"So called judge"

[Grooveriding]

How long until the Reichstag fire ? After which Trump blames the judge and court system, then suspends them along with whatever other constitutional rights and civil liberties are in the way of his mentally ill 'vision'.

 

[Commodus]

I'm surprised Trump's haven't been Judge shopping to find one to overrule this Judge.

If he does, he violates the law and likely gets impeached... and Americans reclaim their democracy.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If he does, he violates the law and likely gets impeached... and Americans reclaim their democracy.

Judge shopping may be unethical but it's not against the law.

 

[interchange]

Judge shopping may be unethical but it's not against the law.

@fskimospy already covered this. No judge shopping because they are the defendants. The ruling needs to be appealed to a higher court. The Justice Department requested a stay until the appeal can be heard, but the superior court denied this appeal. I don't necessarily think that means they think the Justice Department will lose like @fskimospy says, although I think that that's the likely outcome. The stay was denied because they felt the plaintiffs were justified in saying they were significantly harmed by the executive order. If they felt that it was likely illegal but not overtly harmful, they would have granted the stay -- so it's more a comment on what they thought of the impact of the ban rather than its legality.

 

[sandorski]

Trump's EO probably would have been ok or at least more defensible, if it hadn't fucked over current Green card possessors and/or people in transit. That mess required immediate attention.

 

[Pens1566]

So, this goes before the 9th circuit. Likely to uphold lower court lifting the ban. DoJ then appeals to a 4-4 SC. Barring something earth shattering, I think it's likely this gets shot down for good.

 

[brycejones]

Trump's EO probably would have been ok or at least more defensible, if it hadn't fucked over current Green card possessors and/or people in transit. That mess required immediate attention.

Yep, and that is where his team's beliefs and rhetoric about how the system worked let them down since they were wrong. Even now they keep going on about the bad people rushing in as if obtaining even a simple visa from those countries is something you do in an afternoon and hop on a plane.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So, this goes before the 9th circuit. Likely to uphold lower court lifting the ban. DoJ then appeals to a 4-4 SC. Barring something earth shattering, I think it's likely this gets shot down for good.

Add in that McConnell has said Congress is unlikely to bring it up. If it gets to the USSC before Gorsuch is confirmed it's likely dead. Then Trump can tell everyone to blame all Dem appointees on the USSC too.

 

[Jhhnn]

Add in that McConnell has said Congress is unlikely to bring it up. If it gets to the USSC before Gorsuch is confirmed it's likely dead. Then Trump can tell everyone to blame all Dem appointees on the USSC too.

Donald Trump- tearing down America one group after another.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Donald Trump- tearing down America one group after another.

This seems hyperbolic, but I genuinely fear that his words are going to cause some nutjob to assassinate one of these people. Pizzagate being a prime example. It's completely irresponsible for someone in his position to be fomenting the hate directed at a Federal Judge. I mean seriously, blame him if a terrorist attacks the U.S.? What message is he sending to the unstable with that.....

Fuck Trump.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump's EO probably would have been ok or at least more defensible, if it hadn't fucked over current Green card possessors and/or people in transit. That mess required immediate attention.

The whole thing makes no sense, with the fuckover of green card holders the worst of it.

The random selection of countries involved tells us it's pure pandering for domestic political purposes.

I mean, sheesh. That's beyond obvious.

 

[blackangst1]

The whole thing makes no sense, with the fuckover of green card holders the worst of it.

The random selection of countries involved tells us it's pure pandering for domestic political purposes.

I mean, sheesh. That's beyond obvious.

If by random you mean the countries targeted by the Obama administration for the reason of "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.", then yeah.

 

[shady28]

Small word of warning on this whole subject....

Dems were ok when Obama greatly extended exective powers, now Trump inherited those.

Dems were ok when Harry Reid triggered the 'nuclear option' to allow confirmations of judges and cabinet positions filled with a simple Senate majority, so that they could get controversial judges and cabinet members appointed without compromise.

Now Dems are ok with low level federal courts blocking the executive branch from actions which the executive states are for the protection of Americans, which appears to be clearly within the scope of the executive branch, and without much legal precedent.

It's all part and parcel of the same trend. That third item isn't going to turn out well either.

 

[fskimospy]

Small word of warning on this whole subject....

Dems were ok when Obama greatly extended exective powers, now Trump inherited those.

Dems were ok when Harry Reid triggered the 'nuclear option' to allow confirmations of judges and cabinet positions filled with a simple Senate majority, so that they could get controversial judges and cabinet members appointed without compromise.

Democrats were fine with nuking the filibuster because the agreement that prevented it from being nuked in 2005 was being egregiously violated by Republicans. To not nuke it would have been insane in the face of that. Agreements only work if both parties adhere to them and so if you want to blame someone for the filibuster getting nuked you can look no further than the senators I'm sure you support.

I fully support Republicans getting rid of what's left of the filibuster. Enjoy!

Now Dems are ok with low level federal courts blocking the executive branch from actions which the executive states are for the protection of Americans, which appears to be clearly within the scope of the executive branch, and without much legal precedent.

It's all part and parcel of the same trend. That third item isn't going to turn out well either.

The 9th circuit seems to disagree with you.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Small word of warning on this whole subject....

Dems were ok when Obama greatly extended exective powers, now Trump inherited those.

Dems were ok when Harry Reid triggered the 'nuclear option' to allow confirmations of judges and cabinet positions filled with a simple Senate majority, so that they could get controversial judges and cabinet members appointed without compromise.

Now Dems are ok with low level federal courts blocking the executive branch from actions which the executive states are for the protection of Americans, which appears to be clearly within the scope of the executive branch, and without much legal precedent.

It's all part and parcel of the same trend. That third item isn't going to turn out well either.

Actually do you know the real reason the Dems used the nuclear option? That wasn't it. There was an agreement in place between both parties that they would not unreasonably hold up confirmations. The Dems honored it, however, when the table turned, the GOP went to immediate obstruction on every and all appointment that was made. It wasn't because picks were controversial.

Edit: and fskimo beats me to the punch.

jerk.

 

[Thump553]

So, this goes before the 9th circuit. Likely to uphold lower court lifting the ban. DoJ then appeals to a 4-4 SC. Barring something earth shattering, I think it's likely this gets shot down for good.

My best guess is the vacancy is irrelevant. If this EO came before the Supreme Court today I would expect the Trump Adminstration to lose 7-1 or 6-2. Clarence Thomas is the only probable vote I see for Trump's position.

This particular EO is highly suspect, especially with the way it was rolled out-making a blatant exception made for Christians was the constitutional death blow to it.

 

[interchange]

Small word of warning on this whole subject....

Dems were ok when Obama greatly extended exective powers, now Trump inherited those.

Dems were ok when Harry Reid triggered the 'nuclear option' to allow confirmations of judges and cabinet positions filled with a simple Senate majority, so that they could get controversial judges and cabinet members appointed without compromise.

Filibuster of presidential nominees is a black eye for our government if you ask me. I'm actually surprised by the restraint shown in utilizing the nuclear option.

Now Dems are ok with low level federal courts blocking the executive branch from actions which the executive states are for the protection of Americans, which appears to be clearly within the scope of the executive branch, and without much legal precedent.

This is nothing new. Executive orders are subject to judicial challenge. Obama had many legal hurdles with his executive actions. It seems you are attacking the ruling because it's a "low level federal court." Perhaps you don't know how the judiciary works?. I think it's likely some challenge to this EO will make it to the US Supreme Court, but it doesn't start there.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually do you know the real reason the Dems used the nuclear option? That wasn't it. There was an agreement in place between both parties that they would not unreasonably hold up confirmations. The Dems honored it, however, when the table turned, the GOP went to immediate obstruction on every and all appointment that was made. It wasn't because picks were controversial.

Edit: and fskimo beats me to the punch.

jerk.

Haha. It is amazing and sad to me how easily conservative media rewrote the narrative around why the filibuster was nuked. In 2005 the agreement was to keep the filibuster so long as it was only used in 'extraordinary circumstances'. When the filibuster was finally nuked in 2013 Republicans had employed it almost twice as often in five years under Obama as Democrats had in eight years under Bush, which is pretty obviously a breach of that agreement.

All that's down the memory hole now though, I imagine plenty of conservatives genuinely believe the Democrats got rid of the filibuster for appointments as part of some unprecedented power grab instead of seeing it as the obvious consequence of an agreement that Republicans forced eight years earlier. Sad!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Haha. It is amazing and sad to me how easily conservative media rewrote the narrative around why the filibuster was nuked. In 2005 the agreement was to keep the filibuster so long as it was only used in 'extraordinary circumstances'. When the filibuster was finally nuked in 2013 Republicans had employed it almost twice as often in five years under Obama as Democrats had in eight years under Bush, which is pretty obviously a breach of that agreement.

All that's down the memory hole now though, I imagine plenty of conservatives genuinely believe the Democrats got rid of the filibuster for appointments as part of some unprecedented power grab instead of seeing it as the obvious consequence of an agreement that Republicans forced eight years earlier. Sad!

#AlternativeFacts!

 

[shady28]

Responses above are examples of why it will just keep getting worse, and why the GOP would be stupid not to escalate. If they don't, the Dems will first chance they get. Time to go thermo.

 

[fskimospy]

Responses above are examples of why it will just keep getting worse, and why the GOP would be stupid not to escalate. If they don't, the Dems will first chance they get. Time to go thermo.

I agree! This is why so many people tried to warn conservatives that what they were doing under Obama would have long term consequences and how foolish it was. They were too stupid and shortsighted to take that advice though. From now on it will be in both parties' interest to obstruct to the maximum when out of power and to remove the maximum amount of privileges from the minority when in power.

When liberal policies get implemented with a straight majority vote in the future don't say you weren't warned. As we can see with how the Republicans are struggling to 'repeal' the ACA even while controlling all the elected branches of government, once programs start they are very hard to get rid of.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Although Trumps reaction to the courts decision was fairly predictable, its not as if other recent president's EO's were ever overturned.

Right?

That is because other recent Presidents used a deliberative process to write their EOs.

Trump and his staff just seem to pull them out of their collective asses.

 

[blackangst1]

That is because other recent Presidents used a deliberative process to write their EOs.

Trump and his staff just seem to pull them out of their collective asses.

That whooshing sound is the point flying over your head...

 

[interchange]

That whooshing sound is the point flying over your head...

Hey it's hard to catch sarcasm on this board when it is done tastefully.

 

[pcgeek11]

yea, well, it kinda is
slan·der
ˈslandər/
noun
LAW

1. 1.
   the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
   "he is suing the TV network for slander"

verb

1. 1.
   make false and damaging statements about (someone).
   "they were accused of slandering the head of state"
   synonyms: defame (someone's character), blacken someone's name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, tain

Unless I missed some news what was "Damaging". All I know he said was "so called Judge"... He called the other Judge a Mexican. As I understood it that judge was of Mexican heritage..

Neither amounts to a hill of beans and neither is damaging.