Trump Fail: U.S. Borders Re-open, Visa Cancellations Reversed

Update: Trump loses first round in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- the court denied his request for an administrative emergency stay of the lower court order suspending Trump's executive order on visas. Both sides are directed to filebriefs before Monday for the court to consider. So --- Trump's minions wrote a 125 page brief and it was denied in one sentence.

Appellants’ request for an immediate ministrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied.
No superbowl for them -- they have their next brief due by midnight Sunday. bq. Appellees’ opposition to the emergency motion is due Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. PST. Appellants’ reply in support of the emergency motion is due Monday, February 6, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. PST. [More...]

As a result of an Order by a federal judge in Seattle, the State Dept has reversed its orders cancelling visas of persons from 7 countries. Our borders are open to their citizens. Trump is furious, threatening an appeal.

Etihad Airways, the United Arab Emirates’ national carrier, said in a statement: “Following advice received today from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection unit at Abu Dhabi Airport, the airline will again be accepting nationals from the seven countries named last week.” Other Arab carriers, including Qatar Airways, issued similar statements.

Advocacy groups that brought the court challenges are advising people to re-book their flights.

Trump will appeal. He will lose again.

< Nordstrom Drops Ivanka Trump's Line | Superbowl Sunday and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Again showing his failure or refusal to understand (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    American democracy and its system of government, (so-called) "President" Tr*mp referred to the GWB-appoint federal judge in Seattle as a "so-called judge." And referred to his own unilateral decisions as "our country" -- not recognizing that the Constitution creates three co-equal branches, each of which performs a separate and essential function.  Only when those Branches are all doing their part, with all the inefficiency that those checks and balances can create, do we have the real workings of "our country." I hope the judges on the Court of Appeals ask about whether DoJ takes the same disrespectful position toward the judiciary that their supposed Chief Executive does.

    Peter, I think you'll appreciate ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    ... this particular exchange in the Seattle case between "so-called" Judge James Robart and the DOJ attorney, who was apparently plucked hastily from the department's Civil Division to argue the government's case.

    Perhaps you or Jeralyn might explain the difference in the respective terms "facially legitimate" and "rationally based" as it applies here, because it appears to be a key point of contention between Judge Robart and the government's attorney. I'm pretty sure that I understand it from context, but I'm not necessarily qualified to explain it to others.



    from lawnewz.com (none / 0) (#7)
    by linea on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    The Seattle judge seemed to believe no such vetting process was "rational" unless facts showed a foreign terror incident had already successfully occurred in this country. (Even under higher levels of scrutiny, the courts have never required the evil sought to be prevented actually occur before passing law to try to prevent it from occurring in the first place.) This is second-guessing law-making decisions, not seeing whether there was a "reason" given as the "basis" for the decision, which is all rational basis review allows in our tri-partite form of government.

    I've never heard of "lawnewz" before (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    and haven't investigated its working at all, so I have no idea whether it is even presumptively reliable. From what I read in the paper this morning, and nothing more, they do seem to have at least misinterpreted, if not misrepresented, Seattle US Judge Robart's constitutional reasoning. What I can tell you is that one basic difference between his approach and that of the conflicting federal judge in Boston is this: They agree that a change in immigration policy that affects human rights requires at least a "rational basis." Boston US Judge Gorton's approach was to say that the policy passed the "rational basis" test simply from reading the stated basis of the Executive Order on its face, and stating that the measures taken could conceivably advance the stated purposes of the order (advancing national safety and security). Judge Robart, on the other hand, said the policy wouldn't pass even that minimum test unless there were some actual, objective facts that could be cited to support the E.O.'s bare assertions. He did not say, as far as I can tell, that only proof of past terrorist attacks planned or executed by purported refugees from the seven affected countries could satisfy the "rational basis" test. In sum, is it a "conceivable rational basis" test, or a "rational factual basis" test?

    my excerpt (none / 0) (#19)
    by linea on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    was in direct reply to the video donald posted where the judge, in a verbal exchange, does indeed seem to demand proof of previous attacks as the "rational basis" test.

    it is a list of mostly failed states that harbor radicalized islamists.


    An example or an excerpt (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    is not necessarily a fair summary of a complex rationale. Nor is a judge's Socratic question, posed during a session of oral argument, necessarily an expression of his/her conclusions, much less the judge's full analysis.

    Thank you Peter (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    I treasure your ability to unravel the legal for the layperson. Is there a vehicle you are aware of that intelligence agencies could use to challenge the ban arguing that the alienation makes our country less safe?

    Under Article II of our Constitution, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    all agencies in the Executive Branch, including the intelligence agencies, are ultimately under the authority of the President. Congress can by statute confer some measure of independence to an agency in the Executive Branch, or to its director/secretary/administrator, subject to constitutional limits that the Supreme Court has yet to define. (This is referred to among constitutional scholars as the "unitary executive" theory and debate). The remedy for the intelligence agencies is to lobby and remonstrate internally with the President, or perhaps to complain to Congress. Strategic leaking may also come into play here, although obviously it is not an "official channel." I am fairly confident that an agency under the President cannot sue the President in court.

    Prayers answered (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 05:53:48 PM EST
    I cannot imagine we have reached (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 07:58:05 PM EST
    the tipping point already, yet that memorandum for the former national security officials, together with John Yoo's op-ed in the New York Times today opining that Tr*mp has gone too far -- yes, John Yoo, apologist and disingenuous-justifier-in-chief for GWB's excesses -- bring to mind that moment when the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee realized they couldn't support Nixon any more. That was the end for him.

    I was watching the Senators doing their DeVos (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:02:06 PM EST
    All nighter. So many teachers weighing in. I was liking their comments on the Facebook live feed. I have liked too many. My liking has been temporarily suspended. This is another very important moment. Betsy DeVos is so unpopular, the oppositional to her holding this cabinet position is so all encompassing and large, will Republicans dare to ignore their constituents? Will they really turn their back on the disabilities act?

    Yes, but midterms were coming then (none / 0) (#68)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:42:50 PM EST
    in 1974, after GOP leaders did not act amid years of coverage of the 1972 Watergate break-in -- and even earlier "dirty tricks" in that presidential campaign.

    Perhaps next year, the impact on 2018 midterms will move GOP leaders to salvage their brand.


    In staying Trump's order, Judge Robart ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 09:06:56 PM EST
    ... ruled that individual states such as Washington have the legal standing necessary to contest the lawfulness of an executive order that in their view poses a significant threat of harm and / or hardship to their respective populations and economies; and further have a high probability of prevailing on the merits of their case, should it go to trial.

    From my reading, Judge Robart didn't rule that the federal government needed to first meet a high threshold of proof that immigrants and refugees pose an imminent threat to national security, in order for it to take effect.

    Rather, he offered in court that given the compelling argument offered by Washington state's Attorney General Bob Ferguson regarding the potential adverse impact his state would suffer as a direct result of the executive order, the Trump administration ought to at least provide a rational basis for its issuance of that order, beyond its invocation of the memory of the 9/11 attacks 15+ years ago.

    Absent that rational basis, Judge Robart ruled in Washington state's favor and Trump's executive order was stayed, pending further litigation.

    Robert Barnes, author of that article from which you offered that paragraph, appeared to ignore the arguments of Ferguson and Swanson entirely, and discusses the case instead solely from a narrow perspective of national security.

    Such an argument would necessarily contest the federal court's jurisdiction as to whether or not the order was rationally based, because Congress granted to the President sole discretion to act on matters of national security. As such, Barnes argues, the federal court's oversight over such an order ought to be effectively limited to the issue raised by the government's attorneys in court, that of facial legitimacy.

    Living as I do in Hawaii, a state which depends upon tourism derived from foreign markets, and where a significant percentage of island residents are immigrants or transient, I would respectfully disagree with Barnes' tunnel vision approach to national security. We ought to have the right to contest any executive order which might otherwise cause us significant harm.

    It's important to note here that Judge Robart did not strike down the executive order itself as unconstitutional. Rather, he issued a temporary injunction on behalf of Washington state for immediate relief against the order's implementation. Because Minnesota Attorney General filed an amicus brief in support of Washington's case, multiple states were involved, so the judge further ruled that his order had nationwide applicability.



    I'm proud of my nation of protesters (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    Everyone gets that we have a crisis on our hands. Many judges seem to know we a crisis on our hands. Law enforcement seems to know we have a crisis on our hands and the crisis isn't these damn protesters. May the democracy survive.

    "Trump's most bone-chilling tweet" (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 10:33:31 AM EST
    (CNN)On Saturday morning, President Donald Trump may have unleashed his most bone-chilling tweet -- at least to those who believe the United States should not become a Trump-led dictatorship. And I don't make that comment simply to be provocative or without giving it a great deal of thought. Our democracy is far more fragile than some might grasp and Trump is engaging in a concerted effort to undermine the workings of it.

    Let's be blunt, because the stakes demand it: An independent federal judiciary is our last, best hope at preventing Trump from violating the US Constitution and illegally grabbing power. And Trump has to understand that, hence his attempt to undermine it.

    IMO, the odds are even


    Appeal of the Washinton State (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 07:33:16 PM EST
    ruling will be to the Ninth Circuit.

    And the Supremes looked to be deadlocked 4-4 at best for Trump, so Ninth Circuit will control.  

    Hot damn!

    Two-judge emergency motions panel (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 12:09:25 PM EST
    of the Ninth Circuit refused Saturday night to enter an immediate stay of the nationwide Seattle injunction, but set an urgent but sequential briefing schedule: less than a day for each side to file its memorandum of law, DoJ goes first, then quick response from the States, then a final reply from the govt. All briefs will have been filed by the end of Monday afternoon. The request for a stay is then submitted for decision by three appellate judges, who presumably will rule, with a written explanation, by mid-week, if not Tuesday. The losing party can then seek review at the Supreme Court, which is likely to follow similar, super-expedited briefing schedule. At the Supreme Court it is Justice Kennedy who decides how to handle emergency motions arising out of the Ninth Circuit.

    i dont understand (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by linea on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 01:50:39 PM EST
    isnt the 9th only ruling on the validity of the usdc seattle TRO (temporary until the case is heard in full by the court)?

    • if the 9th upholds the TRO would it not return to the usdc seattle for adjudication?

    • or is the 9th making a ruling on the full case not just on the validity of the TRO?

    Only the TRO or preliminary injunction (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    is now on appeal (not sure which it is; a TRO expires in 7 days unless extended, or converted to a preliminary injunction), all pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  A prelim injunction can hold until the case is finally decided. Normally only the final decision in a case can give rise to an appeal, but there is a statute allowing the decision on a TRO or preliminary injunction to be appealed immediately. You are correct that technically, that "interlocutory appeal" doesn't decide the case. But frankly, if the controlling Circuit (or a majority of the Supreme Court) decides the "likely to succeed on the merits" factor in clear enough terms, that ruling can for all practical purposes end the case.

    Important correction! A "TRO" is NOT (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    appealable unless it has the effect of a true "preliminary injunction" -- that is, unless it results from a real hearing, and is intended to last until the time of trial. The memorandum filed last night by Washington and Minnesota takes the position, first, that Judge Robart's TRO (temporary restraining order) does not have those characteristics and therefore is not subject to appeal at this time. (A full hearing was scheduled for about two weeks from now, a similar schedule to that set in the Brookly/ACLU/JFK case.) That position looks pretty solid to me, and could prevail. If so, the Executive Order will remain suspended for at least a few more weeks. Interested to see what the DoJ attorneys say about that in their Reply this afternoon.

    thank you {{ }} (none / 0) (#29)
    by linea on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:36:49 PM EST
    This is very useful, Peter; thanks (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    for concise summary that clarifies the calendar on this -- which I could not find in following other reports.

    We need you in the courts, of course, but how I wish that someone with your knowledge and your ability in writing about it had gone into covering the courts.


    As a college senior, I chose law over journalism (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 01:22:10 PM EST
    as a career path, because I realized I couldn't handle the pretense of objectivity that went with the latter. Honesty, compassion, generosity and fairness, all of which were/are extremely important to me, seemed available in both career directions, but I felt much more comfortable with not having to hide my point of view. I have the impression you approach(ed) your academic career as a historian, Towanda, in very much the same way.

    Intriguing, and although I did start (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    in journalism -- as history teaching jobs were not be had when I graduated -- your wisdom as an undergrad came to me when I switched to public relations, to advocacy, and found myself much more comfortable. (However, I made sure to work in nonprofit PR, for a cause; I could not have been as comfortable in corporate or agency PR.)  But your wisdom finally, more fully came to me in grad school, as I started with a master's in journalism.  

    However, we grad students had the weird experience of teaching undergrad journalism classes during the day, starting our days by having to preach the practice of objectivity . . . and then ending our days in grad seminars with readings that exposed its flaws.  (So, in doctoral studies, I switched back to history.)

    The scholarship on objectivity, however, as well as my experience in the field does not suggest that the best term for the problem may not be that the practice is a pretense.  That does not describe the many journalists who make an earnest attempt at balance and fairness -- albeit that can mean that they burn out and do not quite understand why, so they become too cynical and sadly stay on the job.

    The problem is that too many think about objectivity as if it is an ideology, when it is only a methodology.  (The history of the field shows this, as journalists seeking to improve their practices seized upon the methodology of science.) And how does one critique and improve upon an ideology, a belief system, which is a matter of faith?  But understanding that objectivity is a methodology, a practice, can bring improvement.


    Boy, were you ever altruistic! (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    Peter G: "As a college senior, I chose law over journalism as a career path, because I realized I couldn't handle the pretense of objectivity that went with the latter."

    Many journalists today apparently can't handle the pretense of objectivity, either, so they've simply dispensed with it altogether, e.g., "But her emails!"



    GOP senator: 'We don't have any so-called judges' (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    "I'll be honest, I don't understand language like that. We don't have so -called judges. We don't have so-called senators. We don't have so-called presidents," [Sen. Ben] Sasse  [R - Nebraska] said.

    If anyone is interested in reading (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    the actual court documents filed in the Ninth Circuit appeal, they are collected by the court clerk and made available for free download here. Because of the expedited and emergency nature of the proceedings, none of them is over 25 pages long, and many are in the 5-pages range, making them all quite readable. The hearing will be Tuesday at 3 p.m. Pacific time, by teleconference, and is scheduled to last about an hour. A recording of the argument will be posted by the Court at the same site when it ends.

    The hypocrisy on both sides would be comical (4.00 / 3) (#12)
    by coast on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 07:26:52 AM EST
    If this weren't such an important issue.

    Not two years ago Republicans were arguing immigration was a state issue and Democrats were steadfast that it was a Federal issue.  Now they are each arguing the opposite.

    While I completely disagree with the ban, I don't see how you argue that immigration should not be a Federally controlled matter.

    That's (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 07:41:17 AM EST
    not the argument at all, The states are not claiming any power to set immigration. Nobody is denying that the feds have the power to set policy, they are asserting that the policy is illegal/unconstitutional.

    Thanks for clarifying. (none / 0) (#31)
    by coast on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    The state has claimed that (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 06:28:53 PM EST
    it will be harmed by the ruling and asked that it be negated because of that.

    Or at least that's what Donald noted.

    If that isn't setting policy I don't know what is.


    No, not correct. A State's showing that it (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 06:34:15 PM EST
    and its citizens will be harmed is only what gives the State "standing" to bring the suit. What invalidates the Executive Order is that it violates both several provisions of the Constitution and several aspects of the immigration statutes passed by Congress.

    Okay and thanks (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 09:27:24 AM EST
    The effect of the policy is claimed harm. The cause is the policy.

    Therefore the judge says the state has standing and can sue and has issued an injunction until the appeals court acts.

    Can the state sue for unnamed individuals?

    The state's lawsuit is the cause, if successful, of the policy ultimately being changed.

    Legal stuff aside, doesn't that have the effect of setting policy?

    Either way I believe this will wind up in the SC. By then Trump will have, at a minimum, a 5-4 majority.


    "Legal stuff aside" (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    is not an area where I have expertise or special insight, and therefore not something I ordinarily comment on. Unlike some people.

    Peter, don't be offended! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 11:19:25 AM EST
    I appreciate your always informative comments.

    Pffft (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 11:32:33 AM EST
    if they were truly "informative" for you, you would've given some indication by now that you'd actually assimilated new information, which altered, if even slightly, your way of thinking about some issues.

    What Peter said, Jim. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 08:45:49 AM EST
    Judge Robart did not rule on the executive order's constitutionality. Rather, he found that the states have standing to contest its validity, and accordingly issued a temporary stay on its immediate effects pending further discussion. This matter will likely now be taken up by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, once the federal government's attorneys file an appeal of Judge Robart's action.

    You're either up late or early, Donald (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    See my reply to Peter.

    So if the 9th rules that the state doesn't have standing to sue for unnamed individuals, the EO is back in place.

    I have absolutely no idea as to whether or not the state has standing to sue for unnamed individuals who haven't claimed harm.

    I was replying to FlJoe's claim that the state isn't claiming power to set immigration policy. To me, from a layman's view, by suing that is exactly what the state is doing. So the state is changing the EO by stopping it. So the state is setting policy.

    And because of that, if an attack occurs, the Democrats will be blamed for the terrorists slipping through.


    The doctrine that says a State (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    can sue on behalf of the welfare of its citizenry (what you call "unnamed individuals who haven't claimed harm") is called "parens patriae." It is very well-established in our legal system.

    I was up very early. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    I had to catch a 6:20 a.m. flight to Honolulu for a 10:00 a.m. hearing at the State Capitol. As Peter said, the State of Washington has standing to defend its residents' interest. And as you surmised, if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals thinks that Judge Robart erred, the stay will be lifted and the EO will once again become applicable.

    Heh, I'm with Armando now (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 06:35:27 PM EST
    Specifically since discussing my son's healthcare with this new administration in power and the country so polarized. The Tricare bureaucrat told me to get my son out of Alabama and the South before my husband retires. He said I must get my son to a state that has its health insurance regulated and healthcare delivery stabilized. My son's quality of life is greatly challenged in red states. I am exhausted arguing with people who are so easily brainwashed and consistently vote against their best interests. And it's okay if I'm done. We are all for States Rights now.

    You really should provide links ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    ... when you're dreaming up charges of hypocrisy.

    I don't (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    know where you are getting that from. As far as I can remember everybody has agreed it is a federal issue but the disagreement comes as to whether we need immigration reform or not. George W. Bush attempted to pass immigration reform and it blew up the GOP house.

    No, GA (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    The issue was that the "reform" was actually an amnesty bill.

    Under Obama the issue was the same but... the Demo argument was that immigration enforcement was up to the Feds not the state.

    And Obama issued his EO's.


    Any type of (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:45:31 AM EST
    immigration bill the GOP calls "amnesty". Immigration is an issue for the feds not the states. That is a fact. The feds run the INS not the states. Sheesh the alternative facts gang seems to be at it once again.

    You need to face the facts that splitting up families is not going to cut it with most Americans. I can see it now where Republicans are going to be pulling people out of their houses and loading them up in vans and having to leave the baby and toddler in America while the parents are sent back to Mexico and the parents are going to be wailing and crying. We're going to see a new version of the what happened in the slave markets back in the 1700's.

    Being hateful to POC and women. It's what the GOP has for breakfast every morning.


    I remember Clinton's ICE (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    yanking a child from home at gunpoint and sending him back to a communist country, Cuba.

    So don't play that card.

    And you try to dodge the point.

    The Repub opposition was not claiming immigration was a states's right, but amnesty.

    Same with Obama.

    Now you want to claim it is states right.

    Glad you folks weren't around for Brown vs Board of Education.


    I remember a right wing as*hole (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    who had no compunction about lying about innocent children and their biological families whenever it served his ideological purpose.

    Starting out your argument with a bald-faced lie is no way to maintain the appearence of credibility.

    The fact is, the boy's biological father, who by all indications loved his son, lived in Cuba, and Planet Wingnut had no right to keep father and son apart in the name of proving to the world that Democrats are secret-commies.


    So you (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    would be willing to undermine every parental right law in this country to keep that one child here in the US? And he had a father. So you don't like the father. Whatever. The courts decided that he had to go back to Cuba and it's called following the law.

    Yeah, I know this is the latest wingnut welfare talking point. They need to start using alternative facts and talking about fake massacres and work on doing something positive.


    His mother died (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    González's mother, Elizabeth Brotons Rodríguez, drowned in November 1999 while attempting to leave Cuba with González and her boyfriend to get to the United States.[1][2] The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initially placed González with maternal relatives in Miami, who sought to keep him in the United States against his father's demands that González be returned to Cuba

    trying to get him to freedom.

    Who represented the desire of the mother??


    No one - as it should be (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    Leaving aside the issue of whether the mother had the legal right to take their son,  she was dead.  His father,  as the sole surviving parent,  had every right to make that decision.   The fact that you hate communists doesn't change that basic rule of law.

    i dont know the (none / 0) (#60)
    by linea on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    details of this particular case but...

    i dont feel children should be considered, or treated like, property of their birth parents. the child should have had a legal advocate and a welfare worker and a court hearing and the magistrate should have based his decision of custody on the best long-term interest of the child. not on an assertion of (in this case, the birth father's) parental quasi-ownership.


    Look up the case (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:46:23 PM EST
    and tell it to the courts in Cuba.

    That's nice (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:51:15 PM EST
    Unfortunately for you,  courts tend to apply the actual law,  rather than what you "feel" the law should be.

    So if a (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    man took his daughters to Iran and then died the mother who is here in the states no longer has any rights? Do you understand how stupid and irrational what you are saying is? All of that went through the courts and the courts followed the law which said the father has the ultimate rights as far as where the child lives. The cousins in Miami represented the wishes of the mother and they lost. End of story. And considering the fact that you voted for Trump you have kind of lost any iota of credibility you might have had on any kind of immigration issue.

    Actually there have been numerous cases (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    of parents fleeing to another country and being ignored by the Feds.

    And numerous cases (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    recently of your Fed President increasing the hardship of parents who have already endured the maximum hardship.

    Washington AG Bob Ferguson argued ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    coast: "Not two years ago Republicans were arguing immigration was a state issue and Democrats were steadfast that it was a Federal issue.  Now they are each arguing the opposite. While I completely disagree with the ban, I don't see how you argue that immigration should not be a Federally controlled matter."

    ... in federal court that Trump's executive order banning immigration would likely cause grave harm to his state's population and economy. Minnesota AG Lori Swanson joined the lawsuit and filed her own brief in support of Ferguson's motion seeking a temporary restraining order against the immigration and refugee ban.

    It proved to be a compelling argument, given the size of the immigrant populations in both states, and the potentially adverse consequences such a immigration ban / restriction poses to their colleges and universities, businesses, travelers and residents.

    AG Swanson further noted that more than 30,000 Minnesotans are from Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, mostly residing in the Minneapolis / St. Paul metropolitan area. She argued that Trump's order directly impacted and harmed them.

    Neither state's attorney general was arguing the merits or demerits of either our country's immigration policy or any proposed federal reforms therein. Rather, they contended that the potential impact of Trump's ban on their states gave them the necessary standing to challenge his order in federal court.

    For their part, the federal government's attorneys mostly sidestepped the arguments offered by Ferguson and Swanson. They instead contended that the courts have no jurisdiction over matters of national security, stating that such was the sole province of the executive branch, and urged Judge Robart to confine himself only to determining whether the executive order had facial legitimacy.

    The judge declined to do so, offering that the executive order itself was not rationally based. He agreed that Washington and Minnesota had legal standing in the matter, noted the likelihood that their arguments would prevail at trial, and thus granted the plaintiffs' request and extended his order nationwide.



    does the (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    Boston ruling by Federal Judge Gorton

    make duelling-decisions?

    On several of the issues it does (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 05:19:32 PM EST
    The Seattle order is broader and addresses more issues, however. On the other hand, Judge Gorton's opinion is the first from any of the five judges that have these cases (that I've heard of) to offer a fully reasoned explication of their ruling. I don't agree with his analysis or conclusion on every point, but it's a solid opinion. Oxfam and the other plaintiffs can appeal this to the First Circuit (federal appeals court in Boston) now, if they choose to, or could let it lay, so to speak, and put their eggs in the Washington/Ninth Circuit basket, since that's a national injunction that benefits them anyway.

    Perhaps being way too optimistic, (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Green26 on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 07:50:25 PM EST
    I am hoping that Trump and his people may have learned a small lesson, i.e. that it's important to consult more people, follow better process, and take steps to make sure that proposed action is reasonably in line with the law, constitution and required process--before action is taken. Maybe Trump is too arrogant and stupid to learn such a lesson. But it's clear that many will be coming after his stupid stuff like this in the courts, and otherwise, in the future.

    Some minor heroes have stepped up in this one.


    and (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by linea on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    this analysis discusses each judge's interpetation of "rational basis review" and asserts the boston judge has the valid legal argument.

    p.s. i wiki'd the cited author and his website and found no indication this is a conservative spin website. if it is, it's not apparent from the wiki entries.


    that is (none / 0) (#5)
    by linea on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    i wiki'd robert barnes, dan abrams, and lawnews before posting the link. i think that's due diligence?

    I took a look at, and behind, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    the "about" tab on "lawnewz." The founder and editor is definitely legit and reliable. I therefore have to assume he vets his reporters and contributors appropriately. My problem with it, is that it is modeled on TV news-level coverage of issues. Always superficial and nearly always, too brief.

    The Discussion Has Been All About Legality (none / 0) (#49)
    by RickyJim on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    I am more worried about the apparent inanity of the immigration ban.

    1. Why are travelers or immigrants from those 7 countries more of a threat than those from say Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan.  People from the latter countries have most definitely been involved with terrorist incidents on US soil.

    2. The ban is supposed to be for 3 months on those from 6 of the countries but of indefinite duration on those from Syria.  Where does this come from?  What is supposed to happen in the next 3 months that will determine whether or not the ban will be renewed?

    I understand that the 7 countries in the ban (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    do not have, or refuse to, the ability to provide information that allow us to properly vet them.

    As for Syria, I think it obvious that they won't be able to do so for the foreseeable future. If three months will allow proper controls to be put in place for the other 6 is anyone's guess. I would say a year would be more like it. And President Trump  will decide.

    BTW - Obama shut down the Iraqi refugees program for 6 months in 2011 for 6 months in response to the two Iraqi wannabe terrorists in Bowling Green.

    This shows how loose the checks are.

    How did the names get picked?

    In February of 2016, the Obama Administration added Libya, Yemen, and Somalia to a list of "countries of concern," which placed some restrictions on Visa Waiver Program travel on those who had visited the countries after March 1, 2011.

    Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan were already on the list from the administration's original law in 2015.
    Spicer said on Sunday there are many other Muslim-majority countries not included in the ban.

    The Hill


    No, Obama didn't (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    ... "shut down" the Iraqi refugee program.  Nor did he ban green card holders or have a religious litmus test.

    But you already knew that it's been debunked numerous times.

    BTW - The link to The Federalist was funny.


    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 04:34:41 PM EST
    and swims like a duck.

    It is a duck.

    Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

    But nice try at parsing.


    BTW - when was this 6 month "ban"? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    Finer and Rhodes's account is backed up by two fact-checkers who looked into the issue, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler and FactCheck.org's Eugene Kiely. Both concluded, in lengthy investigations that I encourage you to read, that Obama's policy was not a six-month ban on Iraqi refugees.

    What they also confirmed was that there were Iraqi refugees admitted every single month in 2011.


    Facts are not "parsing" (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    There was no "ban".  There was no religious discrimination.   There was no denial of entry for permanent legal residents.

    You guys will have to learn to deal with actual facts,  not your "alternative facts" and false equivalencies.


    He's just (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    doing what Putin tells him to do.

    i believe (none / 0) (#62)
    by linea on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 09:24:36 PM EST
    this is the recent filing to the 9th from the DOJ

    Yes, that is correct (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 09:40:25 PM EST
    from an alternate, unofficial source.

    i searched (1.50 / 2) (#64)
    by linea on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    for the filing.  i was on site after site that said this had been filed with the 9th. when i clicked on the multiple links, they sent me to others sites not the actual filing.  after a frustrating search i finally found the actual filing. now, apparenly it is hosted on the wrong site? is that what im beimg told?

    i seem to be the ONLY PERSON reading the actual filings and posting links here.  im angry!!  everybody else is posting childish rants how "trump sucks! he super sucks!" while im tracking down the actual court documents.


    Hey, chill, Linea (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:13:25 PM EST
    and read my comment #58, posted three hours ago, which provided the official link to all the Ninth Circuit filings, for your convenience. Consider that you may be at least a little less special than you seem to think.

    Love it. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:59:42 AM EST
    So much irony (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:53:36 PM EST
    ... in your last paragraph.

    Please, Yman (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 11:13:11 PM EST
    try to tone down your childish rants.

    False Linea (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 12:43:23 AM EST
    all my posts link to the actual court filings. You are the one ranting.

    And no, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 10:15:52 PM EST
    neither "correct" nor "alternate" nor "unofficial" means "wrong."

    John Kelly takes most of the fall for Trump's (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    Botched Muslim ban EO when questioned by the Homeland Security Committee. Speaks callous and Trumpian at times too. I predict he will come to regret both actions in the future.

    Mr. Kelly, this Trump thing isn't going to get better. It doesn't improve over time.

    Another resume-padder (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    at the very least, these folks all have a job for life on the conservative think tank-foundation circuit.

    And of course, lobbyists with "access" will always be in demand.


    I don't know jondee (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 11:56:51 PM EST
    Kelly was someone I knew significantly less about. Everyone knows Mattis. And my spouses regiment handed over the Sunni triangle to Mattis troops. Probably only Marines know of Kelly. I asked my husband if he also watched Kelly testify and only as soldiers can speak he said, "Oh My God, Kelly kept throwing his own self under the bus over and over and over again like a jackass!" :)

    Maybe he's looking for a way (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 07, 2017 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    out and that will get him there? But you're right. It's only going to get worse. The reporting largely seemed to blame Bannon for that EO which I personally tend to believe because it sounds like something that is right up Bannon's alley.