I don't understand on what's being reported as to what the judge based throwing it out on?
Was the order:
- not in the realm the president could issue an order on? On the surface, determining who does/doesn't get visas seems something very "state department" like, thus seems legal on the surface.
- did its scope exceed something from 1? I have no idea. Anybody?
- based upon an illegal criteria? Like you couldn't say... Ban Muslims. Anybody from certain countries, yes, but not some of the other criteria... maybe. If they're not IN your country, they don't get the protection of your constitution either, and thus... I dunno?
OK sure, but customs officers can more-or-less do that as parts of their job. They report "I think they're lying because X, Y, Z" and because (usually) there's no recording, that'll just stand up as it is. So from a practical perspective I don't see it as a difference.
Legally, I see where you're coming from, but I've seen little focus on things like this.
Dave
Staff member
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ad-to-be-reminded-he-wasnt-the-president.html
Grain of salt and all that, but if accurate I'm fucking ecstatic that Mattis and Kelley are in the positions they are.
Grain of salt and all that, but if accurate I'm fucking ecstatic that Mattis and Kelley are in the positions they are.
If this is accurate that Trump decided to halt executive orders until a better process was formed with more White House group input, it says a couple things. One, Trump is learning. Two, Bannon was writing all those EOs and Trump was just signing them, with this change in course signifying a drop in trust of Bannon.
A smart move would be to lay everything from the last two weeks as Bannon's fault, whether or not that's entirely true. It's what the Republicans would do to Trump, but Trump could undercut this by dropping it all on Bannon. It'd only piss off the alt-reich, and Nazis tend not to be favorites of either side of American politics.
Well apparently even Bannon started to believe it, which is both hilarious and scary.
It's a whole bunch of really bad, rich people manipulating a total fucking moron puppet into tearing down American democracy to establish their own right wing Fourth Reich.
Weren't they turnign away visa and green card holders? And no one had any idea what to do with double citizenship holders?[DOUBLEPOST=1486309151,1486308594][/DOUBLEPOST]
Hes not... its all just one of those coincidences where money shows up in your account for no reason after u do someone a favour...
I've seen some talk online about a 1965 law which says the US government can't refuse someone a visa based on "race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence". OTOH I'm not sure what the scop of Presidential EO's are - can they overrule laws like this? Certainly most talk about the judge throwing it out seems to imply it's being thrown out over a Constitutional issue which suggests this law isn't a factor.
Yeah, but they are more concerned with raping the poor and middle class of the little bit of wealth they have while placating them with tax cuts.
Fine, and if that's it, then OK (law or constitution, the Prez should have to obey both, except when CHANGING the law, which isn't an EO by my understanding), but where is that being reported?
And can't refuse due to nationality? That seems like a GREAT reason, such as if you're at war with a country, it's enough of a reason on its own to disallow. So such a law seems... unlikely. If it is, then OK, but still, that was during the cold war. Something tells me that grounds to refuse (not automatic necessarily) would be that you were from the USSR. Thus why unlikely.
So... what is the reason? That it isn't widely reported seems very weird. For example, if a criminal case is thrown out, it would be on "tainted evidence" or whatever, not just "we like this guy, so we're letting him off." Or convicting her because she's an asshole. Both not legit reasons.
The best I've seen so far is "this harms people, so we're suspending it." That's not a LEGAL reason.
http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al
You can view the ruling yourself there. Basically, they are saying the ban targets people based on religion, which is unconstitutional.
Scientology?
Well, shit.
Republicans sure love states right... until they dont: In Friday's case, the Justice Department had argued that states did not have the authority to challenge a presidential executive order.
Dave
Staff member
He said religion not "scamming business cult".
Heh. The judge denying Trump's appeal was a Dubya pick.
Oh and hey, this link rather answers @Eriol's question as to why the court halted the ban:
This answers it to my satisfaction. The 1965 law. Good enough. Thanks. A lot of other reporting had more moral and not legal arguments. I'm still surprised (hence my comments above about the USSR at the time) but I 100% believe that it's the law for you guys.
Putting the quote back because replying strips it (which is good btw, infinite-quote-reply boards get annoying, though if two-deep was an option, I'd rather have that, but now we're WAY off-topic)
That doesn't make sense to me. I thought under your system an applicant basically doesn't HAVE rights, because they're not "in" your country yet (hence even for citizens being subject to search when you guys theoretically have a right to privacy). Once they're legally in, then they have legal rights, but not before. So that argument wouldn't hold a lot to me, but the articles linked above by @mroosc1979 are 100% OK. End-run around laws is bad. Get them changed if that's what you want.
Thanks for engaging me on this guys. I appreciate it.
An interesting read: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/thelegacyofthe1968riots
Of course those riots also lead to Nixon passing laws that helped black people, as i recall...
Of course those riots also lead to Nixon passing laws that helped black people, as i recall...
Pro-Trump protest going on today. There's nearly a HUNDRED people there. A HUNDRED, you guys!
A hundred, you say?
Meanwhile elsewhere in NY, a subway train car was graffiti'd with swastikas over all the ads, maps, etc., and the people on the train got together and cleaned it off themselves.Sean Spicer said:
I feel this needs to be posted here more than anywhere else:
Man, Melissa McCarthy really killed that. And curse you, I was going to post that in the awesome videos thread when I got home (which is now)
To be fair, I sat on it for about eight hours
.SNL had a busy night. I'm sure this won't be the last we see of Steve "Skeletor" Bannon.
That's Mr. President to you.
