"So called judge"

[sdifox]

I'm wondering how I would rule on this were I in the position of the court. If a "Muslim ban" is clearly unconstitutional, does that make this EO unconstitutional merely because the president wishes he could have done more? I'm not sure a wish ought to have much to do with a judicial check on the executive.

This notwithstanding, I do not wish to give anyone the impression that I think either Trump's wish or actual order are good in any way.

The problem with the current EO is that it impacts people that were already vetted, got visa/approved refugee status/green card and are on their way. If it was just stop taking in new refugees and issuing new visa there would not have been an issue.

 

[OutHouse]

Unfortunately he is unable to dictate immigration on the basis of religion, which was pretty obviously his intent.

not what the EO says and what it does not do.

sorry but the law is crystal clear, He has the authority granted by congress and followed the law as written. Nowhere in the EO is a specific religion mentioned. The courts can only rule on what the EO says not conjecture of intent.

8 US CODE 1182
(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.

 

[OutHouse]

The problem with the current EO is that it impacts people that were already vetted, got visa/approved refugee status/green card and are on their way. If it was just stop taking in new refugees and issuing new visa there would not have been an issue.

and all those people are now in the country.

 

[fskimospy]

not what the EO says and what it does not do.

sorry but the law is crystal clear, He has the authority granted by congress and followed the law as written. Nowhere in the EO is a specific religion mentioned. The courts can only rule on what the EO says not conjecture of intent.

This is false. Where did you get such a ridiculous idea from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins

Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.

More recently when striking down North Carolina's racist voting laws the 4th circuit explicitly cited the law's discriminatory intent despite the law having no mention of it:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id. Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court to the contrary and remand with instructions to enjoin the challenged provisions of the law.

So no, the courts can absolutely rule based on intent and in this case the intent was obvious. This is one of several reasons why the courts have struck it down as unconstitutional.

 

[Jhhnn]

and all those people are now in the country.

Thanks to the ruling of the so-called judge.

 

[sdifox]

and all those people are now in the country.

Not yet. The ban is suspended but not everyone who are impacted by this are in the States already.

 

[interchange]

The problem with the current EO is that it impacts people that were already vetted, got visa/approved refugee status/green card and are on their way. If it was just stop taking in new refugees and issuing new visa there would not have been an issue.

I get it. But is that the legal problem? Or the only legal problem? If it gets struck down, would a travel ban excluding those who were already approved be constitutional? If it's a first amendment religious freedom challenge, how would this have anything to do with your objection to the EO?

 

[sdifox]

I get it. But is that the legal problem? Or the only legal problem? If it gets struck down, would a travel ban excluding those who were already approved be constitutional? If it's a first amendment religious freedom challenge, how would this have anything to do with your objection to the EO?

As long as it doesn't impact people that already have permission, it is legal. Amoral, sure, but legal. It's really a case of Trump fucking it up again as opposed to he cannot do this. Temporary suspension of visa issuance happens, for whatever reason.

 

[NTMBK]

It rumbles on...

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

EDIT: I liked this from the Appeals Court:

Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.”

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/9/14570202/trump-judges-tweet

 

[agent00f]

I'm wondering how I would rule on this were I in the position of the court. If a "Muslim ban" is clearly unconstitutional, does that make this EO unconstitutional merely because the president wishes he could have done more? I'm not sure a wish ought to have much to do with a judicial check on the executive.

This notwithstanding, I do not wish to give anyone the impression that I think either Trump's wish or actual order are good in any way.

Intention matters in western common law, as does judicial discretion which is why we have them. For example if it's illegal to target minorities for whatever, and someone tries sneaking around it by doing so implicitly, any worthwhile judge is going to see right through it.

Of course that factual reality won't save the dummy bigots here trying to pretend this isn't the muslim ban trump was bragging about from juvenile fantasies of how the system should work in their favor.

 

[sdifox]

Apparently Hillary replied to Trump's tweet with "3-0" :awe:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Apparently Hillary replied to Trump's tweet with "3-0" :awe:

I saw that someone replied "PA, WI, MI" and another "0-2 Presidential bids" or something to that effect. Hillary's irrelevance hits a new low.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Read some interesting reports this morning. The way the courts viewed the arguments for the TRO (temp restraining order) suggests it lays the groundwork for an effective temp injunction which would be sent back to the WA court. This requires a higher level of scrutiny and it may take quite some time to resolve as the court, not the Government, decides the timetable.

Not pretending to be a lawyer and so not saying this will happen, but it was interesting to consider.

 

[sdifox]

I saw that someone replied "PA, WI, MI" and another "0-2 Presidential bids" or something to that effect. Hillary's irrelevance hits a new low.

And her failure to win the presidency is relevant to Trump's failure how?

 

[fskimospy]

And her failure to win the presidency is relevant to Trump's failure how?

I mean it's pretty relevant. Had she won we would have a president who is actually competent.

There's another funny/sad/scary story in Politico today that's basically filled with White House staff saying that Trump seems to lack the ability to understand and perform basic parts of his job and that he spends his days vacillating between surprise and rage at how hard the job is. The guy is not mentally well.

 

[sdifox]

I mean it's pretty relevant. Had she won we would have a president who is actually competent.

There's another funny/sad/scary story in Politico today that's basically filled with White House staff saying that Trump seems to lack the ability to understand and perform basic parts of his job and that he spends his days vacillating between surprise and rage at how hard the job is. The guy is not mentally well.

But she lost and Trump is POTUS so there is no point in bring up if only scenario.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And her failure to win the presidency is relevant to Trump's failure how?

It has the same relevancy as Hillary's tweet. Is what's going on here really that difficult to for you to understand?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And her failure to win the presidency is relevant to Trump's failure how?

I think Doc Savage was just stating, overall irrelevance at this point in the game. Frankly I think she'd be better served not trying to get little jabs in here and there. It looks pretty childish really.

I mean it's pretty relevant. Had she won we would have a president who is actually competent.

There's another funny/sad/scary story in Politico today that's basically filled with White House staff saying that Trump seems to lack the ability to understand and perform basic parts of his job and that he spends his days vacillating between surprise and rage at how hard the job is. The guy is not mentally well.

Debatable that she would have actually been competent. And at this point I'd argue that it's not relevant, see above.

I'd agree at that last part though. The impression I got from his face after the first walkthrough with Obama was 'what the hell, why is so much going on here?'.

 

[sdifox]

It has the same relevancy as Hillary's tweet. Is what's going on here really that difficult to for you to understand?

So anyone that has ever failed doesn't get to point out the sitting president's failure?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So anyone that has ever failed doesn't get to point out the sitting president's failure?

Wow...apparently this is that difficult for you to understand. Let me explain. Hillary was jabbing Trump for his 3-0 failure and Trump supporters jabbed her back for her failures. Tit for tat...this isn't rocket science.

And NOBODY said that anyone who's ever failed is not entitled to point out the president's failure. That's all you and your convoluted perception of reality.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So anyone that has ever failed doesn't get to point out the sitting president's failure?

It looks rather unprofessional for the one who lost the fight to be throwing snarky rocks at the winner. Everything else aside, that would make me less likely to be inclined to vote for her in the future.

 

[sdifox]

Wow...apparently this is that difficult for you. Let me explain. Hillary was jabbing Trump for his 3-0 failure and Trump supporters jabbed her back for her failures. Tit for tat...this isn't rocket science.

And NOBODY said that anyone who's ever failed is not entitled to point out the president's failure. That's all you and your convoluted perception of reality.

What are you talking about, where did I say Trump supporters cannot mock Hillary? Do you agree that a President's failure is more serious than a president wannabe's failure?

 

[sdifox]

It looks rather unprofessional for the one who lost the fight to be throwing snarky rocks at the winner. Everything else aside, that would make me less likely to be inclined to vote for her in the future.

She is not making another run. At least I hope not.

 

[realibrad]

This is false. Where did you get such a ridiculous idea from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins



More recently when striking down North Carolina's racist voting laws the 4th circuit explicitly cited the law's discriminatory intent despite the law having no mention of it:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf



So no, the courts can absolutely rule based on intent and in this case the intent was obvious. This is one of several reasons why the courts have struck it down as unconstitutional.

I have been thinking about this quite a bit.

For that law to be relevant here, it has to be shown that a race is being targeted (Islam is not a race) and it has to be a cover to accomplish discrimination through the guise of something else. Having a bad motive is not enough to say this is illegal, and Ill give an example.

A vehement racist in FL (not hard to imagine) shoots a Black man that was on his property. There were not witnesses and the only facts known is that the two men were on the shooters property. The shooter says the Black man was not invited and the shooter said he feared for his safety. The fact that the man was racist will not matter unless there is evidence to show it was the reason for shooting the man. You can reasonably wonder if he might not have shot a White man, but it still does not mean it was illegal to kill that man.

You can in fact see that line of reasoning with the Voting law you cited.

Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.

The reason they made the decision they did was because they requested race data, and then enacted a law that effected minorities more as well as not having a valid justification in reality.

The argument cannot simply be that the countries banned was for race or religion as empirically that is untrue. The best recourse would be to point out that if it were about terrorism, why these specific countries were chosen. If we overturn his ban for the wrong reasons it would have massive implications and would be super dumb. There is a valid argument about overturning this, but its not a Muslim or Arab one. He did not ban the majority of the Muslim world, and he did not ban the majority of the Arab world.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What are you talking about, where did I say Trump supporters cannot mock Hillary? Do you agree that a President's failure is more serious than a president wannabe's failure?

Sigh...I can only hope you're trolling now as opposed to the only other remaining alternative explanation.