Live Anti-Trump Protests from JFK Airport 01/28/2017
- Thread starter Musburger1
- Start date
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Hello Senate Supermajority 2018.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I think we will hear from the 9th Cir on this order pretty quick, maybe by Monday
But, yeah, on the previous page I gave the most recent polling -- despite all the rioting and breathless news coverage the majority still support Trump on this issue
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Here is the order of the Boston judge. Compare this decision with the Washington order and you will see why Trump will likely prevail in this matter. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent.
Second-guessing a president is for elections, not judges. The SCOTUS long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible.
http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/02/Gorton-order.pdf
Finally, in Count V, Oxfam claims that the EO has violated its First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association and petition by barring entry of aliens, including visa holders, into the United States. The United States Supreme Court, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 764, 770 (1972), explained that a denial of a visato an alien could, under some circumstances, violate a United States citizen’s First Amendment right “to receive information”. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, however, because the Attorney General provided a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for denying the alien’s visa request. In such case, the Court continued, lower courts should not look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant. Id. at 770.
.......
Here, the President has exercised his broad authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend entry of certain aliens purportedly in order to ensure that resources are available to review screening procedures and that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks. Exec. Order 13,769 § 3(c). Such a justification is “facially legitimate and bona fide” and therefore Oxfam’s First Amendment rights are not implicated. See Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 770 (concluding that the First Amendment rights of American scholars and students were not violated when a Belgian scholar whom they invited to speak was denied entry into the United States).
Although at oral argument plaintiffs directed this Court to American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 137 (2nd Cir. 2009), which held that a “well supported allegation of bad faith” could render a decision not bona fide, that is not the standard in the First Circuit. Therefore, in light of the “plenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens,”Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 769, which pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), has been delegated to the President, the Court concludes that the government’s reasons, as provided in the EO, are facially legitimate and bona fide.
Consequently, Oxfam has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to its claim in Count V. ......"
Second-guessing a president is for elections, not judges. The SCOTUS long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible.
http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/02/Gorton-order.pdf
" Count V: First Amendment claim
.......
Here, the President has exercised his broad authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend entry of certain aliens purportedly in order to ensure that resources are available to review screening procedures and that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks. Exec. Order 13,769 § 3(c). Such a justification is “facially legitimate and bona fide” and therefore Oxfam’s First Amendment rights are not implicated. See Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 770 (concluding that the First Amendment rights of American scholars and students were not violated when a Belgian scholar whom they invited to speak was denied entry into the United States).
Although at oral argument plaintiffs directed this Court to American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 137 (2nd Cir. 2009), which held that a “well supported allegation of bad faith” could render a decision not bona fide, that is not the standard in the First Circuit. Therefore, in light of the “plenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens,”Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 769, which pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), has been delegated to the President, the Court concludes that the government’s reasons, as provided in the EO, are facially legitimate and bona fide.
Consequently, Oxfam has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to its claim in Count V. ......"
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Here is the emergency motion itself (which has already failed as the 9th Cir. denied
an immediate "administrative" stay) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3452178/Stay-Motion-2-4-17.pdf
As I said above, I do not think the issue here is Constitutional (non-citizens do not have rights in the US Constitution and the ones who set foot on US soil only have limited rights). So, I do not think any of the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, or the Establishment Clause has any impact on this case. But, to be honest, the SCOTUS has never made it 100% clear on what rights non-citizens might have.
I still say this smatter will come down to the interplay of the two statutes -- 8 USC § 1182(f) and 8 USC § 1152(a)(1). But I am not going any deeper than that since no one else here seems interested (to me, its a great issue).
As to the 9th Circuit, you are correct. I actually once worked there for a period quite a bit of time ago (1980s). My judge was a Reagan appointee. He was very bright and one of the hardest working people I have ever seen. He actually leaned slightly left on social issues but conversely was tough on "law and order" issues. A great person overall.
The new cases were supposed to be divided by lottery but that is not how it really worked. In reality, the clerks for the senior judges got to cherry picks the more juicy cases. We were junior, so we got alot of crap cases. My one claim to fame while there was getting Alex Kozinski to read my brief (he famously never read briefs from other judge's clerks). But, in one particularly confusing tort case, he read from my brief out loud at oral arguments (certain phrasing was unmistakable). All the other clerks saw it too, and so I was famous .... for about 15 seconds.
In any event, in this case, this thing fell to whoever was on call for the weekend. The two on the deny order were Canby (Carter appointee) and Friedland (Obama appointee). Those two ruled against Trump. Go figure. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C34tNMYWQAAkwBf.jpg
But, it is not over. For now, the Injunction will remain in effect at least until Monday. But an expedited briefing schedule was set and we will see what happens when the Court has a full briefing. IMO, the Robart's order is so poorly written, even the liberals will have a hard time defending it, even if they want to.
Also, it seems that the quick schedule the 9th Cir set is holding off the SG from going directly to the Supremes. One other slight oddity is that the SG put his name on the cover of US' 9th Cir brief. A little out of the ordinary.
What really sucks is that the 'bad hombres' in the Middle East know all this too, and so, if the Drudge Report can be believed, they are now acting quickly to travel to the US. What are these Western judges going to have to say for themselves if any of these hombres malos shed American blood?
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
from the Asia Times
"Why Middle Eastern nations support Trump’s immigration halt" The US president's measure has had precisely the result he intended, giving succour to those engaged in an existential war against jihadist elements
"Critics of President Trump’s temporary travel ban on seven Muslim nations should remember the Chinese proverb, “Kill the chicken and let the monkey watch.”
The much-criticized measure was a warning to the governments of the Gulf States, Turkey and Pakistan, who walk a fine line between support for Western counter-terrorism efforts and concessions to jihadists. It has had precisely the result that the White House intended, as a Dubai security official indicated on January 29. As Reuters’ Zawya.com reported:
Dubai’s deputy chief of police and public security, Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, has praised US President Donald Trump’s recent decision to temporarily ban citizens from seven Muslim-majority states, saying in a series of tweets it was a ‘preventive measure’ to safeguard the country.
Counter-terrorism officials in Muslim countries contending with a jihadist minority view Trump as an ally against their domestic enemies.
More importantly, Trump has suddenly won admiration in Erdoganist circles in Turkey, who held the Obama administration in contempt. Writing in Al-Monitor, Hurriyet Daily News columnist Mustafa Aykol reports that Trump is the hero of the pro-government press, despite (or perhaps because of) the immigration halt.
Like the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Aykol observes, Turkey is relieved by Trump’s election victory. “President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the ultimate authority, has so far said nothing about the ‘Muslim ban.’ Moreover, his propaganda machine, consisting of at least 10 national newspapers, several TV channels and thousands of social media trolls, has also been unusually silent about the issue. Daily Sabah, the flagship of the pro-government empire, has been absolutely silent on the ban. Daily Star, another key newspaper, published only a small and neutral report. Daily Aksam did run a headline on the ban, but only with a subtitle: ‘He [Trump] must be given a chance.'”
....."
http://www.atimes.com/article/middle-eastern-nations-support-trumps-immigration-halt//
"Why Middle Eastern nations support Trump’s immigration halt" The US president's measure has had precisely the result he intended, giving succour to those engaged in an existential war against jihadist elements
"Critics of President Trump’s temporary travel ban on seven Muslim nations should remember the Chinese proverb, “Kill the chicken and let the monkey watch.”
The much-criticized measure was a warning to the governments of the Gulf States, Turkey and Pakistan, who walk a fine line between support for Western counter-terrorism efforts and concessions to jihadists. It has had precisely the result that the White House intended, as a Dubai security official indicated on January 29. As Reuters’ Zawya.com reported:
Dubai’s deputy chief of police and public security, Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, has praised US President Donald Trump’s recent decision to temporarily ban citizens from seven Muslim-majority states, saying in a series of tweets it was a ‘preventive measure’ to safeguard the country.
Kudos to President Trump for his brave decisions… they (these people) can only be dealt with through preventive measures,” he said in an Arabic-language tweet dated January 29 on his official Twitter account.
“Trump banned the citizens of countries in the embrace of Iran and prevented the Iranians from entering… sound decision,” he added in another tweet…. “It is not necessary for America to host backward people, it has received enough before,” he said in one tweet. “What would a Yemini, Iraqi, Iranian, Somali or a Syrian do in America? They have destroyed their countries, they should not destroy America.”
“Trump banned the citizens of countries in the embrace of Iran and prevented the Iranians from entering… sound decision,” he added in another tweet…. “It is not necessary for America to host backward people, it has received enough before,” he said in one tweet. “What would a Yemini, Iraqi, Iranian, Somali or a Syrian do in America? They have destroyed their countries, they should not destroy America.”
Counter-terrorism officials in Muslim countries contending with a jihadist minority view Trump as an ally against their domestic enemies.
More importantly, Trump has suddenly won admiration in Erdoganist circles in Turkey, who held the Obama administration in contempt. Writing in Al-Monitor, Hurriyet Daily News columnist Mustafa Aykol reports that Trump is the hero of the pro-government press, despite (or perhaps because of) the immigration halt.
Like the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Aykol observes, Turkey is relieved by Trump’s election victory. “President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the ultimate authority, has so far said nothing about the ‘Muslim ban.’ Moreover, his propaganda machine, consisting of at least 10 national newspapers, several TV channels and thousands of social media trolls, has also been unusually silent about the issue. Daily Sabah, the flagship of the pro-government empire, has been absolutely silent on the ban. Daily Star, another key newspaper, published only a small and neutral report. Daily Aksam did run a headline on the ban, but only with a subtitle: ‘He [Trump] must be given a chance.'”
....."
http://www.atimes.com/article/middle-eastern-nations-support-trumps-immigration-halt//
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Authoritarian regimes are relieved by Trump's victory? Whew! I was worried that water was no longer wet.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
That is the precise attitude of the Obama people that directly led to the regrettable conditions in Syria, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
and Iraq and Afghanistan. I've never said that Authoritarian regimes in some settings are bad. I vociferously argued on this board that Sadam remaining in power was in our best interest to avoid the inevitable breakdown between the various factions that had been at war in the ME for centuries before Hussein came into power.
Now, Authoritarian regimes supporting Trump who demonstrates authoritarian tendencies is not a surprise. That's a different point then the one you are trying to pin on me.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Starbucks is offering immigration legal advice to all employees. It appears that Howard Schultz, CEO and Co-founder of SBUX is already starting his 2020 Presidential campaign. As a former employee of Starbucks (8.5years) he'd have my vote based on my interaction with him in the corporate office. I've never worked for a company that was run as well as SBUX was under his leadership. There were decisions he made that I thought were crazy at the time that turned out to be right in retrospect.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I agree that this issue is interesting, but only to lawyers (and even then, only to some of us). I'm not an expert in immigration law to any extent, but this issue seems to lean heavily in Trump's favor.
I agree that SCOTUS opinions do not clearly say which rights depend on lawful US presence, which depend on US presence, and which are available to everyone. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
I don't understand this. The people impacted by the travel ban already had visas or green cards. There is no reason to think there are bad hombres who had valid visas in hand but were biding their time waiting to come here at some future date.
The media will say it for them..."President Trump created these bad hombres with his mean, mean policies. DJT created these terrorists."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
That is the way libs seems to analyze the legal issue
(1) Is it mean?
(2) Is legal/Constitutional?
(3) Will it be effective?
The liberal media has invested almost 100% of its time on #1
But I think the American people look at the same issue in the complete reverse order
(1) Will it be effective?
(2) Is legal/Constitutional?
(3) Is it mean?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I will concede Iraq. We had no choice on Afghanistan.
On Iraq, I would put W in the same pot with the Clintons and even Obama.
Trump is from a different pot
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Oral arguments right now at the 9th Circuit .....
Several are live tweeting -- Clifton is a very good appellate judge. but he is just one of three on this panel
USSG?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
US Solicitor General, my guess.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 0
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
