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 9th February 2017, 06:17 PM   #201
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,803
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
"Denial of the reversal of the suspension of the ban rescinded."

I'm not sure where we are now but I think it's good.
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 9th February 2017, 06:18 PM   #202
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Is the Sunmasterziggurat Court not in session? I just don't know where to go with my opinions until our learned scholars explain to us how two independent courts are technically and legally wrong and that it will take a stacked Supreme Court to undo their activist malevolence.
The district court issued a temporary restraining order with basically no legal reasoning behind it. The appeals court has ruled in favor of the temporary restraining order, but has not ruled on the case itself. Since I have made no declarations about the temporary restraining order itself, I don't know why you think this represents some sort of slap-down of my position. Furthermore, I've been saying from the start that the courts haven't really addressed this question before, and that nobody can be certain how the Supreme Court will rule if it gets to them.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 9th February 2017, 06:27 PM   #203
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,945
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The district court issued a temporary restraining order with basically no legal reasoning behind it. The appeals court has ruled in favor of the temporary restraining order, but has not ruled on the case itself. Since I have made no declarations about the temporary restraining order itself, I don't know why you think this represents some sort of slap-down of my position. Furthermore, I've been saying from the start that the courts haven't really addressed this question before, and that nobody can be certain how the Supreme Court will rule if it gets to them.
Where did I say this was a rebuttal of your position. I sincerely just don't know what to think without you guys giving us the play-by-play.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   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 9th February 2017, 06:39 PM   #204
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,567
This is the tweet I wanted.

Trump: Cash me in court! How bow da?!
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
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 9th February 2017, 06:54 PM   #205
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The district court issued a temporary restraining order with basically no legal reasoning behind it. The appeals court has ruled in favor of the temporary restraining order, but has not ruled on the case itself. Since I have made no declarations about the temporary restraining order itself, I don't know why you think this represents some sort of slap-down of my position. Furthermore, I've been saying from the start that the courts haven't really addressed this question before, and that nobody can be certain how the Supreme Court will rule if it gets to them.
They used the legal reasoning that most TROs are predicated upon: Likelihood the plaintiffs can win the case and the potential for irreparable harm to occur while the case is argued.
Delphic Oracle 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 9th February 2017, 07:08 PM   #206
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Is the Sunmasterziggurat Court not in session? I just don't know where to go with my opinions until our learned scholars explain to us how two independent courts are technically and legally wrong and that it will take a stacked Supreme Court to undo their activist malevolence.
If logger, et al joins their firm, I'd be interested in knowing how they managed to make this a partisan issue when 2 Republicans and 2 democrats were involved.
__________________
This space for rent.
In conservative heads!
NoahFence is online now   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 9th February 2017, 07:14 PM   #207
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
They used the legal reasoning that most TROs are predicated upon: Likelihood the plaintiffs can win the case and the potential for irreparable harm to occur while the case is argued.
Robart gave no explanation for why he thinks it likely the plaintiff will win.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 9th February 2017, 07:29 PM   #208
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Where did I say this was a rebuttal of your position. I sincerely just don't know what to think without you guys giving us the play-by-play.
Well, as always, I am here to help.

I read the decision. Basically, the appeals court addressed only one argument against the Executive Order, which was the Due Process one. The court ruled that the government (i.e. Trump) had not demonstrated a strong argument that it was likely to prevail on that issue. In particular, the court said that those who are permanent residents certainly are entitled to due process before having their right to travel out of the country and return taken away. This is indisputable. Further, the court ruled that because the order was ambiguous and misinterpreted and reinterpreted at least twice, there was a significant risk that the travel rights of such permanent residents would be at risk, and remain so without due process.

The court declined to rewrite the executive order, leaving it instead to the executive branch to do so, which was kind of a snarky way of asserting supremacy over the executive branch while feigning deference.

The court indicated that it also might think that US residents whose relatives have been stripped of visas might also be entitled to due process (although aliens overseas are not).

It's a reasonable ruling except for one glaring deficiency in my opinion. I don't think the states have legitimate standing to sue. It is a ridiculous stretch. That being said, anybody with a green card in Washington (or Minnesota) who is a citizen of one of the countries on the ban list would have been able to make the same claim.

The solution of course is for the executive branch to rewrite the order to make it clear that it doesn't cover permanent residents. I doubt Trump will do that, however, since I think he wants to use the judiciary as a foil. As a political move, it's probably smart, although I'm not a fan of playing political games with the judiciary.

Last edited by sunmaster14; 9th February 2017 at 07:30 PM.
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 9th February 2017, 07:43 PM   #209
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Robart gave no explanation for why he thinks it likely the plaintiff will win.
Actually, it's the exact opposite. The burden is on the government to prove their case.

Robart based his determination on the fact that the DOJ will not provide a rational basis for the ban.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/513446...igration-order
Quote:
He questioned Department of Justice lawyer Michelle Bennett, who was representing the Trump administration, asking, "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11?"

The Sept. 11 attack was one of the rationales behind the executive order, according to the Trump administration.

"I don't know the specific details of attacks or planned attacks," said Bennett, who is from the DOJ's Civil Division.

"The answer to that is none, as best I can tell," said the judge.

"The rationale was not only 9/11," Bennett said. "It was to protect the United States from the potential for terrorism."

Congress gives the president wide latitude in foreign affairs, which includes granting visas.

"The court doesn't get to look behind those determinations," she added.

But the judge answered: "I'm also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based. And rationally based, to some extent, means I have to find it grounded in fact instead of fiction."
So the judge felt that if the best the administration is going to offer is "because: reasons, and furthermore: we will not elaborate" that probably doesn't make for a very strong case.

This is the same reasoning for not allowing "fishing expeditions" on the grounds that "certainly someone is doing something illegal somewhere and we can catch them this way."

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 9th February 2017 at 07:47 PM.
Delphic Oracle 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 9th February 2017, 08:01 PM   #210
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Actually, it's the exact opposite. The burden is on the government to prove their case.

Robart based his determination on the fact that the DOJ will not provide a rational basis for the ban.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/513446...igration-order


So the judge felt that if the best the administration is going to offer is "because: reasons, and furthermore: we will not elaborate" that probably doesn't make for a very strong case.

This is the same reasoning for not allowing "fishing expeditions" on the grounds that "certainly someone is doing something illegal somewhere and we can catch them this way."
You're completely wrong. First, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that they were more likely than not to prevail in order to get a TRO. Second, it is completely inappropriate for the judge to play the role, effectively, as auditor of the executive branch to make sure their national security decisions are sound. Third, it was stupid for the judge to make that point anyway because only prospective risks matter, not retrospective. What matters is where the terrorists will likely come from in the future, not where they came from in the past. Fourth, and least important, the judge was utterly wrong about where terrorists have come from. Many people from the countries on the list have not only been arrested on terrorism charges, but have been convicted. See, for example, the Somalis in Minnesota who were convicted of aiding ISIS.

Last edited by sunmaster14; 9th February 2017 at 08:02 PM.
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 9th February 2017, 08:16 PM   #211
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
You're completely wrong. First, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that they were more likely than not to prevail in order to get a TRO. Second, it is completely inappropriate for the judge to play the role, effectively, as auditor of the executive branch to make sure their national security decisions are sound. Third, it was stupid for the judge to make that point anyway because only prospective risks matter, not retrospective. What matters is where the terrorists will likely come from in the future, not where they came from in the past. Fourth, and least important, the judge was utterly wrong about where terrorists have come from. Many people from the countries on the list have not only been arrested on terrorism charges, but have been convicted. See, for example, the Somalis in Minnesota who were convicted of aiding ISIS.
They seem just as much American as Somali. One was born in Kenya. It seems their formative years happened in the good ol' USA.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 9th February 2017, 08:21 PM   #212
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,077
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The whole point of checks and balances is that each branch of the government can CHECK if another has overextended its competence.
Some obviously think that the Ban is unconstitutional, so the Supreme Court must check.

Simple as that.

The SC will almost certainly rule that no judge may rub his chin and decide to override the president's value judgement on doing this because the Constitution puts that decision and making those judgements in the hands of the President. The judicial branch may not second guess this.

There are checks on this, and it's called the vote, where the people can decide if they dislike such things.

In other words, the judicial branch has mathematically 0 power to decide the president's reasoning is not correct or good enough. This is left, by the Constitution, to the political branches.

Their only hope is to:

1. Show the ban is directed at Muslims in particular
2. Show that the first amendment applies in this case of the plenary power doctrine, overriding over a century of precedence

That is not a given because of the concept of a nation having absolute sovereignty in defining its immigration policy.
__________________
"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?
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 9th February 2017, 08:21 PM   #213
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
They seem just as much American as Somali. One was born in Kenya. It seems their formative years happened in the good ol' USA.
Just checked. The ring leader came here when he was 2. He was 22 in 2016. Pretty sure no ISiS in 1994.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 9th February 2017, 08:27 PM   #214
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
They seem just as much American as Somali. One was born in Kenya. It seems their formative years happened in the good ol' USA.
Doesn't that seem worse? No amount of vetting is going to stop somebody from having ties to their homeland (or even ancestral homeland). And those ties can lead to radicalization, especially for younger people who come of age in the US. The very fact of having strong ties to a country which is a failed state overrun with jihadists presents a well above average terrorism risk. At least that's what the statistics show. I mean how many first generation Somalis live in the US? According to wiki, it's about 75,000. And something like 20+15 = 35 have tried to join (or succeeded in joining) a Islamic terrorist group. That's almost 0.05%, and those are the ones that we know about (or, more accurately, have been reported on) so far.
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 9th February 2017, 08:28 PM   #215
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
You're completely wrong. First, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that they were more likely than not to prevail in order to get a TRO.
No, the government has to demonstrate that the intent and resulting impacts do not infringe on lawful activities or that this is the least restrictive means to do achieve their desired results.

Quote:
Second, it is completely inappropriate for the judge to play the role, effectively, as auditor of the executive branch to make sure their national security decisions are sound.
Then the court has no role other than ruling on criminal cases and civil disputes. In which case it may as well be an extension of the executive in enforcing laws.

But thankfully this is merely your opinion being phrased as objective fact in and contrary to the established role of the courts in the balance of power. It should be noted that the administration has attempted the same 'you don't have any say in it' line of reasoning in these arguments. The court seems to feel otherwise. Repeatedly telling the court they are an impotent body with no power is probably not a good way to get a ruling in your favor. In fact that's a good way to paint them into a corner of having to rule against in order to not concede that power.

Quote:
Third, it was stupid for the judge to make that point anyway because only prospective risks matter, not retrospective. What matters is where the terrorists will likely come from in the future, not where they came from in the past.
The government spectacularly failed to provide a single shred of evidence for what basis this determination of potential future risk is predicated upon. Policies which impact broad swathes of people based on someone maybe doing something criminal sometime in the future require a rather high burden of proof to defend.


Quote:
Fourth, and least important, the judge was utterly wrong about where terrorists have come from. Many people from the countries on the list have not only been arrested on terrorism charges, but have been convicted. See, for example, the Somalis in Minnesota who were convicted of aiding ISIS.
Wait, you just said it's future terrorism, but now want to select a single instance of past (failed) terrorism as your evidence?

Can a single citation even be called cherry picking?

What are the totals? Why isn't Saudi Arabia banned?

Why no executive orders doing anything about the 10x more harmful 'home grown' terrorists? Why are White Nationalist groups being taken off of priority even though the FBI says that is a much greater threat? Where is the ban on importation of mattresses killing people who fall out of them and die at a higher rate than terrorism each year? What every happened to stopping drunk drivers (~10,000 deaths per year, ~1000 of whom are children 0-14). You want to protect American lives? I call ********, I assert you couldn't give two ***** about anyone but you. This is nothing but rationalizations for bigotry and a twisted form of self-affirming hollow comfort.

You don't like the ruling, therefore it is 'wrong.'

You don't like the news reports, therefore they are 'fake.'

I see a pattern emerging.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 9th February 2017 at 08:33 PM.
Delphic Oracle 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 9th February 2017, 08:36 PM   #216
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,647
To clarify, this is not about the actual ban, but about the court order against enforcing the ban.
__________________
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 9th February 2017, 08:44 PM   #217
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,177
Also, digging around a bit, the Somali community in Minnesota are deeply distrustful of the CVE program (now taking off the mask of being anti-violence and revealing itself as the de facto anti-Muslim program it always has been). Many cases are classic examples of taking a young, socially-isolated male and promoting radical beliefs to them (often with drugs and alcohol involved), then arresting them and patting themselves on the back for their good work in 'making the community safer.'

More security theater that amounts to nothing more than manufactured examples of the very behavior that is supposedly so dangerous.
Delphic Oracle 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 9th February 2017, 08:44 PM   #218
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
No, the government has to demonstrate that the intent and resulting impacts do not infringe on lawful activities or that this is the least restrictive means to do achieve their desired results.
False. What you're referring to is middle tier scrutiny. On immigration, under the plenary power doctrine, which is the precedent the appeals court must adhere to, the government only need satisfy rational basis scrutiny.

Quote:
Then the court has no role other than ruling on criminal cases and ruling on civil disputes. In which case it may as well be an extension of the executive in enforcing laws.
I'm only referring to the area of immigration. The courts have virtually no role there as the political branches have plenary power.

Quote:
But thankfully this is merely your opinion being phrased as objective fact in and contrary to the established role of the courts in the balance of power. It should be noted that the administration has attempted the same 'you don't have any say in it' line of reasoning in these arguments. The court seems to feel otherwise. Repeatedly telling the court they are an impotent body with no power is probably not a good way to get a ruling in your favor. In fact that's a good way to paint them into a corner of having to rule against in order to not concede that power.
Well, the judges are supposed to rule according to the law. Not according to their hurt feewings. You're correct that the appeals court did seem to get a little bit butthurt about the government's argument. In the end, however, they cited some inapposite cases and then dropped the subject.

Quote:
The government spectacularly failed to provide a single shred of evidence for what basis this determination of potential future risk is predicated upon. Policies which impact broad swathes of people based on someone maybe doing something criminal sometime in the future require a rather high burden of proof to defend.
Should the military decisions of the commander of chief also be submitted to the courts for review? Maybe the President should get Judge Robart in Seattle to sign off on his drone strike in Yemen. Just to make sure it's a wise thing to do.

Quote:
Wait, you just said it's future terrorism, but now want to select a single instance of past (failed) terrorism as your evidence?
I was simply pointing out that the judge stated as fact something which was, shall we say, an alternative fact.

Quote:
Can a single citation even be called cherry picking?
Huh? It's called a counterexample. Do you really think that a counterexample counts as cherry picking?

Quote:
What are the totals? Why isn't Saudi Arabia banned?
Saudi Arabia is an ally of ours, with a functioning government which has an interest in preventing terrorism as well. Even if their citizens were a grave risk to us, there might be ancillary considerations, quid pro quos, for example, that make banning their citizens perhaps contrary to the national interest.

Quote:
Why no executive orders doing anything about the 10x more harmful 'home grown' terrorists? Why are White Nationalist groups being taken off of priority even though the FBI says that is a much greater threat?
Citizens and residents of the US have Constitutional rights, so it is much harder simply to round them up or keep them out of the country.

Quote:
You don't like the ruling, therefore it is 'wrong.'

You don't like the news reports, therefore they are 'fake.'

I see a pattern emerging.
Except that I'm the only one here who is actually providing justification for my views. Nobody else is. Least of all you. It is irrelevant what my motives are. My arguments speak for themselves.
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 9th February 2017, 08:52 PM   #219
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Doesn't that seem worse? No amount of vetting is going to stop somebody from having ties to their homeland (or even ancestral homeland). And those ties can lead to radicalization, especially for younger people who come of age in the US. The very fact of having strong ties to a country which is a failed state overrun with jihadists presents a well above average terrorism risk. At least that's what the statistics show. I mean how many first generation Somalis live in the US? According to wiki, it's about 75,000. And something like 20+15 = 35 have tried to join (or succeeded in joining) a Islamic terrorist group. That's almost 0.05%, and those are the ones that we know about (or, more accurately, have been reported on) so far.
Or maybe when people who have lived here their entire lives are repeatedly told they are not welcome here, they are 'other', they must 'go back where they came from' and told they are inherently less worthy and valuable than other people, that's a recipe for how to create a person who wants to lash out?

Oh, maybe also put those figures in context of other violent crimes and then realize 0.05% is actually below the baseline.

Yet more examples of how people feel safe and think that punishing a tiny minority group that is actually better behaved on average than the overall population is a sensible solution.

Maybe it is your own presumptions, prejudice, and bigotry that make you less safe?

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 9th February 2017 at 08:55 PM.
Delphic Oracle 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 9th February 2017, 08:56 PM   #220
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Doesn't that seem worse? No amount of vetting is going to stop somebody from having ties to their homeland (or even ancestral homeland).
I won't answer this because it feels like a goalpost shift. I get a strong sense you didn't know the biographies of these people, and are applying cognitive dissonance.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 9th February 2017, 09:02 PM   #221
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,057
Having read the opinion, I think the court got it right. This was actually a surprise to me. I don't like courts making up laws or throwing out ones they don't like, and I thought the law was pretty much on the President's side here, whether we liked it or not.

Now that I've read the opinion, though, I've changed my mind.

For one thing, as is often the case, what the court says and what the media reports are frequently subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, different.

If I could sum up the judicial opinion very quickly, it would say, basically, people who have been granted entry into the United States have rights, and the President can't take those away without a darned good reason. Their much more lengthy explanation of that made perfect sense to me.

I had thought that since the President really did have broad powers over immigration, he probably ought to win. However, this order affected people who had already immigrated, or who had been granted the right to, or for which there was a specific law in place that outlined procedures under which they would have a right to apply. (This is the refugee aspect.)

I think if Trump had issued an order, or even if he issues a new one, that stated we would grant no additional visas, there would no grounds to deny his authority to do so. However, he went a lot farther than that, and I think the court correctly ruled that he either went too far or, at least, that he might have done so and that there is no reason to overturn the temporary restraining order until a more complete argument can be made.

It will be interesting to see where it goes next.

At least we know there will be angry tweeting involved.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is online now   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 9th February 2017, 09:03 PM   #222
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I won't answer this because it feels like a goalpost shift. I get a strong sense you didn't know the biographies of these people, and are applying cognitive dissonance.
You're wrong. I didn't specifically know about the ringleader's history, but I did know that many of the convicted Somalis in Minnesota emigrated here as children.

By the way, there is also this case. And this.
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 9th February 2017, 09:09 PM   #223
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Having read the opinion, I think the court got it right. This was actually a surprise to me. I don't like courts making up laws or throwing out ones they don't like, and I thought the law was pretty much on the President's side here, whether we liked it or not.

Now that I've read the opinion, though, I've changed my mind.

For one thing, as is often the case, what the court says and what the media reports are frequently subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, different.

If I could sum up the judicial opinion very quickly, it would say, basically, people who have been granted entry into the United States have rights, and the President can't take those away without a darned good reason. Their much more lengthy explanation of that made perfect sense to me.
Not quite right. There is actually case law that says that a visa is not a property right, and it can be canceled without due process. The court instead ruled that the government had not shown that it was likely to win on other issues related to due process and that therefore they would not stay the TRO. You're reading way more into this ruling than is there.

I'd say that the only interesting thing the court hinted at is that it would entertain the idea that the relatives of aliens who had been granted a visa might have property rights in the visa and might therefore have a right to due process. Seems plausible to me.

I still don't think the states have standing to sue. The court stretched things pretty far there.
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 9th February 2017, 09:10 PM   #224
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Or maybe when people who have lived here their entire lives are repeatedly told they are not welcome here, they are 'other', they must 'go back where they came from' and told they are inherently less worthy and valuable than other people, that's a recipe for how to create a person who wants to lash out?

Oh, maybe also put those figures in context of other violent crimes and then realize 0.05% is actually below the baseline.

Yet more examples of how people feel safe and think that punishing a tiny minority group that is actually better behaved on average than the overall population is a sensible solution.

Maybe it is your own presumptions, prejudice, and bigotry that make you less safe?
I'd like to keep the discussion focused on the law and not on me personally.
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 9th February 2017, 09:14 PM   #225
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,236
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
You're wrong. I didn't specifically know about the ringleader's history, but I did know that many of the convicted Somalis in Minnesota emigrated here as children.
Enh, you probably won't convince me of that.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 9th February 2017, 09:15 PM   #226
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
You're wrong. I didn't specifically know about the ringleader's history, but I did know that many of the convicted Somalis in Minnesota emigrated here as children.

By the way, there is also this case. And this.
Dahir A. Adan - Born in Kenya
Mohamed Barry - Born in Guinea

So the proposed ban would not have applied to them, anyways.

I barely even have to work to make a point here, you're defeating your own argument.
Delphic Oracle 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 9th February 2017, 09:20 PM   #227
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,057
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Not quite right. There is actually case law that says that a visa is not a property right, and it can be canceled without due process. The court instead ruled that the government had not shown that it was likely to win on other issues related to due process and that therefore they would not stay the TRO. You're reading way more into this ruling than is there.

I'd say that the only interesting thing the court hinted at is that it would entertain the idea that the relatives of aliens who had been granted a visa might have property rights in the visa and might therefore have a right to due process. Seems plausible to me.

I still don't think the states have standing to sue. The court stretched things pretty far there.
Re: Visas - Real lawyers will have to haggle about it, but I'm not so sure that it was a "property right" that was at issue. I confess I read quickly, but it was the right to travel and to avoid detention. It was more the "liberty" clause than the property clause. Perhaps a closer reading would correct that impression.

The case that visa holders had a right to be here seemed pushing it a bit, but when it comes to legal permanent residents, I found it completely convincing.

As for the states and standing, I definitely thought their argument was convincing, at least with respect to the idea that they were harmed. The only thing that was even a little bit of a stretch to me was that the harm they suffered wasn't necessarily related to the deprivation of rights. In other words, if I can show that I am harmed when you are deprived of your rights, do I have standing to sue in the hope of you getting your rights back? If not, then standing might not apply. I thought it was very convincing that they had been harmed by the executive order. If that's enough for standing, then they had standing.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is online now   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 9th February 2017, 09:24 PM   #228
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Dahir A. Adan - Born in Kenya
Mohamed Barry - Born in Guinea

So the proposed ban would not have applied to them, anyways.

I barely even have to work to make a point here, you're defeating your own argument.
Why does it matter where they were born? It matters where they were citizens. You do know that other countries don't have this birthright citizenship that the US has, right?

ETA: Also, I wasn't referring to Mohamed Barry, but rather the Somali guy who attacked people at OSU with a car. Wiki link.

Last edited by sunmaster14; 9th February 2017 at 09:29 PM.
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 9th February 2017, 09:36 PM   #229
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Why does it matter where they were born? It matters where they were citizens. You do know that other countries don't have this birthright citizenship that the US has, right?
Right, which is a great argument against using such simplistic metrics for determining who is or is not a threat.

Quote:
ETA: Also, I wasn't referring to Mohamed Barry, but rather the Somali guy who attacked people at OSU with a car. Wiki link.
And?

Again, measured against the context of crime overall or violent crimes committed by even natural-born citizens?

This gets filed away as the standard 'I think I can tell who is a threat to me by merely glancing at them' *********.
Delphic Oracle 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 9th February 2017, 11:59 PM   #230
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
<snip>

The court declined to rewrite the executive order,

What a shocking and flamboyant display of judicial activism.

Disgusting.

The courts have a duty to compose the laws when the other branches of government aren't competent to do it right themselves.





Quote:

leaving it instead to the executive branch to do so,

Obviously not the executive branch's job to get their diktats right.

Quote:

which was kind of a snarky way of asserting supremacy over the executive branch while feigning deference.

<snip>

That's a good one. Worth preserving for posterity.

Your capacity for rationalization never ceases to amaze amuse.
__________________
"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 10th February 2017, 12:04 AM   #231
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
<snip>

In other words, the judicial branch has mathematically 0 power to decide the president's reasoning is not correct or good enough. This is left, by the Constitution, to the political branches.

<snip>

We have it on good authority that it is the court's responsibility to rewrite the pronouncements of the other branches when those branches have demonstrated that they aren't competent to do it properly themselves.

Failure to do so is "a snarky way of asserting supremacy" over them.

By extension this would suggest that they do have the power.
__________________
"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 10th February 2017, 12:07 AM   #232
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
<snip>

I mean how many first generation Somalis live in the US? According to wiki, it's about 75,000. And something like 20+15 = 35 have tried to join (or succeeded in joining) a Islamic terrorist group. That's almost 0.05%

<snip>



Which in Bizarro Trump Universe is known to constitute a majority.

When convenient.
__________________
"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 10th February 2017, 12:15 AM   #233
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
<snip>

Saudi Arabia is an ally of ours, with a functioning government which has an interest in preventing terrorism as well. Even if their citizens were a grave risk to us, there might be ancillary considerations, quid pro quos, for example, that make banning their citizens perhaps contrary to the national interest.

Such as the treatment of Trump's business interests?

Quote:



<snip>

Except that I'm the only one here who is actually providing justification for my views.

<snip>

You misspelled "rationalizations".
__________________
"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 10th February 2017, 02:32 AM   #234
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'
Posts: 13,249
Interesting that Trump has criticised this decision as being political not legal. I guess the question now is whether he goes straight to the supreme court or whether he waits until he has a political majority there.
Lothian 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 10th February 2017, 05:01 AM   #235
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,945
0.05%? Did I read that right? Maybe that sounds like a larger percentage than "five one hundredths of one per cent".

Hint: it's minuscule. 0.05% of the adult population of the USA is about the capacity of a Big 10 football stadium. Impressive but tiny compared to the whole, and at a mere 125,000 people, I'd bet that White Nationalist organizations have a higher percentage than 0.05%.

And there's also the question as to how many of these dangerous Somalis are dangerous Somalis (is that DNA? genetics? religious?) versus how many were groomed by the FBI in their usual ways.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   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 10th February 2017, 08:08 AM   #236
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,326
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
The President changed, and the new President has a different opinion as to how to do deal with the threat posed by terrorists than the previous President had.

ETA: I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the brief, but the information is publicly available and rather widely known. Hopefully the judge hasn't been living in a cave for the last year.
He agrees with the terrorists that it is a war to the death between the US and Islam.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   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 10th February 2017, 08:14 AM   #237
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,326
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
The relevancy of the affidavit aside, the issue at hand has to do with Trump's stated reason for the ban; i.e. U.S. National Security. I can guarantee you that no one in the Intelligence Community agrees with the administration's assessment that there is an immediate and present danger from any of the seven named countries to our national security; believe me, I would have heard about it, considering my current method of employment. The Trump administration made this decision without once consulting the people who would actually know of imminent threats to the country, and continues to assert they know more than the people who actually have access to the actionable intelligence to make a determination regarding such an issue. The President cannot and should not make these kind of arbitrary decisions without the advice of the people who actually know the potential for security concerns; that is why he has intelligence analysts in the first goddamn place. All the ban has done is put us in more danger, not less, from these countries.

The Presidency is not a position where the President does not listen to the people around him who actually know the information he needs to make informed decisions. That is the point that is being made by the affidavit; the administration made an arbitrary decision that has endangered countless US military members and civilian contractors working overseas and has refused to acknowledge that fact. I know of a multitude of reports in Iraqi media, for instance, where the Iraqi people have become infuriated over what they see as an insult to their honor (an extremely important issue in the Middle East) and many are calling for attacks on US service members in retaliation. PM Abadi has thankfully issued a statement saying Iraq as a whole will not seek retaliation, but that doesn't prevent Mohammed on the streets from targeting US contractors or service members if he happens to spot them. That is what Trump's travel ban has put us in for, and if you can't see the inherent problem with that, than I'm afraid there's no hope for you.
If america wanted a president who would listen to experts we wouldn't have elected Trump. We want muslim bans like this, and his winning the election proved that. Just accept that your job is irrelevant for the next 4 years.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   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 10th February 2017, 08:23 AM   #238
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,326
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
"Denial of the reversal of the suspension of the ban rescinded."

I'm not sure where we are now but I think it's good.
With the ban pending a hearing in court, but not in effect until after it is ruled to be legal.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   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 10th February 2017, 08:24 AM   #239
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
We have it on good authority that it is the court's responsibility to rewrite the pronouncements of the other branches when those branches have demonstrated that they aren't competent to do it properly themselves.

Failure to do so is "a snarky way of asserting supremacy" over them.

By extension this would suggest that they do have the power.
The Supreme Court did it in the case of Obamacare. Twice. First, it decided that the individual mandate penalty really was a tax, so that the commerce clause wasn't violated, even though the penalty was explicitly distinguished as a penalty rather than a tax, the legislation wasn't originated in the House (as required of all tax legislation), and the President and his surrogates insisted over and over again that the mandate penalty wasn't a tax. The second instance was when the court decided that the Obamacare subsidies extended to health insurance exchanges created by a [S]tate should also be extended to the federal insurance exchange because, ..., well, ..., because it was better policy I guess.
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 10th February 2017, 08:37 AM   #240
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
0.05%? Did I read that right? Maybe that sounds like a larger percentage than "five one hundredths of one per cent".

Hint: it's minuscule. 0.05% of the adult population of the USA is about the capacity of a Big 10 football stadium. Impressive but tiny compared to the whole, and at a mere 125,000 people, I'd bet that White Nationalist organizations have a higher percentage than 0.05%.

And there's also the question as to how many of these dangerous Somalis are dangerous Somalis (is that DNA? genetics? religious?) versus how many were groomed by the FBI in their usual ways.
I guess it's a subjective thing, but I think 0.05% is unacceptably high. Under the Obama administration, we were accepting something like 700 Somalis per month. That means that, on average, we were getting 1 active terrorism supporter every 3 months from that program. Probably far more than that because, as I said before, the 0.05% is only counting the ones that have been found out (and reported on). And what benefit are we getting from the others? Most of these people are on the dole from the get-go. Most will not assimilate and will actually support illiberal ideas - like female circumcision, arranged marriages, and the subjugation of women and homosexuals generally. Some - not counted in the 0.05% - will become passive supporters of terrorism.

What's the upside? That some liberals get to pat themselves on the back about how generous they are in sacrificing their fellow citizens' security and tax dollars? That's all well and good but I worry about them spraining their elbows.
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
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 09:52 AM.
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.