|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US Immigration control - the legal battle
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I've taken my own advice to set up a separate issue thread on this important topic. After the Robart decision is separation of powers alive and well. Or, given the Boston decision, has the judiciary itself become too politicised for its own good.
This looks bound for the Supreme Court, very quickly. What are Shipmates views on this legal battle?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
I'm not convinced that Trump (and several of his syncophants) truly understands the concept of separation of powers. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I'm not convinced that Trump (and several of his syncophants) truly understands the concept of separation of powers.
I'm not convinced that Trump would care if he did understand.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Either way, it looks like the makings of a fine constitutional crisis.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
sabine
I agree that the understanding of separation of powers is an issue. It's clear to me that one of the key original purposes of the constitution was to curb overbearing behaviour. The founders wished "to secure the blessings of liberty" for the people.
Trump is overbearing. And this particular order was shoddy and unclear in its wording and scope. It seems to have been rushed through without full consultation over constitutionality or legality.
Here is Judge Robart's order. Judge Robart was a Bush appointee.
[ 04. February 2017, 12:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
And apparently Trump sent out a tweet calling the Judge's qualifications into question. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Here's the exact wording of the tweet
quote:
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
Either he chooses to ignore separation of powers or he doesn't understand the principle. Faults in the tweet.
1. The so-called judge is a judge, properly appointed.
2. The opinion does not take law enforcement away from "our country". It is a judicial view of the enforcibility of an executive order and is well within the scope of that judge's responsibilities.
3. Whether it is "ridiculous" (legally sound or unsound) is subject to test by higher court.
4. " .. and will be overturned". Well, there you have it. That's for a higher court to decide. Predicting the outcome of the deliberations of a higher court is a classic illustration of overbearing behaviour.
Trump is an ignorant, bullying asshole. Mind you, that's just my opinion.
[ 04. February 2017, 13:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Because of the scope of the affect of this EO, the amount of legal battles involved is going to be quite large. There will likely be more then one case going to SCOTUS.
We just found out this morning that all Canadian Permanent Residents from those 7 countries have had their Nexus cards (fasttrack border entry) CBC news article here
One aspect of this is they took away Fast memberships taken away. This basically means if you are a PR from those 7 countries, your ability to do business in the US has been restricted.
That's going to be a lawsuit.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Have shipmates seen the film 'Downfall'? Trump's behaviour is alarming!
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Presumably this will go to the Supreme Court. Will Trump's recent judicial appointment have the deciding vote?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Thanks, Barnabas, for posting the text of the tweet. I was working from a phone in a non-wifi area.
I'm holding off assuming anything about Trump's SCOTUS nominee. We won't know until we know.
Also, cases don't immediately go to the Supreme Court. It has to be filed, and then the Court has to decide to hear it.
So, the chaos may continue.
ETA: I've worked with refugee resettlement in the US for a decade. I know that there are many in the pipeline, and efforts will be made to keep things going while we can.
sabine
[ 04. February 2017, 14:35: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Title of article: "Pope Just Threw Shade at Trump in the Classiest Way Possible"
Didn't mention Trump by name but did mention skyscrapers and real estate deals and exclusion of people.
And also said It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help. . .If I say I am Christian, but do these things, I’m a hypocrite.”
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Donald seems to be under the impression that the bullying, bad-mouthing tactics he has used in his 'business' career will work in public as POTUS.
The more he tweets the more we can all see (if we were in any doubt) that this man is not very bright.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I'm holding off assuming anything about Trump's SCOTUS nominee. We won't know until we know.
I wonder if, during the vetting process, Neil Gorsuch will be asked for his professional opinion of the EO and the Seattle injunction? I think the injunction ruling, and maybe a few others, will be at the Supreme Court for resolution.
Which gives the Trump Administration an interesting dilemma. From what I've read about Gorsuch, I'm not sure he would be a "loyalist" vote on this issue. He wouldn't be the first Republican appointee to disappoint his political sponsor. Life time appointment status can be very freeing!
The Nexus card withdrawal seems very likely to produce another lawsuit (if it hasn't already). Presumable the Nexus fast track is a mutually agreed process which has been unilaterally changed?
Oh boy, this is going to be a good source of business for lawyers.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the injunction ruling, and maybe a few others, will be at the Supreme Court for resolution.
The Court always has the option not to take up a case (but first, it has to be filed, and of course, the Administration will file). This one seems too big to ignore.
sabine
[ 04. February 2017, 16:01: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
I don't think the ban will hold up under appeal or in the SCOTUS.
But, as a refugee resettlement worker, I'm concerned about what awaits refugees in terms of hate crimes and harassment after they arrive.
Although I'm retired, I continue to volunteer with a resettlement agency and in other efforts. We have lately been educating people about how to help those they see being harassed.
Suggestions from the American Friends Servicde Committee
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
The American public does not seem to be with the President on this one (which may or may not matter much to him now that he's elected).
You ask my response: I was in tears all day last Saturday. I head up our church's team doing refugee resettlement. It was heart-breaking. On Sunday my son & I marched with the protestors at LAX. Due to the congestion of the protestors, we needed to park offsite and walk in. While we were still 2 blocks away, part of a gathering crowd walking to the protest, I was already in weeping. There was amazing support, not only among the protestors, but even among the motorists and travelers whose commute was being hampered by the protests, who would honk & wave or give thumbs up (never the other finger-- a rarity in LA!). When we joined the main protest (4000 people), it was peaceful, very cooperative with the LAPD, who were professional and helpful. Travelers who were arriving were the most inconvenienced (helpfully the LAPD had positioned us away from departure level), yet seemed supportive-- many stopped to take video, join our chants, or explain to children that this is what democracy was about. It was an incredible moment of solidarity.
My 2 seconds of fame was when there was a lull in the led chants as we happened to be walking by AirCanada. I suggested we cheer for Justin Trudeau, who has pledged to take ALL the 90,000 some refugees we are refusing. I expected just the people around me to join in, but soon a large group of maybe 100 or so joined in cheering Trudeau.
Throughout the week I've been seeing my evangelical leadership come out strongly opposed to the ban-- the president of the univ where I teach joined several others in a letter of protest. The leadership of my denom. as well as several other evangelical groups joined other faith communities/leadership in denouncing the ban. World Vision had a lovely viral video showing why this ban is contrary to Christian values.
A lovely moment, but one wonders if Trump knows or cares that the public has turned against him now that he's been elected.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump is an ignorant,
Demonstrable, there for objectively accurate.
quote:
bullying
Same with this.
quote:
asshole. Mind you, that's just my opinion.
Nope. It is a reasonable, rational and inevitable conclusion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Almost certainly he does not know. He doesn't want to know, and there are none so blind. If his nose is rubbed in it (a million women in pink hats outside his door, say) he declares they are malcontents, or paid for by his opponents. (Still waiting for my check, BTW.)
It will take time for a solid case to wind its way up to the Supreme Court. The best and only hope now is a broad resistance from many different angles. Businesses suffering the impact have to squawk. Churches and rescue organizations have to object. Universities, celebrities, and even sports teams have to set up a yell. Everyone, phone your congresscritter on Monday. And then Tuesday. Every day, if you can manage it.
And I have seen a couple articles now, fervently pleading for the continuing health and work of current Supreme Court justices. If we lose the Notorious RBG and Trump slams in another nominee, the impact may last for our generation.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
People are getting roiled up, and many of them have fallen prey to at least two fallacies: that refugees are not being vetted at all, and that terrorists are using the guise of refugee to gain entry.
Those of us in the resettlement effort are quite worried about harassment of refugees already here and those to come.
As long as refugees are scapegoated and portrayed as evil, they aren't really safe even when they get here.
sabibe
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's the exact wording of the tweet
quote:
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
I know I'm a foreigner and it's not my constitution, but aren't the judiciary and the legislature also part of 'our country'? And doesn't the President have a duty to uphold the constitution? Or am I missing something?
quote:
I wonder if, during the vetting process, Neil Gorsuch will be asked for his professional opinion of the EO and the Seattle injunction? I think the injunction ruling, and maybe a few others, will be at the Supreme Court for resolution.
Is that a permissible question? Doesn't he have to answer "You should not be asking me this question. This case is sub judice. Besides it would be improper for me to answer without hearing all the submissions".
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's the exact wording of the tweet
quote:
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
I know I'm a foreigner and it's not my constitution, but aren't the judiciary and the legislature also part of 'our country'? And doesn't the President have a duty to uphold the constitution? Or am I missing something?
I don't think so, but sabine and I have been musing about whether POTUS actually gets the very point you make. Preserving, protecting and defending the constitution of the United States includes respect for and recognition of the responsibility of the separate powers - in this case the judiciary.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]I wonder if, during the vetting process, Neil Gorsuch will be asked for his professional opinion of the EO and the Seattle injunction? I think the injunction ruling, and maybe a few others, will be at the Supreme Court for resolution.
Is that a permissible question? Doesn't he have to answer "You should not be asking me this question. This case is sub judice. Besides it would be improper for me to answer without hearing all the submissions".
Oh I'm sure Gorsuch would use that defence, but the public statements of POTUS, the ridiculing of Judge Robart and his ruling, might well be argued as opening the door to such questioning. POTUS is on record as not respecting the separate power of the judiciary to determine, at Supreme Court level if necessary, whether POTUS has acted in accordance with the constitution he has sworn to uphold.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Oh I'm sure Gorsuch would use that defence, but the public statements of POTUS, the ridiculing of Judge Robart and his ruling, might well be argued as opening the door to such questioning. POTUS is on record as not respecting the separate power of the judiciary to determine, at Supreme Court level if necessary, whether POTUS has acted in accordance with the constitution he has sworn to uphold.
But once he's nominated, does the President get to play any further part in the process that leads up to confirmation or rejection of nomination? It would seem rather irregular if he did.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You ask my response: I was in tears all day last Saturday. I head up our church's team doing refugee resettlement. It was heart-breaking. On Sunday my son & I marched with the protestors at LAX. Due to the congestion of the protestors, we needed to park offsite and walk in. While we were still 2 blocks away, part of a gathering crowd walking to the protest, I was already in weeping. There was amazing support, not only among the protestors, but even among the motorists and travelers whose commute was being hampered by the protests, who would honk & wave or give thumbs up (never the other finger-- a rarity in LA!). When we joined the main protest (4000 people), it was peaceful, very cooperative with the LAPD, who were professional and helpful. Travelers who were arriving were the most inconvenienced (helpfully the LAPD had positioned us away from departure level), yet seemed supportive-- many stopped to take video, join our chants, or explain to children that this is what democracy was about. It was an incredible moment of solidarity.
My 2 seconds of fame was when there was a lull in the led chants as we happened to be walking by AirCanada. I suggested we cheer for Justin Trudeau, who has pledged to take ALL the 90,000 some refugees we are refusing. I expected just the people around me to join in, but soon a large group of maybe 100 or so joined in cheering Trudeau.
Young Trudeau has promised nothing of the kind. Pissing off Trump when he wants to renegotiate NAFTA is not on, it would not be on under any Prime Minister. Altering NAFTA is a throat blow to the Canadian economy.
The only thing Canada has actually done is take in a few medical cases that needed surgery not available in their own countries.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There appears to be a similarity with events in the UK following Brexit when aspects of Brexit were brought before the courts. The assumption by some that the results of a vote trump the rule of law - indeed anyone seeking the clarity of the law were "anti-democratic". The same rejection of the role of the courts in clarifying the extent of the powers of the executive seem to be in play in the US.
Though in the UK our political leaders didn't join in the popular dismissal of the role of the courts, whereas in the US it seems the new President is set on leading the dismissal of the courts.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You ask my response: I was in tears all day last Saturday. I head up our church's team doing refugee resettlement. It was heart-breaking. On Sunday my son & I marched with the protestors at LAX. Due to the congestion of the protestors, we needed to park offsite and walk in. While we were still 2 blocks away, part of a gathering crowd walking to the protest, I was already in weeping. There was amazing support, not only among the protestors, but even among the motorists and travelers whose commute was being hampered by the protests, who would honk & wave or give thumbs up (never the other finger-- a rarity in LA!). When we joined the main protest (4000 people), it was peaceful, very cooperative with the LAPD, who were professional and helpful. Travelers who were arriving were the most inconvenienced (helpfully the LAPD had positioned us away from departure level), yet seemed supportive-- many stopped to take video, join our chants, or explain to children that this is what democracy was about. It was an incredible moment of solidarity.
My 2 seconds of fame was when there was a lull in the led chants as we happened to be walking by AirCanada. I suggested we cheer for Justin Trudeau, who has pledged to take ALL the 90,000 some refugees we are refusing. I expected just the people around me to join in, but soon a large group of maybe 100 or so joined in cheering Trudeau.
Young Trudeau has promised nothing of the kind. Pissing off Trump when he wants to renegotiate NAFTA is not on, it would not be on under any Prime Minister. Altering NAFTA is a throat blow to the Canadian economy.
The only thing Canada has actually done is take in a few medical cases that needed surgery not available in their own countries.
Well, he certainly said something similar to that here. In reading the actual statement as quoted by PBS I see it's not quite as sweeping a statement as I suggested, but that is the way it has been interpreted here, making him quite the hero, and not just to lefties like myself. I can see he may not have intended it to be quite as comprehensive as we have interpreted it, but he is certainly leaning in that direction.
[ 04. February 2017, 22:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I have come to the considered opinion that Trump truly does not understand the separation of powers. I really think he thinks of the presidency as something like the CEO of a company, the big boss, able to do almost anything he likes. He really doesn't understand that the executive branch is meant to be no more powerful than the legislative and judicial branches. I think that's part of what lead him to want to be president in the first place, the lure of ultimate power.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You ask my response: I was in tears all day last Saturday. I head up our church's team doing refugee resettlement. It was heart-breaking. On Sunday my son & I marched with the protestors at LAX. Due to the congestion of the protestors, we needed to park offsite and walk in. While we were still 2 blocks away, part of a gathering crowd walking to the protest, I was already in weeping. There was amazing support, not only among the protestors, but even among the motorists and travelers whose commute was being hampered by the protests, who would honk & wave or give thumbs up (never the other finger-- a rarity in LA!). When we joined the main protest (4000 people), it was peaceful, very cooperative with the LAPD, who were professional and helpful. Travelers who were arriving were the most inconvenienced (helpfully the LAPD had positioned us away from departure level), yet seemed supportive-- many stopped to take video, join our chants, or explain to children that this is what democracy was about. It was an incredible moment of solidarity.
My 2 seconds of fame was when there was a lull in the led chants as we happened to be walking by AirCanada. I suggested we cheer for Justin Trudeau, who has pledged to take ALL the 90,000 some refugees we are refusing. I expected just the people around me to join in, but soon a large group of maybe 100 or so joined in cheering Trudeau.
Young Trudeau has promised nothing of the kind. Pissing off Trump when he wants to renegotiate NAFTA is not on, it would not be on under any Prime Minister. Altering NAFTA is a throat blow to the Canadian economy.
The only thing Canada has actually done is take in a few medical cases that needed surgery not available in their own countries.
Well, he certainly said something similar to that here. In reading the actual statement as quoted by PBS I see it's not quite as sweeping a statement as I suggested, but that is the way it has been interpreted here, making him quite the hero, and not just to lefties like myself. I can see he may not have intended it to be quite as comprehensive as we have interpreted it, but he is certainly leaning in that direction.
It was nice positioning, but it was just that. Canada's immigration programmes have not changed one bit since Trump's announcement.
It was as much hot air as his Electoral Reform promise. It was a dogwhistle, nothing more.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
More of an anti-dog whistle, since dog whistle has a racist connotation. Whatever it was, it was beautiful, and very well received here in the US
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But once he's nominated, does the President get to play any further part in the process that leads up to confirmation or rejection of nomination? It would seem rather irregular if he did.
He's already playing a part. Waving the "nuclear option" already as a means of "facilitating" Gorsuch's appointment without 60 votes in the Senate. Trump doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut in pursuit of his own agenda. Congress has to "advise and consent" and that is Congress's business, not Trump's.
Enoch, it's all part of a piece. The Democrats will use these hearings to expose further POTUS's contempt for the constitutional separation of powers. That's in play, not just over this particular ruling, but because Trump's early actions have shown either ignorance or contempt for separation of powers. Stupid man. He doesn't know how much his words have become bullets by which he is shooting himself in the foot.
I tell you, I wish I was a fly on the wall and could hear the conversations of those members of his kitchen cabinet who aren't also stupid. I should think it's getting pretty surreal in there.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
PS I think Nicolemr has summed up the situation admirably. And it may be worth pointing out one more thing.
The penultimate sentence in the Robart order says this.
quote:
The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfil its constitutional role in our tripartite government. (italics mine).
This "so-called judge", far from being "ridiculous" demonstrates clearly that he understands what Trump does not, the abiding constitutional significance of the separation of powers in determining whether presidential actions are lawful.
Now I am not enough of a lawyer to know whether he has chosen the right case to nail these particular colours to the mast. The temporary injunction may not stand up to detailed scrutiny. But that does not diminish the justifiable legal criticism of that appallingly shoddy Executive Order and its boorish, ignorant, proponent.
[ 05. February 2017, 00:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Donald seems to be under the impression that the bullying, bad-mouthing tactics he has used in his 'business' career will work in public as POTUS.
The thing is, there are sufficient millions of Americans who haven't the faintest idea about separation of powers, law-making, past immigration policy or the Muslim world that he might be right.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
As for the legal outcome in the end, I honestly don't know. In the long term it scarcely matters, because if Trump actually DOES introduce tougher vetting in a few months time, he's most likely in his rights to do so.
The stupidity is that the transition from "old vetting" to "new vetting" consists of an outright ban. We have all these glaring problems:
1. Calling a ban "extreme vetting" when it in fact abandons the vetting process.
2. Claiming it's about terrorism while only dealing with countries that haven't exported terrorists to the United States.
3. Total confusion about the application to green card holders.
4. Endless suggestions that not having the ban means free-for-all immigration, a straw man that his supporters are extremely ready to take up.
5. Casting aspersions, not for the first time, on a judge for disagreeing with him.
6. A general inability to grasp separation of powers and the limits of his office.
In many ways, this isn't even about the merits of the policy. It's about the sheer incompetence of implementing the policy.
Which is no different to some other things, including his reaction to the deal with Australia. Frequently there's an understandable basic position or issue buried underneath all the bluster, but he simply hasn't the foggiest idea about the processes for government and/or the patience to follow them.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re sending all this to the US Supreme Court:
AFAIK, the normal procedure is:
--The Supremes start their session on the first Monday in October. (There's a "First Monday In October" film (drama, not a documentary) that might be worth seeing.)
--They receive info on the cases.
--They have hearings on each one. (Some might be online, at least excerpts.) For many lawyers, appearing there is a dream.
--The next spring or early summer, they hand down their decisions, usually one by one.
Unless there's an emergency procedure, they may not be able to hear these matters right away. I don't remember how that worked for Bush v. Gore. It was wrong for them to handle it when the investigation was incomplete. But I don't know if actually hearing a case out of their usual calendar order was a technical breach.
FWIW. Here's the Supreme Court site. I'm guessing it lists the procedures.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In many ways, this isn't even about the merits of the policy. It's about the sheer incompetence of implementing the policy.
Well put. A policy to introduce tough and rigourous vetting of prospective immigrants can clearly be brought in by legal means. So far as selective application is concerned that may well be a matter of treaties with other countries.
But this EO included means of implementation which were arguably unfair under the constitution. And the Robart ruling essentially judges that there is a decent argument to be made under the constitution about that. Time will tell whether it is winnable. But all of this could have been avoided by a more patient approach to the EO.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, exactly Barnabas. The main lesson here is that Trump and his team don't have the patience to understand any nuances about what they can and can't do. Alternatively, they do understand them, and don't care.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I have come to the considered opinion that Trump truly does not understand the separation of powers. I really think he thinks of the presidency as something like the CEO of a company, the big boss, able to do almost anything he likes. He really doesn't understand that the executive branch is meant to be no more powerful than the legislative and judicial branches. I think that's part of what lead him to want to be president in the first place, the lure of ultimate power.
I strongly suspect you're right there. He wants to be where in his presence, people are terrified for their futures and he can shout 'you're fired' at them.
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
since dog whistle has a racist connotation.
Does it? I didn't know that. What is its connotation? It doesn't have it here. It means one of those little high pitched whistles that dogs are trained to carry out commands to. So its metaphorical connotation is something where as soon as it is mentioned, those who have been 'correctly' socialised automatically have the 'right' reaction, like a trained dog to its whistle.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Well that was quick! News just in, according to the BBC, is that the 9th Circuit Appeals Court has rejected the appeal by the Trump administration to uphold the EO and set aside the Robart ruling. Based on its reputation and track record, the rejection is not a surprise. It will be interesting to see the wording of the rejection.
So much for a "ridiculous ruling" by a "so-called judge". How about a "ridiculous tweet" by a "so-called President". And a "ridiculously worded EO" by a "so-called White House Administration". If the 9th Circuit judges that there is an arguable constitutional case, then the ruling is non-ridiculous. Of course Trump may up the ante, calling the 9th Circuit ridiculous too. As we know, in his own mind he is never wrong.
I suppose there is a possibility that the Trump administration may withdraw the EO for a more considered rewrite. But that doesn't sound like Trump, does it.
So the more likely solution is "Supreme Court here we come", both re the stay of the EO itself, and the constitutional arguments which gave rise to the Robart ruling to stay the EU. And there will now be an impact on the hearings to "advise and consent" re Gorsuch. This brouhaha will not have made that confirmation process any easier.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
since dog whistle has a racist connotation.
Does it? I didn't know that. What is its connotation? It doesn't have it here. It means one of those little high pitched whistles that dogs are trained to carry out commands to. So its metaphorical connotation is something where as soon as it is mentioned, those who have been 'correctly' socialised automatically have the 'right' reaction, like a trained dog to its whistle.
AIUI in politics a dog-whistle is a phrase that carries a tacit meaning for those parts of the population that it's aimed at, but which appears innocuous to those other parts of the population that would otherwise find it morally objectionable. (The important part of the metaphor is that only the dogs can hear it.) It's most usually used for coded racist or anti-immigration stereotypes since those are things that politicians other than Trump didn't admit to furthering in public.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
PS to my previous post. Apparently the 9th Circuit is prepared to hear further arguments if presented before a Monday deadline. Those arguments may come from the DoJ or from other States contesting the Robart ruling. So there may be further action in the 9th Circuit Appeals Court.
Here is the BBC link.
[ 05. February 2017, 09:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the basis of the DoJ submission was that this EO was unreviewable by the State. If so, I'm not in the least surprised that they rejected that argument straight away.
Citizens beware. Trump is seeking to undermine the press and the judiciary. Maybe he thinks he already has Congress in his pocket?
He wants to be CEO of the USA.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Surely even CEOs are accountable to their shareholders?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
That accountability is weaker than the constitutional protection. And it can be circumvented by someone of dictatorial mindset.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Indeed, as much as this episode might look like a storm in a teacup it is actually an early precedent as to just how far DT is prepared to go in implementing his own will, (and the wishes of those who voted him in of course).
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This initial ruling was only about what to do in the meantime before an actual appeal is heard. They refused to give Trump the super-quick out.
And the actual appeal is still only an appeal from the first judge's decision, which in itself was a temporary measure. It's a running battle about whether, before any substantive decision, the Executive Order gets to operate or things stay as they were until a week ago.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Barnabas62 quote:
He wants to be CEO of the USA.
Well, that is the line he took throughout the election campaign: in fact he spent a lot of time telling voters that the country should be run as if a company - and he referenced this back to what the voters had seen of him on The Apprentice. Anyone surprised at his style as POTUS so far had plenty of warning.
posted by JaneR quote:
Surely even CEOs are accountable to their shareholders?
Only if they are CEO of a public company - in other words an enterprise with shareholders. The Trump Organisation, the umbrella corporation for all of The Donald's many enterprises, is privately owned so there are no pesky shareholders to ask awkward questions and any laws relating to public companies to do with filing of financial returns, etc, do not apply. Basically, so long as you keep to the rules pertaining to things like employment law, you pretty much can do anything you like as CEO of a privately owned company. The only people likely to have a private stake are family members and they're not likely to rock the boat.
So, if The Donald is going to run USA Inc like Trump International, take a good, long look at the way he runs his companies and his relations with people who may come up against them. The outlook for USA Inc is not good.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
The point is that his oath of office does not give him permission to run the country in the same way as he has run his businesses. He's there to preserve protect and defend the US Constitution. He doesn't get to redefine unilaterally what that means.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Are trump's well repeated, specific anti-Muslim comments, and the 'how do I ban Muslims legally' statements relevant to a court case? Certainly speaks to the intent and effects of his law.
Even if something about it all is technically legal, the intent to target a group he hates seems quite clear.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The point is that his oath of office does not give him permission to run the country in the same way as he has run his businesses. He's there to preserve protect and defend the US Constitution. He doesn't get to redefine unilaterally what that means.
And from the look on his face as he took the oath, it was pretty obvious he was thinking, "Huh? What's this constitution thing everyone keeps talking about? I'M THE PRESIDENT!!!!!"
It's like the Presidency is an iceberg and he only saw the 9/10 of the President's job that is above the water. He's already looking pretty rough after only a couple of weeks.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Soror Magna
I'm sure you mean 1/10th above the water? Which would make him 90% ignorant about the office to which he has been elected.
Based on the last two weeks, that looks like a reasonable, if slightly generous, estimate.
Makes you wonder how his support team (the clued-up ones anyway) are going to have to explain the depths of his dangerous ignorance.
I mean, take this Robart thing. I'm 74, not a US Citizen, but not too affected yet by marginal brain death. But I can work out what is going on relatively easily. As can orfeo. But what we know is that it can be a hell of a job trying to put dominant alpha males straight about anything they think they know. They are used to getting their own way.
I don't envy the explainers their job.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
