Topic: Trumps Travel Ban? (Round 2) - page 2. (Read 4632 times)

I see that gradually, the hype around the Trump subside. Probably the President's opponents realized that to organize impeachment proceedings will be very difficult to hold. Now all their efforts are aimed at discrediting Trump without consequences for him, and it makes no sense. Americans will still have to pay for their choice all 4 years.

Maybe travel ban concerns with their security it promotes racism on the other hand. It is justifiable for president trump to implement this rule but it is not for the affected people in this situation.

Lord I hope not. When we get the next Democratic POTUS in office, I hope judicial oversight has not degraded to the point that he would be able to ram silly shit down the pipe without any challenge, like say, a firearm ban, or revocation of current gun laws, in the name of national security. Just like when Dems used the nuclear option, and the Rebups came right behind them and did it again for Trump's confirmations. What goes around comes around, and I want to see the separation of power as deliniated as it can possibly be. We are breaking the system fighting each other, the parties I mean.

Two more things, I thought this was fucking hilarious


It's gonna run its course before they take it up again if he writes a new one, we will restart this process anew.

Also,

I'm sure the judges that blocked the ban aren't going to enforce it in this circumstance. 'Bonafide'.

And the Supreme Court has no brought it back under an unanimous decision of the justices, they also came out and said that the federal courts under them had been overreaching their boundaries and shouldn't have done this. So I would be considering this a big win for the GOP and Trump in general.

Probably going to be something that's gonna set a precedence with the federal courts and executive actions of this order as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-case.html - Here's the NY Times article.

Hehehe this is democracy at work here, Trump has received a huge boost in the travel ban and am loving it, now these liberal judges won't be able to interfere in what in my opinion is great for the country as a whole.

It's okay if you don't get it.

... and now that he is in, voila! Travel ban reinstated, but partially. I really don't get this; it's like they actually want chaos to ensue. Suspending review but letting it be actionable?

Notice we haven't had a terror attack on US soil recently (well, Islamic terror at least). This tells me two things. One, since this occurred while we didn't have the ban in place, I have to wonder how effective it will be. And two, now that this topic (it's perceived globally as a 'Muslim Ban) is at the forefront of global consciousness, will that illusion of safety falter?

And on the topic of shit that finally made it through the pipeline, that Christian cake thing might see the light of day.

And we all know it's a waste, because the cake is quite obviously a lie

To illustrate your bat shit crazy even better, let's assume that you wanted to bring tomatoes to the market.

An Authorized One, ranking 47th of the 178, saw you trudging along with your cart.  He blocked your way, saying, "No, unclean one.  You are by my authority banned from taking your tomatoes to the market.  You can of course, appeal my decision to the Highest of the High Courts."

Hearing this, your face greatly saddened. "But Sir — 47th, my tomatoes will be no good after the two years it takes to go to the Highest.  They will be no good after two weeks!"

The 47th replied, "Indeed, small cretin, lowest of the low.  You see now the majesty in our Unrule of Law. Now go back to your small, cold and dark hovel, and ponder this matter."

You turned, hunched down, and wearily started back.  But before going a hundred paces, you found blocking your way another man in black. "Halt,
miserable pond scum.  I am the 68th of the 178.  You have been found by me in violation of the Law Protecting Small Creatures that Might be Squashed. You may not go further in this direction, however you may appeal my decision to the Highest, which will take years."

"But I can't go back to my house? I will be stranded here in the road with my rotten tomatoes!  I cannot go forward, and I cannot go back!"  Desperately you looked to the left, only to see the 13th, 99th, and 11th of the 178 frowning.  You looked to the right, and saw a multitude of the mid 30s of the 178.  

Then you sat down in the mud, right in the middle of the road.  A tall one in black robes came up on horseback, and peering down, shouted, "Get up! You are blocking the road. By the authority vested in me as the 178th of the 178, I decree you must get off this road immediately."

"But how may I?  I can't go forward, or back, or to either side."

"Then you must go up.  And be quick about it.  Just put your head through that loop of rope, and you'll be pulled up out of the way."

You looked up at the noose hanging from the tree branch, and wondered how this could have came to be.

I love it man your reluctance to address my argument, kmowing how intelligent you are, vindicates me a bit. Becuase I see you are upset, I apologize, and I will disengage you. Disregard my argument. I saw that I was bearing down on you, yet I persisted with my argument for its sake despite your feelings. People first, bro. I failed at that, and for that, I am sorry, and do apologize to you, sincerely.

Anyone else is welcome to address it however, in the spirit of progress.

BLah blah blah.

No "rebut" is necessary because you have been shut up by "one of 178" each independently capable of a "Nay."

The logic of your argument, or lack of, is irrelevant.

Now how you like that?

LMAO, I'm getting paid son. This is fun to me and I love pointing out how deluded Trumpism is, it's a pet cause I've picked up that I would do for free. It's my warm fuzzy, ala Paul Frank.

Honestly, man, you sound too lazy to defend yourself. You would disseminate your views for free, yet when challenged in a public forum, suddenly it's too much effort to defend yourself? Come on man, I have more respect for you that that, don't be a shit. You knew I was going to propose some shit you didn't agree with before I even started typing. I understand if you are having reservations about being able to defend your ideas.

You backed up like a bitch. Don't be a bitch, Spendulus. This is the second time you've done this.

First, let's establish if the affected party (as you are aware, there are a multitude of different classes trying this) has the right to claim damages. In the general case, that would mean individuals from the countries affected by the travel ban. In fact, are these people subject to protection under our Constitution at all given that they are non citizens? Case law says yes. Observe Yick Wo vs Hopkins. In this particular case, these Chinese nationals were procedurally denied citizenship. Admittedly, these were residents of California being denied citizenship through stature, not people living abroad. But the Supreme Court used that decision while forming opinions on Boumediene v. Bush. Hilariously, this case involves the lack of constitutional rights experienced by actual terrorists being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. The Court found that, even when the president acts outside the borders, he lacks the “power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.”

OK, so hopefully we have established that the affected class has a legitimate claim, which seems reflected by recent Supreme Court decision. Moving on.

Under the First Amendment, there should be no laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The EO includes a clause which allows 'Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin.'. Let's look at that. As any war could generate refugees, humanitarian intent (good faith action) would entail that one would accept all refugees from an area, irrespective of religion, but respective of security risk. By specifically providing greater assistance to a specific religion, this shows favoritism, promoting the agenda of a specific religion. Because all the xountries he tarfetted are Muslim majoritys, the other side of the coin is that Muslims woukd not recieve "prioritized consideration". Damn that First Amendment. This seemingly would violate the prohibition against laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'. Also, by denying travel from countries that are majority Muslim, because of a 'security risk', seems to "prohibit the free exercise of religion" of Muslims in those countries as they enter our territory.

 If empiricism (statistics on terror and it's origins) were used to determine this list of countries, why was Saudi Arabia not listed? They literally did 9/11 (not Bush). While this is more a moral argument of mine than legal explanation, it leads me to my final point.

Let's go back to Wick Yo vs Hopkins. The Court pronounced that although a “law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance,” if it is “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” it will be evaluated accordingly. This is why I said many comments ago Trump was a dumbass for letting his cohorts run their mouths about his intent. Gotta be slicker than that. Anywho, we have the progenitor of the ban, the POTUS, calling it on record a Muslim Ban. Let me repeat that, it didn't sink in a month ago when you heard it. Muslim Ban. As in, hey, are you Muslim? Banned, bitch.

Despite the guy that wrote it calling it a Muslim ban (yet you don't think it a Muslim ban, because those are unconstitutional, right?), yet another Trump surrogate, and author of the EO, claimed it was a Muslim ban. In fact, let's quote this dumbass:

"I'll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban,'"

"He called me up, he said, 'Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'"

So, we have an obvious bad faith action, obviously. Thank you, Mr. Guilliani.

After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause

Well, pursuing and eagerly supporting batshit crazy would have one predictable outcome.  I'll help you out a bit.  You are going to present an argument which I oppose.  Rather than discuss it logically I am at this time shutting you up because that's my "right as a minority of one." Just like the 178 circuit court judges.  You are now shut up.

See how easy that was?  See how wrong it is? Deal with it, dude.

Age matters naught, only experience, friend expertise is a function of time commitment. This will be evident through our discourse.

And if not for synthetic discussion, in a public forum, how would men grow political doctrines as common citizens? The salons of France led to decapitated heads. The rhetoric of Hitler displaced a people. 'Pitting ones wits' against an intellectual adversary is the quintessence of our Republic. It's literally how our Framing Documents were constructed. Synthetic argumentation.

Alright, give me a bit to prepare my argument. To prestate, I will be first be addressing how the ban infringes on First Amedlndment rights through action if not intent. I will illustrate previous case law, if applicable.

And I listened to you a lot less than any experts there, because recently they have been divorced a lot and each indicates that he understands more than the other. I understand politics as much as I really do. And I already encountered the right and the judicial system, and I'm very disappointed.

I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents.  So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.

I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.

I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.  

That's just plain wrong.

Right, but note Green_Bits argument is absolutist, "A JUDGE said so so it's TRUE."

Actually it's "A judge ruled crazy and the decision has to be appealed, but that can't be done until the 9th position on the Supreme Court is filled."  Pretty simple.

What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents.

This got all crazy misquoted when you responded, you are bright, I have no doubts you will figure out how to read this.

The fine folks at Bitmixer. I can spew my partisan,  toxic, quasi liberal opinions, for profit, as long as I follow posting guidelines and quality standards. I implore you, since you post decently and have excellent rank, you should look into trying a Sig camp, if you weren't aware (I'm not being sarcastic). I was like, a senior member here before I figured out guys where actually getting paid to have those colorful banners under their posts. I'm slow, I guess.

But Naw, sorry to dash your hopes, I'm not an agent of Soros or Hillary, LOL. Just a dude with strong opnions, and a cellphone. But, I will admit I get a certain glee clashing intellectually with you guys. I need to get out more.