Live Anti-Trump Protests from JFK Airport 01/28/2017

One of the key figures behind the anti-Trump protests in Portland, Oregon has been taken into custody and is facing sexual abuse charges after a police investigation into his relationship with a teenage boy.

Micah Rhodes, a ring-leader of Portland’s Resistance that led disorderly anti-Trump protests, The 23-year-old activist is a registered sex offender and was previously arrested for disorderly conduct during the anti-Trump protests after the election.

Along with these accusations, Rhodes is also accused of having sex with an underage female, which he admitted, while he was being held on January 25.

http://koin.com/2017/01/30/portlands-resistance-co-leader-charged-with-sexual-abuse/
 
C3lm15_UEAAZjrf.jpg
 
Doesnt it seem like it is always tough for lefties to make a rational sounding argument without lying about the facts?


C3m0iaqVYAAOLEk.jpg
 
"Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies!

Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror: See https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th...ns?overview=closed&q={"roll-call-vote":"all"}

Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days

At present, only three of the countries — Sudan, Syria, and Iran — are designated as state sponsors by the State Department. At the time Democrats agreed to the ban in 2002, the State Department also included Libya and Iraq in that list. Although Libya and Iraq were on the list due to the presence of Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein as sponsors of terror, there is actually more of a reason to cut off visas now. Both are completely failed states with no reliable data to vet travelers. Both are more saturated with Islamist groups now than they were in 2002. The same goes for Yemen and Somalia. Neither country is a state sponsor of terror because neither has a functioning governments. They are terrorist havens.

Thus, the letter of the law already applies to three of the countries, and the spirit of the law applies to all of them. Plus, the State Department could add any new country to the list, thereby making any future suspension of visas from those specific countries covered under §1735, in addition to the broad general power (INA 212(f)) to shut off any form of immigration. Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days ......."
https://www.conservativereview.com/...es-that-law-still-exists#sthash.f1IJXaSW.dpuf
 
"Exclusive: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees"

"Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints.

"We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that," FBI Agent Gregory Carl, director of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), said ...."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131
 
Apparently the Feds did not learn. That story from 2013 is bookend ed by the testimony from DHS in 14 15 and this y they have no idea where thousands of visa holders are.
DHS testified this week they still do not know.
 
Last edited:
Life can imitate art.
But here it's taken to a new extreme.
It's like this guy was the model
Of course, you must first reverse the angry poltics

C3uFFpvVMAEElPw.jpg


C3uFFpuUYAIrDkj.jpg


C3uFFpzVMAAh1Yo.jpg


C3uFFpvUEAAESUY.jpg
 
However .... another case in another court went the other way

This one is a TRO

The state is the plaintiff. They argue the EO violates
-- the EP and due process clauses of the 5th.
-- the establishment clause of the 1st.
-- several federal laws around immigration and religious protection.
The first two are easily dismissed, IMO. If they have anything at all, it will lie with federal statute. Quickly whether Section 1152(a) wholly supplanted 1182(f), despite no evidence on its face that it did. There is no conflict between those sections of Title 8 (they can be read together). And, IMO, even if there were conflict (unlikely), the President would still have this power under the Constitution (in matters involving foreign threats to national security).

 
Last edited:
I've had more time to look at the Washington case --
Suit was filed Jan 30
DOJ replied Feb 2 with 34-page brief arguing the state lacked standing, the state cannot bring a parens patriae action, the state was unlikely to prevail on the merits, it has shown no irreparable harm, and that any relief must be limited to plaintiff states.
Here is the DOJ brief, if interested

 
Last edited:
On Feb 3, after a hearing, the district court issued a nationwide injunction, barring implementation of the EO.

The PDF of the order is 7 pages, but the analysis is threadbare
There is one paragraph describing the procedural background
There are two paragraphs which recite the standards for granting a temporary restraining order (your basic copy-paste boilerplate).
And the actual legal analysis lasts just two paragraphs

wash1.png

wash2.png
 
Last edited:
This order has no actual legal analysis. It basically just repeats the headers of the Washington brief

One of the requirements for a TRO is that plaintiff show it is likely to succeed on the merits. But this court did not look at this at all.

The standing argument is handled summarily with parens patriae, but courts have rejected this principle since Massachusetts v. Mellon (262 US 447) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5313340915719913598&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
See also Virginia v. Sebelius https://origin-www.bloomberglaw.com...belius_656_F3d_253_4th_Cir_2011_Co?1486223051

Bottom line, this court did not explain its ruling. The analysis is conclusory, with little to no substance. The judge only wrote a single sentence about the standing question. The judge did not explain why the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits. He did not write a single word about plaintiff's arguments on Due Process, Equal Protection, Establishment Clause.

Judges have a duty to explain their rulings, even when the case is fast-moving, far-reaching and may involve Constitutional issues. The judges in the cases in Boston and Brooklyn had more of an excuse here, since they had to throw together overnight rulings. But this judge had several days to write something.

As Hamilton explained in The Federlist No. 78: The judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" having"neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Meaning = they MUST explain themselves. This judge failed that duty. As a result, the higher courts will be in a tough spot since they cannot know what the judge was thinking (how can an appellate court decide whether to uphold an injunction if they do not know why the judge issued the injunction?)

This order is going up to 9th Circuit right now. The SG is also supposed to be preparing a request for emergency stay to Kennedy/SCOTUS. Here is what i think will happen -- if the 9th Cir refuses to stay the order, the issue will get to the SCOTUS pretty fast. Where, as you will recall, there is presently no 5th tie-breaking vote.
 
Last edited:
Some more polling on this issue

Rasmussen -- likely voters (Jan 31-Feb 1, after the protesting/rioting started)
“The federal government has banned refugees from all countries from entering the United States for the next four months until there is a better system in place to keep out individuals who are terrorist threats. Do you favor or oppose such a ban?”
The majority -- 52% favored
43% opposed
6% unsure

By political affiliation --
82% of Reps approved of the refugee freeze/ 15% disapproved
54% of Indies approved/ 40% disapproved
22% of Dems approved (over 1 out of ev 5 Dem) / 71% opposed

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...e_middle_east/most_still_favor_refugee_freeze
-----------------------------
These numbers are buttressed by an earlier poll that showed a majority of all voters want a dramatic reduction of immigration into the US. This was from a non-partisan poll taken before Election Day

54% of voters would like to see immigration levels halved or reduced to zero
58% agreed illegal aliens should not be allowed to stay in the US at all
http://cis.org/camarota/survey-highlights-popularity-of-immigration-enforcement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top