ACLU Wins - Federal Judge Just Issued A Stay Against Trump's Muslim Ban

[James Madison]

Is it possible (or legal) that Trump will pull back his nomination of Gorsuch for him being concerned about the statements he (Trump) has made about judges?

That seems insane for anyone but Trump. But boy if he did, there is no bag of popcorn big enough...

.

As far as the order itself, the simplest solution seems to be to rescind the order and rewrite it in light of the court's decision.

This should be considered by Trump. The 9th Circuit was very careful not to assert everyone affected by the EO had due process claims. Of all the people affected by the EO, the 9th Circuit referenced a smaller and specific category of people with due process claims and observed the EO violated their due process. The 9th Circuit did not indicate the entirety of the EO is legally questionable but the legality of the EO as applied to a specific group of people was problematic. Hence, Trump could take these remarks by the 9th Circuit into consideration in rewriting an EO and quite possibly the EO would receive a more favorable reception by the 9th Circuit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This decision doesn't do anything but not interfere.

Regarding vetting, that is allegedly what Bannon is doing this all for, that our vetting isn't good enough. Which is why they created "the pause".

Fantastic commentary which isn't germane to what I said in the specific post.

Actually it is, because the whole intent thing, I'm not talking about Judicial Review, but rather that Pres. Bannon did this, this way, for a reason. Why would he rewrite the Order into something that doesn't accomplish what he wanted in the first place. He isn't trying to make America "safer".

This has nothing to do with anything but banning Muslims. If this was actually about a legit threat, the courts wouldn't have interceded at all and the Order would have been fine tuned. It wasn't fine tuned because they want to ban entry of certain people.

This doesn't have to be proven legally, but it explains why Pres. Bannon wouldn't want to bother with 'fixing' up his Order because it gets rid of what he wanted in the first place.

 

[James Madison]

Fantastic commentary which isn't germane to what I said in the specific post.

Actually it is, because the whole intent thing, I'm not talking about Judicial Review, but rather that Pres. Bannon did this, this way, for a reason. Why would he rewrite the Order into something that doesn't accomplish what he wanted in the first place. He isn't trying to make America "safer".

This has nothing to do with anything but banning Muslims. If this was actually about a legit threat, the courts wouldn't have interceded at all and the Order would have been fine tuned. It wasn't fine tuned because they want to ban entry of certain people.

This doesn't have to be proven legally, but it explains why Pres. Bannon wouldn't want to bother with 'fixing' up his Order because it gets rid of what he wanted in the first place.

Thanks for the pointless information. You've clearly not read the opinion and/or read the decision and do not properly understand what the 9th Circuit said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually it is, because the whole intent thing, I'm not talking about Judicial Review, but rather that Pres. Bannon did this, this way, for a reason. Why would he rewrite the Order into something that doesn't accomplish what he wanted in the first place. He isn't trying to make America "safer".

This has nothing to do with anything but banning Muslims. If this was actually about a legit threat, the courts wouldn't have interceded at all and the Order would have been fine tuned. It wasn't fine tuned because they want to ban entry of certain people.

This doesn't have to be proven legally, but it explains why Pres. Bannon wouldn't want to bother with 'fixing' up his Order because it gets rid of what he wanted in the first place.

Thanks for the pointless information. You've clearly not read the opinion and/or read the decision and do not properly understand what the 9th Circuit said.

That's ok, you didn't read what I said either.

 

[James Madison]

Thanks for the pointless information. You've clearly not read the opinion and/or read the decision and do not properly understand what the 9th Circuit said.

That's ok, you didn't read what I said either.

What? You "said" something? Where?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whichphilosophy]

.

As far as the order itself, the simplest solution seems to be to rescind the order and rewrite it in light of the court's decision.

This should be considered by Trump. The 9th Circuit was very careful not to assert everyone affected by the EO had due process claims. Of all the people affected by the EO, the 9th Circuit referenced a smaller and specific category of people with due process claims and observed the EO violated their due process. The 9th Circuit did not indicate the entirety of the EO is legally questionable but the legality of the EO as applied to a specific group of people was problematic. Hence, Trump could take these remarks by the 9th Circuit into consideration in rewriting an EO and quite possibly the EO would receive a more favorable reception by the 9th Circuit.

If he allowed those with Visas and Green Cards to enter but then froze the issue of the same for all future ones coming in, I believe he we would not face any objections from the courts. Would this be correct?

 

[RavenSky]

Actually it is, because the whole intent thing, I'm not talking about Judicial Review, but rather that Pres. Bannon did this, this way, for a reason. Why would he rewrite the Order into something that doesn't accomplish what he wanted in the first place. He isn't trying to make America "safer".

This has nothing to do with anything but banning Muslims. If this was actually about a legit threat, the courts wouldn't have interceded at all and the Order would have been fine tuned. It wasn't fine tuned because they want to ban entry of certain people.

This doesn't have to be proven legally, but it explains why Pres. Bannon wouldn't want to bother with 'fixing' up his Order because it gets rid of what he wanted in the first place.

Thanks for the pointless information. You've clearly not read the opinion and/or read the decision and do not properly understand what the 9th Circuit said.

It appears to me that Jimmy understands what the 9th said just fine. You, however, are not understanding what Jimmy said.

 

[James Madison]

This should be considered by Trump. The 9th Circuit was very careful not to assert everyone affected by the EO had due process claims. Of all the people affected by the EO, the 9th Circuit referenced a smaller and specific category of people with due process claims and observed the EO violated their due process. The 9th Circuit did not indicate the entirety of the EO is legally questionable but the legality of the EO as applied to a specific group of people was problematic. Hence, Trump could take these remarks by the 9th Circuit into consideration in rewriting an EO and quite possibly the EO would receive a more favorable reception by the 9th Circuit.

If he allowed those with Visas and Green Cards to enter but then froze the issue of the same for all future ones coming in, I believe he we would not face any objections from the courts. Would this be correct?

Correct. There is language in the 9th's opinion supporting your statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whichphilosophy]

If he allowed those with Visas and Green Cards to enter but then froze the issue of the same for all future ones coming in, I believe he we would not face any objections from the courts. Would this be correct?

Correct. There is language in the 9th's opinion supporting your statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many thanks. I thought this is the case.

 

[James Madison]

Thanks for the pointless information. You've clearly not read the opinion and/or read the decision and do not properly understand what the 9th Circuit said.

It appears to me that Jimmy understands what the 9th said just fine. You, however, are not understanding what Jimmy said.

I understand what he said. What he is ignoring is that Trump can still accomplish what he wanted to by rewriting the EO in a manner suggested by the 9th Circuit. There is language in the decision suggesting what Jimmy calls a "Muslim ban" may be lawfully palatable if a specific and narrow group of people were treated differently.

This is not some obscure deduction to be made from the decision, especially since the court is making this point rather unequivocally in its decision. Hence, my remark Jimmy isn't properly understanding the 9th's decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nice Squirrel]

As others have said it mostly has to do with immigration status, most holders with immigrant visas and permanent residents are protected by the Constitution.Most of those who have not secured visas and are not immigrants cannot claim an interest in coming into the country. This wouldn't upset me if this was truly temporary, but we know President Bannon wants to eliminate all non-white immigration.

 

[RavenSky]

It appears to me that Jimmy understands what the 9th said just fine. You, however, are not understanding what Jimmy said.

I understand what he said. What he is ignoring is that Trump can still accomplish what he wanted to by rewriting the EO in a manner suggested by the 9th Circuit. There is language in the decision suggesting what Jimmy calls a "Muslim ban" may be lawfully palatable if a specific and narrow group of people were treated differently.

This is not some obscure deduction to be made from the decision, especially since the court is making this point rather unequivocally in its decision. Hence, my remark Jimmy isn't properly understanding the 9th's decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you are ignoring is that Trump is not the type of person who will ever admit he was wrong by re-writing anything, and Bannon is not going to re-write anything because any reasonable immigration policy that would pass constitutional muster is not what Bannon wants.

All of us here understand perfectly well that a semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane administration would simply do as you suggest - withdraw the EO and issue a revised one that conforms to the non-subtle hints from the 9th. Jimmy (and I) do not believe Trump or Bannon gives a shit about the American public and/or semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane immigration policy. Maybe Ivanka and Jared will make Trump see the light, but I doubt it.

 

[James Madison]

I understand what he said. What he is ignoring is that Trump can still accomplish what he wanted to by rewriting the EO in a manner suggested by the 9th Circuit. There is language in the decision suggesting what Jimmy calls a "Muslim ban" may be lawfully palatable if a specific and narrow group of people were treated differently.

This is not some obscure deduction to be made from the decision, especially since the court is making this point rather unequivocally in its decision. Hence, my remark Jimmy isn't properly understanding the 9th's decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you are ignoring is that Trump is not the type of person who will ever admit he was wrong by re-writing anything, and Bannon is not going to re-write anything because any reasonable immigration policy that would pass constitutional muster is not what Bannon wants.

All of us here understand perfectly well that a semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane administration would simply do as you suggest - withdraw the EO and issue a revised one that conforms to the non-subtle hints from the 9th. Jimmy (and I) do not believe Trump or Bannon gives a shit about the American public and/or semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane immigration policy. Maybe Ivanka and Jared will make Trump see the light, but I doubt it.

Perhaps, but now you are arguing a different point than the one Jimmy made. I have no desire to express an opinion to your point above, other than to express my personal view is Trump is an adult prone to childish obstinacy and petulant behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

As others have said it mostly has to do with immigration status, most holders with immigrant visas and permanent residents are protected by the Constitution.Most of those who have not secured visas and are not immigrants cannot claim an interest in coming into the country. This wouldn't upset me if this was truly temporary, but we know President Bannon wants to eliminate all non-white immigration.

Correct. This was one aspect of the decision. There are Supreme Court decisions supporting this view by the 9th Circuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

What you are ignoring is that Trump is not the type of person who will ever admit he was wrong by re-writing anything, and Bannon is not going to re-write anything because any reasonable immigration policy that would pass constitutional muster is not what Bannon wants.

All of us here understand perfectly well that a semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane administration would simply do as you suggest - withdraw the EO and issue a revised one that conforms to the non-subtle hints from the 9th. Jimmy (and I) do not believe Trump or Bannon gives a shit about the American public and/or semi-normal, semi-rational, semi-sane immigration policy. Maybe Ivanka and Jared will make Trump see the light, but I doubt it.

Perhaps, but now you are arguing a different point than the one Jimmy made. I have no desire to express an opinion to your point above, other than to express my personal view is Trump is an adult prone to childish obstinacy and petulant behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, Jimmy will have to let us know if I am making a different point than he did, because this is what I understood him to be saying.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As others have said it mostly has to do with immigration status, most holders with immigrant visas and permanent residents are protected by the Constitution. Those who have not secured visas and are not immigrant cannot claim an interest in coming into the country, which wouldn't upset me if this was truly temporary, but we know President Bannon wants to eliminate all non-white immigration.

The US or anyone elseis not obliged to take in anyone and it also needs to start looking at attending to its own citizens, especially the poor including war veterans. How this is administrated is another matter.

In the UK we've run out of government housing, hospital beds and need more schools. Here we don't have the immediate room. We have taken in refugees and will continue to do so.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

As others have said it mostly has to do with immigration status, most holders with immigrant visas and permanent residents are protected by the Constitution. Those who have not secured visas and are not immigrant cannot claim an interest in coming into the country, which wouldn't upset me if this was truly temporary, but we know President Bannon wants to eliminate all non-white immigration.

The US or anyone elseis not obliged to take in anyone and it also needs to start looking at attending to its own citizens, especially the poor including war veterans. How this is administrated is another matter.

We have the space and it is one of the cornerstones of our republic. We can also take care of our veterans, if the Republicans would let us.

 

[credoconsolans]

One of the people I work for travels a lot to international conferences. She is here in the US on a work visa. She is cancelling her business conferences because she's afraid she won't be able to re-enter the US.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Perhaps, but now you are arguing a different point than the one Jimmy made. I have no desire to express an opinion to your point above, other than to express my personal view is Trump is an adult prone to childish obstinacy and petulant behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, Jimmy will have to let us know if I am making a different point than he did, because this is what I understood him to be saying.

For clarity's sake:

James Madison: "The 9th Court ruled the executive order is unconstitutional, but they explained some of the ways Trump could fix it."
Jimmy Higgins: "But Trump is a petulant child and Bannon is an asshole. So they won't fix it."
James Madison: "That's not the point. He COULD fix it if he wanted to."
Jimmy Higgins: "He could, but he won't, because he's a petulant child."
James Madison: "Of course he is, but that's not the point."
RavenSky: "That's Jimmy's point."
James Madison: "It's not mine."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As others have said it mostly has to do with immigration status, most holders with immigrant visas and permanent residents are protected by the Constitution.Most of those who have not secured visas and are not immigrants cannot claim an interest in coming into the country. This wouldn't upset me if this was truly temporary, but we know President Bannon wants to eliminate all non-white immigration.

Yeah. Had His Flatulence said that no more visas should be issued to people from those nations it would be reprehensible but within his rights. He went way beyond his powers, though.