President Donald J. Trump

[Jackstar]

That's really not my area.

[albrecht]

Two of the four judges (in total) were Rep appointed. Muppit.

Have you even read the opinion on the TRO appeal?* It was only 3 judges (I giving you the benefit of the doubt that the 4th judge you mention was the original judge who issued the TRO) from the notoriously leftist, and inefficient, 9th Circuit Court of Appeal- not en banc but just 3. It is true that often Republicans have appointed lefty judges, almost always in lame attempts to try to appeal or bow to Democrats. A dumb move. But back to the case the desparation to find standing is funny. They even, somehow, bring abortion into it!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 (Section (f) but there are other things there in the law that are interesting and seemingly not being followed.)

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

* http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

[Kidnostad3]

Have you even read the opinion on the TRO appeal?* It was only 3 judges (I giving you the benefit of the doubt that the 4th judge you mention was the original judge who issued the TRO) from the notoriously leftist, and inefficient, 9th Circuit Court of Appeal- not en banc but just 3. It is true that often Republicans have appointed lefty judges, almost always in lame attempts to try to appeal or bow to Democrats. A dumb move. But back to the case the desparation to find standing is funny. They even, somehow, bring abortion into it!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 (Section (f) but there are other things there in the law that are interesting and seemingly not being followed.)

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

* http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Justice Kennedy has oversight of the 9th Circuit.  He could intervene, no? 

[Kidnostad3]

123

[albrecht]

Justice Kennedy has oversight of the 9th Circuit.  He could intervene, no?

Fun when one find misspellings in Black's! (this could be something to do with font-type or digitization, but still!) 
http://thelawdictionary.org/circuit-justice/
"In federal law and practice. The juslice of the supreme court who is allotted to a given circuit. U. S. Com p. St. 1901, p. 4S0

Law Dictionary: What is CIRCUIT JUSTICE? definition of CIRCUIT JUSTICE (Black's Law Dictionary)"


ps: you mention an interesting point that I have not thought of and have not heard mentioned in the news and commentary. Good job! Apparently they don't do this anymore but, maybe, they could?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/09/new-circuit-justice-assignments/
http://www.pulj.org/the-roundtable/-riding-circuit-how-supreme-court-justices-can-act-alone

[K_Dubb]

Have you even read the opinion on the TRO appeal?* It was only 3 judges (I giving you the benefit of the doubt that the 4th judge you mention was the original judge who issued the TRO) from the notoriously leftist, and inefficient, 9th Circuit Court of Appeal- not en banc but just 3. It is true that often Republicans have appointed lefty judges, almost always in lame attempts to try to appeal or bow to Democrats. A dumb move. But back to the case the desparation to find standing is funny. They even, somehow, bring abortion into it!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 (Section (f) but there are other things there in the law that are interesting and seemingly not being followed.)

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

* http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Everybody other than grandma's cousin is quoting that as if it's the last word, but how can it be if, for example, the 1965 act says the president can't discriminate?  Who is supposed to enforce that?

[Dr. MD MD]

for example, the 1965 act says the president can't discriminate?

among citizens, not in terms of immigration.

[albrecht]

Everybody other than grandma's cousin is quoting that as if it's the last word, but how can it be if, for example, the 1965 act says the president can't discriminate?  Who is supposed to enforce that?

Discrimination is legal, depending on the "victim," place, and situation. Interestingly I think Title II of GINA will be something brought up more as technology increases and an example of law getting, somewhat, before technology happens. Frankly I think our system, good or ill, will bode better for technology and new problems. Common Law, juries, judges, etc are better than statute systems because we can use ideas from the past to determine remedies/punishment for the future. Pure legislation or regulations cannot keep up.

ps: It wasn't a Muslim ban, even if Trump would like it to be so, because it didn't ban people from the countries with far greater number of Muslims. And the "standing" of WA and MN was questionable and tortuous logic was used to find the minimum standard, in my non-Judge opinion. The 9th should be broken up. It is too large, too populous, usually inefficient, etc. Yes, leftist and bizarre in opinions (which more than any other Appellate Court get over turned) but because hasn't kept up with demographic and population shifts. Hey, we are supposed to do away with Congress or the Senate for those reasons, says the left and protestors, why not with the Courts?

[K_Dubb]

Discrimination is legal, depending on the "victim," place, and situation. Interestingly I think Title II of GINA will be something brought up more as technology increases and an example of law getting, somewhat, before technology happens. Frankly I think our system, good or ill, will bode better for technology and new problems. Common Law, juries, judges, etc are better than statute systems because we can use ideas from the past to determine remedies/punishment for the future. Pure legislation or regulations cannot keep up.

ps: It wasn't a Muslim ban, even if Trump would like it to be so, because it didn't ban people from the countries with far greater number of Muslims. And the "standing" of WA and MN was questionable and tortuous logic was used to find the minimum standard, in my non-Judge opinion. The 9th should be broken up. It is too large, too populous, usually inefficient, etc. Yes, leftist and bizarre in opinions (which more than any other Appellate Court get over turned) but because hasn't kept up with demographic and population shifts. Hey, we are supposed to do away with Congress or the Senate for those reasons, says the left and protestors, why not with the Courts?

Oh goodness I'm not suggesting it is a Muslim ban; that part from the 1965 immigration act saying the president can't discriminate by nationality just happened to be the other immigration-law quote floating around recently, and suggests the president's authority under your section f isn't unambiguous.

[starrmtn001]

President Donald Trumps Weekly Address to The Nation 2-10-17.

https://youtu.be/klbr129AVUU

[albrecht]

Oh goodness I'm not suggesting it is a Muslim ban; that part from the 1965 immigration act saying the president can't discriminate by nationality just happened to be the other immigration-law quote floating around recently, and suggests the president's authority under your section f isn't unambiguous.

I am biased, (I think the '65 Act doomed the country and it is now just a slower spinning down the drain) thank you Celler, Hart...and Kennedy, but besides that point I also dispute the standing tortuously derived. (And, as aside, even jurisdiction. But now we can really go into the weeds, I think Marbury was wrong..HA!)

[Dr. MD MD]

Oh goodness I'm not suggesting it is a Muslim ban; that part from the 1965 immigration act saying the president can't discriminate by nationality just happened to be the other immigration-law quote floating around recently, and suggests the president's authority under your section f isn't unambiguous.

It just referrred to quotas, kdubb. It limited immigration from the Western hemisphere and opened it more to Africa and Asia but said nothing regarding limiting the president's authority regarding national security.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

[K_Dubb]

I am biased, (I think the '65 Act doomed the country and it is now just a slower spinning down the drain) thank you Celler, Hart...and Kennedy, but besides that point I also dispute the standing tortuously derived. (And, as aside, even jurisdiction. But now we can really go into the weeds, I think Marbury was wrong..HA!)

Haha I think I learned more about the 1965 act by reading your rants against it than anywhere else.  I just think if the government goes into any court, including the Supremes, waving your section f and citing national security reasons, they'll get their asses handed to them every time.

And how are disputes of standing not just punting until some suitably aggrieved party brings a case?

[Dr. MD MD]

Haha I think I learned more about the 1965 act by reading your rants against it than anywhere else.  I just think if the government goes into any court, including the Supremes, waving your section f and citing national security reasons, they'll get their asses handed to them every time.

And how are disputes of standing not just punting until some suitably aggrieved party brings a case?

So, from now on you'd like the president to run all national security issues by the courts to see if it's OK if acts on them with them first? You'd be cool with that? Meanwhile...KABOOM! 

[K_Dubb]

So, from now on you'd like the president to run all national security issues by the courts to see if it's OK if acts on them with them first? You'd be cool with that? Meanwhile...KABOOM! 

No, you ninny; what I like is as immaterial as albrecht's objections to Marbury.  I'm just curious what the law is.

[Dr. MD MD]

No, you ninny; what I like is as immaterial as albrecht's objections to Marbury.  I'm just curious what the law is.

I know it sounds stupid but it's what just happened. Three fully grown adults, educated and employed by our government's judicial system just arbitrarily decided that that's the way it should be. Deal with it, Mr. President! And then they get their 15 minutes of fame. Meanwhile, how many terrorists just came through? That's a rhetorical question meant to cause alarm. 

[albrecht]

No, you ninny; what I like is as immaterial as albrecht's objections to Marbury.  I'm just curious what the law is.

Disputes, if not settled, should be fought on a blanket at crossroads with weapons agreed upon
The Marbury stuff search posts.

[Up All Night]

Stand Your Ground Mr. President ! WE SHALL OVERCOME !! 

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1rpINookVU

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqn27VbNyJQ

[Meister_000]

How "Real" hand-shakes by a "Real" deal-maker/negotiator are done.
Note: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe incident took place Fri. 2-10-2017. Watch Abe's facial expression at the very end. [vid link]

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/830167275927896067/pu/vid/480x480/mG3HpceCucLzcERA.mp4

[Meister_000]

√

[Yorkshire pud]

Its too early yet, but I'll be interested in the outcome of any investigation into the scenario (apparently backed up by nine sources past and present in the Security services) that Mr Flynn has been a naughty boy and helped Putin's goons undermine the election veracity, by dint of not only co-operating with them in the campaign to rig the outcome; But after the result, by telling the ambassador not to reciprocate the expulsion of spys and diplomats that Obama had done, because, why? Quid pro quo?

If true, I wonder if he'll be tried for treason? I imagine unlikely, as it would need to prove material harm to the USA. At the very least he can't seriously represent the US security. Naturally Trump and Bannon won't see a problem, because in such a scenario they will have sanctioned/instructed such conversations. Its good though, that the Trumpers haven't jumped on this story, because they're not the sort to promote such stories. They never would have with Obama. No way.  :



On another note; these bus loads of illegal voters into NH? Has the WH released the video of that yet?  I think we should be shown.

[PB the Deplorable]

It's not just rhetoric it's Bullshit. I've lived IN San Francisco for 37 years, since exacly 1980. Fact is, there was nary a whimper of protest or activism of ANY KIND to speak of in the SF Bay Area during that *entire* 37 year period _except_ a few flare-ups around the time of Occupy and a couple in the last 2 or 3 years over police killings of Blacks both nation-wide and locally. You are completely full of shit. [and I was a teenager in the late 60's so I know/remember what Real protest-times look like!]

What the hell are you talking about?

You don't remember the protests over funding the Contras?  Helping the Salvadoran and other Central American governments against the Cuban funded Marxist terrorist rebels?  The invasion of Grenada?  The week long protest during the 1984 Democrat Convention held in SF (which gave rise to the term ''San Francisco Democrat'')?  All the protests about Reagan rebuilding the military after Carter hollowed it out?  The stationing of the Pershing II missiles in Germany?  The various protests about nuclear weapons? 

You don't remember protests in Berkeley every single time either a conservative was invited to speak, a member of the Israeli government was invited to speak, or anyone else not deemed acceptable by the America haters?  They were doing the same thing they did last week - shutting them down (you know, in the name of free speech).

How about the first Iraq invasion - no recollection of those protests? 

Do you not recall Act Up, the gay hate group interfering with various speakers, etc, when they weren't deemed appropriately ''pro gay''?

None of this rings a bell with you?  These are just the lowlights that occur as I type.  There were plenty of others - regarding local issues, environment, migrant farm workers, court appointments, cabinet appointments, other national political issues...


I'll grant you all that died down almost completely when the Clinton crime family was in the White House.  Because the organizers aren't ''grass roots'' concerned citizens, they are Democrat Party operatives.  During the Clinton regime, they would flex their muscles from time to time, but that was about it.

You don't remember a thing about the protests after the 2000 election when Gore won the popular vote (again, with the help of the illegals and other non-citizens)?  The protests against George Bush died down after 9/11, with the kooks and their handlers understanding protests would be counterproductive, but they were back soon after.

You never heard of Solidarity International (partially funded by those wonderful democratic tyrant thugs in North Korea)?  It was Solidarity who at some point along the way semi-formally gathered the various Acorn sponsored protest groups under one coordinated umbrella.  When that brand was tarnished, Occupy rose from the ashes.  With Acorn defunded, Soros stepped in.  And with the professional organization and funding, these events have become more violent, more destructive, more dangerous. 


I have to say, you are one dumb cluck.  And you write materials for ''education''?  As we wonder why our schools have become a wasteland. 

[PB the Deplorable]

One has to wonder what end result 'the people' expect from these radicals? You have illegals, no border people, BLM, BAMN, feminists, CAIR, and multiple other groups joining forces to bring down our government/constitution and replace it with what? A wonderful utopian society free from all 'isms' with equality for all?... 

We need to decide as a country whether political decisions will be made based on street riots or at the ballot box.  this national discussion is long past due - these events are well past ''peaceful assembly''.

We need to decide whether it's acceptable for judges to overrule the president when he is well within his Constitutional authority.  A few cases don't make a trend, but my sense is the ''Progressives'' and even Republican Establishment types who have unfortunately been appointed to the bench are going to try to govern the country by blocking Trump at every turn. 

If so, he needs to get out in front of it before it becomes a Constitutional crisis.

[Yorkshire pud]

We need to decide as a country whether political decisions will be made based on street riots or at the ballot box.  this national discussion is long past due - these events are well past ''peaceful assembly''.

We need to decide whether it's acceptable for judges to overrule the president when he is well within his Constitutional authority.  A few cases don't make a trend, but my sense is the ''Progressives'' and even Republican Establishment types who have unfortunately been appointed to the bench are going to try to govern the country by blocking Trump at every turn. 

If so, he needs to get out in front of it before it becomes a Constitutional crisis.

My my, your 'accountability' mantra seems to have stalled. You were all in favour of the Reps blocking anything the Dems proposed; and (rightly) gave chapter and verse how not even the POTUS was above the law.

But now its the Trump circus, you're implying he knows best, no matter what. The current WH has little credibility when it comes to integrity; "Yeah, but niether did Bill Clinton". Suggesting its a race to the bottom, and theres actually little value on the oft preached "draining the swamp". Trump lies all the time, on points both major and trivial, yet the Reps and the Trumpers clearly can't see a problem with that. If Obama had lied in his first four years at the rate that the current WH has in less than one month; he'd have never had a second term.

All this hyperbole about 'protecting' the USA from refugees is case in point where Trump and Bannon's priorities lie. If they hadn't been so embarrasingly amateur, they'd have issued the original EO, after consulting those weird people often called lawyers; security experts and varios other departments before issuing something doomed to fail.

Trump naturally is never wrong in hs mind. Ever. But what he's too thick to know, is, a country built on laws applying to everyone, isn't run like one of his bankrupt firms or scam universities.

[21st Century Man]

My my, your 'accountability' mantra seems to have stalled. You were all in favour of the Reps blocking anything the Dems proposed; and (rightly) gave chapter and verse how not even the POTUS was above the law.

But now its the Trump circus, you're implying he knows best, no matter what. The current WH has little credibility when it comes to integrity; "Yeah, but niether did Bill Clinton". Suggesting its a race to the bottom, and theres actually little value on the oft preached "draining the swamp". Trump lies all the time, on points both major and trivial, yet the Reps and the Trumpers clearly can't see a problem with that. If Obama had lied in his first four years at the rate that the current WH has in less than one month; he'd have never had a second term.

All this hyperbole about 'protecting' the USA from refugees is case in point where Trump and Bannon's priorities lie. If they hadn't been so embarrasingly amateur, they'd have issued the original EO, after consulting those weird people often called lawyers; security experts and varios other departments before issuing something doomed to fail.

Trump naturally is never wrong in hs mind. Ever. But what he's too thick to know, is, a country built on laws applying to everyone, isn't run like one of his bankrupt firms or scam universities.

Trump can do no right in your mind.  I'm hardly his biggest fanboy but you aren't even giving him a chance.

[Yorkshire pud]

Trump can do no right in your mind.  I'm hardly his biggest fanboy but you aren't even giving him a chance.

He fucked up by lying through his teeth. How can you possibly support or trust anyone you work with, let alone the POTUs who blatantly lies but with a straight face says he's telling the truth? Then throws in a tweet (Cos nothing else is as important) that his poor daughter has had nasty Nordstrom (employing many 1000's) withdraw her line of cheaply made (In China!) rags because they're not commercial sense? The manchild has tantrums and thinks <sic> being revered is more important than actually doing anything useful.

Oh, we can add that Trump deemed the Russians hacking into the US servers and possibly worse, isn't as important as trying to convince the world he had bigger crowds than Obama!

Just been announced, Flynn's nominee for being his aide has been denied security clearance. Ex marine apparently. Flynn is having the spotlight on him now; and there'll be more to come.

[GravitySucks]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

[Yorkshire pud]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

Why didn't the DoJ name them in their evidence presented to court?

http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

As one of the comments says on the report:

It's not the job of judges to do research and collect evidence for either side, a very time consuming task and courts are already backlogged. It is the government's job to present its evidence.and prove its claims, just as theose challenging the ban must prove their claims of harm. If the statistics above are accurate the government should present them as evidence. If it's so damning, why was the report removed off the Senate's website? Perhaps to allow misleading characterizations such as statements suggesting refugees are terrorists which in fact every case referred to in that report happened BEFORE the 2001 terror attacks and vetting procedures have been tightened up a lot since then. Again, these convictions above were for crimes BEFORE 9/11/2001.

Damn; Statistics!