Jump to content

AR Husker Fan

Members
  • Content count

    13,565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

AR Husker Fan last won the day on February 10

AR Husker Fan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,084 Excellent

About AR Husker Fan

  • Rank
    Team HuskerBoard
  • Birthday 02/14/1959

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://wilsgo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arkansas
  • Interests
    Comics, computers, Huskers

Recent Profile Visitors

27,772 profile views
  1. Immigration Ban

    Well, that kind of negates claims that we face an "imminent threat"...
  2. Immigration Ban

    I need to re-read the complaint again, but as I recall one of the challenges by the states is that the EO violated the Constitution as it's intended "target" was based on religion. Assuming that part of the challenge is not dropped by the states, the wording of the EO and the statements by the so-called president and Giuliani will be probative in determining that intent. Should be fun to watch.
  3. Immigration Ban

    Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims. And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban. So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is. AR - not disagreeing wt your take on this - however, what Rudy told him and what Trump may have said in the campaign are immaterial to the proceedings as the court must rule specifically on the ban itself and not any 'hearsay' or peripheral issues. The court will have to decide if the ban is legal based on current law. They may lean heavy on the 1965 revision to the 1952 Immigration law I quoted in my post above or they may take 1952 at face value and rule in favor of Trump. Knowing the make up of the court and the mood of the country (which shouldn't determine the ruling) I would not be surprised to see the SC overrule the ban and favor the more recent revision of the law. However, It appears Trump has decided to tweak his ban and try to do a workaround the court according to this article http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Immigration-Tweak/2017/02/10/id/773006/ 1. I was not making a statement on how the court would eventually rule; I was commenting on what was the intent of the so-called president and his administration in issuing this ban. 2. The wording of the EO, as well as the statements of the so-called president and Giuliani, are hearsay ONLY if the statements are presented without the proper authentication or not under the correct exceptions to the hearsay rule. But both the wording of the EO and the statements are probative; both indicate intent. The court will give each (assuming they are presented at the trial) the appropriate weight.
  4. Immigration Ban

    Not to jump in on QMany, but I'll take a stab at this. 1. Recognizing that there are exceptions to every rule, you are correct - evidence is produced in the district courts. At the appellate courts, additional evidence is not admitted or considered. Rather, the parties argue how the law applies to the facts developed at the trial level. 2. Again, correct. BUT... 3. Remember that what is happening now is not the actual case. The states of Washington and Minnesota filed suit to challenge PARTS of the executive order (EO). The states also asked the court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This is not uncommon at all - TROs are issued to be sure that the status quo remains while the case proceeds. The district court granted the TRO. That's what was appealed to the 9th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court. 4. The administration has a number of options at this point - ask the 9th Circuit to hear the appeal en banc; apply to the Supreme Court; resign itself to the ban remaining in effect until the trial is over. Of the first two, success is highly unlikely; the facts and the law don't support overturning the TRO. But that's all that this part of it is about. 5. The trial will be where ALL of the evidence will be developed and presented regarding the claims by the states. Once the trial is over, the judge rules on the merits of the entire case (whereas at this time the courts have simply been ruling on the merits of granting a TRO pending trial), the appeals start again, and so on.
  5. Immigration Ban

    Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims. And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban. So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is. Than how much the TOP 5 Muslim countries in the world are not on this "Muslim" ban.......hmmmm Because the so-called president and his inept administration failed to consult with the experts in the field. Instead, they took the lazy, dumb-ass approach and tried to cloak it in the designation signed by President Obama. The problem is two-fold for those idiots, however. First, Trump called for a Muslim ban repeatedly throughout his campaign, and worded the EO to penalize Muslims. Second, nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. Not to hard to figure out.
  6. Immigration Ban

    Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims. And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban. So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is.
  7. A man you can bait with a Tweet

    I wonder whether the so-called president will try for an en banc review with the 9th Circuit. That would be fun, seeing him slapped down again, and then having the case either denied cert with the Supreme Court or affirmed due to a 4-4 vote, both of which are highly probable.
  8. A man you can bait with a Tweet

    Speaking of tweets getting under the so-called president's skin, I hope he sees this one...
  9. Trump and His Wall

    I'd certainly agree with that.
  10. Immigration Ban

    This so-called president is a special kind of stupid...
  11. Crazy crap Kellyanne Conway says

×