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

[whichphilosophy]

The EO banning everyone from those 7 countries cannot logically or rationally be characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims."

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

If they're pretty much nearly all Muslims, it's pretty much almost impossible to miss them.

 

[James Madison]

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

This is one of those, "What the bare text says" v "What the text is set to accomplish" sorts of things. The Order targets predominantly Muslim nations, and under exceptions notes that minority religions have an out to squeeze into the US.

I know lawyers (and contractors) love to play word games, but the Order is pretty clear in its scope.

This is one of those, "What the bare text says" v "What the text is set to accomplish" sorts of things.

No. The "bare text says" is also "what the text is set to accomplish."

The Order targets predominantly Muslim nations, and under exceptions notes that minority religions have an out to squeeze into the US.

This claim is still incorrect and false. How many times must you be told the 7 nation ban does not have a minority religious exception? You can even read the text of the EO and quickly understand the EO does not allow for a religious minority exception to those 7 nations.

I know lawyers (and contractors) love to play word games, but the Order is pretty clear in its scope

This is not a matter of word games but instead is basic reading comprehension, a rather mundane and familiar exercise of reading what a text says and accurately comprehend what the text has said. So easy a caveman can do it! I posted the relevant portions of text of the EO for you to read and you still cannot get it right!

Yes the "Order is pretty clear in its scope" and despite its clarity in the text of the EO, you still miserably misrepresent what the EO says.

 

[dismal]

When did Breitbart start handing out law degrees?

grabbed the most recent case that came up on my search. The facts of the 2016 case may be different, by in that case the petitioners specifically sought to use the Courts to second-guess the executive. To quote again:

The 3rd Circuit said it couldn't even entertain that because of the executive and Congress's plenary power. I understand that you don't like this result, but that's just the way it is.

It doesn't matter if I like the result or not - it's not fucking relevant to the discussion at hand. This case concerns a different issue; it cites past SCOTUS decisions but isn't making any for itself that would be relevant to a legal challenge against Trump's idiotic ban. As the article I linked to earlier stated, judicial review over immigration policy is limited but not non-existent. SCOTUS rejected the idea that executive decisions on immigration are not open to judicial review.

If you're an attorney and can't figure this out for yourself, you should ask for your tuition money back.

You know, acting like a total asshat does not increase the power of your argument.

It does however get guys like Trump elected.

 

[James Madison]

The EO banning everyone from those 7 countries cannot logically or rationally be characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims."

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

 

[James Madison]

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

If they're pretty much nearly all Muslims, it's pretty much almost impossible to miss them.

This is an excellent point! What are the religious demographics in those 7 countries? To be sure, as you suggest, if the demographics in, say, one country is "pretty much nearly all Muslim," then to be sure as the EO applies to such a country, a characterization the EO is a "ban targeting Muslims," at least in that country, is rather compelling. Of course, focusing upon one country when 7 countries are mentioned would not be a proper analysis and a scrutiny of all 7, taken together, would be appropriate.

But you make a very good point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is one of those, "What the bare text says" v "What the text is set to accomplish" sorts of things. The Order targets predominantly Muslim nations, and under exceptions notes that minority religions have an out to squeeze into the US.

I know lawyers (and contractors) love to play word games, but the Order is pretty clear in its scope.

This is one of those, "What the bare text says" v "What the text is set to accomplish" sorts of things.

No. The "bare text says" is also "what the text is set to accomplish."

There is head in the ground legal interpretation (Plessy v Ferguson) and there is pragmatic legal interpretation (Brown v Board of Education). Banning refugees from nations whose governments we are at odds with seems odd to consider anything but an attack at Muslims. We say the Islamic government in Iran is bad to its citizens, but apparently, we can't allow refugees from there to come to the US because they are... Muslims.

The Order targets predominantly Muslim nations, and under exceptions notes that minority religions have an out to squeeze into the US.

This claim is still incorrect and false. How many times must you be told the 7 nation ban does not have a minority religious exception? You can even read the text of the EO and quickly understand the EO does not allow for a religious minority exception to those 7 nations.

You are right, the text I was referring to is specifically speaking about after the Travel ban, not during the travel ban.

This is not a matter of word games but instead is basic reading comprehension...

It is word games. I worked enough projects to know that the practice of law isn't about truth, but risk and perception.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

I remember Loving v Virginia and they State's argument was that the law wasn't unconstitutional because it punished both the white party and the black party equally.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If they're pretty much nearly all Muslims, it's pretty much almost impossible to miss them.

This is an excellent point! What are the religious demographics in those 7 countries? To be sure, as you suggest, if the demographics in, say, one country is "pretty much nearly all Muslim," then to be sure as the EO applies to such a country, a characterization the EO is a "ban targeting Muslims," at least in that country, is rather compelling. Of course, focusing upon one country when 7 countries are mentioned would not be a proper analysis and a scrutiny of all 7, taken together, would be appropriate.

But you make a very good point.

 

[James Madison]

This is one of those, "What the bare text says" v "What the text is set to accomplish" sorts of things.

No. The "bare text says" is also "what the text is set to accomplish."

There is head in the ground legal interpretation (Plessy v Ferguson) and there is pragmatic legal interpretation (Brown v Board of Education). Banning refugees from nations whose governments we are at odds with seems odd to consider anything but an attack at Muslims. We say the Islamic government in Iran is bad to its citizens, but apparently, we can't allow refugees from there to come to the US because they are... Muslims.

The Order targets predominantly Muslim nations, and under exceptions notes that minority religions have an out to squeeze into the US.

This claim is still incorrect and false. How many times must you be told the 7 nation ban does not have a minority religious exception? You can even read the text of the EO and quickly understand the EO does not allow for a religious minority exception to those 7 nations.

You are right, the text I was referring to is specifically speaking about after the Travel ban, not during the travel ban.

This is not a matter of word games but instead is basic reading comprehension...

It is word games. I worked enough projects to know that the practice of law isn't about truth, but risk and perception.

There is head in the ground legal interpretation (Plessy v Ferguson) and there is pragmatic legal interpretation (Brown v Board of Education).

I have never heard of either "interpretation" method, not in law school or during my 12 years of practicing law.

It is word games. I worked enough projects to know that the practice of law isn't about truth, but risk and perception

You have demonstrated, in this thread, and at this form, you know very little about "the practice of law." This is further evinced by the fact you continue to resort to the vacuous and inapplicable phrase of "word games" when the dialogue has very much everything to do with what the text of the EO says.

 

[Underseer]

Full stop, period. As in "DJT wants to ban all muslims from entering the country, end of sentence." That is what "Full stop" means.

And just so we're clear, he did say that he is going to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Those are his words.

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Giuliani admitted on FOX News that Trump consulted him to find a "legal" way to ban Muslims, and Giuliani boasted that this is what he came up with.

Unless you think Giuliani or FOX News is deliberately lying for some reason, your argument is just a weak excuse.

And if this is supposedly about "protecting" us from terrorism, why does the ban apply to countries that didn't produce terrorists that attacked us, but doesn't apply to Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) that have produced terrorists that attacked us?

 

[dismal]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Giuliani admitted on FOX News that Trump consulted him to find a "legal" way to ban Muslims, and Giuliani boasted that this is what he came up with.

There are 54 majority muslim countries. This muslim ban leaves 87% of them unaffected.

It seems to cover about 200 million muslims of a total of 1.7 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

 

[laughing dog]

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

It is not inaccurate if that is the intent.

 

[James Madison]

But you do understand the relevant EO does not "ban all Muslims from entering the country?"

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Giuliani admitted on FOX News that Trump consulted him to find a "legal" way to ban Muslims, and Giuliani boasted that this is what he came up with.

Unless you think Giuliani or FOX News is deliberately lying for some reason, your argument is just a weak excuse.

And if this is supposedly about "protecting" us from terrorism, why does the ban apply to countries that didn't produce terrorists that attacked us, but doesn't apply to Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) that have produced terrorists that attacked us?

You've said nothing to rebut my argument. What Giuliani/Fox News said doesn't, alone and by itself, refute what I have said. What Giulian/Fox News said is not the equivalent of what the EO says.

Giuliani/Fox News can say the EO bans freaking unicorns but this doesn't mean, and neither does it establish, the EO does ban unicorns.

You commit the error of substituting what someone has said about the EO for the text of the EO itself and for what the text of the EO says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are these alleged unicorns from one of the 7 countries?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Decided August 29, 2016. The 3rd Circuit makes clear on several occasions that a person seeking initial entry into the US has no Constitutional rights.

I have added emphasis to the word INITIAL.

Most of the complaints, anecdotes and stories about specific persons are about people who lived in the US (not their initial entry), who might even have family, a lease on an apt, or theoretically another domicile, who have jobs, and are RETURNING to the US.

In one such story, a guy has a job working for the government where he has to go outside the country and then come back.

There are many such people right now IN THE US who can't leave and return now because of this decree.

That means they don't have the same rights as others and are part of a collective punishment after having been cleared in the first place.

Those persons were entitled to due process and equal protection previously and ought to still be entitled to due process, equal protection, and other rights of individuals who have been cleared to live here and ARE living here.

I also wonder if ex post facto prohibition will apply in certain situations here for immigrants who sought citizenship and are present in the country.

In any case, I'd like to hear from James Madison, dismal, and others who may disagree on this topic.

 

[PyramidHead]

Of course the ban is legal. It was designed to be a means of preventing a large amount of Muslims from entering the country while providing enough wiggle room to claim that wasn't its original intent. Giuliani admitted this on national television. The Traustis and James Madisons of the world are doing exactly what Trump and company were counting on. The whole point of the damn executive order is to be as close to a Muslim ban as possible without being a de facto Muslim ban, and the result is pretty much what one would expect from that strategy: a swath of Muslim-majority countries are targeted, but not all Muslim majority countries, and only those previously singled out by the Obama administration. The exemption for people from minority religions undergoing persecution is specifically intended to allow Christians to enter the United States from Muslim majority countries. Trump and his team know very well that there are no Muslims fleeing religious persecution from countries that are not predominantly Muslim. They want us to focus on the text of the order, because it's airtight and probably will hold up in court. But look at the effects of the order, and tell me it's not a great way to legally prevent a bunch of Muslims from coming to our country while letting Christians in.

 

[J842P]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. Giuliani admitted on FOX News that Trump consulted him to find a "legal" way to ban Muslims, and Giuliani boasted that this is what he came up with.

Unless you think Giuliani or FOX News is deliberately lying for some reason, your argument is just a weak excuse.

And if this is supposedly about "protecting" us from terrorism, why does the ban apply to countries that didn't produce terrorists that attacked us, but doesn't apply to Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) that have produced terrorists that attacked us?

You've said nothing to rebut my argument. What Giuliani/Fox News said doesn't, alone and by itself, refute what I have said. What Giulian/Fox News said is not the equivalent of what the EO says.

Giuliani/Fox News can say the EO bans freaking unicorns but this doesn't mean, and neither does it establish, the EO does ban unicorns.

You commit the error of substituting what someone has said about the EO for the text of the EO itself and for what the text of the EO says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not think people are speaking from a legal perspective. *Legally*, from what I've read, it is not a ban on Muslims. The point is, that was the intent.

 

[James Madison]

I have added emphasis to the word INITIAL.

Most of the complaints, anecdotes and stories about specific persons are about people who lived in the US (not their initial entry), who might even have family, a lease on an apt, or theoretically another domicile, who have jobs, and are RETURNING to the US.

In one such story, a guy has a job working for the government where he has to go outside the country and then come back.

There are many such people right now IN THE US who can't leave and return now because of this decree.

That means they don't have the same rights as others and are part of a collective punishment after having been cleared in the first place.

Those persons were entitled to due process and equal protection previously and ought to still be entitled to due process, equal protection, and other rights of individuals who have been cleared to live here and ARE living here.

I also wonder if ex post facto prohibition will apply in certain situations here for immigrants who sought citizenship and are present in the country.

In any case, I'd like to hear from James Madison, dismal, and others who may disagree on this topic.

Just preliminarily, and my response is tentative, but according to Calder v. Bull, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/3/386, the EO does not very likely implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I also wonder if ex post facto prohibition will apply in certain situations here for immigrants who sought citizenship and are present in the country.

In any case, I'd like to hear from James Madison, dismal, and others who may disagree on this topic.

Just preliminarily, and my response is tentative, but according to Calder v. Bull, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/3/386, the EO does not very likely implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

I will look at the link.

What about due process and/or equal protection? Not for initial entry...but for lack of ability to leave...and lack of ability to return for legal immigrants who have been accepted.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

Just because more than your targets were affected doesn't mean you weren't targeting. The non-Muslims are just collateral damage.