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

[Shadowy Man]

Logically, that is true no matter what is written. So what do you think you are showing?

That he circumvented the law to get what he wants. If I say I'm going to ban children but permissibly can't do so and instead ban people by height, then the ban is actually against people of a particular height and not an actual ban against children. It might have the same effect as a ban against children, but what the ban is is a function of how it's worded, not on what other effects it might have.

And this is exactly why lawyers have the sterling reputations they have.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3440921-031125162233.html

The judges stomp even harder on His Flatulence.

 

[fast]

That he circumvented the law to get what he wants. If I say I'm going to ban children but permissibly can't do so and instead ban people by height, then the ban is actually against people of a particular height and not an actual ban against children. It might have the same effect as a ban against children, but what the ban is is a function of how it's worded, not on what other effects it might have.

Nope. Intent is important. If the intent is known, then the wording is not important.

"Nope" is not the correct response, but yes, intent is important; it's important to the perceptions of others, but the issue at hand is whether or not the executive order uses sentences that expresses propositions commensurate with a Muslim ban. From what I'm gathering, the meaning expressed by these articulate manipulators is such that Muslims are not targeted--at least not from the wording therein, and it's that that matters legally speaking, even if it matters otherwise.

 

[fast]

If I openly express my full intent to prevent blacks in my town from entering my restaurant and erect a sign (sign 1) saying "no blacks allowed" and find that it is illegal and subsequently forced to take it down, then if I espouse my full intent to find an alternative work around and discover that only blacks in my town make less than 30k per year and erect another sign (sign 2) saying "no one making under 30k a year allowed," then characterizing my new sign as racist needs to be done with astute distinction.

The new sign (regardless of my true end goal) is not (by the words on it) a direct ban on blacks. I'm effectively achieving my goal (because of the correlation between blacks and income in my particular town), but a ban having an alternative effect is not a true ban on alternatives but rather a ban on precisely what is expressed. It's a technical inaccuracy to say I'm banning blacks.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where semantic technicality does not the truth make. Trump knows all about marketing and the power of marketing. He lost this one. His EO got marketed as a "Muslim ban" and he's going to have a hard time dissuading many people of that, especially because he started this whole mess by saying he wanted to ban Muslims, even though the great majority of the world's Muslims are not affected by the travel restrictions.

The truth is that he has not issued an executive order that stands good as a Muslim ban, and that is a truth notwithstanding the truth regarding his motivations. As to disuading others, well, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that he wants people to think he's banning Muslims just as he said he wanted to. He wants us to think he has, and effectively, he has, but literally, he hasn't, and that's why he has a fighting chance legal-wise.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Islamophobes!

Kuwait issues its own Trump-esque visa ban for five Muslim-majority countries

It's not anti Islamic if an Islamic country imposes such a ban.

Citizens from five Muslim-majority countries will no longer be able to obtain Kuwaiti visas, after reports the Gulf state issued tight entry restrictions that mirrored US President Donald Trump's Muslim ban.

Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis and Afghans will not be able to obtain visit, tourism or trade Kuwaiti visas with the news coming one day after the US slapped its own restrictions on seven Muslim-majority countries.

Passport holders from the countries will no lot be allowed to enter the Gulf state while the blanket ban is in place and have been told not to apply to visas.

Kuwaiti sources told local media that the restrictions were in place due to the "instability" in the five countries and that the ban would be lifted once the security situation improves.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have all witnessed violence from extremist groups, while Syria and Iraq are embroiled in internal conflicts.

Although mainly peaceful, tensions between Iran and the Gulf have ratched up over the past year with the GCC powers accusing Tehran of attempting to destabalise the region.

Kuwait is concerned about the threat of extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group with both militant organisations have a presence in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Gulf state has witnessed a number of militant attacks over the past two years, including the bombing of a Shia mosque in 2015 which left 27 Kuwaits dead.

 

[whichphilosophy]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3440921-031125162233.html

The judges stomp even harder on His Flatulence.

This as I suspected applies to people who already have visas. Kuwait has also imposed such a ban as it has suffered a spate of terrorist attacks. Maybe Israel will let people in from these countries. I don't think so.

 

[James Madison]

The intent cannot rewrite or reword what the text of the EO says and it is the text of the EO that is paramount in assessing whether a characterization of the EO is accurate.

Not if you know the intent.

T

Knowledge of an intent, which is not consistent with the text of the EO, cannot render an inaccurate characterization of the EO as accurate.

Assuming, arguendo, Trump intended to ban Muslims, this intent is not reflected in the text of the EO. In other words, Trump's intent and the text of the EO is not a match. The EO cannot be accurately characterized by this intent because the text says X whereas Trump's intent is Y.

As I said previously, intent is useful in another aspect. Intent is not useful in seeking to validate a mischaracterization of the EO by essentially rewording and rewriting what the EO says and substituting "intent" for the very words of the EO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

If I openly express my full intent to prevent blacks in my town from entering my restaurant and erect a sign (sign 1) saying "no blacks allowed" and find that it is illegal and subsequently forced to take it down, then if I espouse my full intent to find an alternative work around and discover that only blacks in my town make less than 30k per year and erect another sign (sign 2) saying "no one making under 30k a year allowed," then characterizing my new sign as racist needs to be done with astute distinction.

The new sign (regardless of my true end goal) is not (by the words on it) a direct ban on blacks. I'm effectively achieving my goal (because of the correlation between blacks and income in my particular town), but a ban having an alternative effect is not a true ban on alternatives but rather a ban on precisely what is expressed. It's a technical inaccuracy to say I'm banning blacks.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where semantic technicality does not the truth make. Trump knows all about marketing and the power of marketing. He lost this one. His EO got marketed as a "Muslim ban" and he's going to have a hard time dissuading many people of that, especially because he started this whole mess by saying he wanted to ban Muslims, even though the great majority of the world's Muslims are not affected by the travel restrictions.

Good post!

I'd also add, perhaps many people are inquiring as to whether this was necessary to protect the U.S. from terrorist and a terrorist attack. I look at this EO as an exercise in futility and not really done to protect the U.S. because the U.S. was legitimately safe under its then existing procedures (Syria may be an exception). Rather, this EO is nothing more than Trump seeking to honor a campaign promise. I am dubious of the notion Trump believes his EO is necessary to protect U.S.

This EO is all politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Knowledge of an intent, which is not consistent with the text of the EO, cannot render an inaccurate characterization of the EO as accurate.

No one claimed it can. The argument is that knowing the intent can render an accurate characterization.

Assuming, arguendo, Trump intended to ban Muslims, this intent is not reflected in the text of the EO.

Of course it is reflected in it. He choose nations that are overwhelmingly Muslim.

In other words, Trump's intent and the text of the EO is not a match.

They are not a perfect match, but they are a match.

The EO cannot be accurately characterized by this intent because the text says X whereas Trump's intent is Y.

Your conclusions is based on faulty reasoning (see above).

 

[Angry Floof]

So you guys are going in impeach trump, install pence, women's rights will be set back a bit, and this nightmare is going to end right?

I doubt it. Pence and other more "mainstream" right wing authoritarian followers are not just random fringe conspiracist loony biscuits, but they now have tasted something like getting a whole toy store for Christmas without asking just five minutes before they were about to give up believing in Santa. Suddenly having leave under King Buttercup and his club with a nail in it named "Democracy Killer" to break stuff like never before has had the same effect as unlocking a prison after tormenting the prisoners with stories about how the wardens intend to turn them into zombies via chemtrails and vaccines.

No, if Pence gets a promotion, he will not be as constrained or ethical as any past Republican president and will still seem sane next to Donald. More importantly, Pence is a different animal. He's driven mainly by ideological zealotry based in self righteousness and punishment of outgroups, and even if greed and personal gain is some part of his agenda, he's clearly not the Donald type who doesn't give a fuck about ideological identity outside of expedient party choice but gets all gooey for golden toilets and projecting an image of might. Pence doesn't care about anything that Donald cares about, but cares deeply about the giant boulder that President Delicate Buttercup has started rolling at us and wants to make sure it keeps going unimpeded.

 

[Toni]

So you guys are going in impeach trump, install pence, women's rights will be set back a bit, and this nightmare is going to end right?

I doubt it. Pence and other more "mainstream" right wing authoritarian followers are not just random fringe conspiracist loony biscuits, but they now have tasted something like getting a whole toy store for Christmas without asking just five minutes before they were about to give up believing in Santa. Suddenly having leave under King Buttercup and his club with a nail in it named "Democracy Killer" to break stuff like never before has had the same effect as unlocking a prison after tormenting the prisoners with stories about how the wardens intend to turn them into zombies via chemtrails and vaccines.

No, if Pence gets a promotion, he will not be as constrained or ethical as any past Republican president and will still seem sane next to Donald. More importantly, Pence is a different animal. He's driven mainly by ideological zealotry based in self righteousness and punishment of outgroups, and even if greed and personal gain is some part of his agenda, he's clearly not the Donald type who doesn't give a fuck about ideological identity outside of expedient party choice but gets all gooey for golden toilets and projecting an image of might. Pence doesn't care about anything that Donald cares about, but cares deeply about the giant boulder that President Delicate Buttercup has started rolling at us and wants to make sure it keeps going unimpeded.

The interesting thing about Pence, to me, personally, is that he has so much support from evangelicals who, back in my day, detested Catholics as idolaters who could not be trusted to lead the people but whose real allegiance was to the Pope, not the people or the constitution. Mind you, this was decades after Kennedy's presidency.

 

[Angry Floof]

I doubt it. Pence and other more "mainstream" right wing authoritarian followers are not just random fringe conspiracist loony biscuits, but they now have tasted something like getting a whole toy store for Christmas without asking just five minutes before they were about to give up believing in Santa. Suddenly having leave under King Buttercup and his club with a nail in it named "Democracy Killer" to break stuff like never before has had the same effect as unlocking a prison after tormenting the prisoners with stories about how the wardens intend to turn them into zombies via chemtrails and vaccines.

No, if Pence gets a promotion, he will not be as constrained or ethical as any past Republican president and will still seem sane next to Donald. More importantly, Pence is a different animal. He's driven mainly by ideological zealotry based in self righteousness and punishment of outgroups, and even if greed and personal gain is some part of his agenda, he's clearly not the Donald type who doesn't give a fuck about ideological identity outside of expedient party choice but gets all gooey for golden toilets and projecting an image of might. Pence doesn't care about anything that Donald cares about, but cares deeply about the giant boulder that President Delicate Buttercup has started rolling at us and wants to make sure it keeps going unimpeded.

The interesting thing about Pence, to me, personally, is that he has so much support from evangelicals who, back in my day, detested Catholics as idolaters who could not be trusted to lead the people but whose real allegiance was to the Pope, not the people or the constitution. Mind you, this was decades after Kennedy's presidency.

Not surprising. They supported Romney, a Mormon. Not just a different denomination but a controversial and relatively mysterious one with a reputation for cultishness and unbiblical magic, like underwear and golden tablets. Stuff that in any other context would be condemned or even judged as satanic. He's fine as a President, but his evil soul is damned to hell. I don't get it, either, but not surprising at all.

 

[James Madison]

No one claimed it can. The argument is that knowing the intent can render an accurate characterization.

Assuming, arguendo, Trump intended to ban Muslims, this intent is not reflected in the text of the EO.

Of course it is reflected in it. He choose nations that are overwhelmingly Muslim.

In other words, Trump's intent and the text of the EO is not a match.

They are not a perfect match, but they are a match.

The EO cannot be accurately characterized by this intent because the text says X whereas Trump's intent is Y.

Your conclusions is based on faulty reasoning (see above).

No one claimed it can. The argument is that knowing the intent can render an accurate characterization.

No, not in regards to what the EO says.

Your conclusions is based on faulty reasoning (see above).

You can allege "faulty reasoning" in perpetuity man, it is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. Regardless, my conclusion is not based on any faulty reasoning. The characterization of the EO as a Muslim ban is inaccurate precisely and exactly because the EO bans non-Muslims and Muslims. Because the EO bans both non-Muslim and Muslims, then the characterization of the EO as a Muslim ban is incomplete and inaccurate. The "intent" cannot render the mischaracterization of the EO as accurate because the "intent" is not consistent with what the text of the EO says and does, which is to ban non-Muslims and Muslims.

Of course it is reflected in it. He choose nations that are overwhelmingly Muslim.

No, the "intent" of "ban Muslims" is not reflected in the EO since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims. This is why the characterization the EO "bans Muslims" is not accurate as it is an incomplete and misleading characterization since the EO is much broader and bans non-Muslims.

The "nations that are overwhelmingly Muslim," thereby admitting these nations also contain non-Muslims, is not consistent or equivalent to "ban Muslims," since those nations contain non-Muslims. Hence, Trump's intent to "ban Muslims" is not reflected in the text of the EO which bans non-Muslims and Muslims, and the characterization of the EO as a "Muslim ban" is inaccurate since non-Muslims are also affected by the EO.

They are not a perfect match, but they are a match.

No, Trump's "intent" to "ban Muslims" is not a match to an EO that bans non-Muslims and Muslims. The EO does X and Y and to be a match, Trump's intent would also have to be X and Y. Trump's intent is not X and Y but simply X. Hence, his intent is not a match to the text of the EO.

 

[laughing dog]

You can allege "faulty reasoning" in perpetuity man, it is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.

You clearly do not understand what a rhetorical ploy means. Your argument is based on a false premise (that the words must match the intent) and faulty reasoning (see below).

Regardless, my conclusion is not based on any faulty reasoning

More faulty reasoning. Shrimp nets are intended to catch shrimp. The fact they catch other types of fish and shell fish does not negate the intent to catch shrimp. So an action that is intended to ban Muslims ends up banning Muslims and non-Muslims does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims. It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Unfortunately, we live in a world where semantic technicality does not the truth make. Trump knows all about marketing and the power of marketing. He lost this one. His EO got marketed as a "Muslim ban" and he's going to have a hard time dissuading many people of that, especially because he started this whole mess by saying he wanted to ban Muslims, even though the great majority of the world's Muslims are not affected by the travel restrictions.

The truth is that he has not issued an executive order that stands good as a Muslim ban, and that is a truth notwithstanding the truth regarding his motivations. As to disuading others, well, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that he wants people to think he's banning Muslims just as he said he wanted to. He wants us to think he has, and effectively, he has, but literally, he hasn't, and that's why he has a fighting chance legal-wise.

I agree with you that it is legal. In fact, it's probably the most he could do toward a Muslim ban and remain on good legal footing. Whoever wrote the order was no dummy. (i.e., not Trump).

 

[James Madison]

You clearly do not understand what a rhetorical ploy means. Your argument is based on a false premise (that the words must match the intent) and faulty reasoning (see below).

Regardless, my conclusion is not based on any faulty reasoning

More faulty reasoning. Shrimp nets are intended to catch shrimp. The fact they catch other types of fish and shell fish does not negate the intent to catch shrimp. So an action that is intended to ban Muslims ends up banning Muslims and non-Muslims does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims. It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous.

Your argument is based on a false premise (that the words must match the intent) and faulty reasoning (see below).

My argument does not rest on a false premise and the reasoning of my argument is not faulty. Hence, you resorted to a rhetorical ploy.

More faulty reasoning. Shrimp nets are intended to catch shrimp.

A shrimp net does not contain words, sentences, and paragraphs, expressing a message, like the EO. So comparing a fish net, which is not a writing, to a writing in this context is fallacious. Your fish net example is not parallel.

So an action that is intended to ban Muslims ends up banning Muslims and non-Muslims does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims.

I have not disputed what you ascribe to Trump as his "intent." So you can dispense with the "does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims."

It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous

My conclusion has been very specific. My conclusion has been that the characterization of the EO as a "Muslim ban" and/or a "ban Muslims" is not an accurate characterization of the EO.

 

[laughing dog]

My argument does not rest on a false premise and the reasoning of my argument is not faulty. Hence, you resorted to a rhetorical ploy.

Since your argument rests on a faulty premise and faulty reasoning, it is not a rhetorical ploy to claim the truth. Your denial is a rhetorical ploy.

A shrimp net does not contain words, sentences, and paragraphs, expressing a message, like the EO. So comparing a fish net, which is not a writing, to a writing in this context is fallacious. Your fish net example is not parallel.

Apparently you confuse "parallel" with "exact match" which leads you to make such a faulty claim.

I have not disputed what you ascribe to Trump as his "intent." So you can dispense with the "does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims."

It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous

My conclusion has been very specific. My conclusion has been that the characterization of the EO as a "Muslim ban" and/or a "ban Muslims" is not an accurate characterization of the EO.

I will leave you to continue to persist in your boring and silly pedantry. The characterization is accurate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hitler's law to catch Jews and put them in camps wasn't targeting Jews because there were a million in the US and also there were a lot of other people in camps like Christian socialists and labor organizers, atheists, non-Jewish Slavs, political protestors, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

James, forest and trees, dude. Forest and trees...

No need to argue over how to best rearrange the chairs at the Muenchen Bier Hall Putsch.

 

[James Madison]

Since your argument rests on a faulty premise and faulty reasoning, it is not a rhetorical ploy to claim the truth. Your denial is a rhetorical ploy.

A shrimp net does not contain words, sentences, and paragraphs, expressing a message, like the EO. So comparing a fish net, which is not a writing, to a writing in this context is fallacious. Your fish net example is not parallel.

Apparently you confuse "parallel" with "exact match" which leads you to make such a faulty claim.

I have not disputed what you ascribe to Trump as his "intent." So you can dispense with the "does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims."

It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous

My conclusion has been very specific. My conclusion has been that the characterization of the EO as a "Muslim ban" and/or a "ban Muslims" is not an accurate characterization of the EO.

I will leave you to continue to persist in your boring and silly pedantry. The characterization is accurate.

Since your argument rests on a faulty premise and faulty reasoning, it is not a rhetorical ploy to claim the truth. Your denial is a rhetorical ploy.

I'll play your silly game. Your argument rests on a faulty premise and faulty reasoning. Your denial is a rhetorical ploy.

Apparently you confuse "parallel" with "exact match" which leads you to make such a faulty claim.

Your net example is neither parallel or a match to the EO. What next, using parachutes as an example?

I will leave you to continue to persist in your boring and silly pedantry. The characterization is accurate.

Thank you for the accommodation, one should cease the irrational argument of imputing intent upon the text of the EO, indeed substituting the intent for the words of the EO. The characterization isn't accurate and never will be as it pertains to this EO.

 

[James Madison]

Hitler's law to catch Jews and put them in camps wasn't targeting Jews because there were a million in the US and also there were a lot of other people in camps like Christian socialists and labor organizers, atheists, non-Jewish Slavs, political protestors, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

James, forest and trees, dude. Forest and trees...

No need to argue over how to best rearrange the chairs at the Muenchen Bier Hall Putsch.

Do you understand why your example isn't analogous to this EO?

The characterization of this EO as a "Muslim ban" and/or "ban Muslims" isn't accurate, at least not as it pertains to what the text of the EO says and commands.

This EO blows, but I'm not predisposed to mischaracterize the EO on the basis the EO is repugnant to my beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk