Immigration Ban

This the human cost of implementing immigration restrictions for no legitimate reason. Men like Mohamed would have been barred from our country.

I think we are a much better place with him than without. Even as a healthcare professional, it had never occurred to me that there was a need for homes for foster children with major disabilities who had no where else to go. The prospect of them having no one breaks my heart.

What a great human being.

 
ColoNoCoHusker said:
NM11046 said:
So his defense was the presidential/governmental version of "because I said so"? His lawyers and Bannon are sure steering him wrong.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Listening to the interviews from the Washington Solicitor General, he tears apart the Federal Government defense as ignoring reality and jurisprudence. If you read the decision (QMany - looking at you), the majority of the decision addresses the Judiciary's right to review the Executive.

The argument was Judiciary doesn't have the right to review; by reviewing the EO the Judiciary has irreparably injured the Government; the EO is preventing imminent danger without providing an example of upcoming danger. Total Keystone Cops
Click to expand...
I finally got the opportunity to read the decision in its entirety, not just news snippets.

In law school, I was a research assistant for a Professor drafting articles re: Constitutional Law and Immigration Law. He clerked for Justice Sotomayor and then was an Assistant US Attorney and argued Immigration before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (New York). So, I find this stuff very interesting.

I recommend reading the entire decision, it is 28 pages (big font).

 
I spent some time last night contemplating why I support the ban on Trump's "temporary" travel ban so much.

Sure, I don't agree with picking out a group of people based on religion (mostly) and banning them from out country. But, I kept thinking my feelings were deeper than that. Then, his response to the 9th court decision made it dawn on me why I support this so much.

Here we have a President who doesn't understand constitutional law and doesn't respect anyone around him who disagrees with him. He doesn't understand the processes that important decisions need to go through and he flat out doesn't care if his decisions greatly affect other people negatively.

This decision by the courts that goes against him is extremely important in the same way teaching a 2 year old what the word "no" means. All of us know that kid whose parents never told him no or never enforced it if they did ever say no. We now have a President who is that kid. He believes he can do whatever he wants because...he said so. He proclaimed this in the election when asked how he will get other countries or the military to do things. He proclaimed...."because I will tell them to". He truly believes that all he has to do is tell people to do things and to hell if it is the right thing to do or the legal thing to do.

That seems like a fairly meaningless statement until you put the mental attitude that it takes to make that statement into a person with the power the President has.

We have already seen this in how he made the decision to go forward with the Yemen attack over dinner with his son in law instead of in a board room with people who might actually know what they are talking about.

This man has got to be taught very early on that he can not just bully people around and demand certain things happen without opposition.

This decision by the courts really is sticking in his craw. Proof of this is how he responds. A thoughtful and respectable President would have said...."I am very disappointed with the decision of the court. We will keep fighting the decision. However, in the mean time, we will continue to work to make sure the vetting process is up to the levels it needs to be". Instead of this, he threw a temper tantrum on twitter.

It really is amazing to me that we have a President who is so immature that this is what we have come to.

 
QMany said:
ColoNoCoHusker said:
NM11046 said:
So his defense was the presidential/governmental version of "because I said so"? His lawyers and Bannon are sure steering him wrong.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Listening to the interviews from the Washington Solicitor General, he tears apart the Federal Government defense as ignoring reality and jurisprudence. If you read the decision (QMany - looking at you), the majority of the decision addresses the Judiciary's right to review the Executive.

The argument was Judiciary doesn't have the right to review; by reviewing the EO the Judiciary has irreparably injured the Government; the EO is preventing imminent danger without providing an example of upcoming danger. Total Keystone Cops
Click to expand...
I finally got the opportunity to read the decision in its entirety, not just news snippets.

In law school, I was a research assistant for a Professor drafting articles re: Constitutional Law and Immigration Law. He clerked for Justice Sotomayor and then was an Assistant US Attorney and argued Immigration before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (New York). So, I find this stuff very interesting.

I recommend reading the entire decision, it is 28 pages (big font).
Click to expand...
Anxious to hear your thoughts! Will be good to get a coew from someone in that side of "the business".

 
You don't see the inherent danger of citing fake terrorist attacks to justify a ban that's been struck down by the courts?

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top