Good King Trump

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Which part of the constitution says the borders are open to any foreigner at any time?

Which part of the ruling did you read that says the opposite?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Which part of the constitution says the borders are open to any foreigner at any time?

dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective
adjective: disingenuous

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Which part of the ruling did you read that says the opposite?

The ruling is just a temporary restraining order until the case is heard.



So which part of the constitution says immigration by foreign nationals can not be regulated?

[Jerome]

Come on guys, what about the EO is unconstitutional?

[Dragar]

Why don't you ask a Federal judge?

For what it's worth, I don't have a clue if it's constitutional or not. What is clear is that it's fuelled by prejudice instead of facts: this is, after all, Trump's attempt at a legal 'Muslim ban'.

You're the one who seems to be arguing with a judge over the constitution. Well, you and Trump.

[Jerome]

A couple of States are asking a Federal Judge. Clue: its not unconstitutional.

This is just a tactic to fuck with the administration.

[Dragar]

You are accusing the judiciary of siding with the states against the administration for political reasons?

I don't know if it's unconstitutional or not; are you somehow more qualified to say? Meanwhile, the text of the stay:

The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You are accusing the judiciary of siding with the states against the administration for political reasons?

No, I am stating that the four State governments filing the suit are fucking with the administration for political reasons.

The temporary restraining order could have gone either way. Its not a big deal.

You do know the ruling was not on the validity of the EO, right? The case has not been heard.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't know if it's unconstitutional or not; are you somehow more qualified to say?

I am.

Nothing that was done with the EO is new and hasn't been done by administrations of both parties in the past.

Its silly really, but it sure did get the base worked up.

Obviously these State governments are aware its constitutional, and has been done many, many times in the past. Therefore, their only purpose can be a partisan political agenda.

State resources being spent on partisan politics at its most absurd.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution

What do you think that says?

Do you know who the petitioner is?

Do you know who is trying to remove the petitioner, and why?

[Dragar]

I appreciate this could change in appeal.

Regardless though, it sounds a matter of law - unless you think this judge is somehow trying to undermine Trump by basically saying the opposite of what they really think, for political purposes. Do you think that?

Otherwise, it seems like this judge thinks it will be found unconstitutional.

[But]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I am.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Otherwise, it seems like this judge thinks it will be found unconstitutional.

No, the case has not been heard.

How are you not getting this?

What happened was a temporary restraining order until the case is heard.

All this judge ruled was that the states could be harmed while the time passes until the case has been heard.

It is not particularly uncommon for a case to have a temporary restraining order on some aspect of party actions until the case is heard.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Jerome

No, the case has not been heard.

How are you not getting this?

What part of the future tense do you not understand?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Otherwise, it seems like this judge thinks it will be found unconstitutional.

Yep, clearly. You can't get a TRO without without a "clear showing" that (1) you're likely to succeed on the merits, (2) you're likely to sustain irreparable injury absent a TRO, (3) the balance of equities favor issuing a TRO, and (4) a TRO is in the public interest. Winter v. National Res. Def. Council, Inc., 522 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).

A TRO maintains the status quo until the judge can decide (often though not necessarily after an evidentiary hearing) whether to issue a preliminary injunction. A PI would remain in effect until after a full trial, when the court decides whether to enjoin enforcement of the order permanently.

If the court wants to speed things up, it has the option of moving up trial on merits and consolidating it with the preliminary injunction hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). The judge in this case hasn't yet done that. In the TRO he ordered the parties to propose a preliminary injunction briefing briefing schedule by tomorrow.

So yeah, the TRO isn't a final adjudication of the case on the merits, but the fact of issuance is a clear indication that this judge considers the order substantively unenforceable. The government asked the judge to stay the TRO and the judge declined. The administration is currently asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay the order. The court of appeals shot down the request for an immediate administrative stay, but another ruling could come as early as tomorrow afternoon.

There isn't much room for doubt that the order fails substantively on at least some of bases (four constitutional claims, six statutory claims) alleged in the states' amended complaint. The more interesting issues from a geek standpoint are whether the state has standing to assert the constitutional and statutory rights of its inhabitants and whether is was proper make the TRO applicable to ports of entry located outside the plaintiff states (Washington and Minnesota).

The Washington AG's office has a handy dandy resource for the case right here. The court of appeals has set up its own page here.

[But]

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

H.R.861 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

[Jerome]

Stephen, were is the unconstitutional part? All I see is complaints that some minor business relationships could be slightly disrupted, and some non-citizens outside of the country will be inconvenienced for a time.

There is no equal protection under US law for non-citizens outside the country.

There is no harbor under establishment either, as the EO names countries.

Non-citizens outside this country have no inherent right to enter the country, thus no rights have been taken. There goes due process.

8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute This argument looks to have some merit .. until you actually read the EO, which says they are prevented from entry until it can be determined they are who they say they are.

Denial of asylum is silly. That law requires the non-citizen to arrive and apply for asylum. The EO does not prevent this.

Torture Relief, really? Come on, really? The EO does not deport anyone.

Religious freedom .. didn't know entry into the US was a practice of a particular religion. The attorney making this argument is laughing to themselves.

Not enough rules were made before implementing the EO. I am giggling now.

The last one is assuming something already argued is so. This is redundant filler.

[But]

List!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There isn't much room for doubt that the order fails substantively on at least some of bases (four constitutional claims, six statutory claims) alleged in the states' amended complaint. The more interesting issues from a geek standpoint are whether the state has standing to assert the constitutional and statutory rights of its inhabitants and whether is was proper make the TRO applicable to ports of entry located outside the plaintiff states (Washington and Minnesota).

Stephen, how much does the context of the ban factor into this decision, and the later court ruling down the line? For instance, this is clearly the 'Muslim ban' Trump has campaigned on, and he spoke about giving Christian refugees priority over Muslim ones from these countries. Do these factor into determinations of the legality, or is it purely based on the words contained in the executive order?

[Zehava]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

H.R.861 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Wouldn't this effectively kill the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts?

Though the Acts would still be law, with the dismantling of the EPA, the major burden of investigating and prosecuting offenders would fall to the states. States who are often struggling or failing to fully fund their own operation.

This looks like the first step in the plan to sell off all Federally held lands. Revert management of those lands to states who cannot pay for management of said lands and become forced to sell them off in order to fund more "essential" services. Fuck that.

I was going to try to contact Representative Matt Gaetz from his house.gov website, but the fucker has a zip verification form and will only accept email from residents of his district. I even tried to fake it by putting in a zip code from the 1st District of Florida, but the one I chose apparently is part of the 1st and 2nd Districts so I was told to fuck off. So I find a zip code exclusive to the 1st and now am required to put in a valid address. Somebody really doesn't want to talk to his constituents (or anybody).

In stark contrast the contact form for my representative, Earl Blumenauer, has no verification.

I'll see if I have any better luck with the 3 co-sponsors of the bill. I really want to know what their intentions are on this bill.

Co-sponsors

Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]*
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS-4]*
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11]*

Fuck, ALL the co-sponsors do that stupid ass zip verification as well. All are Republicans, very telling. OK I understand that the Representatives want to serve their constituents first, but as they are voting on legislation that affects ALL Americans they need to be open to contact by any citizen.

[Zehava]

Seems like the zip verification thing is very common. I was going to follow up with members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, but so far every member I have checked (Republican or Democrat) uses the zip verification form.

So disappointed. These people are proposing and voting on legislation that affects the entire country, not just their respective districts, they need to be receptive to ALL citizens.

Update: In fact only 3 members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology do not use the damn zip verification process for contacting them.

Ami Bera - (D) California 7th District
Bill Posey - (R) Florida 8th District
Marc Veasey (D) Texas 33rd District

[Watser?]

[JoeP]

[lisarea]

I am all out of "surprise" with this fucking clown car administration, but good god.

Donald Trump 'didn't realise he was promoting Steve Bannon to National Security Council when he signed order' | The Independent

Pia Guerra on Twitter: "Big Boy. #PresidentBannon https://t.co/bR06v4TJeD"