home

Fed. Judge Halts Trump's Immigration Order Nationally

A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide order blocking Trump's new immigration order.

The Judge issued his 43 page Order two hours after the hearing ended. The opinion is here.[More...]

The Plaintiffs alleged 8 grounds, but the one focused on by the Court was the first one, that the Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Judge found the State has standing for a TRO because it established:

  • (1) its universities will suffer monetary damages and intangible harms;
  • (2) the State’s economy is likely to suffer a loss of revenue due to a decline in tourism;
  • (3) such harms can be sufficiently linked to the Executive Order; and
  • (4) the State would not suffer the harms to its proprietary interests in the absence of implementation of the Executive Order.

He found the other plaintiff, Dr. Elshikh, an American citizen of Egyptian descent, also has standing for an Establishment Clause violation. In addition,

Dr. Elshikh’s injuries are traceable to the new Executive Order and, if Plaintiffs prevail, a decision enjoining portions of the Executive Order would redress that injury.

In a big blow to the Trump Administration, the Court then addressed the likelihood of success on the merits, finding in favor of both the State and Dr. Elshikh, first as to the Establishment Clause claim:

Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.

The Judge quickly saw through the Trump Administration lawyers' claims that there was no animus against Muslims because the order didn't target all Muslims. It had argued:

“the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]

The Court ruled:

The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.

...It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.

He then points out the history of the Order, finding of course it was motivated by religious animus:

A review of the historical background here makes plain why the Government wishes to focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context. The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.

The judge even called out Giulani's comments on "the Muslim ban" and Trump's comments about not letting people who hate America and people who are not Muslim into the U.S. (Trump's vocabulary and linguistic shortcomings are on full display in his comments on the topic.)

The Judge notes that this is not a case of him intuiting the Trump Administration's “veiled psyche” and “secret motives”.

The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.[]”

...Nor is there anything “secret” about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order:

Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”

Another astounding Trump quote from the opinion:

(“It’s not unconstitutional keeping people out, frankly, and until we get a hold of what’s going on. And then if you look at Franklin Roosevelt, a respected president, highly respected. Take a look at Presidential proclamations back a long time ago, 2525, 2526, and 2527 what he was doing with Germans, Italians, and Japanese because he had to do it. Because look we are at war with radical Islam.”)

The judge says:

Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, “secondary to a religious objective” of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.

And no, there was no national security purpose behind the second Order any more than the first one. He quotes the 9th Circuit on the first Order:

“The Court’s conclusion rests on the highly particular ‘sequence of events’ leading to this specific [Executive Order No. 13,769] and the dearth of evidence indicating a national security purpose. The evidence in this record focuses on the president’s statements about a ‘Muslim ban’ and the link Giuliani established between those statements and the [Executive Order].”)

The Court then finds the balance of equities and general public interests that will be affected warrant the TRO:

Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Executive Order violates First Amendment rights under the Constitution. “[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.”

He ends with:

Nationwide relief is appropriate in light of the likelihood of success on the Establishment Clause claim.

The TRO itself says:

Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order across the Nation. Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court.

Thanks also goes to the tech companies (as well as civil liberties groups) who filed amicus briefs. The Times article linked at the top says:

Nearly five dozen technology companies, including Airbnb, Dropbox, Lyft and TripAdvisor, joined in a brief objecting to the travel ban.

The TRO is in effect immediately and the Court refused to grant a stay:

The Court declines to stay this ruling or hold it in abeyance should an emergency appeal of this order be filed.

< Wednesday Open Thread: Ketchup Edition | R.I.P. Chuck Berry >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    There were three hearings held today (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 07:47:49 PM EST
    on legal actions challenging the Travel Ban 2.0. The other two were in Maryland (ACLU on behalf of refugee aid organizations and individual American family members of refugees and other would-be immigrants) and in Seattle (Atty Gen's of Washington and Minnesota). Hoping to hear any time now from the other two judges. Hoping for a hat trick.  

    Federal Judge James Robart in Seattle ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 04:31:37 AM EST
    ... has delayed issuance of a decision, perhaps in light of the Honolulu ruling blocking the travel ban. While the spokesperson for Washington AG Bob Ferguson welcomed that ruling, he said that Ferguson's office will continue to seek a restraining order on their own.

    In Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the 90-day ban against travelers from the six countries in question. However, he declined the plaintiffs' request to block other parts of Trump's executive order, including the 120-day ban on refugees.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The CEO of Microsoft is an alum (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    of my campus, where he did his graduate degree in computer science . . . and where we have a 45 percent drop this year in applications from international students, as he was when he came to my campus.

    No surprise that the case argued the impact on universities. No surprise that the tech companies also do not want to close our doors to international students.  No surprise that the American Association of Universities filed amicus curiae briefs in the previous cases -- and is providing info for the current cases.

    The best and the brightest from other countries have brought so much to this country.

    At Intel, we know what winners immigrants are: (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cashmere on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    At Intel, we know what winners immigrants are:

    http://tinyurl.com/immigrant-winners

    Parent

    The Department of "Justice" has filed (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of the nation-wide injunction entered Thursday morning by Judge Chuang in the federal District of Maryland, on the case brought by the ACLU. It is not one of the cases brought by a state attorney general. The Maryland injunction blocked only the part of Travel Ban 2.0 suspending all entry to the U.S. from the six designated countries. It does so solely under the Establishment Clause; the judge concluded that the E.O. did not appear to violate the immigration law itself, as the plaintiffs had also argued. The judge at the same time declined to enjoin, at least until hearing more evidence, the part of the E.O. that cuts the annual refugee quota in half and suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days. (I noticed that Judge Chuang, before being appointed to the bench, was an attorney for the Dept. of Homeland Security for five years, and before that worked for Congress. This may help explain how technically precise and obviously knowledgeable his opinion is.) However, the refugee-related provisions remain suspended on a national basis due to the temporary restraining order entered Wednesday by the federal judge in Hawaii. I do not agree with those who speculate that the DoJ chose to appeal to the Fourth Circuit to avoid the adverse precedent set last month in the Ninth Circuit (which governs Hawaii as well as Washington State), or who suggest that the Ninth Circuit is "more liberal" than the Fourth. My reasons for disagreeing are lawyer stuff that I won't get into here unless someone pushes me. Anyhow, now the game is on. Depending on what happens next, I think it is fair to say the issues are now more likely heading for the Supreme Court this spring.

    this is allan dershowitz's (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by linea on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    most recent analysis on president trump's travel ban. allan dershowitz is a prominent scholar on united states constitutional law. i'm providing this as information only.

    Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban

    If the case reaches the Supreme Court, a major issue will be whether campaign rhetoric delivered by Donald Trump, when he was a private citizen running for president, may be considered by the courts in deciding on the constitutionality of an executive order. The lower courts gave considerable, indeed dispositive, weight to these anti-Muslim statements in deciding that the travel ban was, in reality, a Muslim ban that would violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion.  
    Under that reasoning, had the identical executive order been issued by President Obama, it would have been constitutional. But because it was issued by President Trump, it is unconstitutional. Indeed any executive order issued by President Trump dealing with travel from Muslim countries would be constitutionally suspect because of what candidate Trump said. In my view, that is a bridge too far. It turns constitutional analysis into psychoanalysis, requiring that the motives of the president be probed.

    ...

    Alan (not "Allan") Dershowitz is not (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    a "prominent scholar on U.S. constitutional law." He is a Harvard Law School emeritus (retired) professor of criminal law. His opinions on criminal law, criminal procedure, and criminal justice are exceptionally well-informed, as well as on Jewish law. He has also been engaged privately to assist in the defense of several high-profile criminal cases, including O.J.'s, and has written popular books on those cases. He is also a very vocal U.S. supporter of Israel and intellectual adversary to Israel's enemies and critics. When a public issue touches on what Dershowitz perceives as the best interests of Israel, it has been my perception that his legal and policy analysis often becomes less objective and less persuasive. He is not an expert on either presidential power, immigration law, or the Establishment Clause.

    Parent
    My opinion: Happened to catch (none / 0) (#173)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    Greta Van Susteren's interview (MSNBC) with Alan Dershowitz during which he argued that the Supreme Court would never uphold the lower court rulings--the opinion that WH officers used to elevate the mood of Trump on his way to his Nashville rally.

     That interview also moved toward discussion of Trump/Putin ties and Dershowitz indicated his eagerness to serve on a 9/ll-style investigation committee. It came across, to me, that Dershowitz was demonstrably enthusiastic about that prospect, and lit up like a Christmas Tree when Greta went even further, suggesting that he would be great to serve as chair of such a committee.  

    Of course, such responses did not color his legal thoughts and Dershowitz may prove to have called the Supreme Court ruling,  but he did seem ingratiating.  

    Side-note. Please permit a clarification. Dershowitz is professor emeritus (Harvard)--meaning a retired professor honored by the University for distinguished contributions.

     The title professor emeritus/emerita is granted by the University at is own discretion; not all retired professors receive the title.  Essentially, all professors emeritus/emerita are retired, but not all retired professors are professors emeritus.

     There are some exceptions in the sense that all retired professors are granted that title by the university, standards may vary for granting the title; and privileges vary, and may connote some continued relationship with the University, from library use to something a bit more active.  The titles emeritus/emerita are for the living; after death, it is customary to list the name and span of life.

    Parent

    At most American universities, the qualifier (none / 0) (#185)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    "emeritus" (or "emerita") is added to their title whenever a full professor retires, and does not imply any other distinction. In some, it implies retirement plus a continuing connection with the institution, such as an office or occasional teaching. In a few others, it is a title of distinction that must be voted on at the time of a professor's retirement. Harvard Law presently has 15 emeriti, six of whom, frankly, I've never heard of before. Do you actually know, KD, which of those three groups Harvard in particular falls into?

    Parent
    As a professor emerita now (none / 0) (#190)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 11:05:27 PM EST
    Keys Dan is correct that the honor is not at all automatic at many campuses.  If it so at Harvard, well, that would accord with its reputation for grade inflation. . . .

    And the honor is not restricted to full professors.  I am one, but we also have voted the status to colleagues who did not attain full status.  Thus, they are associate emeriti.  (I do not know of any who achieved the status without tenure, i.e., below associate rank.)

    At most institutions, the honor must be recommended by a vote of peers -- usually other departmental faculty.  And it is only advisory so must also be approved up the food chain.  (At my campus, that means approval by the dean, provost, and chancellor.)

    I am aware of several cases, at mine and several other campuses where I have worked, of faculty retirees not receiving emeritus/a status. . . .

    And yes, emerita status means that I retain a few faculty privileges, such as use of the library.  But I also still serve on graduate committees (comps exams, thesis and dissertation defenses -- full profs do far more than teaching) . . . for free.  Better-funded campuses often offer a stipend for such continued service.  But those of us willing to so still serve do not like to leave grad students in the lurch, after working with us for years (these are students who were to be examined or defend sooner but had some delays; I stopped taking new advisees a few years ago, in anticipation of retirement).  Plus, our gov has so reduced our numbers that those students now have no faculty in my research areas to guide them and to assess them.  

    Parent

    cx my grammar (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    as I ought to have said "as I am a professor emerita now."  

    I must be losing my grammarian's mind, with less grading of late -- one of the best things about retirement, believe me.

    Parent

    Peter G, (none / 0) (#196)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 20, 2017 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    I do not actually know what the criteria are for emeritus/emerita status at Harvard University. And, I can't find any definitive answer from a preliminary search.  

    It would be surprising to me if Harvard bestowed an emeritus/emerita honor automatically upon retirement, but it, of course, could be so, since Harvard often does things its own way.

     To my knowledge and in my experience, the policies and procedures described by Towanda are commonplace in academia.

     In the non-academic world, perhaps, the most famous emeritus status granted simultaneously with retirement was Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI--the first retirement by a pope in six centuries.  Benedict did not go through a special procedure for the Emeritus title, which sets a precedent even if on a 600-year cycle.

    Parent

    Dersh puts me in mind (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    of David Mamet in that the more overwrought and uber alles he's gotten about Israel, the more disingenuous and nasty and just plain dumb in general he's gotten.

    Of course they same can be said about a lot of our Muslim and Christian friends and their various Holy Land/Holy book obsessions.

    Parent

    Dershowitz Doesn't Address the Main Point (none / 0) (#169)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    That the travel ban is incompatible with constitutional religious freedoms.  I agree that considering motivations for an executive action is something that a judge should not do.  The effects of an action are more important.  It is true that in criminal law, intent is an important component.  However this isn't a criminal case.  

    I don't understand the argument that the Obama administration determined that the countries in question don't do a good job in vetting.  Isn't what the US determines about the individuals much more important?

    Parent

    Legislation and Executive Orders that disfavor (none / 0) (#172)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    a particular religion or its adherents, or which favor one religion over others (or over non-religion) are particularly likely to be the object of disingenuous, pretexual justification after the fact. That's why the Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed evidence to be used to debunk the asserted "secular purpose" of such measures that it might not consider in other contexts. That methodology of constitutional analysis is not a novelty of the decisions announced in the last month or two, and the invocation of that precedent is most certainly not an obvious error in those decisions. In fact, legislative motivation has been considered in many areas of constitutional law. There is a lot of scholarship on this point. Here is a conservative (but honest) critique of that methodology; the defenses of it that I found are mostly in 60-page law review articles that are readily findable at PDFs, but which I will not link here. I disagree with RickyJim that it is similar to the use of "intent" in criminal law; it more like "motive."

    Parent
    Takes me backt to my Con Law class (none / 0) (#192)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 11:15:03 PM EST
    and quite a discussion about exactly that, after -- yes -- lots of readings of the scholarship on this.  My prof tended more toward calling it the historical "context" of articles in and amendments to the Constitution, but he did discourage us from using "intent" for just that reason, confusion with the term as it is used in criminal law.  

    (One of my favorites of the readings -- I still can quote some lines in it, almost four decades later -- was Leonard Levy's fascinating discussion of the historical context of the First Amendment, my focus in research on Con Law.  If only every citizen, or at least every journalist, would read and enjoy his work . . . and stop screwing up what the First Amendment means.)

    Parent

    Interesting. Levy is best known for his book (none / 0) (#193)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 20, 2017 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    on the historical background of the Fifth Amendment. Not aware he had done the same for the First as well. Will have to go looking.

    Parent
    Legacy of Suppression (none / 0) (#199)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:59:40 PM EST
    was the title, as I recall (although it also had another title under another publisher, I think).

    I loved his line, about the writers of the Constitution, that was along the lines of "that they were Gladstonians does not mean that we cannot be Brandeisians."

    Parent

    Why am I not shocked?? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    This is going to the SC.

    Question is, how fast.

    One thing for sure is that no matter who says what.

    The Democrats and the courts are going to have a hard time explaining to Joe and Jane Six Pack why the Constitution applies to people who are not citizens and not in the US. And yes I hear the argument that the Establishment Clause, etc., says, etc., etc.

    I don't think they can. Our Constitution is a very common sense document. This stretches it beyond common sense.

    And that bothers me. The reputation of the courts have been falling for years inside the Right.

    This will cause grave harm in the middle. That's scary.

     

    The ignorance of ... (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    ... Joe and Jane Sixpack re: the Establishment Clause and Constitution generally is no excuse.  If they're unaware of the fact that non-citizens are protected by the Constitution, they'll have to take a 4th grade civics class.  You don't alter reality because some on the right don't like certain facts.

    Parent
    Most of the Constitution applies to non-citizens (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    in the US. Not to non-citiizens outside the US. There are some interesting and unanswered questions regarding when a non-citizen is or is not in the US for purposes of the Constitution.

    I find it interesting that we now have so many "experts" on the Establishment clause. Jeez, I majored in government, took some Constitutional law courses, and have practiced law for decades--and I hardly knew what it was, let alone what it said/did.

    Parent

    Most people don't (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    Not sure what "experts" you're referring to, but yes - we're discussing non-citizens in the US.

    Parent
    Well no, not entirely (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 11:45:21 AM EST
    We are also talking about the power of the government to make policy in the U.S. that affects non-citizens outside the U.S. who wish to enter the U.S., and which also affects the persons inside the U.S. who have relationships with them. These are not questions that can be solved by applying the "common sense" of the uninformed. Sorry, but Constitutional law is, to some extent at least, for experts. And it is part of the President's responsibility to defend and respect the courts when they exercise their weighty responsibilities and apply that expertise, even if he does not like the results.

    Parent
    Agreed, Peter (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 12:16:15 PM EST
    Very complex and interesting area. Way beyond me. Law and policy, and now politics too. As I said once before, I took a Con Law course from the famous Tony Amsterdam. From Wiki:

    "Anthony Guy Amsterdam is an American lawyer and professor of law at New York University School of Law. In 1981, Alan Dershowitz called Amsterdam "the most distinguished law professor in the United States."

    Parent

    Tony Amsterdam is one of my heroes (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    We went to the same undergraduate college. (He was there about ten years or more before me.) He was a French major! Another time, maybe, I'll write about some aspects of how special he is.

    Parent
    Amsterdam was at Stanford law (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    when I was there. Now that I think of it, I took Criminal Procedure from him, not Con Law. Loved his course. Learned so much from him. Brilliant, dynamic and a great teacher. "Void for Vagueness".

    Parent
    Yman, I was just trying to make a joke (none / 0) (#22)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    by referring to all of the non-experts talking now if they know something about the Establishment clause.

    Parent
    Philadelphia lawyers are legendary (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 06:02:45 PM EST
    like Anakin Skywalker, capable of tremendous good or tremendous evil.

    Another weapon that should never be allowed to fall into the wrong hands.

    Parent

    Century City lawyers (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:38:09 PM EST
    Now they are a bunch.

    Parent
    Not so, Yman (1.33 / 3) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    because in the end Joe and Jane Six Pack must approve the law and make it "legal."

    If they decide that it is not then it is not.

    I know that you live in a bubble but out here in the world that elected Trump on the immigration issue this ruling is being soundly rejected.

    I wonder if, or when, Trump will play the Jefferson card.

    Parent

    When you write of people (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    "soundly reject[ing]" a pair of well-reasoned, 43-page court decisions that they have not read and wouldn't understand if they did read them (this includes the President*), written by obviously thoughtful judges of very different backgrounds and experiences, I can't help remembering and visualizing burning school buses, a bombed-out church with the bodies of three little girls inside, and rioting Ole Miss students. Been there; seen that. And yet, we persisted ... and overcame.

    Parent
    Peter, I thought that playing the race card (1.00 / 4) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:40:22 PM EST
    was beneath you.

    Evidently I was.

    Parent

    Yes, shame on you, Peter (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:49:58 PM EST
    for playing the history card.

    Parent
    Evidently I was. wrong. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    That is not what you were wrong about (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:01:47 PM EST
    I was pointing out what happens when people are encouraged and stirred up by pandering political leaders to reject legitimate court decisions that are based on sound constitutional principles. I merely gave the best known recent example of such. Not remotely what "playing the race card" means. I feel the same way about court decisions I disagree with; I do not reject the authority of Citizens United or of Heller, for example, and do not demonize or denounce the judges who wrote or voted for those decisions. No problem pledging to appeal a decision you don't like (even if you haven't read it and couldn't explain its reasoning). Big problem denouncing as "political" a decision which is manifestly not, or belittling the judges and disparaging their legitimate authority.

    Parent
    And I remembedr 9/11 (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:04:22 PM EST
    and these successful attacks.

    And these unsuccessful ones/

    All Trump is trying to do is improve our vetting process from people coming in from countries that have proven they are incapable of working effectively with is in the process.

    Parent

    Oh gosh, I had forgotten that (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:08:44 PM EST
    It's all so simple, what he is trying to do (as opposed to what he and has advisers say they are doing). Now I understand.

    Parent
    No, he is pandering to his base (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:19:27 PM EST
    None of the terrorist attacks in this country were perpetrated by anyone from the targeted countries.

    It is total b.s. from a national security standpoint.

    The ban will not help prevent terrorist attacks and only creates adverse pr to be used by ISIS et. al.  It only serves to create suspicion against U.S. Muslims and moderate Muslims who we hope would help us.

    The ban is racist bull.    

    Parent

    Actually (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    72 people have been convicted from the banned countries.

    And thanks for showing the race card.

    It is the only argument that you have.

    And is false.

    And not to be technical, but "Muslim" is not a race.

    Parent

    Where are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? (none / 0) (#82)
    by RickyJim on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    Those countries are the champs as far as producing terrorists that have attacked the US.  Why aren't they on Trump's list?

    Parent
    Why aren't they on the list? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    and why are the Jim's of the world thunderously, startlingly silent about it??

    I forgot, they're too busy Leading, Following, and Getting out of the way -- all at the same time. Takes up all one's energy.

    Parent

    The list came from the Obama admin (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    But the ban is about halting people coming from the countries which are currently incapable of working with us to properly vet people who want to come here.

    It as been judged that Iraq is now capable and is off the list. Are they? I don't know.

    But I agree. SA and Pakistan should be on the list.

    It should be noted that none of the Gulf States are taking refugees.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    Bigotted.  The ban is bigotted.

    And how sucessful were those 72 people?

    Parent

    So your intent is to keep supplying fresh (1.00 / 2) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    attackers and depend on defense.

    Okie Dokie. I see that loosing 1 to 0 works for you.

    Try again:

    Bigoted - "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others."

    The ban is not about opinions. The ban is about halting people coming from the countries which are currently incapable of working with is to properly bet people who want to come here. It is also limited in time to insure our government moves to determine what we can do to fix the situation.

    Parent

    My "intent" is to (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    "supply fresh attackers."   What an absurd comment.  Talk about McCarthyism.

    The Courts are the ones finding Trump's ban is in effect bigoted and racist.

    Parent

    Look, when you asked: (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    And how successful were those 72 people?

    You are opining that none of them caused any harm. Now since they were caught before they acted it was defense. Defense  prevented an attack. Of course no defense, no matter how good is perfect. Sooner or later someone will slip through. I gave you a list of the successful attacks.

    And, like most objectives, the greater the number of attempts the more likely there is of achieving the goal. In this case death, destruction and terror of Americans with the intent of making them do what the radical islamists want.

    Which is, as bin Ladin told Peter Arnett:

    So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    The thing is this. The more Muslims you let into the country the more likely you have of one of them being a radical, or becoming radicalized. And since the countries named cannot effectively work with us to carefully vet these people then the possibility of a successful attack increases exponentially.

    So all Trump is saying is, Give is some time to see what we can do to be more effective.

    That is not the Left's favorite bogey man, McCarthyism. It is limited action for a limited time with a narrowly defined goal. I do not deny that I would like to see it expanded. Islam, for whatever reason, has a current history of spawning radicals that, when not fighting each other, have decided that they can take over the world. That may sound silly. That may be silly. But it isn't silly to those already killed in their attacks around the world.

    That some judges do not recognize what the Constitution says is bad. Hopefully the SC will promptly shut them down. It would be terrible if there is a successful attack while this unnecessary attempt by the judiciary to seize power on the name of political correctness is going on.

    Parent

    Heard it all before (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    Especially the Arnett interview of Bid Laden.

    You repeat yourself.

    It is not any more valid this time around.

    Parent

    Bigotted has just one definition? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    that just happens to supply you with a ready made jibe?

    Nice.

    Disingenuous in little things, disingenuous in big things.

    Parent

    You are only a racist (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    if you lynch African Americans or plant burning crosses in their yards.

    Parent
    you must admit (none / 0) (#38)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    court decisions that they have not read and wouldn't understand if they did read them

    the establishment clause, the way it is written, is an oddity. i expect most americans think of it the way i did, as the equivalent of, "all inhabitants of the realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion."

    Parent

    I continue to hope against hope that (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:29:11 PM EST
    "most Americans" who graduated from high school -- or who have passed the civics exam for naturalization -- know that the First Amendment has two religion clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. And that these are two sides of the coin of freedom of religion, each different, and each important. The principle that the government of the United States can neither favor one religion over another nor demonize and disparage any religion (anti-Establishment) is not to be confused with the idea that the government cannot prevent anyone from believing or practicing their faith, or penalize them for doing so. It is often claimed that the Free Exercise Clause should also prevent the government from requiring anyone to act in violation of their religious scruples, but the courts have not agreed.

    Parent
    it's more broad and less lawyerly (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    I continue to hope against hope that "most Americans" who graduated from high school -- or who have passed the civics exam for naturalization -- know that the First Amendment has two religion clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause

    Welcome to the Civics Practice Test!

    it's more like, "name one right guaranteed by the first amendment."

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#45)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    nobody except lawyers knows this as "the establishment clause" it's the "freedom of religion" amendment to everybody i know.

    Parent
    The Establishment Clause is half of (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:34:11 PM EST
    the freedom of religion, as protected in the First Amendment; it is not an obscure, arcane name for the whole thing. See my comment #42, and try to understand this.

    Parent
    You guys who keep saying (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:46:54 PM EST
    the popular vote doesn't matter, and only the Electoral College is relevant, keep falling back on the idea that the U.S. is not a democracy.

    So, if the EC can defy the popular will by not electing the popular vote winner and still be valid, then the Judicial Branch is similarly valid.  If, as you say, we do not live in a democracy, then the so called popular will is irrelevant in terms of the Judicial Branch interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

    Parent

    Hate to tell you this (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:47:08 PM EST
    but this is not Europe.

    Now, since you claim that our constitution applies to people who are not here it follows that we should immediately declare martial law and the whole world under our governance.

    Wanna be the "Governor" of Iran?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Your comment (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:21:23 PM EST
    is incoherent.

    I have no idea what you are saying.

    The courts have since the inception of this country served as a check on Presidential power.  See Marbury v. Madison (1803).

    What that has to do with Europe is anyone's guess.

    Parent

    Those of us who have tried to provide serious (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:43:19 PM EST
    comment on this subject have already addressed the notion of why and when the conduct of the U.S. government, even when exercised overseas against nationals of other countries, may be subject to constitutional constraints. There is no equivalency between that, and your cartoonish suggestion that we are saying that all nations of the world must be governed by U.S. constitutional principles. None at all.

    Parent
    i understsnd it (none / 0) (#73)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 11:04:53 PM EST
    Those of us who have tried to provide serious comment on this subject have already addressed the notion of why and when the conduct of the U.S. government, even when exercised overseas against nationals of other countries, may be subject to constitutional constraints.

    but only because you explained it to me.

    Parent

    Yes Peter (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    I read what you provided and appreciate.

    And I am not arguing law.

    I am commenting on the what many citizens see and believe.

    And that is this is wrong and is a huge expansion of the US's power's.

    Plus, some lawyers, Alan Dershowitz is one, who believes the SC will support Trump.

    This is not cut and dried and is vastly unpopular out here in the country that provides most of the troops that fight the wars the elites have gotten us into,

    Parent

    If the measure of rightness (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    is only what "many believe", then when do we swear in Hillary?

    Parent
    I'm sorry, Jim, but you most certainly do not (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:22:42 PM EST
    "appreciate" what I wrote (assuming that by "appreciate" you mean "understand the significance of" rather than that word's other meaning, "thank you for").  Otherwise, the rest of our comment #76 makes no sense. It makes no difference at all if "many citizens" mistakenly believe that the court decisions invalidating the Executive Orders are "wrong" or involve a troublesome "expansion" of the extraterritorial reach of U.S. constitutional law. (Not that I accept that "many" people have any thoughts of any sort on the latter point.) Nor that the court decisions might be "unpopular" with some people (I have no idea how many or what percentage of "people"). In fact, the President's responsibility at this moment, with his "bully pulpit," is to educate the American people about the importance of an independent judiciary in our system of checks and balances. I realize that the decisions on Wednesday night were preliminary and only those of a few, lower court judges. I agree the issues are not "cut and dried" (and never suggested otherwise); I also agree those decisions could be overturned on appeal, even at the Supreme Court level. I don't predict they will be, but they could be. I would have no problem at all with the President if he said as much. But vilifying the courts breeds disrespect for our system of law, which promotes civil unrest and even violence. The President has a duty to do the opposite.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 06:13:17 AM EST
    Joe and Jane Six pack don't get to decide the law, and you haven't the slightest clue how many Trumpets voted for him because of his bigotry.  I suspect it's a sizeable percentage of the MINORITY of people who voted for him, but unfortunately for you, the constitutionality of laws isn't decided by Joe the Plumber,

    Please expound on this "Jefferson card" you think Trump will play.  I know what you mean, but it's always funny to watch armchair warriors pretend to be tough guys.

    Parent

    Maybe you know what Jim meant, Yman (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    by "the Jefferson card,"  in this context, but I'm not at all sure that I do. So, since Jim won't tell us, I'd appreciate it if you would spell it out.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    Happy to:

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    The same threat adopted by his fellow Tea Partiers over the past few years.

    Parent

    I find Yman's explication more persuasive (none / 0) (#111)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    than Jondee's, pending confirmation from Jim.

    Parent
    George, from the Jeffersons (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:42:51 PM EST
    who used to like to play the race card.

    Parent
    And I thought of (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    Sally Hemmings.

    Parent
    Sorry, my bad (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 07:35:28 PM EST
    I meant Jackson.

    Parent
    That's only slightly better, I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    From threatening violent rebellion to suggesting the President defiantly ignore a Supreme Court decision he doesn't like. In other words, I gather you are referring to the semi-apocryphal and semi-accurate common understanding of Worcester v. Georgia and its aftermath.

    Parent
    You never know with Jim (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:22:27 PM EST
    it's possible he was referring to Stonewall.

    Parent
    Yes, of course. Stonewall. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 10:34:12 PM EST
    An excellent example of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of rebellious patriots.

    Parent
    Stonewall Jackson in Greenwich Village? LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 04:15:21 PM EST
    "Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees."
    - Last words of Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, CSA (May 10, 1863)

    On the evening of May 2, 1863, in the immediate aftermath of one of his boldest and greatest triumphs at the Battle of Chancellorsville, a brilliant flank march in the face of an enemy that outnumbered him three to one, "Stonewall" Jackson recklessly tried to press his advantage during the attack by his men which routed the U.S. XI Corps and thus unhinged the entire Union offensive.

    In so doing, Gen. Jackson foolishly got out in front of one of his own picket lines, whose men shot him from his horse by mistake. Carried from the field, he died from his wounds eight days later on May 10, 1863.

    The loss of one of the most gifted tacticians in U.S. military history ultimately proved a huge blow to the Confederate war effort. No doubt, Gen. Robert E. Lee missed Jackson's wisdom and counsel when his Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania the following month, and both Lee and the rebel army paid very dearly for his absence at the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg on July 1-3, 1863.

    Which, of course, was a good thing for our country.

    Parent

    Where else but in the South (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    of the mid-1800s would you find a guy with a borderline unhinged Old Testament fire in his heart, and Napoleonic tactics and endless grim resolve in his head?

    How else do you explain someone saying "it's been a good day" after "losing" thousands of men in a battle?

    Parent

    Or Stonewall Jackson (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    Robert E. Lee's crack infantry commander who was known for fast movement of his troops, including the brilliant victory at Chancellorsville.

    Parent
    Shorter (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 08:12:00 AM EST
    Jim, "bring back the lynch mob".

    Parent
    Another Far Left Commentator (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    whips out the race card.

    Parent
    Hardly the race card. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    "The most dangerous thing in all the world is sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
    - The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Free to Love (1963)

    However, Jim, there's a term that best describes the sort of willful public rejection of a federal court's well-reasoned ruling -- one's that's further based upon sound constitutional principle -- for which you're apparently advocating.

    And that's "sedition."

    Parent

    Far Left.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    the far left of you is what? Joe Biden?

    Parent
    Well, CA is threatening to leave (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 07:34:29 PM EST
    so perhaps you need to talk to them.

    Parent
    Maybe I should talk to the guy (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:19:53 PM EST
    who defends flying the Confederate Flag on his blog.

    You don't get much more far out and out of touch than that.

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    California just does not care what the rural South does.

    Parent
    That's just a stupid statement on its face. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 07:36:12 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "California is threatening to leave so perhaps you need to talk to them."

    Aside from the fact that the U.S. -- aka the "War of the Rebellion" -- effectively rendered secession effectively moot, California is no more threatening to leave the Union, than it was about to break up into six different states three years ago.

    You need to stop launching yourself into the stratosphere with neither helmet nor oxygen.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:30:48 AM EST
    Makes no difference.

    Parent
    Because it's funny to watch ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    ... wingers make empty, impotent threats.  But don't worry.  Real patriots will be here to oppose the tyrant you support.

    BTW - You should let Joe and Jane Sixpack know that they (and you) are in a minority on immigration, among many other issues (opposition to Obamacare, etc.).  You'll have to learn to deal with that.

    Americans break with Trump on immigration policy

    Parent

    Wingers elected a President (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:27:17 PM EST
    What have you done lately?

    And I am glad to see that a majority agree with my position.

    with nearly two-thirds of Americans saying they'd like to see a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants rather than deportations.

    What the article ignores is closing the border.

    Which is also my position.

    It also notes that 80% support deportation of undoc's who have committed more serious crimes. Which also is what Trump to this extent.

    Get them first.

    And the support is dependent on the person having a job.

    And it is worth mentioning that Trump has said he isn't coming after the "dreamers."

    And this doesn't address the issue of the Muslim refugees and the banned countries.

    But nice try.

    Parent

    the eternal company man.. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    against open borders and closed shops..

    And, if you really support the establishment clause and the constitution, why do you keep referring to "Muslim refugees" and not just "refugees"?

    Parent

    Trump has "said" many (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    ... contradictory things.  Some days he promised to deport EVERY undocumented immigrant and undo Obamas Dreamer EO.  Other days he says he doesn't want to deport them right now.  He can't keep his promises straight because he changed positions and lies constantly, and his useful idiots are gullible enough to believe him.

    But nice try.

    Parent

    just wondering (4.50 / 2) (#31)
    by mm on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    Hasn't he had enough time to find out "what the hell is going on" yet?  Maybe a few less golf outings in Palm Beach and a few less Nurenberg rallies out in real American Land?  Maybe a good place to start would be to actually speak to the persons who are doing the job which he thinks isn't being done.  Maybe he should actually try to grow up and doing his friggin' job.

    Parent
    just to be clear (2.67 / 3) (#37)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:55:46 PM EST
    mm's reference is to:

    The Nuremberg Rally was the annual rally of the Nazi Party in Germany, held from 1923 to 1938. They were large Nazi propaganda events, especially after Hitler's rise to power in 1933.

    it's not a good day in TL-land without someone calling president trump and everyone who voted for him a nazi.

    because... "is it ok to punch a nazi?"


    Parent

    Godwin's law has been repealed (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    with respect to Trump.

    Parent
    and (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    replaced with Gorka's law Scary dude straight out of central casting Nazi collaborator. Seriously.

    Parent
    I am going (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 08:35:10 PM EST
    back to my original plan of swearing off watching the news....

    Parent
    i wonder (2.00 / 1) (#35)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:46:31 PM EST
    what the polling will show. i wonder if middle america will see this as president trump trying to protect america and his sincere efforts being thwarted by those "judges gone crazy" that they see in the headlines every day.

    • Judge sets aside rape charges for probation so ex-athlete can enjoy 'a college experience' - Raw Story
    • Outrage erupts after judge gives man who 'repeatedly raped his 12-year-old daughter' light sentence - Women in the World in Association with The New York Times
    • Colorado Judge Gives Campus Rapist Zero Prison Time Causing Uproar - PINAC News
    • Teen Accused of Raping Classmates Gets Probation, Won't Have to Register as Sex Offender - Inside Edition


    Parent
    I give you a feckin minus one (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:30:40 PM EST
    for objecting to people tarring your president, Herr Trump, and then turning around and tarring all Judges based on actions of a tiny handful.

    Parent
    you obviously (none / 0) (#55)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    didnt understand my post at all.

    😀

    Parent

    Yes, you weren't saying that You (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:02:06 PM EST
    thought Judges had "gone crazy", you were just talking about how some Other people view them.

    Though, you could just as easily have furnished ten times as many instances in which judges have been exemplars of rectitude and sobriety.


    Parent

    not really (none / 0) (#62)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    you could just as easily have furnished ten times as many instances in which judges have been exemplars of rectitude and sobriety.

    americans are fed a steady diet of this sort of thing (i meant to use the television trope "gone wild" rather than "gone crazy"). these sorts of headlines are intended to outrage and be click-bait.

    Parent

    As far public perceptions go (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:28:57 PM EST
    Judges have a long way to go still before they outpace Trump in the wild, crazy, reckless, incurious and mentally-lazy department.

    Though I am starting to think that there's a "world",  like the one Jim referred to and seems to live in, where all those above mentioned qualities are seen as strengths.

    Parent

    Nor did I, apparently, or anyone else who (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    has weighed in so far. So, if true, I wonder whose fault that might be?

    Parent
    i accept that (4.00 / 1) (#68)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:33:17 PM EST
    I wonder whose fault that might be?

    i could have written that better. perhaps more like this:

    americans are fed a steady diet of sensationalized "judges gone wild" news headlines meant to outrage.

    Parent

    WHAT? (none / 0) (#39)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:14:49 PM EST
    i was i given a one-star for asking a legitimate question on how this will be percieved by middle america?

    Parent
    Actually, PeterG gave you a 2. (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:19:28 PM EST
    Very generous of him, IMO.

    Parent
    One star is for trolling (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:32:18 PM EST
    Two is for illogical analysis, cherry-picking of "facts," and false equivalencies, yet apparently sincerely intended.

    Parent
    I know that PeterG. Where we differ, is that you, (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:39:59 PM EST
    to your credit, consistently give someone I "feel" is a troll, the benefit of the doubt.

    Parent
    He does doesn't he? (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    I take a deep breath and slowly release it while chanting to myself that Peter is teaching me how to use my words. I really do this sometimes, after I get my eyes to uncross.

    His new book will be titled 'How to Win any Debate Gently and Generously with the Alt-Right'. Far superior to Gerry Spence's argument winning book which taught me to add more wallpaper samples ;)

    Parent

    That is such a sweet comment, Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    I got Spence (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    to autograph a book for me.  Tall, imposing man.  Especially with the Cowboys boots and hat.

    Parent
    Imma fan (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    I used to eat lunch at his brother's diner in Buffalo WY too. Would drive 30 miles for lunch. But it was very good food. I don't know if it's still there.

    Parent
    notice that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    illogical analysis, cherry-picking of "facts," and false equivalencies

    i used "scare quotes" and the equivalent of the television trope "girls gone crazy" to make the point that americans are fed a steady diet of this sort of thing.

    i asked a question, i didnt offer an analysis or provide any facts. it's just me wondering. everybody is too harsh here.

    Parent

    i also wonder (none / 0) (#41)
    by linea on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:27:38 PM EST
    could the president ban members of Aum Shinrikyo (the japanese doomsday cult) if they asserted, "we're Aum Shinrikyo but we're not affiliated with the Aum Shinrikyo group on the terrorist list. Aum Shinrikyo is our religion."

    or is declaring a religious group "terrorists" a way around the establishment clause?

    Parent

    No, as all the judges to examine the E.O.s (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:45:36 PM EST
    so far have concluded, falsely labeling the adherents to a religion categorically as suspected "terrorists" is a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause. At the same time, an insane political group cannot cloak itself with legal protection by falsely or insincerely labeling itself a "religion."

    Parent
    "world that elected Trump" (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:40:25 PM EST
    was a minority vote.  And fewer votes than his rival.....

    There was no mandate on immigration. 46% is not a mandate.  Especially when your rival got 48%.

    There is where the popular vote matters.

    Parent

    The world that elected Trump is the world that (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:38:51 PM EST
    has his ear.

    Sorry that you chose to be left out.

    Parent

    That what's happens when people (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:43:08 PM EST
    chose to think and educate themselves.

    They get left out of Trump's world.

    Parent

    Trump's world (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:24:12 PM EST
    is a cesspool.  

    Where "alternate facts" reigns.

    Where love of Russia and kowtowing to Russia  and love of dictators are now a good thing.

    Parent

    If that want to completely (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:36:51 PM EST
    solidify the love bond, Trump's people should see if they can get the Russians to start displaying the Stars and Bars.

    Parent
    You do realize, that nearly all previous (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:31:16 PM EST
    Presidents have tried hard to be "President of all the people," including those who voted against them. That would be normal.

    Parent
    Trump already went off at a rally (none / 0) (#2)
    by Michael Masinter on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    And supplied the opening words for the next round of briefing.

    Thanks for that tip, MM (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 08:48:53 PM EST
    Dershowitz says it's probably going (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    To the Supreme Court? And he speculates they rule in Trump's favor?

    Trump's ban(s) will have a presence in Gorsuch confirmation hearings?

    Parent

    No way will Gorsuch answer, nor should he (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 09:39:48 PM EST
    any question on this subject. It is definitely a case that could come before him as a judge.  
       As for going to the Supreme Court, who the hell knows? You sure can't believe anything the President* says on this topic. Pure speculation. And pure speculation how it would come out if it does go. Depends, in part, on what happens in the lower courts.


    Parent
    Thank you Peter (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 10:35:02 PM EST
    Trump could have (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 05:34:56 PM EST
    kept going all the way to the Supreme Court with Muslim Ban 1.0. But, he chose to take the new spiffy Muslim Ban 2.0 out for a spin.

    "No Review" Miller said it was the same, just some "technical" changes.  And, last night at his Nashville visit to real Americans (i.e., those who voted for him), Trump said he really wants to overrule all his DOJ attorneys, and go back to MB 1.0, being buoyed by Greta's guest Alan Dershowitz's opinion that Trump would win at the Supreme Court.

      Trump said, MB 2.0 was just watered down MB l.0. But, of course, if you just add a cup of water to a lump of manure, you still have a sludge of manure. It smells nor tastes any better.

    Parent

    Saw two of Neil Gorsuch's cousins (none / 0) (#11)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    at the ski gala cocktail party tonight here in Aspen.  One was on the ski team the same time I was.  Big Colorado family.  Very nice people.

    Parent
    Even though the DoJ dismissed its appeal (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 09:49:18 PM EST
    from Judge Robard's restraining order against the first Executive Order, the Ninth Circuit today completed its consideration by denying rehearing of the opinion refusing to stay the restraining order and refusing to vacate the published and precedential decision in support of its refusal to grant a stay. Five conservative judges dissented in a 25-page opinion. Judge Reinhardt concurred in a short paragraph, in order to comment that he was proud to be part of a courageous and independent judiciary.

    The dissenting conservatives also included (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    in their opinion a sharp rebuke to Tr*mp for his attacks on judges. I hadn't read it last night. Quite extraordinary, particularly coming from Judge Jay Bybee, former chief of GWB's office of legal counsel and thus head apologist for the "torture memos," etc.

    Parent
    thanks Peter (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 09:59:38 PM EST
    I hadn't seen this

    Parent
    Jonathan Turley (none / 0) (#170)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    On the 5 dissenting 9th Circuit judges.

    http://tinyurl.com/n6wuxmu

    Five Ninth Circuit Judges Issue Rare Dissent Rebuking The Panel In Immigration Ruling


     As previously raised by experts, the strongly worded dissent belies the claim that the original executive order was legally unsustainable.  To see this type of vociferous dissent in a withdrawn appeal is  remarkable  in itself but it also shows the depth of opposition to the panel's decision among other judges.

    The dissenting judges objected that there is an "obligation to correct" the "manifest" errors of the panel.  It called those errors "fundamental" and even questioned the manner in which the panel reached its decision with a telephonic oral argument.  The dissent raised many of the problems that various commentators have raised, including myself.  The lack of consideration to opposing case law, failure to address the statutory authority given to the President, and the sweeping dismissal of executive authority are obvious flaws. (These problems are also apparent in the ruling in Hawaii, though it was based on establishment rather the due process grounds) The dissenting judges refer to the "clear misstatement of law" in the upholding of the district court.  so bad it compelled "vacating" an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.



    Parent
    Trump is getting what he deserves (none / 0) (#10)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 15, 2017 at 11:49:33 PM EST
    He started off with a poorly written and poorly thought out order, and got clobbered. Now the opposition is prepared, and many judges are skeptical.

    Had this been the original order, it probably would have survived legal challenges. Now, I don't know. Probably has good chance of ultimately surviving but could get derailed. Most of the worst and dumb stuff is no longer in the order.

    One passage in Judge Watson's opinion ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 04:00:49 AM EST
    ... stands out on pages 30-31:

    "[T]he Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text --'[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order] applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.'  Gov't. Mem. in Opp'n 40.

    "The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because 'the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world's 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population ... [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]'  Gov't. Mem. in Opp'n 42.

    "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.  See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus
    because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,' because 'the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise.  It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution' (citation omitted)).

    "Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin easily demonstrated the Trump administration's animus toward Muslims by using their own words against them. To further underscore the Trump administration's pretextual justification, the State cited the February 24, 2017 draft report from the Dept. of Homeland Security, which states that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats against the United States.

    The State of Hawaii has both a compelling interest and a moral obligation to protect and defend our islands' 3,000+ Muslim citizens and residents from the adverse effects of what is clearly a bigoted and discriminatory policy. And in the eyes of U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Kahala Watson, who is Native Hawaiian, State Attorney General Chin - who is of Chinese ancestry - proved his case.

    Given President Trump's attempt tonight to appeal to his predominantly white fan base's worst fears and instincts about "The Others," I noted the ethnicity of the federal judge and state Attorney general for a good reason. The State of Hawaii offers a valuable lesson to the rest of the country, much of which apparently and desperately needs to hear it: Our diversity ought to define us as a nation, without also dividing us as a people.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    How many (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    refugees from ME is HI taking??

    Social Media is saying 0.

    True??

    Parent

    "Social media" (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    Dear god.  Trumpers and their fake "news" from social media.  Proof that some people will choose to believe false stories that could be easily debunked, simply because they want to believe it for political purposes or because it fits their agenda.

    Just like their leader.

    Parent

    Where do you get this stuff, Jim? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    I think it comes from your favorite right-wing analyst, Otto Yurrass.

    For the record, here is the reaction of two states' respective leaders to the prospect of incoming Syrian war refugees in the wake of the Nov. 2015 Paris attacks:

    "Hawaii is the Aloha State, known for its tradition of welcoming all people with tolerance and mutual respect. We will work closely with the federal government to ensure that appropriate resources and support are available to any and all refugees arriving in Hawaii. Slamming the door in their face would be a betrayal of our values."
    - Hawaii Gov. Davis Ige (Nov. 16, 2015)

    "While screening, acceptance and placement is legally under the authority of the federal government, they have said in the past they would be open to cooperating with receiving states. Today I'm asking the federal government to suspend placements [of refugees] in Tennessee until states can become more of a partner in the vetting process."
    - Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (Nov. 16, 2015)

    "[T]he opportunity that radical Islamists could embed themselves in the movement of refugees is large and growing. These refugees are impossible to thoroughly investigate and properly vet. Out of an abundance of caution, the flow of refugees must be stopped. As Tennessee's congressional delegation, we ask you to advocate strongly for an immediate moratorium on refugees entering the United States, specifically Tennessee."
    - Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ronald Ramsey and TN House Speaker Beth Harwell (Nov. 16, 2015)

    The contrast in leadership is clear.

    Parent

    Moreover ... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    ... Iraqi refugees have settled in Hawaii, despite the fact that Hawaii is a state in which ME refugees would not generally settle because of the criteria used to choose locations and for logistical reasons (high cost of living, location).  

    But he read a meme on Facebook ...

    Parent

    i read (none / 0) (#144)
    by linea on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    the govenor of hawai`i stated he would welcome syrian refugees but that he does not have the practical authority to admit or deny entry to refugees as placement is determined on the federal level. however that might change, as i believe president trump stated he wanted to work with govenors on this issue.

    Our first priority is the safety of the American people, including the people of the State of Hawai`i. The U.S. accepts refugees, including Syrians, only after they are subjected to the most vigorous and highest level of screening and security vetting. As President Obama has said - slamming the door in their face would be a betrayal of our values. Hawai`i and our nation have a long history of welcoming refugees impacted by war and oppression. Hawai`i is the Aloha State, known for its tradition of welcoming all people with tolerance and mutual respect. I am confident that our state will work closely with the federal government to ensure that appropriate resources and support are available before any refugees arrive in Hawai`i.

    -- Hawai`i Governor David Ige



    Parent
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 08:52:53 AM EST


    Another bad day (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    for Trump. So what else is new? The senate is saying his budget is DOA and looks like his healthcare reform might not even pass the house. Of course the healthcare bill going down is more likely to take Ryan down with it than damage Trump like his travel bans have damaged him.

    GA, this is something that you may have (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 16, 2017 at 09:56:40 PM EST
    forgotten under Obama...he with his pen and phone...

    This is called "legislating." A great deal of that uses negotiation. As part of that process you will find:

    Lying
    Bluffing
    Back biting
    Fake information
    Pontificating
    Crying
    Threatening

    Bismark said: "Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made."

    I disagree. I think one should s/he up and get their points made to the politicians.

    I have done so. Have you?

    Lead. Follow. Or Get Out Of The Way.

     

    Parent

    And they LAUGHED at you (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 10:21:05 AM EST
    The politicians who know your threats are weak and empty.  They know you will continue  to vote for them, despite your claims of being a "social liberal", because social issues don't really matter to you.  You claim to support single payer while voting for pols who specifically oppose and denounce it.  They're filing exactly what they promised when you voted for them.

    BTW - A phone call to your reps isn't "leading".  Many of us are actually leading by organizing and actively resisting your Orange Julius.  You can stay out of OUR way.

    Parent

    Since I don't tell them (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    anything beyond my position your assumption is incorrect.

    Tell you what.

    If the next Demo candidate for Prez comes out for closing the border tighter than a tick's ear, limiting the number of Muslim refugees to twice the number Saudi Arabia accepts annually and a single payer system paid for with a federal sales tax....

    S/he has my vote.

    Parent

    Tell you what (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    If the next Republican candidate for ANY office Congress out in favor of ANY form of single payer health insurance and you vote for them, THEN you can be taken seriously.  Until then, you're words mean nothing and your silly moniker from Thomas Paine is nothing but a joke, and your ridiculous "Jefferson card" comments a sad, impotent, empty threat.

    Parent
    Since I don't tell them (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    anything beyond my position your assumption is incorrect.

    Tell you what.

    If the next Demo candidate for Prez comes out for closing the border tighter than a tick's ear, limiting the number of Muslim refugees to twice the number Saudi Arabia accepts annually and a single payer system paid for with a federal sales tax....

    S/he has my vote.

    Parent

    You don't get to vote twice. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    J/k.  Anyway, each time you couple "single payer" with "national sales tax," you lose your argument here. A progressive, equality-promoting health care policy need not and should not be linked to an economically regressive funding mechanism.

    Parent
    There are several ways to promote fairness (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    And if you don't use them them the the middle class will prevent a single payer system from ever being installed.

    They see increasing their taxes to pay for someone else's health care as very unfair.

    Politics and change is always the art of the possible.

    Parent

    Eliminating the cost of private health insurance (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    in exchange for a truly progressive income tax -- which would fall mainly on the top 2%, not the "middle class" -- would be an economic bonanza, not a burden, for ordinary Americans.

    Parent
    And what's is progressive? (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    90% on everything above $50K?

    And if you took everything from the top 2% I don't think it would cover.

    No, as is now, the middle class would pay. And like the third pig on slaughter day they have caught on about what's happening...and just want everyone ...doctors, lawyers, ...poor men beggar men and indian chiefs...and dope dealers and ebayers and all the rest who now pay nothing to get some skin in the game. A sales tax does that. You wanna new Telsa at $85K? Tack on $14450. A new Malibu $18K? Tack on $3060. Unprepared food? Zero. Utility bills? Zero. Gasoline for private vehicles? Zero. Five year old car? Zero.

    So there are ways to reduce the impact of the tax on the "poor."

    Parent

    Name that logical fallacy? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 08:49:20 PM EST
    Straw man. Ask a question to someone else. Don't wait for an answer. Then answer your own question baselessly, attribute that answer to the other person, and pretend to debunk or criticize it. No, I didn't suggest a marginal tax rate of 90% on incomes over $50,000. Does that help?
      For some actual data on the potential cost of, savings from, and funding for a true single-payer option you can look here, or here or here. I recognize that it would not be a "free lunch."

    Parent
    why cant we? (none / 0) (#129)
    by linea on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:20:39 PM EST
    just do this?
    Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind

    i blame the republicans, the utopianiist cult of libertarianism, and
    centrist democrats


    Parent

    You should tell someone (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    ... who cares about your opinion of REAL Democrats.

    Parent
    The issue is and will be money. (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    How we will pay for it.

    Some say the federal income tax because it is "fair." Actually it is not. "Fair" is when everyone pays the same percentage. So a progressive income tax is not "fair." It is the "right" thing to do because we are supposed to help each other.

    As a Christian I support it as a "moral" thing to do.

    And, not at all strangely, support for the progressive income tax has fallen as we have replaced religion with "logic."

    Parent

    Most ethicists would not agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    that "fairness" would necessarily call for a flat tax percentage (not sure what sort of base with what exclusions you are assuming as the starting point, but put that aside for now) on all.  Fairness is a complex, not a simple concept. generally understood in the legal or legislative world as treating those who are similarly situated in a similar manner under similar circumstances. Fairness is not the same as "justice," which is treating each individual according to his or her particular deserts. But neither is "fairness" to be confused with mechanical identity of treatment, which overlooks whether the affected persons are similarly situated and thus creates or reinforces unfairness. For purposes of taxation, the poor, the working class and middle class, and the rich (not to mention the super-rich) are not similarly situated, and so treating them the same is not "fair."

    Parent
    So you want to define (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    So you want to define "fair" based on "situation" and context.

    What that means is that someone gets to define what the word means.  I  refrain from quoting what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice.

    I have no problem with saying that it is morally correct to expect that those who have more should pay more. But don't use the word "fair" in that context.  The "right thing to do" is not always fair to the parties involved.

    Look, I "appreciate you," which is Hillbilly for thank you, sharing your training and vast knowledge of the law and have no intent to argue those points.  But I think my background is unique as compared to you when I write of the middle class and how it has struggled to accept the many changing word definitions and now we are told that we shouldn't be concerned that importing Muslin refugees from countries that are not capable of working with us to vet them will cause US citizens to be harmed.

    And for argument a judge talks about what a President said, not what the law says.

    And the question is asked, "How many people have refugees from these countries killed?"

    The answer is none, yet. But 72 have been arrested and convicted and dozens of investigations are ongoing. Guess some people think our security teams will keep on pitching a shut out.

    And then it is argued that the Establishment Clause says that the President can't use religion in deterring who can or cannot come in the country.  Yet the law clearly says he can use whatever reason he likes.

    And while we must let people in without proper vetting  we can't  go into their countries of origin and enforce the Establishment Clause...or the free press....etc., etc.

    Perhaps if we did they wouldn't be flocking to come here. Pax America anyone?

    And perhaps if we looked at the ME, and south of our border, and said, "We will no longer be your safety valve and we will help you in your country to fix your problems," things just might improve for everyone.

    Parent

    You say (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    that you situation is unique or that you have a unique perspective because of your middle class background.

    How do you know Peter does not have a middle class background?  Chances are, he does.  Is it because he is very well educated and very knowledgeable?  Does that make him an elitist who does not understand the middle class?  (And he is a criminal defense lawyer, and I doubt very many of them are elitist.)  This sounds like the argument that a son raised by single mother and his grandparents in modest homes was somehow elite because he was President of the Harvard Law Review.

    The more I hear about the ban, the more I think the District Court TROs on the current version may hold.  Some good reasoning the snippets Donald has quoted.

    And, the original idea behind the ban was to implement it immediately, so the bad dudes would not race to get in, and to implement only for 90 days to figure out what is going on.   The current bad is delayed.  And, we are almost at the end of the 90 days anyway.  

    The ban is a farce.

    The idea that Trump will ever figure out what is going on is a farce.  He just tweeted today that Germany owes NATO a lot of money.  Setting aside how rude that comment is, and the bad timing of it, it shows how ignorant Trump is.  Germany does not owe any dues to NATO.  The argument, which Trump clearly does not understand, is that Germany needs to spend 2% of its GDP on the military.  A totally different issue.  And Germany, which has helped us militarily in Afghanistan, and undoubtedly is a big ally in fighting terrorism, has agreed to spend 2% of its GDP on its own military by 2025.  

    By recklessly opening his mouth again, Trump has proven what a dumba*s he is.  The old adage is that it is better to remain silent and have people think you are stupid, than open your mouth and remove all doubt, applies.

    Parent

    No, I didn't say that. (1.50 / 2) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    What I said was:

    "unique as compared to you when I write of the middle class and how it has struggled to accept the many changing word definitions "

    That "you" is Peter. Not anyone else.

    "Does that make him an elitist who does not understand the middle class?"

    I'll let you ask Peter that. I did not. I also didn't refer to him as an "elitist."  Why do you make these straw men up?

    And we do not know how many "bad dudes" have gotten in. We also don`t know how many radical islamist terrorists slipped by.

    As I type this I watch the TV telling of a radical Muslim trying to seize a weapon in the Paris airport and kill.

    Obviously one did in France. ;-(

    What I find rude  is a very well off countries not meeting their obligation.

    "The United States has a point in noting that its commitment is disproportionately large. Last year it spent 3.6% of its GDP on defence, the highest ratio of any NATO member (and the highest total military budget in the world by a hefty margin). That is almost double the target of 2% of GDP that NATO members all agreed to in 2006. At the time six members reached the threshold; last year five did."

    The Economist

    Trump has pointed out that and brought it to a head. No more polite ignoring of obligations. Sorry it hurt your feelings. But I don't care if it hurt the bums who aren't paying their bills.

    Germany, under Merkel's leadership has let itself be flooded with supposed Muslim refugees.  We have seen the results.

    BBC

    Look, I understand you have lost control of your emotions and can't restrain displaying your emotions. My advice?  Get some medical help. And I am not being snarky. You folks need some drug to restrain you. He's gonna be around for at least 4, probably 8 years.

    And outside of claiming, you provide no response.  

    Parent

    You are way over the line (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 05:34:15 PM EST
    Your comment is not only (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 06:23:32 PM EST
    offensive as an attempt to insult me, but also to anyone who feels strongly about Trump.  Just because someone feels strongly or emotionally about Trump does not mean they need medication.  Or medical help.

    I am trying to piece together why you blew up at me in your last post.  In my prior post, I was actually not particularly emotional.  I did not insult you.

    I think what may have set you off is that you were insulting Peter--stating he did not have the same ability to understand the middle class as you--and I noted that.

    Your comment about drugs and doctors is epitome of ignorance and bigotry.  And the attempt to stigmatize those with mental issues in an attempt to win a political argument is despicable.  Many people (but not me) do take medication for among other things mood disorders.   There are many bi-polar people who are highly functioning, well educated, quite brilliant and very productive people.  

    You are obviously not qualified to diagnose someone as needing medical help or medication.  But you toss off such a comment--not out of concern--because you don't know anything about diagnosing mental disorders, and even if you did that kind of thing cannot be done over the internet, but as an insult.

    No, your comment was right out of junior high school--calling someone with whom you disagree as basically mentally ill.

    Shame on you for the insult.  Shame on you for trying to stigmatize those who need medical help and medication.

    How does your comment comport with Jeralyn's admonition against personal attacks?

    Parent

    MKS, you need to read (1.00 / 4) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 10:08:30 PM EST
    some of your, and others, comments and my sincere advice to seek medical help should not insult you. But, if it does then all I can add is that you have lived a very sheltered life.

    So let's move on.

    Tell me why any judge should be making a ruling not on what the law in question says but on what a candidate said???


    Parent

    You did not read (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    my comment to which you ostensibly reply.  Not. One. Word.

    Typical.

    Parent

    Your comment was nothing but a series of attacks (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    Mirror, dude (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    You like the Cheeto (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    just double down on the stupid and absurd.

    You have proven time and again that you do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about, but still spout your homespun "wisdom" completely obliviously.

    Let's review.  Here are three classic and idiotic Jimboisms:

      Stupid No. 1.  Your comment that you visited Latin America when you went to the Bahamas.
      Stupid  No. 2.  Your ridiculous travel instructions stating that it takes an hour and a half "drive time" from John Wayne Airport to Laguna Niguel.
      Stupid No. 3.  Your stupid and potentially disastrous comment that a scenic way to get to Laguna Niguel from John Wayne Airport is to take "Highway One."   No, PCH or Highway 1  is not scenic except in only a couple of stretches, mainly north of LA.  And the lone, tiny 2 mile segment in OC is not a way to get to Laguna Niguel from John Wayne.

    What is pretty clear is that Peter, with all his graciousness, starkly exposed your basic charade of trying to fake knowledge and coherence.  You tried to challenge him on Constitutional law.  You even tried to match his writing style, but just wrote run-on sentences that collapsed into word salad.  And, again, you had no idea what you were talking about.

     Keenly aware of your inability to challenge Peter on the merits, you retreated into your homespun folk wisdom, which is nothing more than the glorification of ignorance and superstition every bit as valid as Medieval blood letting.

    So, why you were touting very authoritatively the equivalent of leeches as a medical treatment, we all again winced at your combination of stupidity and arrogance.    

    Parent

    More attacks and made up claims? (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    Indeed. You do that well.

    In the meantime, explain why a judge should be basing his ruling on what a candidate says and not on law.

    You can't.

    Facts are that you like how the judge ruled.

    Would you have agreed with the ruling for "separate but equal?"

    How about Dred Scott v Sandford?

    And then we had laws that gave us Prohibition.

    All of these were legal.

    Judges are not Gods. We have three equal branches of government. It would be best if there was a certain amount of tension between them rather than worship.

    Parent

    Respect for a specific rulings (none / 0) (#184)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 06:30:37 PM EST
    has nothing to do with "worship" of Judges in all instances.

    Try not to be so clueless.

    And don't project your uber alles attitude about the GOP and Orange Littlefingers  onto other people.

    Parent

    More incoherent drivel (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    Just admit you are in over your head and go back to your right wing blogs.

    Parent
    So you cannot respond to my points. (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 08:10:44 PM EST
    No surprise.

    Parent
    It IS based on the law (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    In the meantime, explain why a judge should be basing his ruling on what a candidate says and not on law.

    Judges are not required to be blind - just the opposite.  The intent of the "lawmaker" is relevant to the purpose of the law, which is not only relevant, but critical.  Your problem is that your Orange Julius opened his big mouth and revealed his true intentions - and bigotry.  Some people are just fine with bigotry.  Unfortunately for you, there are more of us that are not.

    Parent

    So the idea of (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 20, 2017 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    "justice is blind" is not true?

    So you claim that it is up to the bias of the judge to determine whether a law is legal?  

    The judge gets to decide??

    That will be the death of our judicial system and end of our constitutional republic.

    Judges are not gods no matter what they, and the lawyers who interact with them, think.

    And let me expand that last point. It is not unusual for people who deal with persons of power to derive a great deal of hubris from that. You should examine your own relationship in that respect.

    Parent

    The death of our judicial system (none / 0) (#197)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 20, 2017 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    and our constitutional Republic will come, if it comes, when it's smothered by the ignorance and noise of those who don't know how it works and what judges do.

    Are you really THAT clueless that you don't see that you're claiming infallibility and omnipotence for one branch of government while accusing others of doing it with a different branch??

    Apparently you are.

    Well, carry on then.

    Let me expand that last point. Take as much rope as you need and secure one end it to the nearest convenient tree branch. So to speak.

    Parent

    No, justice is blind (none / 0) (#198)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 20, 2017 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    ... but it's not required to be stupid.

    As opposed to someone who uses silly, strawman arguments - or makes ridiculous insults that should really be directed toward the nearest mirror.

    Parent

    Get some medical help? (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    Get some drugs?

    No Trump doesn't get it.  He has no idea what is going on.

    Parent

    "Physician", heal thyself (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    Look, I understand you have lost control of your emotions and can't restrain displaying your emotions. My advice?  Get some medical help. And I am not being snarky. You folks need some drug to restrain you. He's gonna be around for at least 4, probably 8 years.

    You should heed your own advice ... not to mention that joke you call a leader.

    Parent

    The "radicalized Muslim" (none / 0) (#156)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 06:13:49 PM EST
    killed by French officers at Orly Airport was on the run from his BB gun attacks North of Paris (Orly in on the South side of Paris).  Ziyed Ben Beigacem, was a 39-year old French citizen, born in France.

    Parent
    So wanting to die for Allah is nit radicalized? (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 09:58:36 PM EST
    The things I do learn.

    Parent
    "radicalized Muslim" (none / 0) (#168)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    is a quote by the French police characterizing Beigacem. Apparently, his radicalization was home-grown.

    Parent
    Single parent, etc. (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    I meant to say "elitist," not elite.  Clearly, elite.  But elitist is another thing entirely.

    Parent
    After giving it a lot of thought (none / 0) (#159)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 08:30:10 PM EST
    I have decided not to respond to any specifics of your comment #140, Jim. Not the personal part, not the philosophical part, not the legal part. It is quite clear that you are actually not interested in what I have to say, and you do not accept that some people might have useful knowledge, on some subjects, that you don't. Let's just leave it at this: I reject and/or disagree with nearly everything stated in that long, disjointed comment. And your assumptions and inferences about me are mostly incorrect.

    Parent
    Peter, you still don't understand (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 09:20:01 PM EST
    I appreciate your legal knowledge.

    We just disagree on political things.

    Judges aren't supposed to be political.

    But they are now proving that they are.

    Us great unwashed types are kinda worried about that.

    Parent

    ... regarding an executive order which at this point has been struck down on constitutional grounds by several federal judges across the country AND the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Whereas all you've got here is a fact-free political argument spewed by AM squawk radio hosts ad nauseum, by which you've all somehow managed to convince yourselves that your own willfully ignorant resistance to reason is actually some sort of personal virtue.

    And since you quite obviously don't appreciate Peter's legal knowledge, please cease with any further disingenuous gratuities to that effect, which serves only to insult his intelligence -- as well as everyone else's, too.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    It is hard for you to accept that (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 08:25:34 AM EST
    someone can just flat out reject a legal claim made by a judge?

    Well, they can. Try harder. Many laws have been found "legal" and then rejected by the citizens.

    Parent

    You reject what science and history (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    books say, so no one is surprised when you reject legal claims made by judges.

    You guys need first to go back to basics and learn how to differentiate Muslims from Sikhs before you start thinking about doing the heavy-lifting of "rejecting legal claims by judges."

    Parent

    "Political" - heh (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 09:27:37 PM EST
    "Political" - adj. - Rendering a legal decision that wingers don't like.

    Parent
    BS (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 18, 2017 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    As a Christian I support it as a "moral" thing to do.

    And, not at all strangely, support for the progressive income tax has fallen as we have replaced religion with "logic."

    In the land of reality, the American people have consistently indicated for decades that the upper income earners pay too little in taxes.

    As a Christian, I support the moral thing to do.  Take care of the poor and ignore those attempting to use religion to justify their own greed and selfishness.

    Parent

    What a baby ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Nemi on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    ... but the German Chancellor seems to have a very good handle on toddlers. :)

    I just love watching how relaxed and at ease Angela Merkel seems -- and then her subdued facial expressions, not least at the end of the video, heh, when he not only refuses to shake her hand but totally ignores her! Brilliant on her part, deeply embarrassing on his.

    Should have said (none / 0) (#106)
    by Nemi on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    continued to totally ignore her!

    Parent
    She's just angry because he's telling her (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    that lunch is now "dutch treat."

    Parent
    Angry? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Nemi on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    Did you watch the video? More like overbearing. :)

    And a joke about "dutch treat" would have been funnier if it was related to ... the Dutch PM. '-)

    Parent

    Yes, it would have (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    but I meant as an outtake of the definition.

    an outing, meal, or other special occasion at which each participant pays for their share of the expenses.


    Parent
    Oh, I know what you meant ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Nemi on Mon Mar 20, 2017 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    ... still neither funny nor logical as Angela Merkel is Deutsch not Dutch. :)

    Parent
    Right, Dutch Treat (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    as long as the Germans promise to let him run through the sprinklers afterwards.

    Parent
    No temperature control (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 19, 2017 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    So sad and unfair!

    Parent
    i found this (none / 0) (#115)
    by linea on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 06:56:50 PM EST
    which answers my question (the one TLers got pretend-outraged over):

    Only a third of Americans think Trump's travel ban will make them safer

    Why (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 07:14:24 PM EST
    do you argue with yourself and blame pretend-outrage when you lose?

    Parent
    ok. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by linea on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 08:01:01 PM EST
    i should have posted:

    which answers my question (the one that was badly written)

    Parent

    i wasnt arguing anything! (none / 0) (#120)
    by linea on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    in my original post i was wondering whether president trump's political-show of the travel ban might be viewed favorably by middle america. but you cant ask questions here without certain people taking it the wrong way. that's how i feel.

    Parent
    linea, it is their duty to correct us (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    But remember that the poll is almost a month old.

    And the pollsters are the same people who said Trump would be squashed.

    ;-)

    Parent

    "Almost a month old" (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 10:04:13 PM EST
    Hahaha hahaha ...

    Did you actually just try to suggest a poll wasn't credible because it was less than a month old?

    That's ridiculous.

    But not as ridiculous as attacking the national polling that was entirely accurate.

    But when you have no evidence, just lie and pretend the evidence against you isn't credible.  Just like your leader.

    Parent

    "Almost a month old" (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 17, 2017 at 10:03:46 PM EST
    Hahaha hahaha ...

    Did you actually just try to suggest a poll wasn't credible because it was less than a month old?

    That's ridiculous.

    But not as ridiculous as attacking the national polling that was entirely accurate.

    But when you have no evidence, just lie and pretend the evidence against you isn't credible.  Just like your leader.

    Parent