6
   

Trump is trumped again!

 
 
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 08:08 pm
LOL How many times is the court going to overturn Trump's executive orders? He's barely been in office for six months, so there's a good chance he might be the top honcho on "court over-turns."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 2,430 • Replies: 30

 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 08:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
One of Trump's eo's that went kaput!
From the Slate: People were pulled off airplanes and detained in airports. Protests erupted across the country as lawyers rushed in. There was plenty of chaos inside the administration as well: Key officials hadn’t been consulted and the order had undergone little or no legal review, leaving agencies to scramble to implement it.

Trump and his allies insisted the move was not a Muslim ban despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 08:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Glad to see you, Tak.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2017 08:42 pm
Same here.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2017 09:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
As I recall, the US Supreme Court has overruled all of these goofy lower courts with their extremist judges, and the travel ban is now in effect.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2017 09:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Me too.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2017 10:54 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
As I recall, the US Supreme Court has overruled all of these goofy lower courts with their extremist judges, and the travel ban is now in effect.

Not really. Most of the plaintiffs against the ban won in the Supreme Court's decision.

Quote:
The court is allowing the ban to go into effect for foreign nationals who lack any "bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States." The court, in an unsigned opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States, which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases.

Source
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2017 06:17 pm
@Blickers,
The point of the lawsuit was not those specific people. They were just the vehicle used for the lawsuit. The point of the lawsuit was to prevent Trump from exercising his presidential powers. The fact that an exception was made for certain people does not change the fact that Trump's lawful order was allowed to go into effect.

Kind of like the Heller ruling wasn't about Mr. Heller, even though he was the immediate beneficiary, but rather the point of the ruling was to begin enforcing the Second Amendment.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2017 09:30 pm
@oralloy,
Not really. Trump's order prevented, for a time, anyone moving here from those countries. The ban was temporary and due too expire in a few months anyway. The lower courts ruled the ban was completely stopped, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone from those countries with a good reason to come here-like they have a job or have been accepted to school or have family here-can come. Most of the people who filed the lawsuit were in those groups.

Basically, the lower courts' rulings were substantially upheld with only a few exceptions.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2017 10:04 pm
@Blickers,
No. The lower court rulings were overturned with just a few exceptions. What the Supreme Court said was that only people with a substantial connection can come to the US. The ban is in effect for all other people from those countries.

The fact that most of the people who filed the lawsuit were included in the exception is because only people with a substantial connection to the US were in a position to file a lawsuit to begin with. People who had no substantial connection to the US tended to have no way to file a lawsuit in US courts.

There are plenty of people without a substantial connection to the US who would have come to the US, and who now because of the ban are not allowed to come to the US.
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2017 10:24 pm
@oralloy,
It's the other way around. Almost all the people from those countries who come to the US from halfway around the world have a substantial connection, like a job, family or a college acceptance.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2017 11:23 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
It's the other way around.

No, the Supreme Court allowed a general ban with very specific exceptions. Pretending that they didn't allow a general ban with specific exceptions is silly. Arguing against reality is futile.


Blickers wrote:
Almost all the people from those countries who come to the US from halfway around the world have a substantial connection, like a job, family or a college acceptance.

The only jobs that I saw mentioned in the list of exceptions were jobs directly for the US government.

I didn't see any exceptions for new college students -- only students who had already been in the US for college.
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2017 11:42 pm
@oralloy,
Damn Oral, is it painful?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2017 01:19 am
@glitterbag,
Only initially, in the long run lobotomy is the pain free modern way to ensure lickspittle servility in your unthinking drone.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  6  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2017 02:53 am
In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Supremes couldn't do anything about if no one brought suit. But the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance prohibiting any individual from owning a laundry in a wooden building without a permit. This was clearly aimed at the Chinese, almost the only people in San Francisco at that time who owned commercial laundries (no one who was not Chinese who applied for a permit was turned down). So one laundry owner sued and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. This was their chance to gut, at least, any future such legislation. Finding for the plaintiff in Yick Wo versus Hopkins (1886) on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, they stated in the majority opinion that: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


I have added the emphasis because President Plump's executive order relates specifically to the nationality of those he seeks to exclude. Conservatives whine so often about activist judges and legislating from the bench. This court does that all the time, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them ignore a case like Yick Wo and uphold the travel ban. Even if that revolting development eventuates, there remains one important aspect of this brouhaha--Plump has been obliged to face the limitations of his power, which maddens him, and submit to the process of the government as it is constituted.

This jackass has gone on television to whine about the constitution, which he would dearly love to scrap. In assuming his office, he swore the oath required by that constitution, to wit: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” So in addition to his other odious characteristics, he is also forsworn. That doesn't surprise me, though.
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2017 03:19 am
By the way, the September 11th terrorists were Saudis primarily, with two from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from the Lebanon and Egypt. The shooter in the Orlando shooting was the son of Afghan immigrants, and was born in the United States. The San Bernardino shooters were an American-born son of Pakistani immigrants, and his Pakistani wife. President Plump's travel ban excludes people from Syria, the Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. Had it been in effect before the two American-born shooters' parents had arrived in the United States, and the female San Bernardino shooter as well as the September 11th terrorists arrived, it would not have excluded them. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Lebanon, Egypt and Pakistan are not on the list.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2017 05:49 am
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
Damn Oral, is it painful?

I enjoy conversing with Blickers. He or she is always polite and well informed. The part of a2k that I don't enjoy are the ones who engage in name-calling.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2017 05:51 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Supremes couldn't do anything about if no one brought suit. But the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance prohibiting any individual from owning a laundry in a wooden building without a permit. This was clearly aimed at the Chinese, almost the only people in San Francisco at that time who owned commercial laundries (no one who was not Chinese who applied for a permit was turned down). So one laundry owner sued and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. This was their chance to gut, at least, any future such legislation. Finding for the plaintiff in Yick Wo versus Hopkins (1886) on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, they stated in the majority opinion that: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


I have added the emphasis because President Plump's executive order relates specifically to the nationality of those he seeks to exclude. Conservatives whine so often about activist judges and legislating from the bench. This court does that all the time, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them ignore a case like Yick Wo and uphold the travel ban.

I do not believe you are correct that this court legislates from the bench. If a court merely upholds the Constitution, that isn't legislating.

The part of the Constitution that you mention deals specifically with people who are already legally within US territory. Trump's travel ban deals with people who are not already legally within US territory, so that clause would not apply.


Setanta wrote:
Even if that revolting development eventuates, there remains one important aspect of this brouhaha--Plump has been obliged to face the limitations of his power, which maddens him, and submit to the process of the government as it is constituted.

What frustrated Trump was having his lawful order struck down by extremist judges. Now that the Supreme Court has overruled those extremists, he no longer faces those frustrations.

I doubt the Supreme Court will address this issue further. By the time they have a chance to address it again, this temporary ban will have expired and have been replaced with a stronger vetting process. It is always possible though that the stronger vetting process will be challenged, and they will hear that.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2017 09:43 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
No, the Supreme Court allowed a general ban with very specific exceptions. Pretending that they didn't allow a general ban with specific exceptions is silly.

Not when there are more exceptions to the ban than people the Supreme Court allowed the ban to apply to.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
The only jobs that I saw mentioned in the list of exceptions were jobs directly for the US government.

I didn't see any exceptions for new college students -- only students who had already been in the US for college.

The Supreme Court said that the ban did not apply to people with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. So if you have a job here or have been accepted to a college, you have a bona fide relationship to that college, which is as a member of the freshman class.

If the Court said "“a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity of the United States”, then maybe your claim of only government jobs being an exception might be the case.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2017 10:11 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Not when there are more exceptions to the ban than people the Supreme Court allowed the ban to apply to.

There aren't. The ban applies to most of the entire population of the countries targeted.


Blickers wrote:
The Supreme Court said that the ban did not apply to people with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. So if you have a job here or have been accepted to a college, you have a bona fide relationship to that college, which is as a member of the freshman class.

If the Court said "“a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity of the United States”, then maybe your claim of only government jobs being an exception might be the case.

I looked at the text of Trump's executive order. There was something about allowing students that had already been to school in America. I didn't see a single thing about letting in new students that had not already been here. I didn't see a single thing about jobs other than direct employment by the US government.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Trump is trumped again!
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 08:20:14