Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

The problem is that I don't think the is facially invalid because its scope is so wide that it targets country and not a religion because on a technical level it applies to non-muslims in those countries.

I would be surprised if the states actually won at the District Court level.



I doubt there would be a carve out for existing visa holders either because the Supreme Court has already held that a visa isn't a constitutionally protected right and the reason for revoking it isn't religious on its face.

1st amendment religious discrimination cases aren't decided on a facially legitament bases. Kennedy even wrote the decision. And their big issue is there's no due process to contest it.

 

[CHC]

Here's the full ruling for the legally inclined members here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...-Circuit-s-Decision-on-Trump-s-Travel-Ban.pdf

What's funny is that basically no one could possibly have read it fully by now, especially not Trump.

 

[ArchedThunder]

Trump should calm down, he might die from all that salt.

 

[xxracerxx]

I mean...304-227.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be playing with stones.

She is out of the house, who cares?

 

[GK86]

What is this "Easy D" about?

He tweeted this.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump

Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!

 

[Balphon]

To be fair, a per curiam decision without dissent is unanimous in the holding, if not the underlying rationale. (I haven't read the opinion and don't know this particular panel of the Ninth Circuit's juridical makeup, though.)

But as others have mentioned, even if this goes to SCOTUS (and I think Sessions is smart enough to realize it shouldn't), I don't think you get Kennedy and Roberts. Thomas always likes to dissent or concur separately. So yeah, maybe 6-2. But it'd be ill-advised to appeal the TRO.

So, naturally, that's what they'll do.

Yeah, but it's still an overstatement of the significance of the fact that the opinion was issued per curiam. Though I suppose there's also such a thing as a concurrence to a per curiam, which makes even less sense than a dissent.

I'd agree on SCOTUS, too. Roberts can be hard to read sometimes but he always seems to move pretty deliberately when he thinks the integrity of the judiciary is implicated in the circumstances surrounding a case.

Alito would probably argue executive deference and go for the Government on jurisdiction. Thomas would find some reason to say we need to abandon all existing precedent on 5th amendment due process.

 

[NullPointer]

I mean...304-227.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be playing with stones.

Unless she throws them through the ceiling.

 

[Officerrob]

Victories like this will likely be few and far between over the next 4 years, enjoy this and have a good night everyone

 

[Username1198]

What is this "Easy D" about?

It's trumps alt

 

[DangerMouse]

Its a good victory for tolerance and freedom but I do have to wonder - what exactly do you think is gonna happen if a terrorist attack by an immigrant occurs in the next 24 months? No doubt Trump will act rationally and say "well, you guys stopped me from doing the travel ban and you were right about that, lets work together to analyze why we suffered this terrorist attack."

Or it'll be an excuse to circumvent the judicial system completely using the reasoning that listening to them threatened the safety of the American People and the president's #1 job is making the homeland safe. And a TON of people are going to go along with him, because fear always wins - Japanese internment or the Patriot act being examples in our recent history.

Feels like Trump set up a lose/lose situation for everyone who disagrees with him, going under the assumption that terrorist attacks are going to occur every now and then and its impossible to stop them all.

Indeed. That's definitely what he'd try because he is basically a dictator.

 

[Dai101]

Hillary keeping count of Trump's Ls

Spoiler

I don't have sipping tea gifs of her

 

[Peltz]

Its a good victory for tolerance and freedom but I do have to wonder - what exactly do you think is gonna happen if a terrorist attack by an immigrant occurs in the next 24 months? No doubt Trump will act rationally and say "well, you guys stopped me from doing the travel ban and you were right about that, lets work together to analyze why we suffered this terrorist attack."

Or it'll be an excuse to circumvent the judicial system completely using the reasoning that listening to them threatened the safety of the American People and the president's #1 job is making the homeland safe. And a TON of people are going to go along with him, because fear always wins - Japanese internment or the Patriot act being examples in our recent history.

Feels like Trump set up a lose/lose situation for everyone who disagrees with him, going under the assumption that terrorist attacks are going to occur every now and then and its impossible to stop them all.

He's not going to ignore the Court's orders. That would get him impeached.

Yes, even by a republican congress.

 

[Loudninja]

I mean...304-227.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be playing with stones.

What are you even going on about.

 

[Angry Grimace]

That was the government's position but I don't believe that will hold water since while holding a visa isn't a constitutionally protected right, resident aliens still have Due Process rights, as the 9th Cir. addresses that in its opinion:

I agree that there are portions of the law that could be struck down but I think the overall thrust is going to make it through.

 

[Smiley90]

Here's the full ruling for the legally inclined members here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...-Circuit-s-Decision-on-Trump-s-Travel-Ban.pdf

What's funny is that basically no one could possibly have read it fully by now, especially not Trump.

why not? it was posted what, an hour ago?

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...-9th-circuits-opinion-on-the-travel-ban/2327/

9th Circuit's opinion on the travel ban.

Easy D.

I definitely already read it in full and I'm sure a lot of people have.

 

[brau]

What is this "Easy D" about?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829384587482656768

Donald J. Trump
‏@realDonaldTrump
Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!

 

[Plasticine]

I don't know how the Orange Ape can hold all these Ls with such tiny hands.

 

[Peltz]

To be fair, a per curiam decision without dissent is unanimous in the holding, if not the underlying rationale. (I haven't read the opinion and don't know this particular panel of the Ninth Circuit's juridical makeup, though.)

But as others have mentioned, even if this goes to SCOTUS (and I think Sessions is smart enough to realize it shouldn't), I don't think you get Kennedy and Roberts. Thomas always likes to dissent or concur separately. So yeah, maybe 6-2. But it'd be ill-advised to appeal the TRO.

So, naturally, that's what they'll do.

I don't think it would be 6-2 in the Supreme Court.

8-0 with some concurring decisions at worst. Even Thomas isn't that bad.

 

[CHC]

why not? it was posted what, an hour ago?

I definitely already read it in full and I'm sure a lot of people have.

Oh I didn't know it was posted that long ago. Regardless, Trump had almost certainly not read the full thing before his latest tweet. I doubt he ever will.

 

[jett]

This result is even more delicious than I thought.

 

[whyamihere]

Hillary's old comms director. That makes the tweet even better.

 

[Mr Touchdown]

Hahahahahahahaha, get fucked you stupid fear mongering prick.

 

[Back-In-Black]

https://twitter.com/CahnEmily/status/829832723816706049/photo/1

That part was a good read because the Massachusetts District Court refused to extend their TRO on the ban because they found for some of the plaintiffs their suit was now "moot" due to the statements of the WH Counsel and Sec. of State. I found that ludicrous considering that a clarifying statement is in no way a binding law and such a statement didn't even come from the President himself. It was a ridiculous assertion by the judge.

 

[Username1198]

I don't know how the Orange Ape can hold all these Ls with such tiny hands.

I'm sure his bathrobes have pockets

 

[Black Republican]

Easy D aint no motherfukin real G

 

[paskowitz]

Spoiler

I don't have sipping tea gifs of her

Spoiler

Not actually Clinton but whatever.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

I don't know how the Orange Ape can hold all these Ls with such tiny hands.

He can't, that's why he keeps slipping on them.

 

[BannedEpisode]

Lol Trump acts like a bronze player in competitive mode when you tell him not to play Hanzo.

 

[ginger ninja]

What are you even going on about.

The final electroal college count. We wouldn't even be in this shit show if she hadn't fucked up so bad in the election.

Sorry gaf, my election wounds are still too sore to get back on the hillary bandwagon.

 

[Biske]

I assumed so.


But honestly, sarcasm is dead on the internet.


We are surrounded by idiots and shitlords doggedly arguing dumbass bullshit.

So at this point I just assume everything is meant seriously and act accordingly.

 

[jellies_two]

Fuck it, most appropriate gif of the situation.

Um unfortunately grandpa joe didn't lose and they got everything in the end.

 

[nubbe]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

This boy is an embarrassment beyond comprehension

 

[Zen Aku]

Get fuck Easy D. This country isn't going to bend to your will.

 

[Back-In-Black]

I agree that there are portions of the law that could be struck down but I think the overall thrust is going to make it through.

I agree.

 

[tearsintherain]

He's not going to ignore the Court's orders. That would get him impeached.

Yes, even by a republican congress.

He's not going to ignore it for now. But what happens if we get another Orlando or San Bernadino terrorist attack? He would get the full backing of Congress and a majority of American people to halt Muslim immigrants and even deport recent ones. They would beg him to write the laws, and they will willingly amend the constitution if the judicial branch tries to reverse it.

You are way too trusting if you don't think people will go along with the xenophobes immediately after an attack.

 

[Tovarisc]

Speaker not jumping to Trump's defense, but refers to WH for comments on this.

 

[elrechazado]

9th circuit packed with liberal activist judges, SAD!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

That was the government's position but I don't believe that will hold water since while holding a visa isn't a constitutionally protected right, resident aliens still have Due Process rights, as the 9th Cir. addresses that in its opinion:

Reiterating that due process applies to all people in the United States, regardless of legal status. Good stuff.

 

[Nerazar]

He's not going to ignore it for now. But what happens if we get another Orlando or San Bernadino terrorist attack? He would get the full backing of Congress and a majority of American people to halt Muslim immigrants and even deport recent ones. They would beg him to write the laws, and they will willingly amend the constitution if the judicial branch tries to reverse it.

You are way too trusting if you don't think people will go along with the xenophobes immediately after an attack.

You're right. Just think about what happened after 9/11. If something on that scale happens again, Trump will want emergency powers by having Congress totally on his side. And of course destroying the careers of anyone opposing him (laughter).

 

[Dai101]

I assumed so.

But honestly, sarcasm is dead on the internet.

We are surrounded by idiots and shitlords doggedly arguing dumbass bullshit.

So at this point I just assume everything is meant seriously and act accordingly.

Yeah. I understand you completely.

 

[plagiarize]

Its a good victory for tolerance and freedom but I do have to wonder - what exactly do you think is gonna happen if a terrorist attack by an immigrant occurs in the next 24 months? No doubt Trump will act rationally and say "well, you guys stopped me from doing the travel ban and you were right about that, lets work together to analyze why we suffered this terrorist attack."

Or it'll be an excuse to circumvent the judicial system completely using the reasoning that listening to them threatened the safety of the American People and the president's #1 job is making the homeland safe. And a TON of people are going to go along with him, because fear always wins - Japanese internment or the Patriot act being examples in our recent history.

Feels like Trump set up a lose/lose situation for everyone who disagrees with him, going under the assumption that terrorist attacks are going to occur every now and then and its impossible to stop them all.

The thing is, that this 'hold' done without evidence was based on an apparent need to 'review' the current vetting process. Putting a stop to the travel ban doesn't stop the administration reviewing the current process.

They may yet make it much stricter.

However, what they likely can't do, is what they tried to do here with the whole 'give priority to minority religions' from the effected countries.

So, yes, America will quite probably still shut it's borders to immigrants and refugees from majority muslim war torn countries. And that sucks and it's embarrassing and I will take them to task for it.

But it won't be unconstitutional.

This EO is shocking, because it is both callous and clearly unconstitutional given statements made on the record by President Snowflake and Rudy. Trump really thinks he can do whatever he wants with immigration and the courts can't say shit.

*That* will be put in it's place.

But that awful thing can be done much more humanely than this clusterfuck that swept up green card holders and legal immigrants alike. Stop issuing new visas. Stop taking new refugees.

The world, and voters, will judge accordingly. I hope they will agree with me.

But a president showing zero respect for checks and balances and the judiciary who is upset because he couldn't write a callous and unconstitutional executive order?

That is on another level.

He's not going to ignore it for now. But what happens if we get another Orlando or San Bernadino terrorist attack? He would get the full backing of Congress and a majority of American people to halt Muslim immigrants and even deport recent ones. They would beg him to write the laws, and they will willingly amend the constitution if the judicial branch tries to reverse it.

You are way too trusting if you don't think people will go along with the xenophobes immediately after an attack.

This is what they *can't* do. Or at least, if they attempt it, such a thing will get shredded in the courts.

Because public support for something plainly unconstitutional won't make it constitutional.

 

[SerTapTap]

He's not going to ignore the Court's orders. That would get him impeached.

Yes, even by a republican congress.

I was hoping he'd ignore the original stay because of this TBH. Ignoring a court order would completely destroy him.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Its a good victory for tolerance and freedom but I do have to wonder - what exactly do you think is gonna happen if a terrorist attack by an immigrant occurs in the next 24 months? No doubt Trump will act rationally and say "well, you guys stopped me from doing the travel ban and you were right about that, lets work together to analyze why we suffered this terrorist attack."

Or it'll be an excuse to circumvent the judicial system completely using the reasoning that listening to them threatened the safety of the American People and the president's #1 job is making the homeland safe. And a TON of people are going to go along with him, because fear always wins - Japanese internment or the Patriot act being examples in our recent history.

Feels like Trump set up a lose/lose situation for everyone who disagrees with him, going under the assumption that terrorist attacks are going to occur every now and then and its impossible to stop them all.

What happens? The same scenario we've been plummeting towards for a while now. Trump tries to set himself up as a dictator and, if he succeeds, we find ourselves in a period of outright chaos and violence.

 

[kmfdmpig]

He's not going to ignore it for now. But what happens if we get another Orlando or San Bernadino terrorist attack? He would get the full backing of Congress and a majority of American people to halt Muslim immigrants and even deport recent ones. They would beg him to write the laws, and they will willingly amend the constitution if the judicial branch tries to reverse it.

You are way too trusting if you don't think people will go along with the xenophobes immediately after an attack.

Many people would overreact, but not enough to amend the constitution, which is incredibly difficult to do.

 

[whyamihere]

I'm aware of what you said. I think there probably 5 votes right now even without Gorsuch.

Well, you didn't seem to be the first time I said it. I don't think there are 5 even with Gorsuch.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I mean...304-227.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be playing with stones.

You realize these two things aren't remotely similar right?

And that 3 million more people wanted her as president than him?

 

[Lights and Waves]

I mean...304-227.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be playing with stones.

She beat him by 3 MILLION votes. Sorry buddy. You sound uninformed.

 

[Caja 117]

Good, this is real justice.

Get fucked orange turd, you are not king, hopefully all the racist scum clowns in charge think twice before thinking that they can do whatever they want using a EO.

 

[Balphon]

I agree that there are portions of the law that could be struck down but I think the overall thrust is going to make it through.

Maybe on the due process, but I think the Government is basically screwed on the Establishment Clause argument thanks to Trump & co's rhetoric. I don't think the EO stands up to a facial challenge on either grounds.

I don't know enough to speak on the statutory arguments.

 

[Bold One]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829384587482656768

He tweeted this.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump

Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!

Oh, I guess meant Decision....

chump