Travel ban cockup

Testiclaw · Post by **Testiclaw** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:32 am

Oh, good.

Now, second: what reasons did U.S. District Judge Ann M. Donnelly offer for her decision, and, how does it compare to the handful of other federal judges with later Stays?

And, third: what background do you offer that would make your submissions more reliable or accurate or knowledgeable than a U.S. District Judge?

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:35 am

I think your suspicions are unwarranted. This is part of an incredibly aggressive plan. Attention is drawn to this and away from other things and he has highlighted the nature of the opposition and achieved a significant movement rightward of the Overton Window on the issue.

As you know, there was nothing illegal about the order, and no admin official has argued anything other than voluntary change.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:38 am

To be fair, the Judge's rejection was of only one part which should be obvious to anyone who understand due process...not only the card holder's but the thrid party sponsor's due process rights.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:38 am

Testiclaw wrote:Oh, good.

Now, second: what reasons did U.S. District Judge Ann M. Donnelly offer for her decision, and, how does it compare to the handful of other federal judges with later Stays?

And, third: what background do you offer that would make your submissions more reliable or accurate or knowledgeable than a U.S. District Judge?

You state the reasons and ruling and provide a link for everyone to judge.

How was it illegal?

I am an att'y who has worked primarily in appellate practice for the past ten years.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:40 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:To be fair, the Judge's rejection was of only one part which should be obvious to anyone who understand due process...not only the card holder's but the thrid party sponsor's due process rights.

What due process rights are implicated by the EO?

Testiclaw · Post by **Testiclaw** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:41 am

Wait, wait, an attorney who doesn't understand the right to due process?

Testiclaw · Post by **Testiclaw** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:42 am

Hearing? Equal Protection?

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:43 am

Holy shit...are you serious, B?

Read the injuction arguments

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:43 am

Explain it to me. It may help in my work.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:48 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Turdacious wrote:At this point, we don't really know if this was a mistake they'll learn from (and by mistake I mean not anticipating what the courts would do, and the embarrassment this would cause the administration) or a sign of things to come.

We don't know...but we suspect....

As a long time enjoyer of Breitbart (hey..I like a diversity of tawdry media) putting Bannon on the NSC? for fucks sake....That would be a shit idea even if he were a National Front operative.

Key difference- this series will run for four to eight seasons.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:59 am

The 1952 immigration act under sec 182(f) provided broad authority to the President to suspend entry. Nothing in the 1965 imm act removed that power. Not the non-discrim clause (1152a) and not anything else. Therefore, the President has power granted to him by Congress to ban entry of any non citizen.

Thus, the only possible argument against the EO, that Congress is the only party who can delimit terms for naturalization etc, is irrelevant because they granted that power to the President in 1952 and have not changed their mind.

Also, the Fed judge as you admit, has issued no reasoning for her stay. I find this shocking and telling.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:15 am

Moreover, and for your edification, religious tests are kosher (heh)

https://t.co/ndfN6FiVIV

: C3XZebbUcAAWQQ_.jpg (21.35 KiB) Viewed 4375 times

powerlifter54 · Post by **powerlifter54** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:39 am

nafod wrote:
powerlifter54 wrote:lmao. All week.

400+ weeks to go. Enjoy.
Lol at the Iraqis who helped our country. Suckers! Ha, ha, ha!

Double Lol that none of the countries that the 911 hijackers came from have bans on them! Haaaahaha!

So why didn't Obama help the terps for 8 years? Please.

Happy to expand the ban to any and all threats including the Saudis. Have no doubts who our enemies are in the world.

My prediction though is any group the Trump administration blocks you will support. Why? Because Trump beat your Hilliary and made you look stupid. He is still doing it.

powerlifter54 · Post by **powerlifter54** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:57 am

dead man walking wrote:
powerlifter54 wrote:lmao. All week.

400+ weeks to go. Enjoy.
serious question:can you explain this?

Let me count the ways. A guy who gets in office AND then does what he said he would? Watching the meltdown of the usual suspects? Haven't seen so much confirmation bias since Libs learned the word "gravitas" all at once.

With National Security Council S hakeup, Steve Bannon Gets A Seat At The Table
why eliminate chairman of the joint chiefs and direct of national intelligence?

Two different reasons. Having CJCS there and his Boss Mathis is stupid. Mathis will meet with him and service heads separately. Why this didn't happen before is a mystery to me used to chain of command issues.

DNI Clapper is compromised. He tried to undermine Trump with the fake news Russian story. He is on borrowed time. Fuck somebody in DC and you better succeed. Clapper not gone soon enough.

Any other questions ?

The Ginger Beard Man · Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:21 am

Many supporters and opponents of President Trump's executive order are conflating the terms "immigrant" (which encompasses green card holders), "nonimmigrant," and "refugee."

It's not lawful to ban immigrants because of "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.

It's lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.

It's lawful to ban refugees for almost any reason. But banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise. We still should admit well-vetted persons.

Understanding these distinctions is important because supporters of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that the order is lawful and that President Obama did almost the same thing in 2011. And opponents of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that banning refugees violates the Constitution or the law.

President Trump's executive order covers not only refugees but also immigrants and nonimmigrants. As noted above, it's not lawful to discriminate in the issuance of an *immigrant* visa because of the person's "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

President Obama's action (which wasn't disclosed at the time) covered only refugees and, therefore, did not violate the Constitution or the law, even if one finds it objectionable for other reasons.

I'm no lawyer but I think Justin Amash might be.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:28 am

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi ... ntext=bjil
TL/DR: if I'm reading this right, international law and the treaties we've signed are pretty clear; but US law and policy are not, giving both the executive branch and the courts pretty wide discretion.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:30 am

As I already argued, the 1965 law does not limit the power granted to the President under the 1952 law. Section 182(f) was not re-written directly or indirectly. And I predict the stay would be reversed.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:35 am

Fer context:

President Obama said Thursday that he was terminating the 22-year-old policy that has allowed Cubans who arrived on United States soil without visas to remain in the country and gain legal residency, an unexpected move long sought by the Cuban government. “Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal, consistent with U.S. law and enforcement priorities,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries.” The move places a finishing touch on Mr. Obama’s efforts as president to end a half-century of hostility between the United States and Cuba and to establish normalized relations and diplomatic ties with a government American presidents have long sought to isolate and punish [...]

The so-called “wet foot, dry foot” policy, which dates to 1995, owes its name to its unusual rules, which require Cubans caught trying to reach the United States by sea to return home, yet allow those who make it onto American soil to stay and eventually apply for legal, permanent residency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/worl ... .html?_r=0

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:41 pm

powerlifter54 wrote:Two different reasons. Having CJCS there and his Boss Mathis is stupid. Mathis will meet with him and service heads separately. Why this didn't happen before is a mystery to me used to chain of command issues.

Don't know about DNI, but the CJCS's job is... "The Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 identifies the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces. As such, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President."

The CJCS isn't in the chain of command to combatants.

powerlifter54 · Post by **powerlifter54** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:50 pm

Apparently both DNI and CJCS are both still advisory to NSC. Looks like just more Hilliary fans who are still bitter about defeat really just up in arms about Bannon. And who never said squat when Axelrod sat in on those meetings. More distraction.

SC Nominee this week. My sides will be hurting from laughing.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:04 pm

what i find interesting pl54 is that you can't simply answer a question born of curiosity without imputing various attitudes and motives to people and rehashing what obama did. i hear that you are enjoying yourself. good for you. no need to be so defensive.

that said, bannon is rasputin to donald the blond tsarina

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:31 pm

UAE sent terrorists for 9/11. Surprised they aren't banned. Oh wait...

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:44 pm

Fer context.
http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/rankings-2016

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:29 pm

Aside from the cluster fuckiness of how the 90 day moratorium was implemented, what do these countries have in common? Infested with terrorists and essentially no real government perhaps - except for terrorist sponsor Iran, of course?

90 day moratorium.....6 failed countries and 1 true enemy country. There are approximately 43 muslim majority countries and dozens of others that are heavily muslim that are not on the list while Trump invents his extreme vetting.

The handling of it was a ham handed mega incompetent cockup for sure, but you'd think Donny was designing his own very elite muslim death camps from the hyperventilated reporting.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:43 pm

How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

IGX

Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup

Re: Travel ban cockup