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

My question is what's the point of packing all the bans, pauses, and restrictions in one executive order?

It seems like this only gives opposing litigation the chance to win on one or a few minor aspects and stay the whole thing.

Why not just modify sticking points and break the last one apart into precise EO's.

For example, one EO specifically halting accepting Syrian Refugees until a more thorough vetting system is in place.

There's plenty of testimony from intelligence officials saying they aren't comfortable with the vetting procedures. There's plenty of ISIS statements they are/plan to infiltrate the refugee population.

Wouldn't a challenge to that specific EO only have arguments there is no threat and/or the President doesn't have the authority to do so? It seems that would be a slam dunk for the WH to defend.
 
Sounds like Trump is at least considering simply re-writing the visa suspension EO and re-issuing it. Maybe he sees the difficult path ahead on this appeal for now (as I wrote about above)
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ontroversial-travel-ban-order-sources-n719356

If he does this - it may put the 9th Circuit in check. Indeed, it puts them in a box.
It would make the previous EO moot (pulling the rug out on the current litigation)
The way you craft it would be to track the 9th Cir's ruling -- for example, exempt students -- make it effective immediately (today!) and send it to DHS. As of this moment, I think this is what they are going to do.

There are alot of problems with appealing this case. One is that Kennedy will be the first Justice to look at it (he is Californian). Another is there are only 8 of them rights now. Worst of all, this case has a bad casefile. The record is poor. To win at the SC level, you want the best set of facts possible. Our side does not have this in this current case. Solution? - go back and build a better one.

A new EO will probably be challenged again, but this time, we are on solid ground. Why? The new EO will haven adjusted to comply with the 9th Cir ruling. It is still possible the Distr Court and even the 9th Cir again rule against you BUT at the SCOTUS level it is a slam dunk. Even Ginsburg and wise latina are part of that unanimous decision 8-0.

Put the 9th Cir in a box. This is how you turn a loss into a win.
 
Last edited:
Another pressing question for our times:

If a Progressive ideology falls in the United States, does anybody hear it?

Answer: Yes, everyday on CNN and through their flunky, fake news, ideological brethren.
 
Joe Fan said:
Sounds like Trump is at least considering simply re-writing the visa suspension EO and re-issuing it. Maybe he sees the difficult path ahead on this appeal for now (as I wrote about above)......
Click to expand...

This action^ is consistent with this \/
 
OK, so one judge on the 9th Cir made a sua sponte request for further briefing. Which means an en banc hearing is still possible. As mentioned above, in most Circuits an en banc hearing is all the judges (which is a good reason they are rare). But the 9th Cir is so large they break it up into 3 panels of 9 or 10 judges. So, just like the original appeal, it is a crap shoot on who would be on the panel.

Nonetheless, this is sort of perfect for the White House as it gives them two weeks to think through the next step. I am sticking with my idea from this morning of just issuing a new EO. But we will see.


C4Vr9K3UcAElbfW.jpg


http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto.../General Orders Final Sept 7 2016.pdf#page=50
 
Why did a 9th Cr Judge make a sua sponte request for an En Banc hearing?

The White House had already signaled that it would not seek to push the appeal either to the SCOTUS or via en banc. The WH was willing to go back to the District Court.

So why did this happen? Originally I suspected that it may have been Kozinski because he LOVES to bury court liberals with scathing dissents. He is a particularly effective writer and I have little doubt he wanted to explain to them all the dumb things they have done here. But the sua sponte motion came several hours AFTER the WH announced its intentions. This means it probably was not Kozinski, or any other conservative.

So it was probably a liberal judge. Why? He/she wanted to retain control -- to keep the case at the 9th Cir level. In this condition, the case can linger. For a long time even. If the case were remanded back to the District Court (Robarts) then that court has full control again. And Robarts would set a schedule for it to proceed.

What is probably going on here is this -- the 9th Cir liberals realized Trump may simply issue a new EO. The libs want to retain control so they can issue another ruling on the new EO, without another Distr. Ct hearing. This will also allow the 9th Cir. first shot among all the circuits at issuing a ruling on the new EO. If the matter went back to Robarts, then he would hear the full case and quite likely modify the scope of his earlier order. The 9th Cir. libs dont want that to happen.

Another possibility is that a lib 9C judge perceived a weakness in the original per curiam written opinion and wanted a chance to shore up the weak part. The 9th Cir has done this before.

How will Trump respond? I think they will withdraw their appeal (voluntary cessation). They will then repeal and replace the EO. In this sequence, I dont know if Robarts will retain the case or not. He may, and it does make some sense that he would, but we will have to see on that.

While I think the 9th Cir was wrong about students and green card holders, if Trump excludes them i the new EO, then the standing argument based on these claims is eliminated. The burden would then fall on the opponents to show visa applicants with zero connections to the United States (like refugees) have the necessary standing. From a litigation perspective, Trump would be in a better posture this way.

Anyway, I am guessing. This is a high level appellate poker game. But the consequences of this game to the people of the United States are high.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 against Trump.
Click to expand...

Ok, so now that appellate attorneys have had a chance to pour over the 9th Cir written opinion, it is now clear it has multiple flaws
-- They misquoted Supreme Court case law (Kerry v. Din) in a key part of the ruling dealing with due process rights of non-citizens
-- They also fabricated a distinction that does not exist with another case (Kleindienst v. Mandel)
Possibly fatal flaws
 


I have never heard of this man until I saw a bit of him on Fox News. His comments are on point, in my opinion. I grew up in a household of Republican parents, and kind of drifted in that direction. However, I'm what I think of as a political mutt as I don't agree fully with Rs or Ds down the line.
After listening to what may very likely be a simplified definition of "classic liberal" I feel like that is where I stand politically.
Who knew?
 
Hollandtx said:


I have never heard of this man until I saw a bit of him on Fox News. His comments are on point, in my opinion. I grew up in a household of Republican parents, and kind of drifted in that direction. However, I'm what I think of as a political mutt as I don't agree fully with Rs or Ds down the line.
After listening to what may very likely be a simplified definition of "classic liberal" I feel like that is where I stand politically.
Who knew?
Click to expand...


Interesting. Most true classical liberals "self-identify" as modern conservatives and have for a while. There hasn't been much commonality between classical liberalism and the American progressive movement for a very long time. Even when they invoked liberal ideas like free speech on college campuses in the 1960s, it was a means to an end, not an actual principle they believed in. That's why on the modern campus where they're in charge, they suppress free speech and thought far more than their predecessors (whom they protested) ever did.

Frankly, there was always a fundamental conflict. Specifically, it's darn near impossible to reconcile being a true liberal (meaning somebody who respects freedom and liberty) and also favoring an activist government that seeks to dictate social and economic justice.

Along the same lines as the video, here's an article by a liberal gay guy who "came out" as a conservative basically because he couldn't stomach the lack of true liberalism and intolerance of free thought in the modern Left.
 
Hollandtx said:
...I have never heard of this man until I saw a bit of him on Fox News. ....
Click to expand...

Joe Rogan sometimes flies the same way
If you have time and have not seen, watch his recent interview of Alex Jones
A bit of a mind-bender -- hard to describe ..... it's long but entertaining

 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Interesting. Most true classical liberals "self-identify" as modern conservatives and have for a while. .....
Click to expand...

I can easily get this issue back to the judiciary.

The way the left changes the meaning of words to suit their own purposes is wrong and needs to be stopped. Here, they subverted the original meaning of the word "liberal." Which used to be a good word, a great word, a yuge word. But then the lefties took it over for themselves. They perverted it, changed the definition of it right before our eyes (for those of us who have lived long enough to see it happen). And our wretched media went along with this (just like they go along with whatever else new definition of a word the left wants).

Now, liberal is a sad word. So sad. So sad that even modern liberals dropped it by the side of the road. They moved onto "progressive" -- which was also once a very good word But now they are now bastardizing it, ruining it forever. In the world of words, lefties are like a horde of locusts. They fly in, destroy everything, then leave. They leave a literary dust bowl in their wake.

This is why they cannot be allowed the judiciary. When words have no meaning, laws become meaningless. The law becomes whatever they want it to be (at the time). This is the root of the issue with justices/judges who believe in the idea of a Living Constitution. They think they are superior, more evolved, better thinkers and, thus, can substitute their modern judgment for those of the Founders. Change the Constitution to suit their imminent need. Situational ethics rule the day. I say, so goes the Constitution, so goes the US. People who want to bring the US down several notches (Soros holla) realized long ago that in order to do that, you must first erode the Constitution.
 
Dave Rubin is one of the fairest Dem interviewers I've watched.

If you have an hour I highly suggest watching his interview with Larry Elder.

It's one of the best discussions I've heard on issues facing AA's today and how to combat them with conservative ideals. I wish every AA would listen to Elder's wisdom on this subject (starts around 21:54 mark), the guy is beyond impressive.

 
Last edited:
Do y'all think we are heading the way of Germany with 3 parties?
I know many of my friends feel the same way as these pundits. The left has gone nuts, and the hard core right is heading that way, or has arrived. Lots of people "held their noses" and voted for a candidate that they didn't truly support this election. Could someone create a party of like-minded people, and if so, who would be some of the candidates?
I don't know if it would be good or bad for the US, but it's something I think about.
 
Hollandtx said:
Do y'all think we are heading the way of Germany with 3 parties?
I know many of my friends feel the same way as these pundits. The left has gone nuts, and the hard core right is heading that way, or has arrived. Lots of people "held their noses" and voted for a candidate that they didn't truly support this election. Could someone create a party of like-minded people, and if so, who would be some of the candidates?
I don't know if it would be good or bad for the US, but it's something I think about.
Click to expand...

Germany has more than 3 parties. It has the center-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the center-Left Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens, the nationalistic (anti-EU, anti-Eurozone, and anti-Islamic immigration) Alternative for Germany (AfD), Die Linke (the old East German communists), the economically liberal Free Democratic Party (FPD), and the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD). The FPD and the NPD don't currently have any seats in the Budestag (the German Parliament), but people do vote for them.

We'll never have that many sigificant parties in the US, because of the wasted vote issue. The presidency and members of Congress are all elected on a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post basis and in individual races, so if your candidate doesn't get the most votes in one of those races, you get nothing. In such a system, there's a tremendous incentive for people of somewhat similar ideologies to unify into one party and not to split their votes. That's why the Libertarians and Greens can't get any traction, and its why some of us took a bunch of flack for not voting for Trump.

Germany doesn't work that way. The Bundestag has single member districts (which I think make up about half of the Bundestag), but people also vote for a political party. If that party gets over 5 percent of the vote, it is guaranteed to get seats in the Bundestag no matter what happens in the individual districts. If the numbers don't add up, they'll just expand the size of the Bundestag to make them add up. Well, it's a heck of a lot easier to convince people to ditch the two major parties (the CDU and the SPD) if a minor party only needs 5 percent to get into the parliament rather than having to win head-to-head contests outright as they do in the US. Furthermore, it's assumed that like-minded parties will form coalitions to create majority governments. For example, if you're a hardcore environmentalist, you can vote Green rather than SPD, and so long as they got over 5 percent, you're going to get representation. Furthermore, if the SPD and Greens can command a majority in the Budestag, they'll form a coalition to install a SPD government and chancellor. The Greens won't get the chancellorship, but they'll have some of their people in powerful positions and can pull the SPD toward more environmentally-friendly positions.
 
Interesting new poll -- shows voters overall, and Hispanics in particular, back President Trump's latest immigration moves.
-----------------------------

56% of Hispanics "approve of President Trump’s EO to end 'catch and release' and make the deportation of illegal immigrants who are criminals a top priority
31% of Hispanics disapprove

69% of all voters approve of this program
21% disapprove
-------------------------

46% of Hispanics approve cutting off federal funds to sanctuary cities, or cities that violate federal law by not cooperating with immigration officials
43% disapprove.

59% of Americans overall want federal funding cut to such lawless cities
29% disagree
-------------------------------------

57% of voters overall back Trump's refugee pause from the 7 countries designated by Obama
37% disapprove

http://mclaughlinonline.com/pols/wp.../National-SAN-Memo-Survey-findings-2-6-17.pdf
 
Last edited:
"Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” originate from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.

Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.

Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...judge-halted-trumps-order-come-5-terror-prone

refugee-graph.jpg
 
2010-2015: 5,008,000 migrants let into US.
Turkey next with 2,000,000.
In 2016 the US admitted ~60% of the world's refugees.
 
Joe Fan said:
You read it here first (almost a week ago)
Click to expand...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/...mtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/PC3dt8jxjd

“Rather than continuing this litigation,” the Justice Department’s brief said, “the president intends in the near future to rescind the order and replace it with a new, substantially revised executive order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns.”
*******
In its brief, the Justice Department urged the appeals court to await the new order and then vacate last Thursday’s decision.
 
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