AR Husker Fan

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

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.

And the predictable White House response...

 

 

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

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.

These are one of those moments when I realize I am glad I didn't become a lawyer. The way lawyers write literally puts me to sleep.

 

Question QMany....it is my understanding that when a case goes up the appeals ladder, the lawyers are not allowed to enter into evidence knew information or evidence. They have to create arguments around the evidence that has already been presented as to why the decision is wrong. Am I correct about that?

 

And...if I am correct, the government's argument is going to remain extremely weak from here on out.

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.

 

 

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

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.

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

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.

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.

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

I'd certainly agree with that.

This so-called president is a special kind of stupid...

That's because the motivation is bigotry, not national security...

Your post is somewhat contradictory. On one hand, you ask if there is a better option to address "hopefully...drug...trafficking". But then you also state, "If the drug cartels haven't been stopped by regular police and immigration police, then I doubt they ever will...". That's an acknowledgment that the wall won't be effective, which is particularly the case as drug smuggling is performed using tunnels and other means for large shipments far more than overland. Admittedly, for sex trafficking there is a slight possibility that the wall may have a significant beneficial effect, the the reality is that sex trafficking results most often against people already in the country - and runaways and teens, rather than illegal immigrants - the by far the most common victims.

Regarding illegal immigration, this baffles me. When you compare the cost to the U.S. from illegal immigration to the benefit, the U.S. receives far more than it pays. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most forms of entitlements - President Clinton closed that door with his program on welfare reform, on which he campaigned. While a few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means, the overwhelming majority do not - they keep their heads down, do their jobs, send most of their earnings to family back in Mexico, and try to avoid at all costs any behaviors that would draw the attention of the government or law enforcement. For those who have babies born in the U.S., and remain, those children adapt the culture and language of the U.S. They do work that almost no Americans will do. They give more to the economy than they take. They almost never commit crimes. They want their children to acclimate the culture, do well in school, and become good citizens. And we want to keep them out...why?

If the argument is that we need to secure the boarder from possible terrorists, then the fallacy is that just the wall between the U.S. and Mexico will do that. Take a look at the terrorist acts that have been committed against the U.S. over the last 50 years. Then, look at the entry points for those who were not born in this county who committed those tasks. Entry from Mexico is not the problem.

Given all of this, the question is what is the motivation behind this? Other than the color their skin, I can't see any.

Exclusive - Trump border 'wall' to cost $21.6 billion, take 3.5 years to build: internal report

 

President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

 

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

A boondoggle that is escalating in cost and that won't actually secure the border. And Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative...

 

 

 

Ooooooo....the little man is pissed.

Does the dumb bastard not realize he WAS in court?

I get the sense that this is a growing feeling amongst many of the so-called president's supporters. And for good reason.

Colbert nailed it in his monologue last night concerning the so-called president using his office to attack Nordstrom for having the sound business sense to drop a losing brand name.

This guy is going to eventually explode...