homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » US Immigration control - the legal battle (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: US Immigration control - the legal battle
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
"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: 5297 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
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.

It might be relevant, yes, because in some circumstances the purpose of a law is relevant to its legality.

Including, I think, some of the US law on due process and equal protection. You can have some impact on people's rights so long as you have a justifiable reason for it.

The fact that there had been no terrorist attacks in the US emanating from the 7 countries in the list definitely came up in the hearing in Seattle, because of the claimed purpose of preventing terrorism.

I get the distinct impression that the courts would be inclined to accept that purpose, and that's probably why it's the one the government is officially using, but then the courts are likely to say there's no evidence the executive order is achieving that purpose.

[ 05. February 2017, 20:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Won't it depend on US federal law whether the background and rationale behind the Executive Order can be taken into account or whether it must be construed strictly on its actual words, the effect they have, and whether the action is within or without the President's powers under the Constitution?

In England and Wales, this works differently for statutes from the way it does for executive decisions under delegated powers. There's a whole body of law which has developed dealing with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of the latter, a lot of it within my lifetime. It's litigated frequently and with enthusiasm. However, that's our system. The US is quite different. Even the language I'm using may be incomprehensible to a US lawyer.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7161 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh I think any POTUS has wide powers to write an E.O. on an issue of National Security. He just hasn't got absolute authority to write any old piece of crap and argue that it must be enforced because he says so. There is some scope, not necessarily spelled out, for quality control provided it does not frustrate the purpose of the E.O. This feels like it might be a test case and I can't see it stopping before the Supreme Court has a say.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fundamentally, the question is whether something becomes a matter of National Security just because the President says it is a matter of National Security.

One of the most significant cases in Australian legal history, back in the 1950s, said that the Communist Party of Australia didn't become a threat to the defence of the nation just because it was asserted that it was a threat to the defence of the nation. You couldn't "recite yourself into power" in that way.

The most memorable line from the case was that the power to make laws with respect to lighthouses was not a power to make laws with respect to anything that Parliament said was a lighthouse.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I shall be interested in the further arguments made on both sides.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955

 - Posted      Profile for beatmenace   Email beatmenace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Trump is an ignorant, bullying asshole. Mind you, that's just my opinion.

Its good that we can make space for all kinds of minority opinions on the Ship. I doubt you will find many agreeing with you.

--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)

Posts: 291 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Beatmenace, here on the Ship you will find plenty agreeing with that sentiment.

-----------------------------------

Anyway, what I'm curious about right now is that the government clearly attempted to argue that this was a "foreign relations" matter.

Now around here, that would be complete nonsense. What I'm wondering is whether there is any US law that says it isn't complete nonsense in the US.

So far, I can't find anything. What I've found so far indicates exactly what I would have assumed, that "foreign relations" refers to things like diplomacy, ambassadors, treaties and the like. I can't find any sign, other than the government's argument, that it has anything to do with admission of individual foreigners into the country.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955

 - Posted      Profile for beatmenace   Email beatmenace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Beatmenace, here on the Ship you will find plenty agreeing with that sentiment.


You missed me being intentionally facetious!

I think so as well.

--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)

Posts: 291 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Beatmenace, here on the Ship you will find plenty agreeing with that sentiment.

-----------------------------------

Anyway, what I'm curious about right now is that the government clearly attempted to argue that this was a "foreign relations" matter.

Now around here, that would be complete nonsense. What I'm wondering is whether there is any US law that says it isn't complete nonsense in the US.

So far, I can't find anything. What I've found so far indicates exactly what I would have assumed, that "foreign relations" refers to things like diplomacy, ambassadors, treaties and the like. I can't find any sign, other than the government's argument, that it has anything to do with admission of individual foreigners into the country.

If you'd like to see the administration's case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a web page with a collection of documents. The argument for the president's authority starts on page 3 of the "Emergency motion for stay".
Posts: 1985 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
admission of individual foreigners into the country.

Surely, by it's very nature, a measure which classifies people solely by nationality (regardless of how arbitrary and illogical the selection of nationalities is) then we're no longer really talking about individual foreigners.

If the new President had seen evidence that some people passing the existing vetting process were still presenting a threat within the US - though, surely, if there was such evidence there wouldn't be a need to fabricate stories about Bowling Green - and, therefore, decided that the vetting process needed to be enhanced to detect the identifiers for those people that would be a different argument. Assuming, of course, that having enhanced the vetting process it was then applied to all regardless of nationality. That would be a targetted measure against individuals posing a potential threat to the US.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31866 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The law cited as legal authorization for the Executive Order is 8 USC 1182 (f):
quote:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


Posts: 1985 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the cite to the statute, Dave W. That is a helpful starting point for showing how this works.

So the President does have the power to suspend entry from certain classes of aliens.

However, that power is checked by the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. If a law targets a protected class (like a law banning immigration or entry for citizens of certain countries), it must survive strict scrutiny. That means that the government has to show that there is a compelling state interest at issue, and that the targeting is necessary to further the compelling state interest.

From the little I have read and seen from the litigation, it seems like the Trump administration is arguing that there is a compelling state interest in protecting the homeland from terrorism, and that this ban is necessary to further that interest.

The counter-argument is that the ban is not necessary to further the interest.

I can see where specific intelligence of actual terrorists trying to enter the United States from, say, Sudan might justify a temporary ban of entry from Sudan. But it seems like, absent this kind of actual known threat, the courts are seeing this as something that is not necessary to further the interest of national security.

(As to the intent, I don't think that will be relevant in this case. There is a question of discriminatory intent when you have a law that is facially neutral but which a plaintiff argues is discriminatory in fact. But when a law or action singles out a protected class specifically, it is presumed unconstitutional, unless the strict scrutiny test is met.)

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3084 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
admission of individual foreigners into the country.

Surely, by it's very nature, a measure which classifies people solely by nationality (regardless of how arbitrary and illogical the selection of nationalities is) then we're no longer really talking about individual foreigners.

If the new President had seen evidence that some people passing the existing vetting process were still presenting a threat within the US - though, surely, if there was such evidence there wouldn't be a need to fabricate stories about Bowling Green - and, therefore, decided that the vetting process needed to be enhanced to detect the identifiers for those people that would be a different argument. Assuming, of course, that having enhanced the vetting process it was then applied to all regardless of nationality. That would be a targetted measure against individuals posing a potential threat to the US.

No, I still think we're talking about individuals, just individuals defined by a class. When people turn up at the airport or the immigration desk, they are individuals that the rules are being applied to.

And indeed, the problem here is that the individuals are being defined by a class that takes insufficient notice of people's characteristics. The choice of class is not rational.

The characterisation of the law matters because the government doesn't want to have to face the scrutiny that Og is talking about. They want to say the courts simply can't look into such matters.

[ 06. February 2017, 19:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Several former government officials and CEOs have filed a Friend of the Court brief against Trump's ban. I've tried three times to paste the link (to a Huff Post article re: blowback) but for some reason I'm not having success. The jist of the brief is that many immigrants are / have been leading researchers, artists, entrepreneurs.

ETA: I tried several times and couldn't seem to get the link to work here. An article about the brief is currently on the front page of the Huffington Post under a title about ban blowback

sabine

[ 06. February 2017, 20:08: Message edited by: sabine ]

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5786 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Beatmenace, here on the Ship you will find plenty agreeing with that sentiment.

-----------------------------------

Anyway, what I'm curious about right now is that the government clearly attempted to argue that this was a "foreign relations" matter.

Now around here, that would be complete nonsense. What I'm wondering is whether there is any US law that says it isn't complete nonsense in the US.

So far, I can't find anything. What I've found so far indicates exactly what I would have assumed, that "foreign relations" refers to things like diplomacy, ambassadors, treaties and the like. I can't find any sign, other than the government's argument, that it has anything to do with admission of individual foreigners into the country.

If you'd like to see the administration's case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a web page with a collection of documents. The argument for the president's authority starts on page 3 of the "Emergency motion for stay".
What's interesting to me here is that at times they refer to foreign affairs, national security and immigration, as 3 distinct topics, and then other times the "immigration" bit mysteriously drops off. Do a search for the term "foreign affairs" in the document and you'll see where it loses its companion.

Which I find interesting because to me it's quite clear that "immigration" has been the big issue. Something I view as quite distinct to "foreign affairs".

They do cite at least one case from the 1950s which, if the quote isn't horribly out of context, seems to agree with mixing it into one big pot.

[ 06. February 2017, 20:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm still on whether a law like this has to be reasonable or not. Does it merely have to meet technical legal requirements?

We're told that some of our professional decisions have to meet a standard of any reasonable person, and some have to meet the standard of typical informed professional.

Does any sort of standard apply? I was considering the readily available information that it isn't reasonable because of the leaving out of countries which have actually produced terrorists and the inclusion of countries which haven't. This would appear to make the law unreasonable to the lower of the standards of any informed person. But perhaps the courts don't have this sort thing there?

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10636 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
admission of individual foreigners into the country.

Surely, by it's very nature, a measure which classifies people solely by nationality (regardless of how arbitrary and illogical the selection of nationalities is) then we're no longer really talking about individual foreigners.

If the new President had seen evidence that some people passing the existing vetting process were still presenting a threat within the US - though, surely, if there was such evidence there wouldn't be a need to fabricate stories about Bowling Green - and, therefore, decided that the vetting process needed to be enhanced to detect the identifiers for those people that would be a different argument. Assuming, of course, that having enhanced the vetting process it was then applied to all regardless of nationality. That would be a targetted measure against individuals posing a potential threat to the US.

No, I still think we're talking about individuals, just individuals defined by a class. When people turn up at the airport or the immigration desk, they are individuals that the rules are being applied to.
Well, of course, people present themselves at immigration as individuals. But, individuals are defined as an intersection of a wide range of class characteristics - nationality, religion, age, education, gender ... That intersection of classes is unique for each individual, once you have an adequate number of classes to consider. If you treat people as individuals then you consider all the different classes that describe them. When you only consider one class (eg: nationality) then they are no longer seen as individuals but representatives of that class.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31866 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When you only consider one class (eg: nationality) then they are no longer seen as individuals but representatives of that class.

And this is why I think trying to treat it as "foreign relations" is wrong. An Australian ambassador is a representative of Australia. I am not.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm still on whether a law like this has to be reasonable or not. Does it merely have to meet technical legal requirements?

If it targets a protected class (the argument is that it targets people by country of origin) the government must show that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. Which is actually quite a bit more stringent than reasonableness.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3084 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I did like this.

Sometime later today, I guess we will find out just how much the judiciary has "got this".

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the judges on the appeals court hearing the case today was a refugee.

sabine

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5786 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I listened to the oral arguments and this is going to be a close call. The counsels for both sides had a few holes shot in their arguments. Listening to the appeal judges, I don't think they were in agreement with one another.

[ 08. February 2017, 00:39: 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: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
One of the judges on the appeals court hearing the case today was a refugee.

sabine

Well, you can bet what Trump will say about that if he doesn't get his desired ruling.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For any of you who may wish to hear the oral arguments and the questions of the appeal justices, here is a link.

For those of you who don't have the time, by common consent, Flenje for the DoJ (who I understand was a late substitute) didn't do a very good job, Purcell for Washington State did better.

I think Purcell lost the argument that the E.O. transgressed the Establishment Clause, i.e. that the E.O. was, by wording or intent, discriminatory on religious grounds. That doesn't rule out a continuation of the stay simply to avoid a further period of chaos re rollout, but that chaos could be removed by some wording modifications re scope.

If there was any sense in the Trump administration, they would avoid the Supreme Court and fix the scope and rollout problems by other means. A week's consultation about the best way of doing that would probably be a lot quicker than going for some kind of "victory" in the Supreme Court.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If there was any sense in the Trump administration, they would avoid the Supreme Court and fix the scope and rollout problems by other means. A week's consultation about the best way of doing that would probably be a lot quicker than going for some kind of "victory" in the Supreme Court.

Yeah, but see, Trump's Executive Orders are the Best. He's got the Best Executive Orders. They can't possibly be improved upon. They're so amazing, even he's impressed by how good they are. Only liars will say different.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We've made Executive Orders great again.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7161 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
New American immigration test

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16393 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Many conservative religious leaders weigh in against the executive order.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5193 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thought some people here may like this explaination of the significance of Execuitve Orders.
Posts: 1866 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the wider issue of Trump's attacks on the judiciary, there are now 3 D's in place. Gorsuch has confirmed his observation that they are 'demoralising' and 'disheartening'. An open letter to the DoJ from many lawyers has characterised these attacks as 'destructive'.

The problem now is the increased politicisation of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision. I think this gets to the Supreme Court if they keep the Robart order in place. But I'm no longer clear what the constitutional basis would be for continuing the stay.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
AIUI, what happened was that the first instance judge granted what we'd call an interlocutory injunction, an order to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing. The experience here is that such decisions are very hard to overturn on appeal; even harder is obtaining the special leave necessary to appeal to the High Court (our equivalent of SCOTUS).

Of course, US jurisprudence may well differ. Is anyone able to give an informed comment please?

[ 09. February 2017, 09:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6521 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Judge Robart made the order because he thought that there was a good chance that the case against the EO was winnable in a full hearing. The appeal court is free to take a different view, overturn Robart.

It's no longer clear to me that the case is winnable on constitutional grounds. I think it's a terrible EO but that doesn't mean the President lacks the authority both to issue it and clarify its application. If the Establishment argument fails, and I'm sure it does, what's left looks pretty thin.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If the Establishment argument fails, and I'm sure it does, what's left looks pretty thin.

Why are you so sure this argument fails?
Posts: 1985 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
After listening to the oral evidence, I realised there was a clear distinction between Trump's pre election anti-Muslim promises and the content of the EO. There was a key exchange with Purcell where he acknowledged that even if the President had an intention to establish a religious preference, the EO was not the vehicle to use to do that. He did argue that further disclosure might provide more evidence of real intent. But that seemed to me to be more an argument to be used about a different EO.

Plus the argument on selectivity was the powerful evidence that the seven countries chosen were a particular security risk, as the Obama presidency had argued. Not just because they were majority Muslim countries.

[ 09. February 2017, 18:38: 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: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Two further developments.

1. There will be a ruling today before close of court business.

2. There are moves by Republicans to split up the 9th Circuit 'on the grounds that it is too big and too slow'. These moves have of course nothing to do with its liberal reputation ...

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the court has ruled, siding with the judge who overturned the ban. [Smile]

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11587 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A 29 page ruling, apparently, and a repudiation of the DoJ appeal. No doubt the ruling will be available to read shortly. The geek in me can't wait to see!

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's right here. A pretty thorough rejection of the case for an emergency stay; the court doesn't say the government might not win its case at a later stage, I don't see any place where they offer particular reasons for them to hope they might.

The court said the university interests gave the states' standing; the EO is reviewable, despite the national security aspect; the government hasn't shown that it's likely to win on the Due Process Clause claim (views reserved on the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims); there's no reasonable way to limit the scope of the TRO; balance of hardships is in the states' favor given the absence of evidence of harm from the government and abundant evidence from the states.

[ 09. February 2017, 23:00: Message edited by: Dave W. ]

Posts: 1985 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They also came down hard on the administration's line about the courts having no jurisdiction. At one point they stated no evidence was provided on one aspect because the only thing the government lawyers said was the court must not review the EO.

Pretty damning stuff this.

Going to SCOTUS of course.

[ 09. February 2017, 23:47: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]

--------------------
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: 5013 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Dave. I've read the ruling now. A bit late here, so I'm going to sleep on it. My gut feel is that it is bold!

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20753 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096

 - Posted      Profile for simontoad   Email simontoad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trump's tweet was a pisser - SEE YOU IN COURT!

It's like he didn't expect to lose at this stage, and is so surprised that he's tweeeting in angry caps. I find this very very funny.

The other thing is that he seems to be saying to the people who constituted the court in this case that he's going to see them in court. Or he might be saying it to the Attorneys-General who are bringing the action, and they're the top legal officers in their respective states.

Personally, I'm not very excited about the prospects of this matter on its merits. I'm guessing, and I have read none of the materials, that maybe people with valid Green Cards will be excluded, and maybe people who are citizens of other countries as well as those listed will be excluded.

I'm also a bit wobbly on whether the ban is about Islam, or about the capacity of the American Department of Immigration (can't remember what you call it) to satisfactorily investigate the background of migrants from these countries, on the basis that the Governments are hostile to US interests or are too chaotic to be of any use. The key point here is the exclusion of countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, on the basis that there is a strong and multilayered relationship between the US Govt and their Governments ( It seemed to take ages for the Administration to cotton onto this argument).

Please don't misunderstand me. I loathe Trump and his executive order. They are appallingly harsh, take no account of individual circumstances during the period of the ban and are inspired by racism. It's just that courts apply legal principles, not political ones. That's why demagogues hate an independent judiciary.

--------------------
The opinions expressed above are transitory emotional responses and do not necessarily reflect the considered views of the author.

Posts: 831 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm also a bit wobbly on whether the ban is about Islam, or about the capacity of the American Department of Immigration (can't remember what you call it) to satisfactorily investigate the background of migrants from these countries, on the basis that the Governments are hostile to US interests or are too chaotic to be of any use.

The whole problem is that the Trump administration is extremely wobbly on this as well.

If you have a ban, it doesn't enhance your ability to satisfactorily investigate the background of migrants. It removes the need to investigate them at all.

There is a lack of a rational connection between the text of the order and the stated aims of the order.

[ 10. February 2017, 05:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18017 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

There is a lack of a rational connection

I think you've found the motto for the Trump administration.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16393 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
simontoad--

{This wanders a bit, but does arrive somewhere.}

Re Jordan and Saudi Arabia:

AIUI, they've been friends of the US for a long time, in a region that doesn't like us much. Much/most of that is about oil, AFAIK. ("Frienemies" might sometimes apply.) The late King Hussein of Jordan also worked with the US as a peace-maker in the region.

OTOH, some of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. (Not sure about Jordan.) When the last 38(?) pages of the 9/11 report were released in the last couple of years, it looked like Prince Bandar might be implicated--fundraising, IIRC. And he's so close to the Bush family that he's nicknamed (by them, I think) "Bandar Bush". So more and more complications.

AIUI, Pres. Obama chose those seven countries because of situations at that time. From what I've heard, T is constantly comparing himself to Obama, and trying to do what O did--and go further. Maybe because he's really not up to the job, didn't really want the *job*, didn't expect what's involved, and is clueless as to what to do, now.

Putting aside the question of whether T really means anything he says, for longer than it takes him to say it: During the campaign, he repeatedly talked about banning Muslims. So I think the immigration exec. order is meant to fulfill that.

I think it's also possible that he never intended to really do it, because he never thought he'd win. (A couple of days ago, I posted--I think it was on this thread--a link to an article where his long-time friend Howard Stern says similar things about T not wanting the job, and only wanting NBC to pay him more for his "Apprentice" show.)

So he's in a job he doesn't want, possibly doing things he doesn't truly believe in.

I wonder if it would do any good to gently point out to him the immigrants in his family: Melania, Ivana (1st wife), mother from Scotland, and grandparents from Germany. And his grandfather was scared of possible ill feelings towards Germans from Americans, so he pretended the family was Swedish. IIRC, T didn't know the truth until he was an adult. If he could get even a glimmer of that, then he ***might*** back off a bit.

FWIW, etc.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17453 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, this is what I posted on the election aftermath thread, and mentioned above:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting perspective from a long-time friend of Trump:

"Howard Stern Claims Donald Trump Wants Hillary Clinton to Be President." (Yahoo)

Lots of other insights.



--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17453 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What I find hilarious is Mr Trump complaining that judges are political. Er ... wasn't a major factor in his election his ability to nominate a conservative judge to the Supreme Court?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7048 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, but judges who agree with him are Right and True. The other bozos are Political and Wrong. (A view shared by many people about judges who agree with them.)

The same goes for "stacking the Supreme Court". People want Supremes that hold the views they want them to hold. So a Democratic president will use openings on the bench to put a liberal or moderate judge in. The reverse for Republicans.

We're at a point where several elderly Supremes could retire or die. That would give whichever president a chance to stack the court, providing Congress confirms the nominated judge. IMHO, it would be a very bad thing if Trump and the Republicans get a chance to do that. May the current Supremes, even the conservatives, be well--and may the Notorious RBG live long and prosper! (Rollling Stone)

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17453 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'The decision immediately set off a political firestorm on both sides of the aisle. Donna Brazile, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, celebrated the decision in a statement. “This is a massive blow to the White House. The court upheld that we do not discriminate based on religion. That is what terrorists do, and what terrorists want us to do.”

Exactly.

I think the judges have him tied up in knots. He won't understand half of the ruling - if he can read it to the end without exploding and running to twitter [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12427 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Golden Key:
quote:
Ah, but judges who agree with him are Right and True. The other bozos are Political and Wrong. (A view shared by many people about judges who agree with them.)
That reminds me of a throwaway line from a Michael Flanders monologue "Our council is strictly non-political. They're all Conservative."
Posts: 3780 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools