"So called judge"

[fskimospy]

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.

This is incorrect for a number of reasons:

1) Race and religion are interchangeable here the law applies identically to both for this purpose.

2) The shooting story is not relevant as in this case we know that anti-Muslim animus was the reason for creating this order specifically as both Trump and Giuliani have effectively said as much. Your story is about some general animus.

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

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.

This is literally exactly what happened here. It is now part of the record that Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims, asked Giuliani how he could ban Muslims, and then enacted what Giuliani suggested. The government's argument that it's about terrorism made no sense as no one in America has been killed by a terrorist from those nations in 40 years.

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.

No, this would be in exact keeping with longstanding SCOTUS precedent and it is absolutely vital that we overturn it EXPLICITLY because it is a Muslim ban. Empirically we know it was done to ban a religion as again, both Trump and Giuliani have effectively said that was the goal. As a reminder, here's Giuliani's statement:

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

There's no ambiguity there. Trump asked for a Muslim ban and Giuliani said basically 'you can ban Muslims so long as we say it's about the country and not the religion'. Sadly, Giuliani's legal judgment there turned out to be comically wrong.

The only 'massive implications' would be that the law continues on as it has for literally more than a century. Somehow saying that this sort of facially neutral order was NOT motivated by this animus or that this animus didn't matter despite the public statements of those behind it would be a legal catastrophe as it would effectively gut this longstanding precedent.

Here's from the 9th circuit's opinion unanimously denying Trump's request to lift the injunction:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”);

So the 9th circuit not only accepts that anti-Islamic animus is a valid reason to permanently enjoin this order, they say the government has not shown they are likely to prevail in arguing that this is not motivated by anti-Islamic animus. For both the reasons of protecting longstanding legal precedent and protecting common sense it's vital that the courts focus on the obvious religious discriminatory intent of this order. So far they're doing well!

 

[sdifox]

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

So explain to this dummy what is more important, a sitting president's failure or a president wannabe's failure.

 

[realibrad]

This is incorrect for a number of reasons:

1) Race and religion are interchangeable here the law applies identically to both for this purpose.

2) The shooting story is not relevant as in this case we know that anti-Muslim animus was the reason for creating this order specifically as both Trump and Giuliani have effectively said as much. Your story is about some general animus.



This is literally exactly what happened here. It is now part of the record that Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims, asked Giuliani how he could ban Muslims, and then enacted what Giuliani suggested. The government's argument that it's about terrorism made no sense as no one in America has been killed by a terrorist from those nations in 40 years.



No, this would be in exact keeping with longstanding SCOTUS precedent and it is absolutely vital that we overturn it EXPLICITLY because it is a Muslim ban. Empirically we know it was done to ban a religion as again, both Trump and Giuliani have effectively said that was the goal. As a reminder, here's Giuliani's statement:



There's no ambiguity there. Trump asked for a Muslim ban and Giuliani said basically 'you can ban Muslims so long as we say it's about the country and not the religion'. Sadly, Giuliani's legal judgment there turned out to be comically wrong.

The only 'massive implications' would be that the law continues on as it has for literally more than a century. Somehow saying that this sort of facially neutral order was NOT motivated by this animus or that this animus didn't matter despite the public statements of those behind it would be a legal catastrophe as it would effectively gut this longstanding precedent.

Here's from the 9th circuit's opinion unanimously denying Trump's request to lift the injunction:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf



So the 9th circuit not only accepts that anti-Islamic animus is a valid reason to permanently enjoin this order, they say the government has not shown they are likely to prevail in arguing that this is not motivated by anti-Islamic animus. For both the reasons of protecting longstanding legal precedent and protecting common sense it's vital that the courts focus on the obvious religious discriminatory intent of this order. So far they're doing well!

They are saying that its evidence enough to consider, but they did not say it was a motivating factor in the ban. The way I read what you just said makes it seem like the court accepted the claim and agreed, which it did not. The reason the court enjoined was not for the anti-Islamic, but for the impact on the states. You may want to go over it again.

What the court did say was that the states are being hurt by the ban, which also is a big problem in their ruling. The president has valid powers to do things that could hurt states. If you start opening the door saying that executive orders hurt some states more than others, and as such should make the order invalid, you will have a shit storm.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So explain to this dummy what is more important, a sitting president's failure or a president wannabe's failure.

Neither is important. This is merely political jousting.

 

[fskimospy]

They are saying that its evidence enough to consider, but they did not say it was a motivating factor in the ban. The way I read what you just said makes it seem like the court accepted the claim and agreed, which it did not. The reason the court enjoined was not for the anti-Islamic, but for the impact on the states. You may want to go over it again.

No, my description was correct, please read my post and the decision more closely. It was enjoined for BOTH the anti-Islamic elements and the impact on the states. In fact you can't have an injunction without both a cause and a harm. Hell, you can't have a lawsuit to begin with without them.

As I said before, the 9th circuit found two things related to this:

1) If something is motivated by discriminatory intent against a religion that is a valid reason to strike it down. This means it is within the ability of the courts to invalidate the order on these grounds.
2) The government did not provide evidence that they were likely to prevail in their argument that it was not motivated by anti-Islamic animus. This means the 9th circuit believes the feds are probably going to lose on that element.

What the court did say was that the states are being hurt by the ban, which also is a big problem in their ruling. The president has valid powers to do things that could hurt states. If you start opening the door saying that executive orders hurt some states more than others, and as such should make the order invalid, you will have a shit storm.

You should read their opinion more closely, the reason why it is enjoined is not because it hurts some states more than others. They affirmed the injunction for three reasons:

1) They believe the states are likely to prevail in their argument that it is unconstitutional.
2) The EO inflicts current and ongoing harm on the states while it is being litigated.
3) The feds cannot articulate a greater harm that comes from not being able to implement it right now.

This is the same basis that every court uses for injunctions.

 

[sdifox]

Neither is important. This is merely political jousting.

Questioning the integrity of the judiciary is not jousting, it is attacking the very foundation of the American Political System.

 

[interchange]

Interesting to read the actual decision. I've heard/read differing media reports on to the basis of the ruling or arguments that don't line up with what was actually said. Amazing how these things get distorted.

 

[fskimospy]

For a more thorough reasoning as to why this order is blatantly unconstitutional I would read this. It comes from a conservative legal scholar so it's not like this is some dirty hippie whining about discrimination:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-basis-of-religion/?utm_term=.f4ee33669ddf

When you combine Giuliani’s admission with Trump’s own numerous statements advocating a Muslim ban,it’s hard to find a clearer case of discriminatory motives hiding behind a vener of neutrality. Even when Trump first shifted his proposal away from a facial ban on Muslims entering the US, he called it “an expansion” of his earlier explicit Muslim ban proposal rather than a repudiation of it. In other words, it was an attempt to target Muslims without saying so explicitly.

It’s hard to find a more blatant smoking gun in a case of this type than the one Trump and his minions have given us here. If this does not count as unconstitutional discrimination covered by a thin smokescreen of neutrality, it’s hard to see what does. Conservatives who may be inclined to support Trump’s order should remember that the same sorts of tactics could be used by blue states or a future Democratic president to target evangelicals or other theologically conservative groups (for example, in response to their refusal to provide services to same-sex weddings).

Some defenders of Trump’s order argue that it isn’t really targeted at Muslims because it only covers migrants from seven countries. Refugees from other Muslim nations are not affected. But a policy can be targeted at a group without sweeping in every member of it. For example, poll taxes and literacy tests in the Jim Crow South were clearly aimed at preventing blacks from voting even though some could get around it by passing the test or paying the tax.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.



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.

First state the problem that the ban addresses. Define the threat in concrete terms. The Trump Admin couldn't do it & I don't think you can, either.

Barring that, it's just another post-truth solution in search of an issue to justify it.

 

[interchange]

Questioning the integrity of the judiciary is not jousting, it is attacking the very foundation of the American Political System.

Done so as a tantrum without evidence and legit reason to suspect faults in the integrity of the judiciary -- I agree. But all branches of the government need to be scrutinized for their integrity.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting to read the actual decision. I've heard/read differing media reports on to the basis of the ruling or arguments that don't line up with what was actually said. Amazing how these things get distorted.

The reports I've seen have been fairly accurate, what do you think hasn't been?

 

[realibrad]

First state the problem that the ban addresses. Define the threat in concrete terms. The Trump Admin couldn't do it & I don't think you can, either.

Barring that, it's just another post-truth solution in search of an issue to justify it.

Why would I try and make the argument? I want this lifted.

 

[sdifox]

Done so as a tantrum without evidence and legit reason to suspect faults in the integrity of the judiciary -- I agree. But all branches of the government need to be scrutinized for their integrity.

Absolutely.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would I try and make the argument? I want this lifted.

I misunderstood. My mistake.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Questioning the integrity of the judiciary is not jousting, it is attacking the very foundation of the American Political System.

Now you're changing the subject. Do you not see this?

But please tell me something since you apparently want to change the subject...exactly what do you perceive as being an attack on the "very foundation of the American Political System"?

 

[sdifox]

Now you're changing the subject. Do you not see this?

But please tell me something since you apparently want to change the subject...exactly what do you perceive as being an attack on the "very foundation of the American Political System"?

Questioning the integrity of the judiciary.

So your political jousting was referring to Trump's failure to get his precious EO reinstated?

 

[Jhhnn]

Now you're changing the subject. Do you not see this?

But please tell me something since you apparently want to change the subject...exactly what do you perceive as being an attack on the "very foundation of the American Political System"?

The basis of our political system is respect on many levels. Trump expressed nothing but contempt. Figure it out.

 

[VRAMdemon]

My favorite part of all this was this exchange:

Trump's all Caps tweet..lol

POTUS: SEE YOU IN COURT. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

WA governor Jay Inslee: Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.

Hand that man a mic to drop!.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Questioning the integrity of the judiciary.

So your political jousting was referring to Trump's failure to get his precious EO reinstated?

The political jousting I was referring to was specifically related to the twitter exchanges between Hillary and a couple Trump supporters.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The basis of our political system is respect on many levels. Trump expressed nothing but contempt. Figure it out.

Obama did something similar but to a much more humiliating level of disrespect by publicly berating SCOTUS for their Citizens United decision as they sat in the front row during his State of the Union address in 2010. I don't seem to recall your outrage at that time. Did I miss it?

 

[Maxima1]

For a more thorough reasoning as to why this order is blatantly unconstitutional I would read this. It comes from a conservative legal scholar so it's not like this is some dirty hippie whining about discrimination:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-basis-of-religion/?utm_term=.f4ee33669ddf

Muslims becoming radical and terrorizing is not conjecture. In addition, it'll become increasingly dangerous if Islam hasn't reformed in such a way that radicalism doesn't develop decades from now as it'll be easier for individuals and small groups to make attacks more scalable. Ironically, the side against the Muslim ban tries to argue that barring Muslims will help their recruiting and undermine our national security more. It's a utility analysis, so I don't understand why you say, "this order is blatantly unconstitutional". Btw, a lot of establishment Republicans have a problem with a ban trying to prevent radical Muslims coming here, especially with the influence of Saudi Arabia and others. That's not a surprise.

 

[fskimospy]

Muslims becoming radical and terrorizing is not conjecture. In addition, it'll become increasingly dangerous if Islam hasn't reformed in such a way that radicalism doesn't develop decades from now as it'll be easier for individuals and small groups to make attacks more scalable. Ironically, the side against the Muslim ban tries to argue that barring Muslims will help their recruiting and undermine our national security more. It's a utility analysis, so I don't understand why you say, "this order is blatantly unconstitutional". Btw, a lot of establishment Republicans have a problem with a ban trying to prevent radical Muslims coming here, especially with the influence of Saudi Arabia and others. That's not a surprise.

If you don't understand why I think it's blatantly unconstitutional you could always read the analysis I linked as to why it's blatantly unconstitutional. Yes though, the unconstitutional aspects aside it's dumb policy. Something can be a stupid idea and unconstitutional at the same time, you know. Like in this case, barring all entry from 7 countries due to fears of terrorism when people from those countries haven't killed a single person in a terrorist attack in America for four decades seems pretty stupid to me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[hal2kilo]

My favorite part of all this was this exchange:

Trump's all Caps tweet..lol

POTUS: SEE YOU IN COURT. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

WA governor Jay Inslee: Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.

Hand that man a mic to drop!.

I'm so proud of our Attorney General and Governor right now. Truth to power.

 

[Maxima1]

If you don't understand why I think it's blatantly unconstitutional you could always read the analysis I linked as to why it's blatantly unconstitutional. Yes though, the unconstitutional aspects aside it's dumb policy.

The premise in that article was the Free Exercise Clause. As an atheist, I don't like government favoring religions over others, but the reason for the ban is to prevent terrorism. Are you going to be obtuse and tell me with a straight face that Europe doesn't have a problem?

Something can be a stupid idea and unconstitutional at the same time, you know.

That's the default position, but something can be stupid and constitutional, you know.

Like in this case, barring all entry from 7 countries due to fears of terrorism when people from those countries haven't killed a single person in a terrorist attack in America for four decades seems pretty stupid to me. Your mileage may vary.

That argument is weak and lame. The US doesn't have that much Muslims to begin with (with many coming from other countries who did carry out attacks or were thwarted before doing so), and just because it's partial, doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. If gun laws don't encompass everything, does that mean it's without reason? Many of the people arguing against this ban for this reason have no problem with a half-***** gun ban.

 

[alien42]

My favorite part of all this was this exchange:

Trump's all Caps tweet..lol

POTUS: SEE YOU IN COURT. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

WA governor Jay Inslee: Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.

Hand that man a mic to drop!.

the ACLU had this response...