PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on June 26, 2018, 07:30:09 AM
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html
-
another big, big win. This is why the SCOTUS appts are so important. Had Clinton won, the court would swing to the left, she would never had introduced sane measures to restrict terrorist from the ME and we would be awash in more death and destruction by muslims.
I think it is in fact a muslim ban(despite only representing 8% of muslims in the world), and I'm ok with that. If they can ever learn to play nice, and get along, we'll let them back in to the big boy game. Until then, they can continue to supply the real world with oil, and STFU.
-
another big, big win. This is why the SCOTUS appts are so important. Had Clinton won, the court would swing to the left, she would never had introduced sane measures to restrict terrorist from the ME and we would be awash in more death and destruction by muslims.
I think it is in fact a muslim ban(despite only representing 8% of muslims in the world), and I'm ok with that. If they can ever learn to play nice, and get along, we'll let them back in to the big boy game. Until then, they can continue to supply the real world with oil, and STFU.
It's not a "Muslim Ban" as depicted by the MSM and mouth foaming progressives.
It's a travel ban for citizens of various countries (terror based) and the ban does not in any part single out religion as part of the ban.
-
It's not a "Muslim Ban" as depicted by the MSM and mouth foaming progressives.
It's a travel ban for citizens of various countries (terror based) and the ban does not in any part single out religion as part of the ban.
OK, doesn't matter to me, but everyone of the individuals who are restricted from entry are muslims. The religion of the nations in the ban are about 90% muslim. The defense is that not all muslims are covered, and it's a bit wink-wink, nod-nod. Oh well, does the job so again, I'm ok with it.
-
OK, doesn't matter to me, but everyone of the individuals who are restricted from entry are muslims. The religion of the nations in the ban are about 90% muslim. The defense is that not all muslims are covered, and it's a bit wink-wink, nod-nod. Oh well, does the job so again, I'm ok with it.
That's just inane bullshit.
-
OK, doesn't matter to me, but everyone of the individuals who are restricted from entry are muslims. The religion of the nations in the ban are about 90% muslim. The defense is that not all muslims are covered, and it's a bit wink-wink, nod-nod. Oh well, does the job so again, I'm ok with it.
It may not matter to you, but it mattered to the Supreme Court. The predominant religion in those countries is irrelevant and you even noted in your first post (which was taken from the opinion) that these countries only represent about 8% of Muslim nations worldwide. By the way, Obama put Venezuela on that same list, but I'm not hearing much uproar over that one.
What's significant about this ruling is that SCOTUS ruled based on the merits. In other words, they ruled based on what was written in the executive order and the laws currently written that delegate this authority to the president. They didn't consider his campaign rhetoric or tweets or anything else because they don't matter. Imagine the impacts this would have potentially had in the future.
The easiest way to change this is for Congress to pass a veto-proof bill into law. Congress gave the president this authority and all he's doing is exercising it. Many presidents have used this Congressionally-approved authority; Trump isn't the first.
-
Kind of a one-trick pony, aren't ya?
The travel ban was directly related to states which harbor or sponsor terrorists. The fact that all of them are muslim is the sad truth that says what it says.
-
Kind of a one-trick pony, aren't ya?
The travel ban was directly related to states which harbor or sponsor terrorists. The fact that all of them are muslim is the sad truth that says what it says.
The bolded part is what is key and important. The rest of it is irrelevant. I notice you didn't say anything about Venezuela.
-
It may not matter to you, but it mattered to the Supreme Court. The predominant religion in those countries is irrelevant and you even noted in your first post (which was taken from the opinion) that these countries only represent about 8% of Muslim nations worldwide. By the way, Obama put Venezuela on that same list, but I'm not hearing much uproar over that one.
What's significant about this ruling is that SCOTUS ruled based on the merits. In other words, they ruled based on what was written in the executive order and the laws currently written that delegate this authority to the president. They didn't consider his campaign rhetoric or tweets or anything else because they don't matter. Imagine the impacts this would have potentially had in the future.
The easiest way to change this is for Congress to pass a veto-proof bill into law. Congress gave the president this authority and all he's doing is exercising it. Many presidents have used this Congressionally-approved authority; Trump isn't the first.
Lets not forget that the terrorist ban was re-written 3 times because the first two were unconstitutional. Strange enough, I thought the first one was the best, and Trump should have stood on that one all the way to SCOTUS. It's my opinion that the re-writing is actually a slight victory for the left because they got to control the narrative, and further limit and restrict definitive exec power in the constitution. Now, pretty much all exec orders relating to intl domain are subject to judicial review with a much lower bar of evidence. Recall the 'pen and phone' president, did anything he wanted, including ignoring immigration policy without any kind of judicial review(DACA). I can't see this as anything except a strategic gain by liberals who want to control the power of the president for decisions which have prev been in the clear purview of the exec branch.
Frankly, put in the larger context, Trump blew it by bowing to fed judicial pressure and re-writing the initial ban. He should have told the courts to go pound sand, and let them stew. If the 9th circus(or whatever it was that ruled against him) doens't like how he treats our friends and enemies, they can call out the army and do something about it. Oh - wait.... hahahaaa!
-
Lets not forget that the terrorist ban was re-written 3 times because the first two were unconstitutional. Strange enough, I thought the first one was the best, and Trump should have stood on that one all the way to SCOTUS. It's my opinion that the re-writing is actually a slight victory for the left because they got to control the narrative, and further limit and restrict definitive exec power in the constitution. Now, pretty much all exec orders relating to intl domain are subject to judicial review with a much lower bar of evidence. Recall the 'pen and phone' president, did anything he wanted, including ignoring immigration policy without any kind of judicial review(DACA). I can't see this as anything except a strategic gain by liberals who want to control the power of the president for decisions which have prev been in the clear purview of the exec branch.
Frankly, put in the larger context, Trump blew it by bowing to fed judicial pressure and re-writing the initial ban. He should have told the courts to go pound sand, and let them stew. If the 9th circus(or whatever it was that ruled against him) doens't like how he treats our friends and enemies, they can call out the army and do something about it. Oh - wait.... hahahaaa!
I agree he should have not rewritten it and kept as is. But he could have rewritten it to permit everyone who wanted to come from those hellholes into the country, and some left coast judge would have ruled that it didn’t go far enough because the “immigrants” weren’t granted first class seats on their flights to the US.
-
Lets try to deal with what he did. He rewrote it, and then the MSM learned that he could be twisted. So - he rewrote it again, took a lot of the teeth out if, and got the watered down shit we have now.
Everyone here talks with giant, massive balls. But when it comes down to reality, Trump got played, and it's a legacy now.
-
Lets try to deal with what he did. He rewrote it, and then the MSM learned that he could be twisted. So - he rewrote it again, took a lot of the teeth out if, and got the watered down shit we have now.
Everyone here talks with giant, massive balls. But when it comes down to reality, Trump got played, and it's a legacy now.
And some here talk constant rambling incoherent bullshit.
-
And some here talk constant rambling incoherent bullshit.
I can use small word for you, if needed. As for rambling, some big things need more than 1 sentence to asplain. I could just say 'Trump got played', but, you would not know why. Of course, I gave reasons, but - you still don't get it.
-
I can use small word for you, if needed. As for rambling, some big things need more than 1 sentence to asplain. I could just say 'Trump got played', but, you would not know why. Of course, I gave reasons, but - you still don't get it.
Whatever Skippy.........
-
I can use small word for you, if needed. As for rambling, some big things need more than 1 sentence to asplain. I could just say 'Trump got played', but, you would not know why. Of course, I gave reasons, but - you still don't get it.
You are right. You explained it, but I still don't understand how you think Trump got played. He negotiated. He started out with a strong position that stood little chance of passing. He did some give and take and came up with the best bill he could. That is NOT getting played. That is getting something done instead of getting nothing done.
I can now imagine the day when N. Korea comes off that list, thanks to Trump.
-
You are right. You explained it, but I still don't understand how you think Trump got played. He negotiated. He started out with a strong position that stood little chance of passing. He did some give and take and came up with the best bill he could. That is NOT getting played. That is getting something done instead of getting nothing done.
I can now imagine the day when N. Korea comes off that list, thanks to Trump.
What bill? These are exec orders, not Congressional bills. There is no passing, but they are subject to judicial review.
-
You are right. You explained it, but I still don't understand how you think Trump got played. He negotiated. He started out with a strong position that stood little chance of passing. He did some give and take and came up with the best bill he could. That is NOT getting played. That is getting something done instead of getting nothing done.
I can now imagine the day when N. Korea comes off that list, thanks to Trump.
Well, to start with, this wasn't something under BO that would have to 'pass' any kind of judicial or congressional review. The constitution gives sweeping power to the prez in only one area, and that is foreign relations, including CinC of the armed forces when so formed. There is also about 230 years of precedent to work with of standing exec orders that determine who is, and who isn't allowed to come and go, and what happens to immigrants withing our borders. To whit - I give you FDR exec order 9066 which de facto, and de jure(by SCOTUS review) put thousands, and thousands of immigrants, and even some US citizens in prison for years, absent due process.
Compared to order 9066, Trump's first, second, and third exec order dealing with restrictions on visits, or immigration, or visas for people from other countries should have been a slam-dunk, no questions asked, shut your fucking mouth(liberals) easy-peasy enforcement. Note that exec order 9066 was carried out, action was taken, people were imprisoned, all before there was a lawsuit against it. AND, when there was a lawsuit against it - the suit was filed by a US citizen, who suffered actual damage, and had something called 'standing' to apply for redress of grievances. AND when it was heard, the SCOTUS backed up exec order 9066(whutchotalkinboutwillis?), and found it was a lawful order! WTF?!
The exec order 9066 spawned Korematsu v US president. The ruling found for the US, and the wording of the conclusion was important because it was limited to the 'validity of the executive to issue such an order, and did the effect of such order was NOT an issue under consideration'. This means - the SCOTUS found the specificity of the ORDER by the exec was within the purview of the office of the prez, and they did not consider the violation of Korematsu to be displaced on the basis of his human rights.
Now, given this ruling, I as an amateur legal goober could have walked up the steps of SCOTUS, tossed down the precedent setting ruling on the authority of the order, notwithstanding the validity of it's outcome on non-US citizens, and won a classic verdict, using a deeply flawed previous SCOTUS decision. The victory would be - so, so sweet! Use the SCOTUS mistake against them, to do the right thing in the end.
Next, we take up the same type of orders signed and implemented by both Clinton, and BO(I'm not going to look them up) dealing with almost the exact same type of orders, with a very similar type of result. I could stand in the well of the court, and ask Sotomayer or Ginsburg; 'can you, with a straight face - tell me that the SAME orders written by a democrat are at the time legal, but at this time when written by a republican, with ample justification are now illegal?' (Jurists hate shit like that, double standard and all) It would be - glorious.
But no, Trump looked at the MSM screaming about non-citizens, and everyone in opposition, and backed off. This was a mistake, in so many ways it's hard to count. I'm guessing he wasn't willing to stick his neck out that far, even though he was right on the law. Now what do we have? We have a dissolution of the almost unrestricted exec order powers WRT foreign relations. Now that he's rolled over, just about anything to do with foreign relations is subject to judicial review, even when there is NO STANDING(unlike Korematsu where there was clear standing). It expands the powers of the court, and restricts the powers of the exec, and specifically a conservative exec, who is doing the right thing for all Americans, even if it causes suffering, or loss of access for non-citizens.
Trump is the prototypical next-quarter CEO. He thinks of the next decision, the next labor report, the next GDP. He's not a strategic thinker past his own limited term. Which means, he knew he could get a watered down version of his order through, but there was a question on the first one, due to a couple ill-chosen words in it. If a re-write was necessary(it wasn't), simply to remove those offending words would have done it. Rather - he had a lawyer completely gut several of the sections which dealt the most powerful parts of the order's implementation, namely the immediate suspension of any kind of visa from those muslim nations.
So, yes - Trump got played, not bad, and not tactically. His restrictions on entry are being enforced, and the results of the court will hold up what he wrote - the third time, but in the larger picture, and for future execs, it sets a bad(or maybe good?) precedent. It all depends on which side of the political side one is in favor of at the time an exec order is written. What is perfectly clear is that the unfettered exec order power has a nasty little notch in it, that was not present in 1942, 1983, 1993/4, or 2014.
Whew! That's gonna cause someone to blow a gasket here. Sorry!(not really)
-
What bill? These are exec orders, not Congressional bills. There is no passing, but they are subject to judicial review.
You are right, I shouldn't have called it a bill. But even an EO needs to pass muster with the SC and any lower Federal court that takes the case and rules against him. And also in this case, if the the likes of Reid and Pelosi don't like the EO (and of course they won't if Trump executes it), they can tie up other unrelated stuff until he rescinds or changes it. The more they don't like it the bigger tantrum they throw. So even an EO needs to be negotiated to some extent. Of course though it wasn't always like this.
-
Ectually, 'lower fed court' should not have been, and should not ever be able to review an order from the president. Inferior courts are named as such for a reason. The circuit courts of the US are only to review cases within their district. An exec order affects ALL judicial districts. The only peer review for an exec order would be the SCOTUS. More to the point, any lower court making a ruling on a exec order is moot. I can argue that by simply ignoring their decision, and continuing on as planned. The inferior court would then appeal the dismissal/ignore of their order to SCOTUS. Which - would be an interesting canon of legal procedure for the SCOTUS to sort out. The argument for the 9th(or whatever) circuit would be; "He isn't playing fair!" There's nothing special about the individual fed circuit courts that can hold an order of the president. Perhaps if one got all of the circuit courts to sign on to a joint decision, it might carry weight, but of course - that would never, ever happen.
-
After eight years of a pussy supreme court, it is good to see a President that has the brains and balls to do what he has to do to get good things done. The idea that he should see himself as dictator, like the traitor obama, is stupid.
He had to work with the framework in place and still got it past the supremes. Since his name isn't obama, that is quite hard.
-
It’s very concerning that so many of these cases passed by a mere 5-4 majority. The travel ban, for example, should have been 9-0 or at least 8-1, if all the justices gave a damn about the Constitution and laws passed by Congress giving the president broad authority over immigration and other Executive Branch matters. Instead, these leftists want to be the final backstops for legislators, effectively trying to create a 4th branch of government.
-
It’s very concerning that so many of these cases passed by a mere 5-4 majority. The travel ban, for example, should have been 9-0 or at least 8-1, if all the justices gave a damn about the Constitution and laws passed by Congress giving the president broad authority over immigration and other Executive Branch matters. Instead, these leftists want to be the final backstops for legislators, effectively trying to create a 4th branch of government.
Another reason we are so lucky Felonious Von Pantsuits didn’t get elected.
-
Another reason we are so lucky Felonious Von Pantsuits didn’t get elected.
That was a major reason to vote against her, no matter who the Republican candidate was.
-
I'm hoping like hell this 'Occupy ICE' thing gets more play, and is endorsed by some Dem congress. We need to get Dems to start standing up for or against the occupy ICE movement. I want them on the hook for endorsing that.
Overall, it's been a fine week for the constitution and individual rights.
-
More interesting reading on the SCOTUS ruling.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/27/supreme-court-s-travel-ban-decision-sends-incredible-and-clear-message-to-lower-federal-court-judges.html
Also before the court was the question of whether the district court below exceeded its authority by issuing a court order with universal scope, covering all affected foreigners regardless of whether they had any connection to the plaintiffs – the state of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and three people whose foreign relatives were affected by the ban. Roberts noted that, because the ban was upheld, it was "unnecessary to consider the propriety of the nationwide scope of the injunction."
Nonetheless, Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion to address the issue of universal injunctions – also called "nationwide" or "national" injunctions – which by definition prohibit the enforcement of a federal law against everyone, rather than just the plaintiffs before the court. Thomas noted that such court orders "have exploded in popularity" recently and "are legally and historically dubious."
The frequency of universal injunctions, which were unknown before the middle of the 20th century, increased markedly in President Obama's second term, as states and individuals went to court to challenge the executive overreach born of his “pen-and-phone” strategy.
A further increase has occurred since President Trump's election, with universal injunctions providing an important tool for federal judges whose anti-Trump opinions make one wonder if they've joined the Resistance.
In addition to the travel ban litigation, a notable example is the San Francisco U.S. District Court judge who used of a local case to issue a nationwide injunction against President Trump's order ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA).
This is not to say that universal injunctions are never appropriate. Occasionally an injunction needs to be nationwide to afford full relief to the specific plaintiffs in a case. But as a general rule, such court orders pose a real danger to the legal system, the separation of powers and democratic principles.
As Thomas pointed out, these "injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."
Universal injunctions are also undemocratic, allowing a single unelected U.S. District Court judge to set policy for the entire nation.
"For most of our history, courts understood judicial power as fundamentally the power to render judgments in individual cases. They did not believe that courts could make federal policy," Justice Thomas said in his concurring opinion.