.
But she’s been on the court for only 2 years, and is only 15 years out of law school. I’m very curious to see what it is she produces.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:10 am“The courts should butt out. Presidents have clear and unambiguous authority to limit the influx of foreign nationals.”
– ropelight
Hahaha… well, we’ll see what the courts have to say about that.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:13 amThe fact that Saudi Arabia wasn’t included on this list of countries is an embarrassment to thinking people.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:17 amAre there reasons of national security that the public is not privy to behind the exclusion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from that list?
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:23 amThe fact that Saudi Arabia wasn’t included on this list of countries is an embarrassment to thinking people.
Leviticus! That’s the kind of thinking that brings down the value of Rex Tillerson’s stock portfolio. You need to consider the collateral consequences to the share prices of giant multinationals when you impose these sanctions!
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:24 amOr strategic reasons? That’s all that I can think off top of my head that they, too, aren’t on that list.
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:25 amfailmerican judges are exponentially more tawdry trashy arrogant and contemptuous of justice than Mr. Trump has ever been on his worstest day ever
love him more than butter brickle ice cream I really do
happyfeet (cfa28f) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:28 amThat is why all the boys in town
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:34 amFollow him all around
Just like you they want to be
Close to him
But I would have imposed my small “c” chevron doctrine on this case, too. No judicial interference — for sure no ex parte injunctive relief — with the Commander in Chief’s actions against foreign nationals at our borders.
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:40 amGreat deference. Huge deference. Tremendous deference.
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:41 amRainy days and Mondays always get me down!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:42 amWell that’s a shame because they are a co-equal branch and Trump must work with them or he’s going to be a failure. Obama’s greatest triumph was when Roberts worked with him (it was also a bad day for justice).
This is why it’s always best to elect presidents with some experience working in and with the other branches. A solicitor general who then became a senator will be better able to work through these problems. Twitter and TV show experience can only take one so far.
Probably part of that file on how Ted Cruz’s dad killed JFK because Castro is also a dirty cuban. We will just have to trust Trump on this one, and it’s easy to trust Trump because he is the most honest man around. Of course he would stay silent on national security issues even if disclosure would benefit him.
Maybe not 100% of the time, but this time I’m sure he would and this is the reason why the countries the terrorists are coming from were not part of the ‘Muslim Ban’, while the countries they aren’t coming from were.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:44 amyes yes he wants to make us safe
these sick judges are gonna get people killed and murdered
it’s wrong
happyfeet (cfa28f) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:44 amCrickets when Obama/Bush 2/Clinton/Bush 1/Reagan/Carter did this and riots/righteous indignation over Trump’s EO an embarrassment to thinking people.
harkin (9803a7) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:44 amWell that couldn’t possibly be taken as an attack on Islam, would it?
narciso (b80f14) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:46 amHarkin, you’re making an assertion that is untrue and easily researched with the search function on the sidebar or with google.
https://patterico.com/2009/06/26/obama-administration-reportedly-drafting-order-on-indefinite-detention/
https://patterico.com/2014/11/23/schoolhouse-rock-im-an-executive-order-and-i-pretty-much-just-happen/
https://patterico.com/2009/12/28/obama-grants-interpol-immunity/
These are all fun posts that took me less than twenty seconds to find.
Harkin, you shouldn’t be a liar. It’s not good when Trump’s fans lie about people.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:53 am@Leviticus,
The rules for dealing with the Saudis are necessarily a little different. We want to avoid a fight with them if at all possible, because if we fight them we will win, and if we win then WE get to deal with administering Mecca.
C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:54 amActually, if we’re serious about fighting Islamic fascism, then we need to go ahead and bring it on when it comes to the Saudis. Go big or go home. Take Mecca. They took the World Trade Center. They killed my friends who went to Iraq. Some half-assed executive order about Somalia doesn’t do jack, especially if our president is too scared to take on the Saudis.
You want to create some jobs? Well Texas employers wouldn’t mind a bit if Saudi’s oil took a vacation.
Sell Mecca to Disney and I’m sure they will make your next Hajj safe and fun.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:00 amFrom a strictly economics point of view, cheap foreign oil is a good thing. Our reserves are not going anywhere, and we can tap them whenever the foreign oil peters out or becomes expensive enough. From a national security point of view, and not having to sup with the Devil for the sake of our car culture … “Drill, baby, drill!”
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:15 amTake Mecca
Great idea. Holy war for 1000 years.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:16 amDustin said:
“Harkin, you shouldn’t be a liar. It’s not good when Trump’s fans lie about people.”
Three links that prove my point (esp the schoolhouse video). I couldn’t have asked for anything better.
Cheers to you!
harkin (afc7a6) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:22 amDustin:
Also LOVE the quote from Trump about the Russians hopefully finding the THOUSANDS of emails Hillary wiped from her secret server.
Who ever knew it would take a foreign intelligence service to provide the transparency promised by Obama (but never delivered over two terms).
harkin (afc7a6) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:24 am“I often hear people say: “Who cares what Trump says? What matters is what he does!” As Donald Trump might say: Wrong! This case is a stark reminder that what the President says always matters.”
But Roberts, CJ showed us that when the President tells us he’s putting in place a healthcare law that is NOT, NOT, NOT a tax, it really does NOT matter what the president says. John gets to say its a “Tax” anyway. President’s words be damned.
AL (3304c6) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:27 amAnd meanwhile, back in the real (non-Disneyfied Mecca) world:
“At least 121 killings within a four-year span were carried out by convicted immigrants who were not deported, according to a 2015 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee document recently reviewed by el Nuevo Herald.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article131227599.html#storylink=cpy
harkin (afc7a6) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:28 amThe Russians and Wikileaks are just filling the vacuum left behind by old media. If the media had discovered what was going on at the DC and published that info, then who cares about the Russians.
steveg (14e881) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:36 amAll of the stuff that was “stolen” could have been found by our media if they’d been willing, but they were focused on Trump and on bootlicking Hillary instead.
judges should not make decisions that affect the security of the country. Those who do should be shot!
Jim (a9b7c7) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:44 amThere’s no actual proof the evidence came from Russia, notwithstanding that shiny brochure for rt
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:52 amSeemed timely… https://youtu.be/vxT4VgfzKsQ
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:54 amsteveg (5508fb) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:26 am
I don’t think Vladimir Putin would have liked that very much.
Everywhere he’s promoting generalized fear or suspicion of Moslems. This is the kind of stuff that’s supported by Moscow:
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/muslim-terrorism-reality-behind-multicultural-propaganda/ri16146
I am not finding the right links, but something’s going on here:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/why-europe-is-right-to-fear-putins-useful-idiots/2/03/world/americas/alt-right-vladimir-putin.html
Now Putin is careful with what he says himself, and also with how he goes about funding the anti-immigrant European right wing parties.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/world/americas/alt-right-vladimir-putin.html
Sammy Finkelman (f07364) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:55 amDiffuse teh sitchiashun!
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:56 amIt was a tongue in cheek remark, but yes, I suppose that could be considered a complication.
But git ‘er dun you cucks!
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 10:59 amTrump said the russians hacked Hillary when he begged Putin to release all the emails, remember? Would he lie about something like that?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:01 amthree links that show this blog was critical of executive orders from the previous administration, which was not your point when you complained that the response to those EOs was “crickets”. But some of you Trump fans are awful difficult to get to admit your errors for some reason. Some might say it’s a maturity issue!
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:02 amNo actual proof, as Robert m lee, and wordfence pointed out but actual analysis of software or underlying legislation must be ignored because trump,
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:05 amIs it possible Trump’s claim Russia was behind the hacking is based on information he cannot reveal due to national security ooga booga? I mean I hope he’s not just a liar like Harkin.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:12 amWill Rogers never met _________.
Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:15 amJudge was as deluded as the lumberjack at the zevon song blog
freebeacon.com/politics/judge-wrong-travel-ban-arrests-us-terrorist-travel-ban
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:25 amWhat would have happened if we had a travel ban……….?
http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/12/farook1-e1459818181735.jpg
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:28 amOn to the next kabuki;
truepundit.com/shattered-video-of-coretta-scott-king-thanking-jeff-sessions-for-rosa-parks-library-crushes-elizabeth-warren-racial-stunt
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:31 amFwiw:
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:39 amhttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-iran-pulls-missile-from-launchpad/article/2614185
what i like best about hillary is that she’s not president
winning
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:39 amI thought the Nordstrom Affair was next up.
Rick Ballard (5e8a41) — 2/8/2017 @ 11:41 amNo decision from the 9th today.
Good news or bad news?
Rick Ballard (5e8a41) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:11 pm“three links that show this blog was critical of executive orders from the previous administration, which was not your point when you complained that the response to those EOs was “crickets”. But some of you Trump fans are awful difficult to get to admit your errors for some reason. Some might say it’s a maturity issue!”
Was speaking about the msm on immigration orders from past presidents. I referenced all the way back to Carter, which was quite some time before this blog.
Try to keep up, or look in the mirror regarding maturity.
harkin (afc7a6) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:20 pmSpeaking of the “apophasis” that we discussed the other day, how’s this for a quote from our esteemed Great Pumpkin:
“I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased, and we haven’t had a decision yet, but courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right, and that has to do with the security of our country, which is so important.”
If you can peel through the eighth-grade rambling moronic gibberish, there’s a nice nugget of “apophasis” there for you.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:22 pmI don’t think your idea of winning and Trump’s are the same; the “Open Yap” strategy makes perfect sense to me. The President is further de-legitimizing an already suspect court. As the court’s popular standing declines, Trump’s rises. At some point, judges, the political animals that they are, may get wise and change course, which would be good news for Trump. If they don’t, Trump’s all the stronger for it. This is clearly a win-win in terms of the broader picture.
This EO is an especially good vehicle for Trump, too. To an average Joe, a politicized court appears to be standing in the way of a perfectly sensible order. To many (most?) close observers, the inference is more-or-less the same. I’d say, now’s the time for yapping (or Tweeting).
ThOR (c9324e) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:26 pm111-Dustin. “Is it possible Trump’s claim Russia was behind the hacking is based on information he cannot reveal due to national security ooga booga?”
–
Was it Russians that some congressional members used to manage their IT systems (including intelligence)?
–
“The brothers were suspected of multiple violations including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.
The men are “shared employees,” and are split between offices as need requires. Jamal worked for Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), a member of both the intelligence and foreign affairs panels and Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) who is on the Committee on Homeland Security.
Imran did work for Reps. Andre Carson (D-Ind.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), both of whom serve as members of the intelligence committee, while Abid worked for then-Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a member of House committees on oversight, armed services and Benghazi, and Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), a member of the foreign affairs committee.”
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/04/three-congressional-it-employees-fired-for-accessing-members-computer-networks-without-permission/
I’m hearing mostly crickets from the msm on this….imagine that.
–
Drain the swamp – ooga booga!!
harkin (afc7a6) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:27 pmThanks for sharing! BTW you still lied.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:44 pm“The President is further de-legitimizing an already suspect court. As the court’s popular standing declines, Trump’s rises. At some point, judges, the political animals that they are, may get wise and change course, which would be good news for Trump. If they don’t, Trump’s all the stronger for it. This is clearly a win-win in terms of the broader picture.”
– ThOR
Do you even hear what you’re saying? An independent judiciary is the last check on executive and legislative overreach – you know, the people with the guns and the money, who have the actual capacity to hurt you. The judiciary only functions as an effective check if people demand it be respected as one.
What’s “suspect” about the court? That it made decisions that you didn’t like?
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 12:54 pmThe Court has a duty to itself and the nation to maintain its own independence.
Throughout the history of the country it has been buffeted by criticism from the political branches for its decisions.
Trump’s comments are nothing unique. Shall we quote Obama’s State of the Union address? Want to go back and examine Clinton’s comments about the Arkansas Judge who ordered that he be deposed in the Paula Jones case?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:06 pmThere is some reason to believe that speaking at an 8th grade level got Trump a lot more votes than if he treated that half of the electorate as simpletons.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:07 pmHow can a judiciary be “independent” when they are either elected or they are appointed by politicians. Two sides of a political coin. One can be “independent” and partisan?
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:11 pmHe did treat half as simpletons, the half that voted Klinton.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:12 pmThe President is further de-legitimizing an already suspect court.
And the WaPo, intent for months on delegitimatizing Trump, is having conniptions about Trump trying to bully the courts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/08/president-trump-is-not-so-subtly-threatening-the-american-court-system/
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:12 pmWhat’s “suspect” about the court? That it made decisions that you didn’t like?
Well, the WA district court made decisions based on froth and anger, not law.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:15 pmRussia was behind the hacking
I thought it was Trump’s mind-control rays that made Hillary put her secrets on a ragbag server and got Podesta to click on a 3rd-grade phish.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:17 pm“An independent judiciary is the last check on executive and legislative overreach . . .”
Short of impeachment, what’s the check on judicial overreach? Speech. If the court is tempted to overreach, they need to understand that there is no hiding behind their robes. The court of public opinion will pass judgment too.
When the judiciary behaves in overtly political ways – case in point Robart’s comments on BLM – why is public criticism not appropriate? To withhold criticism empowers the Robarts of this world. Robart should be held publicly accountable for his words and actions.
It is a politicized judiciary, and not our goofy President, which has undermined “the last check on executive and legislative overreach.” Don’t blame the messenger.
ThOR (c9324e) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:24 pmThey will never admit it, but courts will err towards the side with the political power. After 9/11, W got a lot of decisions that broke his way. Later, after his support began to crumble, the courts moved away.
Trump is facing an enormous test in his first few months. Instead of a honeymoon period, the Democrats are instead giving him a full-court press. Any further and it would be insurrection. The courts see this. It is up to Trump (and more importantly his appointees) to break out of this scrum in a way that the people pick his side. If he cannot, he will fail and it will be a long 4 years. If he CAN get past this intifada and go into the midterms with popular support, the Dems are fukked.
And they know it. Hence the fierce opposition.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:25 pmShort of impeachment, what’s the check on judicial overreach?
No judge has ever been impeached and convicted for overreach. The last try was by Jefferson.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:27 pmThank you, Kevin. I didn’t know that and I’m a bit surprised.
ThOR (c9324e) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:29 pmYeah, I agree that’s an interesting fact. Presidents don’t get impeached as often as they should either. These are important checks in our system and I hope Trump faces impeachment at some point just to re-establish the power of the legislature. Only reason. Really. OK not really.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:42 pmThere’s about a dozen who’ve been impeached for various forms of dishonesty or misbehavior (e.g. drunkedness). Jefferson tried to get rid of Samuel Chase, a federalist Supreme Court justice, but the attempt failed and it was thereafter considered off-limits to impeach judges for political reasons.
Here’s a list of those cases that actually went to trial, and the main charges:
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments.html
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:42 pmMaybe he included the server with one of his generous donations to the Clinton foundation?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:50 pm==The judiciary only functions as an effective check if people demand it be respected as one.==
Yeah, too bad the court is made up of lawyers because that makes it so much harder. 🙂
elissa (895d7e) — 2/8/2017 @ 1:53 pmMy Syrian Christian friend uses the word jihadi as do the other Syrian liquor mini mart owners.
steveg (14e881) — 2/8/2017 @ 2:05 pmSince they had to deal with jihadis at ground level rather than in safe haven, I like to use their definition.
I also know that highbrow Muslims don’t like the word jihadi used this way, but it’s their problem, not mine
134. This is known as
“The Supreme Court follows the election returns”
http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_supreme_court_follows_the_election_returns_judges_follow_the_election_r
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 2/8/2017 @ 2:05 pm== If he CAN get past this intifada and go into the midterms with popular support, the Dems are fukked.==
This is a très important political point, Kevin M. And this is why we are going to see members of both R houses of congress helping the President along as much as they possibly can even though many of them may personally dislike him. Their futures rest with his now.
elissa (895d7e) — 2/8/2017 @ 2:18 pmall our futures they are in the hands of the trumpfather
happyfeet (1b5b2c) — 2/8/2017 @ 2:20 pm“How can a judiciary be “independent” when they are either elected or they are appointed by politicians. Two sides of a political coin. One can be “independent” and partisan?”
– Rev. Hoagie
Life tenure helps.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 2:37 pmall our futures they are in the hands of the trumpfather
I suppose you think this is helping.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:08 pmOK, I’ll bite.
Why is “an independent judiciary” a good thing? Suppose, once a year, the Congress could vote a judge of their choice off the island? Would that be terrible?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:11 pmI understand what you meant, but jihad is a pretty general term. A Muslim trying to work for women’s equality and losing her life would consider that her jihad. It’s just one of those things. Call it highbrow if you like. I prefer to be more clear when I call out Islamofascist violence because Jihad is the term the bad guys use to justify what they are doing.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:23 pmYou mean suppose we had impeachments?
No, it wouldn’t be terrible. I think a complete lack of them is a very unhealthy sign.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:24 pm“”Why is “an independent judiciary” a good thing?”
– Kevin M
Because people are already gullible and servile enough without executive and legislative overreach receiving the full-throated endorsement of a dependent judiciary.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:26 pmAnd because the preservation and proliferation of private causes of action is one of the few things that still gives government officials pause.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:28 pmRight after Election Day Zack Beauchamp of Vox.com opined that a President did have the power to do this.
He was thinking of an immigation ban not a student or tourist ban, and he knew it was not a Muslim ban:
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/10/13577474/president-elect-donald-trump-muslim-ban
Sammy Finkelman (4b8ab4) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:28 pmlink to sessions confirmation vote just getting underway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TTvV5PFT4U
elissa (895d7e) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:39 pmAnd because the preservation and proliferation of private causes of action is one of the few things that still gives government officials pause.
There is a LOT of room between “dependent” and “independent”. The political branches have significant controls on each other without either being a lapdog. There doesn’t need to be a subservient judiciary in order for it to not be completely high-handed.
Suppose a 3/4ths vote of the Senate could remove a judge for political reasons. Nothing needs proving, just “hey, let’s remove Judge Reinhardt because he hates the Pledge.” It’s not really independence so much as license that the current rules protect.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:40 pm“The political branches have significant controls on each other without either being a lapdog.”
– Kevin M
I would say that the Legislature has pretty much become the Executive’s lapdog in recent decades. You wanna talk about 3/4 of the Senate being able to impeach judges? Muster 3/4 of the House while you’re at it and amend the Constitution. We have protocols.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:48 pmKevin m. It’s an interesting “what if” idea but if you game it out one side would vote the worst one off and the other side would vote the best one off leading to more mediocrity than we have now. Losing the best is likely worse than keeping the worst.
crazy (d3b449) — 2/8/2017 @ 3:55 pmA good question:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/08/why-are-democrat-house-it-staffers-under-criminal-investigation-still-employed/
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:12 pmSessions confirmed
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:20 pmI would say that the Legislature has pretty much become the Executive’s lapdog in recent decades.
Yes, ever since they created a bunch of powerful agencies, keeping a legislative veto as a check. Then in 1983, the Court kills the legislative veto but not the agencies (INS v Chadha).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:22 pm3/4 of the House
Don’t need that many, of course.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:23 pmWe only amend the constitution by court decision anymore, leviticus
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:40 pmI think the judiciary has become far too big for its britches and needs to be stomped down and stomped hard. Unfortunately, we don’t have anyone with the stature to do it. And I’m not kidding.
To call the courts a super legislature or a permanent constitutional convention is an understatement. A black-robed junta which has hijacked the democratic process is more appropriate. A single flaming judge can veto the President when it takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to do it? Five out of nine justices can amend the Constitution when it’s supposed to be three-fourths of the states?
As for the “stomping”, federal court jurisdiction is, for all practical purposes, a creature of Congress. So is federal court procedure. We don’t need a Constitutional amendment to take away the courts’ jurisdiction over anything from immigration to abortion. Or to take away their injunctive and mandate power. What we do need is a person of respect to rally enough of Congress and the people behind him. And that we ain’t got.
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:50 pmI admit the (redacted) show that enabled the elian rendition that holder enabled shapes my skepticism.
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 4:55 pmAttorney General Jeff Sessions!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:14 pmEven our most ardent NeverTrump friends will admit that President Hillary “probably” wouldn’t have nominated him.
Interesting that we are now 24 hours post hearing, and we don’t have an order out yet. That suggests to me that they are writing a long opinion on various issues, and are not going to simply vacate the TRO or leave the TRO in place as is. Those would have been simple decisions to write.
IMO very likely that the TRO will be sustained in part, vacated in part, and sent back to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.
I think the “advice” in the order might very well caution Robart on some of the issues raised, especially the PP standing issue, and the likelihood of success on the merits issue.
The only part of the TRO they might leave unchanged is the stay on the EO to the extent it applies to visa holders who have already been to Washington and were caught out of the country at the time the EO was signed, and visa holders in Washington who are prevented from leaving out of fear they won’t get back in.
I think everything concerning the refugee provisions will be sent back to Robart for further development.
shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:18 pmIf Hillary was going to nominate a Senator to be AG, how far down the list of 100 would she have ha to go before she would have picked Sessions?? No. 95 or lower?
shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:19 pmNow she would have nominated tom Perez, the bane of law enforcement, a supporter of salafi in Maryland.
Respected candidates seem to only come in the rubberstamp for progressive policies
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:19 pmA good insight, shipwrecked, robarts opinion was rushed and fit the template suggested by a peter spiro in lawfare.
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:22 pmWhat we do need is a person of respect to rally enough of Congress and the people behind him. And that we ain’t got.
Well, we’ve had them — Romney would qualify — but it seems that the folks with that kind of respect don’t have the fire to force big change. Trump has big brass balls, but so does the bull in the china shop.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:23 pmWell, Sessions did not agree with Trump’s choice. He did not vote for himself. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:26 pmEven our most ardent NeverTrump friends will admit that President Hillary “probably” wouldn’t have nominated him.
Yes, well, I wouldn’t have either. Still, better than many. I just hope no cops want to forfeit my house to make their budgets meet, ’cause both Trump and Sessions think asset forfeiture is a beautiful thing.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:26 pmI think everything concerning the refugee provisions will be sent back to Robart for further development.
Yes, but enjoined or not?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:28 pmNow to fill the department heads and to wave good-bye to lots of folks. How about J Christian Adams running the Civil Rights Department?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:30 pmI read that the two male judges are senior status judges so the young newish female judge is probably writing the opinion. She’s certainly going to want to make this 15 minutes of fame opportunity (I don’t mean that in the usual derogatory way) count, and use it to burnish her reputation in a way that does not look utterly partisan to the nation at large. Plus, she clerked for Sandra Day O’Connor and knows she is watching.
elissa (895d7e) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:30 pmnk, Sessions voting for himself would have looked tacky –but legal, had it been necessary. I wondered if the Dems were trying to make that happen.
elissa (895d7e) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:33 pmThe narrative must flow uninterrupted
Babalublog.com/2017/02/08/aaaaaaaaaaay-cnn-working-on-elian-documentary/#comments
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:37 pmMaybe some Dems, but Manchin(D) voted for him to keep the vote 52-47 in the end.
And I agree. That’s why the smiley. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:39 pmSection 3 (c) suspends suspend “entry” (for 90 days) into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)
Sammy Finkelman (4b8ab4) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:40 pmIf you wondered about the spiegel cover artists other work
http://babalublog.com/2017/02/08/the-trump-beheading-statue-of-liberty-artist-also-draws-che-guevara-in-fact-his-work-is-hailed-and-exhibited-by-the-castro-regime-tremendo-nangara
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 5:46 pmThey already designated those seven countries,
44. Patterico (5890f2) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:38 am
No, as countries which citizens of other countries included in the visa waiver program, threw themselves out of the visa waiver program if they had visited it after March 1, 2011, except for some specified purposes, like official purposes for a government or interestnationlal organization, humanitarian purposes, reporting purposes or business purposes in some cases.
The main interest was that foreign fighters, nationals of European countries, might have gone there. Now places that ISIS established itself are also failed states.
Four states were included in the legislation: Syria, Iraq (which shouldn’t have been because all foreign fighters entered Iraq through Syria) Iran and Sudan. Iran and sudan were really included for other reasons. Many terrorists had transited Iran. Some also years ago Sudan. The Obama Administration, pursuant to the law, later added Yemen, Libya and Somalia. All had active ISIS affiliated fighters.
Sammy Finkelman (4b8ab4) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:01 pmhttp://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512702666/white-house-adviser-defends-trump-executive-order-on-immigration
narciso (d1f714) — 2/8/2017 @ 6:19 pmIn the vernacular jihadi is understood very well when connected to males 18-45 running around being a-holes
steveg (5508fb) — 2/8/2017 @ 7:39 pmBecause that’s what the terrorists want you to call them. You’re praising their motivations out of ignorance. I prefer Islamofascist violence instead of calling them crusaders in the name of God because what they are doing has nothing to do with God and is utterly unislamic.
What’s really sad is when the ignorance actually seeks to redefine the word. Now anyone who actually tries to help others as their ‘jihad’ is excluded from the term because of the ‘vernacular’ on conservative blogs.
I guess learning something new is akin to ‘losing the internet’ or something, which is why discussion threads aren’t working these days.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/9/2017 @ 3:17 amshipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/8/2017 @ 9:10 am
There are 29 active judges and 19 senior judges. I suppose some of the senior judges are very inactive. For those that are not, do they hear a smaller fraction of cases? If they were randomly selected and had an equal chance I wonder if somebpdy can calculate what are the chances that a panel of 3 would consist of 1 from the 29 and 2 from the 19.
The active judge is actually the one most recently appointed, number 99 of all judges that have ever been appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ghe longest still serving active judge is number 57, Stephen Reinhardt, born 1931, appointed 1980 by Carter.
I think the reason the 9th circuit is liberal could be that 10 of its 29 seats were established on October 20, 1978.
The earliest still serving senior judge is number 38, Alfred Theodore Goodwin, born 1923, apointed by Nixon in 1971, and was chief 1988 to 1991, when he went on senior status. Number 39 is also still there, John Clifford Wallace, born 1928, appointed 1972, Chief Judge 1991-1996, on senior statuus since 1996.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 11:11 am9th Circuit opinion here, upholding TRO:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457904/Read-the-9th-Circuit-s-opinion-on-the-travel-ban.pdf
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 3:52 pmSHOCKAH!!!
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 3:54 pmActually, the simply denied the emergency stay.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 3:54 pmOh, look at that: likelihood of success on the merits raising its head again. Shockah!!
Leviticus (c2dcf8) — 2/9/2017 @ 3:57 pmIt sounds to me as though there are not two votes for standing based on parens patriae doctrine, but there are likely at least two (possibly three) votes for standing based on the states’ proprietary interests.
This is exactly right. In fact, they do not even discuss the parens patriae question at all.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 3:59 pm“Last year, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.
So the talking point wasn’t true. And yet at the 9th Circuit oral argument, the judges appeared to believe it was true, and Justice Department lawyer August Flentje didn’t know enough to correct them. . . ”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fact-free-debate-on-immigration-order/article/2614298
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:04 pmStandard of review of a TRO is, or should be, de novo meaning they put themselves in the place of, and with no deference to, the trial court, so they effectively said they would have granted the stay of the executive order too.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:04 pmI was told that the all-powerful Trump DOJ lawyers were gonna kick all these challengers’ asses, once the treasonous Sally Yates was removed from their path. What gives? Where my DOJ gone?!
Leviticus (c2dcf8) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:05 pm90 days doesn’t seem unreasonable and we’ll see how the posturing, mincing and antics of Democrats, leftwing judges and other bad actors play out. They are profoundly out of step.
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:09 pmPROFOUNDLY out of step. SAD!
Leviticus (c2dcf8) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:10 pmThe Ninth Circuit is the most reversed of the circuits by a wide margin.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:12 pmYou bustin’ some mad mincin’ moves, Leviticus!
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:14 pmStandard of review of a TRO is, or should be, de novo
They are not treating this as a TRO, but as a preliminary injunction.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:14 pmHow was it Horton could figure out there was nonstanding, because he knows the law
narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:15 pmSince this reasonable moratorium is not working, the best move would be to immediately impose strict reporting requirements on travelers from these 7 countries, and lift the “ban” on those travelers who have conforming data. TFB if insufficient note was given, but the courts wouldn’t allow any delay.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:19 pmI expect more tweets.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:20 pmWashington governor says we all have to “fight for our democracy”… which apparently includes the right of foreign nationals from 7 terrorist havens to enter the USA without proper vetting.
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:20 pmTo the extent that a big part of the problem with the EO is the fact that, on its face, it applies to LPRs and other people who are entitled to due process hearings, why doesn’t the President simply issue a new EO which excludes those people and/or provides a process for them?
That would get 90% of the intended effect of this order and would moot that set of issues entirely.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:21 pmlikelihood of success on the merits raising its head again
But, interestingly, the burden is shifted to the appellant and the handwave by the district judge is ignored.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:22 pmOut: appropriate application of presidential powers
In: Intellectual leaps by leftist judiciary
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:23 pmThey are not treating this as a TRO, but as a preliminary injunction.
That would be wrong, right there, because it was ex parte, without adequate notice, adequate opportunity for both sides to be heard and, worst, adequate taking of evidence for the record.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:24 pmwhy doesn’t the President simply issue a new EO
Well, now he has an AG who isn’t out to screw him, and hopefully Sessions is replacing people left and left.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:24 pmBy his bigotry, Donald Trump has put the security of the United States at grave risk.
He must be impeached.
Dave (711345) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:25 pmKevin M, at 203: that’s expected.
At the district court level, there was a motion for a temporary restraining order, which requires that the person making the motion demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
At the appellate level, there was a motion for a stay of a preliminary injunction (in effect), which requires that the person making the motion demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
IN both cases the burden lies with the person bringing the motion.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:25 pmDid we nit see this jumping through hoops with the detainee cases, going through hamdan then the detainee act, and then hamdi and boumrdienne
narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:28 pmNK – if they hadn’t treated it as a preliminary injunction, they would have said “we cannot hear a request for a stay of this TRO, please wait until a preliminary injunction is issued and ask for a stay of that.”
That was actually the position of Washington, in its reply brief.
Instead, they said this:
> We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.
I thought they signalled this part of the outcome during the hearing.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:28 pmCull the herd of these hack judges.
mg (31009b) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:31 pmThank you, aphrael. Nothing like the batter stepping off the plate during the windup for the umpire to call a strike.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:40 pm207… by his asshattery, Dave has put his last shred of credibility in the crapper.
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:45 pmI wouldn’t be surprised if he eventually is. The EO was hateful and the GOP deserves to pay a steep political price.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:49 pmThere is something bizarre about this.
The administration argues that it’s a critical matter of national security that this EO be implemented. With one exception (the religious discrimination / improper motive) argument, everything the 9th circuit has objected to could be resolved in a new EO which excludes the classes of people that are entitled to due process protection.
This would be easy. The OLC could probably produce such a document within a day — and it would deny the administration nothing, as the OLC currently claims that its post-issuance memorandum already excludes these classes of people from the EO.
It would fix a procedural defect and leave the overwhelming majority of the substance of the order untouched.
So, if it’s so critical that this be implemented immediately, why don’t they issue a revised order fixing the procedural defects?
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:50 pminsider.foxnews.com/2017/02/09/kellyanne-conway-appeals-court-upholding-suspension-trump-travel-ban
narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:51 pmAmen aphrael. That’s exactly the right approach. Get off the left’s preferred battlefield.
crazy (d3b449) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:56 pmSeriously Dustin, that’s just silly , much like this objection:
https://mobile.twitter.com/nbc4i/status/829467633166798849
The decision recalls the army chief of staff’s objection to purging nidal hassan
narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 4:56 pmAt the district court level, there was a motion for a temporary restraining order, which requires that the person making the motion demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
They did no such thing, however.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:02 pm“Last year, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.”
What do people find hard to understand about this 90 day suspension? I recall a few posters saying there haven’t been any terrorist attacks by anyone from any of the 7 countries that were included in the EO. That is obviously not true.
Colonel Haiku (d296aa) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:03 pmThe EO was hateful
Why? And if you say “because it was a Muslim ban” you go in the same ignore bin as Dave.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:04 pm66. Colonel Haiku (8cfa8b) — 2/8/2017 @ 8:23 am
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:06 pmKevin M, at 219: I can’t know that. The TRO doesn’t give me enough to go on, and I have not listened to recording of the district court’s hearing (if it’s even available).
All I was doing was explaining why the burden shifted; the burden was expected to shift.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:07 pmColonel Haiku:
the 90-day suspension was clearly unconstitutional *as applied to lawful permanent residents currently abroad*, and it was probably unconstitutional *as applied to admitted aliens wishing to travel abroad and return*; both of those classes of people are entitled to some form due process before their ability to enter the country is revoked.
the administration has tacitly admitted this; the OLC has issued “guidance” indicating that the EO doesn’t apply to those people, because of the need for due process, even though the text of the EO clearly does apply to those people.
how difficult would it be to simply issue a new EO which cures this procedural defect?
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:09 pmaphrael,
I understood about the burden, I’m just annoyed that WA state was not required to show cause on appeal. What you are saying is that the district court’s determination isn’t reviewable.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:10 pmthe 90-day suspension was clearly unconstitutional *as applied to lawful permanent residents currently abroad*, and it was probably unconstitutional *as applied to admitted aliens wishing to travel abroad and return*; both of those classes of people are entitled to some form due process before their ability to enter the country is revoked.
And the OLC was, at best, remiss in not catching this. More likely it was a bomb they inserted.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:12 pmIgnore me if you want. Partisans often find themselves behaving like children.
Trump did in fact call it a Muslim ban. That’s where you’re getting the term, right? From the GOP president? I didn’t put it in your head.
It is hateful to green card holders to say they cannot return home on the basis of nationality. It’s also illegal and therefore unconstitutional due to the separation of powers.
But you knew that. You just wanted to be a little snippy because being a GOP partisan means searching for reasons to dismiss morality now. Ignore me if you want!
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:13 pmaphrael @215.
It seems like what Trump is really interested in is asserting absolute, unreviewable, presidential preogaive to deny admission of anyone not a U.S. citizen to the United States, which he may want to use for purposes other than preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, and of course, Trump knows better than to believe what he is saying about this being urgent or a rational response to danger.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:13 pmKevin M, at 226: I can see that argument. On the other hand, since OLC has attempted to cure by issuing a not-legally-binding and therefore ineffective “guidance” attempting to reinterpret the EO by excluding these classes of people from its ambit, my strong suspicion is that either OLC didn’t have the chance to object prior to President Trump signing it or their objections were overruled.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:14 pmI think what is going on here is clear though: everything that Trump does by EO wrt immigration is going to be treated as “rounding up the Jews.” This is just battlespace preparation for the deportation orders that are coming.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:15 pmIgnore me if you want. Partisans often find themselves behaving like children.
Dustin, I have very mixed feelings about Trump. I am capable of a reasoned discussion based on the facts, not the results.
You have a hard-line partisan position, where EVERY discussion ends with Trump delenda est.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:16 pmTrump did in fact call it a Muslim ban. That’s where you’re getting the term, right? From the GOP president? I didn’t put it in your head.
No I got if from Dave.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:17 pmIt’s also illegal and therefore unconstitutional due to the separation of powers.
What is “it” in that sentence?
In general, Congress has granted great power over immigration to the President, and his primary role in the conduct of foreign policy suggests that much of it was his anyway. Congress is granted the power of NATURALIZATION, not immigration.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:18 pmThe denial of the stay really did not address the discriminatory intent / improper motive / establishment of religion claims.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:19 pmColonel @213: Dave could have save a lot of bandwidth if he’d led with #207. And he’d have been a lot more straight forward in his advocacy.
Why do these lefties have to disguise their message in a lot of lies and half-truths? Could it be that they are aware of its deficiencies, and feel compelled to yell ‘squirrel’?
BobStewartatHome (71c904) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:21 pmAll they did was suggest that the government does not have a slam dunk case and limited the standing argument. I am not sure what the next step is. Is this now an injunction, operative until a district court trial?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:22 pmMorality is not a political party. I would be equally critical of Trump no matter what party he is in. Therefore calling this a partisan position is absurd by definition.
Trump is the person who authored this executive order. I’m not just blaming him for its failure at random.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:23 pmActually, Trump’s intent has been repeatedly stated. He wishes to ban muslims. That is not constitutional. It’s pretty early on in the bill of rights if you don’t believe me. In a discrimination issue, intent matters. Your GOP president made it crystal clear what his intentions are.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:24 pmCourts will avoid constitutional arguments when they can, but the only way they could, here, is by ruling against the government, dispositively, on other grounds.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:25 pmOne of the Friend of the Court briefs argued that the Executive Order attempted to supercede laws and regulations related to the issuance and revokal of several different types of visas:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-35105%20Natl%20Immigrant%20Justice%20Ctr%20ASISTA%20Amicus%20Motion%20and%20Brief.pdf
That brief also contended that in places it did, or an inerpretation of it would, violate some treatoes and international agreement. Asylees and refugees are allowed to seek “refugee travel documents, but they wouldn’t be of any use if they couldn’t leave the country and return.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:25 pmNo, wait … *against the government on substantive grounds or against the states on jurisdictional or procedural grounds*.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:27 pmTrump abandoned the idea of a (temporary) Muslim ban (until we figure out what’s going on, he said) long before the election.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:28 pmNo he wished to impose a pause, so as general Kelly put it, to review the procedures for transit from those seven countries, now an ideological screen like the one frank gaffney suggested would draw many more not only across west Africa and south Asia but into europe
narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:31 pm1) There is nothing IN the Constitution suggesting that it applies to immigrants. But I will grant the possibility that banning all Muslim immigration, absent a damn good reason (we banned Communists and Nazis and AIDS patients at various points) is not acceptable.
2) Whatever the President says DURING A CAMPAIGN has nothing to do whatsoever with what the law says UNLESS the law echoes exactly those statements. Which the EO does not. I’m sure you are tired of the 15% and only for now argument, but it IS the fact. And from those 7 countries non-Muslims are equally affected, so even then you cannot claim that the EO discriminates against anyone. We are not required to have the same rules for every country. Canada. North Korea.
3) What really surprises me is that you guys effing MISS the actual Muslim ban on refugees, since it is couched in the weasel words that use use against Mexican workers. In time there will be 50,000 refugees admitted from the war zone, but preference will go to persecuted minorities. This will have the effect of letting in Yazidis and Christians and Kurds but keeping out mainstream Muslims (aka “the oppressors”).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:33 pmKevin M, there are three plausible next steps.
(1) the DoJ can ask the full 9th circuit to sit as an en banc panel and rehear their motion for a stay. This is unlikely to happen.
(2) the DoJ can appeal the denial of their motion for a stay to the Supreme Court. This is what I expect to happen.
(3) the administration can replace the EO with a new one which cures the procedural defects.
Otherwise, there’s a TRO in place until the ninth circuit hears the motion for an injunction pending trial.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:33 pmYeah, there’s a ‘possibility’ that laws infringing on freedom of religion just might be unconstitutional, Kevin. Thanks for being so generously fair!
Furthermore, the congress explicitly banned nationality as a basis for discrimination. The president signed that law.
‘but that’s not congress’s purview’ is a hilarious defense. I hope that’s what Trump tries.
But they want this fight and they might even want to lose this fight so it can keep going for a long time. They could easily resolve this and cooperate with the co-equal branches of government, with results, but that’s not the Trump way.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:36 pmThis is all just a try-out for what happens when Trump orders the INS to get to it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:36 pmIf you’re an immigrant, can the police seize your property without probable cause?
If you’re an immigrant, do you have the right to a trial before you’re convicted of a crime?
If you’re an immigrant, do you have freedom from religious discrimination?
Kevin isn’t sure.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:38 pmYeah, there’s a ‘possibility’ that laws infringing on freedom of religion just might be unconstitutional, Kevin. Thanks for being so generously fair!
Hey, what rights do you suppose a Saudi subject has arriving at JFK without a visa or a green card? We can’t harm him, but that’s about the end of it. He doesn’t even get a hearing.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:38 pm224… I don’t know, aphrael, that may be the most prudent course of action.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:38 pmDustin, and again you fall back to putting words in other people’s mouths then bashing the straw horse you’ve created. I do not know what has turned you into such a despicable troll, but I’m done.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:39 pmLike Mohammed manna Al quahtani who flew into Orlando airport, August 15, 2001, you might know him as the 20th hijacker
narciso (d1f714) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:42 pmI think we could Constitutionally ban both immigrant and non-immigrant aliens who believe America is the Great Satan and that killing “non-believers” is a ticket to Paradise, and if we cannot, we need an Article V Convention STAT.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:46 pmKevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:18 pm
It is the STATES, not the president, which has the power over immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And in case this is not enough, the constitution specifically states the powerto admit (or not admit) migrants is a state power.
http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/full-text
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1
Ypu may argue tat they are talking about slaves. But it is not limited to slaves.
You may argue that there seems to be some power of Congress to prohibit immigration. Actually that’s not so. What Congress can regulate is foreign commerce, and I don’t think any of the court cases that upheld a federal power to restrict and regulate immigration is based on anything other than that. And it is Congress that has such power as it has, not the president, except as I said, to the extent that Abraham Lincoln had vast powers to defend the constitution.
There is also the power to provide for the national defense, and to punish crime, but where deportation is a punishment for crime it has to be in the statute criminalizing something, and must not be ex post facto.
But where does the power to prohibit employment come from? The power claimed here is greater even than Wickard allowed. And where does he power to deport anyone against the wishes of a state come from? No place, it looks like.
Now you may say only a true originalist would rule so. But Neil Gorsuch is exactly such a textualist and originalist, as is Clarence Thomas.
Nobody thought the federal government had any power to expel until at least 1875, but they did think states had the power to exclude non-citizens, which many states put Free Negroes into the category of.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:51 pmNK: you might be able to, but certain types of aliens would be entitled to a hearing in which the state would be required to establish, to the satisfaction of a magistrate, that the alien believes what he is alleged to believe.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:54 pm235… good point, Bob. Isn’t Dave the guy who claimed to be a Cruz supporter? I can’t imagine that’s true.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:02 pmAs I read this I wonder now if there actually was anything different the gov’t attorney could/should have said to get a another result.
Any legal eagle takers?
elissa (0c5899) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:04 pmGreen cards in the United States. That’s easy. Anybody else? Korematsu has never been reversed, BTW.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:04 pmChief Justice John Roberts will argue, in his concurring opinion, that the granting of permanent residence status by the federal government is a form of naturalization, which a state cannot override, and that naturalization doesn’t have to be to full citizenship because it something that has an inernational meaning, and we see that U.S. laws protect such persons, who are called “U.S. persons,” in a way that foreigners are not protected.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:05 pm*Overruled*
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:05 pmSammy, you missed a few little details.
as I said
First, this clearly suggests that Congress HAS the power to prohibit migration or importation of persons, without limit AFTER 1808. It’s not really a stretch. Second, Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808.
Over time, it has become accepted that the President has plenary power with regard to foreign policy, and part of foreign policy regards relations with subjects of foreign lands. This allows Presidents to limit immigration during wartime, for example. Neither Congress nor the executive has absolute power here.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:06 pmthe granting of permanent residence status by the federal government is a form of naturalization
Go try to get a passport with your green card.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:09 pmevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:38 pm
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:10 pmYou can, but it’s called a Reentry Permit.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:11 pmIn Swahili it’s called pasipoti.
nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:13 pmI think we could Constitutionally ban both immigrant and non-immigrant aliens who believe America is the Great Satan and that killing “non-believers” is a ticket to Paradise, and if we cannot, we need an Article V Convention STAT.
Further, if someone answered an immigration question on this topic NO, but lied, they could be stripped of citizenship they had later acquired and expelled.
I am reminded of the Customs officer who did not admit one of the 9-11 conspirators, on the basis of him saying he hated America.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:13 pmTime to expand your imagination then. I voted for Ted Cruz on the last day of my 35 years in Republican party, June 7, 2016.
Trump claims his executive order is vital to the security of the United States. But it has now been blocked indefinitely because of his bigoted comments against Muslims.
His “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” is still prominently posted on his campaign website:
Dave (711345) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:14 pmNo, actually he may petition for asylum
Yes, OK. But if he doesn’t, off he goes. He cannot sue to get in.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:15 pmTime to expand your imagination then. I voted for Ted Cruz on the last day of my 35 years in Republican party, June 7, 2016.
Believe it or not, I can say the exact same thing. The difference is that the world is as it is, not as I would make it, and I’m clear on that point.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:16 pmthe granting of permanent residence status by the federal government is a form of naturalization
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:09 pm
A ,i> form of naturalization. It may not fit perfectly, but hief Justice Roberts would rule that way to avoid potentially creating a mess. (Clarence Thomas will avoid that issue in his opinion)
Now you could say that ruling most internal enforcement of federal immigration laws (as oppose to border crossing laws) unconstitutional also creates a mess, but by that time some states will be in full fledged confrontation with the federal government.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:16 pmExcept for the 35 years part.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:17 pmI don’t know how Canada views a green card, nor even Mexico. But I think it isn’t generally much use as an international ID. You still need a passport from your country of residence (or special refugee/asylum documents).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:19 pmDave, you are a dupe. Get well.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:20 pmDonald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States
And his people said, um, Mr President, with all due respect, you can’t do that. You can do this (offers EO).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:21 pm@Dave Donald Trump backed off from that long before the election. See my link @152.
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/10/13577474/president-elect-donald-trump-muslim-ban
Zack Beauchamp wrote that he had consulted several experts on US immigration law and they said that Trump would be able to implement his ban. because Congress has y granted wide power to the president to alter immigration rules, and if it is designed properly, it is virtually guaranteed to survive court challenges from liberal advocacy groups determined to derail it.
Now, this is precisely the issue at hand. It is not whether the president’s executive is wise or whether any other person elected president in 2016 would have done this. It is whether he has unrevieweable power or not.
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:26 pmKevin M (25bbee) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:21 pm
They told him that, already in 2015, and that it couldn’t be implemented, because knowledge of who is a Moslem is not something that the United States would know automatically in all countries, but that we do know nationality, and he agreed, and modified his proposal, although he was still at it in the January 15, 2016 South Carolina presidential debate. In the March 29 Milwakee town hall on CNN , he seemed to be talking about his proposal in the past tense, and claimed he thought he would lose votes when he proposed it. By the second presidential debate on October 9, 2016, it was off the table:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.h
tml?_r=0
Coming up next: Putting the Moslem Brotherhood on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Egypt wants it. The counter is that the Moslem Brotherhood has many members, and cheats in its internal elections, so there must be people in it who don’t support terrorism or violence. (How about people above a certain rank?)
Sammy Finkelman (4151a0) — 2/9/2017 @ 6:51 pm