ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd February 2017, 07:31 PM   #1
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,153
Pres. Trump's immigration EO: SCotUS, here we come!

Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, made his ruling effective immediately on Friday, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted straight away.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/seattle-j...000739102.html


Federal judge in Mass. won’t extend order halting Trump immigration ban. US District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton said in a 21-page order issued late Friday afternoon that he was sympathetic to the American Civil Liberties Union’s claims that immigrants could suffer irreparable harm from the ban, but he found that the government’s “likelihood of success on the merits weighs most heavily in the decision.”

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...mmigration-ban
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!

Last edited by C_Felix; 3rd February 2017 at 07:33 PM.
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2017, 08:04 PM   #2
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,667
Trump et al has already outsmarted the courts. They cancelled everyone's visas from these countries. You can get in now, but by the way, your visa is no longer valid.

Over 100,000 Visas Have Been Revoked by Immigration Ban, Justice Dept. Reveals
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2017, 08:14 PM   #3
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,082
This is the first big setback Trump has received. I look forward to his response...
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2017, 08:25 PM   #4
PitPat
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
This is the first big setback Trump has received. I look forward to his response...
The one I just saw on CNN is that they're gonna fight it tooth and nail.

Glad my AG (and former county council rep who actually went door-to-door during his election), won that hearing. No doubt he's gonna be the next Gov when Inslee leaves. Killed it on all the challenges from CNN's panel.

But we'll see, I'd be surprised if it doesn't go up to SCOTUS pretty quickly, with 8 justices. Yeah, crazy times.
PitPat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2017, 08:27 PM   #5
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,082
Originally Posted by PitPat View Post
The one I just saw on CNN is that they're gonna fight it tooth and nail.

Glad my AG (and former county council rep who actually went door-to-door during his election), won that hearing. No doubt he's gonna be the next Gov when Inslee leaves. Killed it on all the challenges from CNN's panel.

But we'll see, I'd be surprised if it doesn't go up to SCOTUS pretty quickly, with 8 justices. Yeah, crazy times.
Expected that Trump would attack back. But like you said, with an 8-person SC, who knows where this is headed?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2017, 08:55 PM   #6
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
I read Judge Robart's opinion. It's entirely conclusory. There is almost no reasoning at all. Amazingly, he claims that the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota) would suffer irreparable harm from the continuation of the so-called "Muslim ban" based on the parens patriae doctrine (whereby a state represents (or stands in for) its aggrieved citizens in federal court). This strikes me as nonsensical. By definition, the people directly affected by the ban are not permanent residents or citizens of the country and therefore not of any state. Further, the judge claims that the plaintiffs are hurt economically by the ban. Against this, the judge literally didn't mention the harm to the country that could result from a TRO. It seems obvious what that harm could be. One or more terrorists could get into the country during the time when new vetting procedures are put in place or new information about their citizens is demanded from the seven foreign countries at issue.

The judge is supposed to weigh the irreparable harm to each side. He didn't do that. He is also supposed to believe that the plaintiffs are more likely than not to prevail on the merits. He says he does, but he doesn't explain why. Nor does he identify which parts of the executive order are likely illegal.

I predict this TRO will be quashed very quickly.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2017, 09:08 PM   #7
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,369
It's just temporary, referencing the disruptions it causes a lot more than any core reasoning. The former is necessary to support a temporary ban because the full legal analysis is not complete.

As Congress sets these rules, it depends on what leeway they give the president, which it turns out is a lot in this area. For the judicial branch to say, well, these 6 countries' immigrants killed nobody (which is part of the larger suit) so the president's change is canceled puts the judicial branch above the executive one in doing the president's job of making judgements...judgements Congress specifically gave to the president.

Same goes for goofing on green cards, translators who helped the US, etc.

Same goes for whether it actually makes things more, not less, dangerous for the US.

Stupid decisions are not unconstitutional.

And there is an opposite ruling from Massachusetts as well, so expect this to get resolved quickly.



To throw a downstream monkey wrench into this, I've read at least one legal analysis that (ruefully) pointed out that even a direct Muslim ban (which this nominally is not) might not be unconstitutional. All this is part of the "plenary power doctrine", where the courts have long held the political branches, the congress and presidency, "have sole power to regulate all aspects of immigration as a basic attribute of sovereignty."

I think this is similar to the idea that you must convince Congress to end racist or sexist rules in the military, and you can't go to court over it, because the Congress is directly charged with raising armies, and the for the judicial branch to say, no, here are additional rules we deign you must follow, steps on that.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 3rd February 2017 at 09:34 PM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 12:18 AM   #8
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,577
But what about people from Krakozhia ?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 01:43 AM   #9
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,547
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I read Judge Robart's opinion. It's entirely conclusory. There is almost no reasoning at all. Amazingly, he claims that the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota) would suffer irreparable harm from the continuation of the so-called "Muslim ban" based on the parens patriae doctrine (whereby a state represents (or stands in for) its aggrieved citizens in federal court). This strikes me as nonsensical. By definition, the people directly affected by the ban are not permanent residents or citizens of the country and therefore not of any state.
The ban also affected green card holders. Those are residents. And the Yahoo news article in the OP specifically says that the states cited students and faculty at state universities.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Further, the judge claims that the plaintiffs are hurt economically by the ban. Against this, the judge literally didn't mention the harm to the country that could result from a TRO. It seems obvious what that harm could be. One or more terrorists could get into the country during the time when new vetting procedures are put in place or new information about their citizens is demanded from the seven foreign countries at issue.
Because the current procedures are so goddamnawful that scores of terrorists have been seeping into the country and have committed terrorist attacks?

Let's go one step back and argue why new vetting procedures are needed in the first place. There's literally no evidence.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 08:19 AM   #10
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,311
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I read Judge Robart's opinion. It's entirely conclusory. There is almost no reasoning at all. Amazingly, he claims that the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota) would suffer irreparable harm from the continuation of the so-called "Muslim ban" based on the parens patriae doctrine (whereby a state represents (or stands in for) its aggrieved citizens in federal court). This strikes me as nonsensical. By definition, the people directly affected by the ban are not permanent residents or citizens of the country and therefore not of any state. Further, the judge claims that the plaintiffs are hurt economically by the ban. Against this, the judge literally didn't mention the harm to the country that could result from a TRO. It seems obvious what that harm could be. One or more terrorists could get into the country during the time when new vetting procedures are put in place or new information about their citizens is demanded from the seven foreign countries at issue.

The judge is supposed to weigh the irreparable harm to each side. He didn't do that. He is also supposed to believe that the plaintiffs are more likely than not to prevail on the merits. He says he does, but he doesn't explain why. Nor does he identify which parts of the executive order are likely illegal.

I predict this TRO will be quashed very quickly.
It's cute how you keep pretending your opinion of the law is relevant.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 08:22 AM   #11
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The ban also affected green card holders. Those are residents. And the Yahoo news article in the OP specifically says that the states cited students and faculty at state universities.
The ban does not affect green card holders. This has been made abundantly clear.

Quote:
Because the current procedures are so goddamnawful that scores of terrorists have been seeping into the country and have committed terrorist attacks?

Let's go one step back and argue why new vetting procedures are needed in the first place. There's literally no evidence.
It is not the judge's job to guess at what the probability is that irreparable harm will come to the nation by way of a terrorist attack from a newly unbanned visitor. The authority to make that judgment has been 100% vested in the executive branch by the legislative branch, which was granted plenary authority over immigration by the Constitution. An agent of the third branch - the judicial branch - cannot substitute his judgment for that of the President. He must accept the President's judgment with respect to national security threats presented by the entry of foreigners into the country.

What the judge can do is determine which side's harm is more likely to be irrreparable. The legal meaning of irreparable harm is that type of harm which cannot be corrected through monetary compensation or by putting conditions back to the way they were.

It is very hard to find a terrorist after he has been let loose in the country, and it is impossible to undo a terrorist attack. There is clearly a threat of serious irreparable harm on the nation's side of things. The harm claimed by the states/plaintiffs is economic (which can be remedied by monetary compensation) and distress to its resident population from having non-resident loved ones separated for a time. The first one is clearly not irreparable. The second is tenuous, to say the least, and causes little long-lasting harm that has not generally been recognized by courts as irreparable (otherwise, you wouldn't allow accused criminals to be imprisoned while awaiting trial).
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 08:23 AM   #12
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
It's cute how you keep pretending your opinion of the law is relevant.
Relevant to what?
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 08:24 AM   #13
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,001
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
It's cute how you keep pretending your opinion of the law is relevant.

And that terrorism on American soil is such a current and significant problem that it needs to be dealt with swiftly and without prior consideration for the repercussions of any action taken.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 4th February 2017 at 08:38 AM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 08:32 AM   #14
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 11,012
Am I the only one hoping Trump tries to fire the judge, just for the lulz? Seriously, that was the first thing I thought of.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 08:36 AM   #15
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Am I the only one hoping Trump tries to fire the judge, just for the lulz? Seriously, that was the first thing I thought of.
Judges can be impeached. To tell you the truth, in looking up this guy Robart, he seems to be something of a liberal nutjob, despite having been appointed by Bush (District Court appointments are generally not ideological, in any case).
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 09:00 AM   #16
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,693
Oops!
Now I have a schadenboner because Trump and his sycophants lost this one, BIGLY!

__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 09:44 AM   #17
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Oops!
Now I have a schadenboner because Trump and his sycophants lost this one, BIGLY!

Probably a bit of a stretch to call that a boner. Also, if a 70 year old judge with a bow tie is getting you excited, it's not really "schaden" either. Weird, maybe, but I don't think there's anything morally wrong with it.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 09:55 AM   #18
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,672
During the election Trump was delegitimatizing the whole democratic system by portraying it as unfairly biased and corrupt, falsely accusing public officials of "rigging it" against him and lying about illegal voters.

Now he's subjecting American legal system to the same kind of Treatment by bashing the judge who ordered a halt to the implementation of his executive order. This is the kind of thing that just shows how utterly intolerant and spiteful he is to the people who stand up to him.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 10:18 AM   #19
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
During the election Trump was delegitimatizing the whole democratic system by portraying it as unfairly biased and corrupt, falsely accusing public officials of "rigging it" against him and lying about illegal voters.

Now he's subjecting American legal system to the same kind of Treatment by bashing the judge who ordered a halt to the implementation of his executive order. This is the kind of thing that just shows how utterly intolerant and spiteful he is to the people who stand up to him.
Well, in this case Trump's right and the judge is wrong. Putting aside the merits of the TRO itself, how can a lowly District Judge, whose jurisdiction extends to less than 80% of the population of the state of Washington, reasonably put in place a TRO that applies throughout the whole country? Do you know how many Federal District courts there are? Actually, I just counted. There are 91, Article III District courts (there are 3 Article IV District courts in the territories).

If each one of those 91 is allowed to issue a TRO that applies throughout the entire country, what are the chances that the federal government can avoid a TRO? All the opposition has to do is find 1 court out of 91 to do its bidding. And there are probably crazy judges on every one of the District courts. With an average of 30 judges per district, the probability of randomly getting a crazy judge somewhere is pretty darn high. The expanded jurisdiction doctrine is completely unworkable. If I were Trump, I'd tell this judge to go pound sand.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 10:28 AM   #20
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,693
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Probably a bit of a stretch to call that a boner. Also, if a 70 year old judge with a bow tie is getting you excited, it's not really "schaden" either. Weird, maybe, but I don't think there's anything morally wrong with it.
Uh, a 70 year old con artist gave you one, didn't he?

OUCH!
SLAM!

(your words)
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 10:30 AM   #21
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Uh, a 70 year old con artist gave you one, didn't he?

OUCH!
SLAM!

(your words)
Hah. Well, at least he doesn't wear a bow tie. And his regular tie is pretty damn long.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 10:31 AM   #22
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,693
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Hah. Well, at least he doesn't wear a bow tie. And his regular tie is pretty damn long.
The judges score this one a tie.

__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 11:15 AM   #23
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Trump et al has already outsmarted the courts. They cancelled everyone's visas from these countries. You can get in now, but by the way, your visa is no longer valid.

Over 100,000 Visas Have Been Revoked by Immigration Ban, Justice Dept. Reveals
The State Department has partly reversed on the revocation of the visas:
Quote:
"We have reversed the provisional revocation of visas," the State Department official said in a statement. "Those individuals with visas that were not physically canceled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid."

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-t...KBN15J0M1?il=0
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 11:19 AM   #24
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
 
Undesired Walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,482
So is the reason that this executive order has been overturned because it has been deemed unconstitutional or just unlawful? I don't understand the ruling and all the language so can someone point that out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945
Undesired Walrus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 07:53 PM   #25
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,667
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
So is the reason that this executive order has been overturned because it has been deemed unconstitutional or just unlawful? I don't understand the ruling and all the language so can someone point that out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Both. But mostly the ban fails to address reasons that are more specific than what looks like Muslims from Muslim countries. There was no justification for the EO that looked like anything except religious affiliation and that is unconstitutional.

The ruling

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 4th February 2017 at 07:59 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 09:19 PM   #26
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Both. But mostly the ban fails to address reasons that are more specific than what looks like Muslims from Muslim countries. There was no justification for the EO that looked like anything except religious affiliation and that is unconstitutional.

The ruling
A font of misinformation as usual. First, the ban wasn't overturned. A TRO was issued which, as the acronym implies, is temporary. A TRO is used to preserve the status quo if the plaintiffs can show that they have a likelihood of success on their lawsuit and that they will be irreparably harmed without a stay. The judge did not reach the merits of the case, and he certainly never claimed that there was anything unconstitutional in the executive order. In fact, in oral argument, he appeared to find at least one constitutional argument - the "equal protection" one - unpersuasive.

As for your claim that excluding foreigners of a specific religion is unconstitutional, well, based on current precedent, you are wrong:

Quote:
There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 11:20 PM   #27
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,413
I guess there is nothing that Trump will do that his worshipers here will not justify.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 11:31 PM   #28
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,956
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Judges can be impeached. To tell you the truth, in looking up this guy Robart, he seems to be something of a liberal nutjob, despite having been appointed by Bush (District Court appointments are generally not ideological, in any case).

And confirmed unanimously.

Man, that's a whole lot of RINOs right there.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2017, 11:35 PM   #29
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,956
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
The State Department has partly reversed on the revocation of the visas:

That's one way to quash a TRO.

Partly, anyhow.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 02:33 AM   #30
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,115
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
As for your claim that excluding foreigners of a specific religion is unconstitutional, well, based on current precedent, you are wrong:
There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.
I read that precedent in the opposite way from you. If the ban on "belief" in polygamy had been sustained you would be right; that would have excluded people on religious grounds. But that was wisely repealed. What remains is a ban on a practice i.e. the illegal practice of marrying more than one spouse. Beliefs and religious affiliations, or places of geographical origin, are not sanctioned. But in the case of the Trump travel ban, geographical origins and religious affiliations are considered, and illegal acts allegedly perpetrated by the affected persons are not referred to.

The precedent would have been relevant if people from Utah were kept out of other states because of the possibility that they might practice polygamy, whether the individuals did so or not. And mainstream Christians from Utah were explicitly exempted from the travel ban. Is that the precedent?

Last edited by Craig B; 5th February 2017 at 02:34 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 04:41 AM   #31
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,888
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
During the election Trump was delegitimatizing the whole democratic system by portraying it as unfairly biased and corrupt, falsely accusing public officials of "rigging it" against him and lying about illegal voters.

Now he's subjecting American legal system to the same kind of Treatment by bashing the judge who ordered a halt to the implementation of his executive order. This is the kind of thing that just shows how utterly intolerant and spiteful he is to the people who stand up to him.
No it shows how judges rule from the bench. Nothing could be more clear that the president has the prerogative in these issues.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 05:09 AM   #32
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by logger View Post
No it shows how judges rule from the bench. Nothing could be more clear that the president has the prerogative in these issues.
The appeals court would appear to disagree with you.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 07:15 AM   #33
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,693
Originally Posted by logger View Post
No it shows how judges rule from the bench. Nothing could be more clear that the president has the prerogative in these issues.
Trump is going to file for an emergency order, so we'll see what happens with that.

He's probably going to win, and win bigly. Because we're all already tired of winning!

Can't wait to see how it goes







And....he lost
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 08:54 AM   #34
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I read that precedent in the opposite way from you. If the ban on "belief" in polygamy had been sustained you would be right; that would have excluded people on religious grounds. But that was wisely repealed.
It was repealed (I haven't been able to find out when), but it was never challenged in court (or at least not successfully). By the way, the Immigration Act of 1917 effectively banned the immigration of homosexuals. That wasn't repealed until 1990.

Quote:
What remains is a ban on a practice i.e. the illegal practice of marrying more than one spouse. Beliefs and religious affiliations, or places of geographical origin, are not sanctioned.
Well, banning based on geographical origin is certainly constitutional, at least based on precedent. The US has done so many times. See the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Quote:
But in the case of the Trump travel ban, geographical origins and religious affiliations are considered, and illegal acts allegedly perpetrated by the affected persons are not referred to.
Actually, religious affiliations are not considered. It is only considered in a non-exclusionary way to prioritize claims for refugee status based on religious persecution. I don't even see how the letter of the order in this regard is objectionable, let alone illegal.

Quote:
The precedent would have been relevant if people from Utah were kept out of other states because of the possibility that they might practice polygamy, whether the individuals did so or not. And mainstream Christians from Utah were explicitly exempted from the travel ban. Is that the precedent?
Christians are not exempted from the travel ban, so why is that relevant?
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 09:05 AM   #35
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,368
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Trump is going to file for an emergency order, so we'll see what happens with that.

He's probably going to win, and win bigly. Because we're all already tired of winning!

Can't wait to see how it goes







And....he lost
Nonononono... he just "won in another direction"!
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 10:45 AM   #36
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,888
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
The appeals court would appear to disagree with you.
If its aloud to stand, can you imagine where that would leave us in a national security sense, sadly it will take the SCOTUS to reverse it, but that should give you the first clue on the sad state our federal courts are in.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 11:22 AM   #37
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,956
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Trump is going to file for an emergency order, so we'll see what happens with that.

He's probably going to win, and win bigly. Because we're all already tired of winning!

Can't wait to see how it goes







And....he lost

Still not quashed?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 04:04 PM   #38
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,220
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
To tell you the truth, in looking up this guy Robart, he seems to be something of a liberal nutjob, despite having been appointed by Bush (District Court appointments are generally not ideological, in any case).
Meanwhile in reality:

Seattle judge derided by Trump known as conservative jurist
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 04:37 PM   #39
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
Well, that's a misleading headline. Nowhere in there does the article present any evidence that he is conservative in a political sense, or even in his approach to the law. It appears that one former colleague claimed that he was conservative in a different sense of the word, and that's all the evidence that there is.

Robart also doesn't seem to understand logic or statistics. His remark about blacks being shot at twice the rate as their proportion in the population is profoundly stupid. This was after a comprehensive work by a black Harvard economics professor which showed there was no statistical evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

And in his questioning of the lawyer for the federal government - Michelle Bennett (who did an excellent job in my opinion) - he seemed to think the fact that no terrorist had yet come from one of the seven countries on the travel ban list was relevant. It's certainly disappointing to find such an innumerate and illogical judge, but, well, district court judges are not really appointed based on merit.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 05:06 PM   #40
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 35,729
Maybe it will help clear the situation in your mind if you picture judges as a bowl of Skittles.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.