• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike M

Nick N
Realistically, how much can Trump bring to bear in prosecuting what I'm sure will be his new feud with the ACLU? Is there much he can do besides paint a target on them with Twitter and urge his sociopathic supporters to "take action?"
 
D

Dierce

Member
PowerTaxi said:
Speaking as an outsider here but if this goes to the SC, how soon can they rule on it?
Click to expand...
From what I understand a split decision (which would be the worst possible option for us) would still rule in favor of the lower courts and therefore the stay would remain. I'm not sure how soon though.
 
K

kess

Member
We're barreling into the biggest constitutional crisis in decades with a vacant Supreme Court seat. Fuck all the apologists who carried water for the GOP on this.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
ACLU got the stay, applied to the entire country.

Looks like Trump's heading to court.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure, especially under the laws passed during Bush Jr's two terms, that the department of homeland security has complete jurisdiction here and that this is well within the power of the executive. The only caveat I can think of is that this can't apply to citizens, probably.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Spoiled Milk said:
I'm pretty sure, especially under the laws passed during Bush Jr's two terms, that the department of homeland security has complete jurisdiction here and that this is well within the power of the executive. The only caveat I can think of is that this can't apply to citizens, probably.
Click to expand...
Ugh
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Spoiled Milk said:
I'm pretty sure, especially under the laws passed during Bush Jr's two terms, that the department of homeland security has complete jurisdiction here and that this is well within the power of the executive. The only caveat I can think of is that this can't apply to citizens, probably.
Click to expand...

I think it's completely legal to block immigration from certain countries, but I'm not sure they can bar permanent residents with proper documentation from re-entering the country.
 
T

thefro

Member
So out of the DNC chair candidates (they had a forum in Dallas earlier today):

Pete Buttigieg is at Dallas airport with the protestors there, Tom Perez claims to be on the way. Jehmu Greene is on a flight from Dallas to JFK to join protestors there.

Haven't heard about the rest.

Edit: Jaime Harrison & Tom Perez are both there now with Buttigieg
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
I think it's completely legal to block immigration from certain countries, but I'm not sure they can bar permanent residents with proper documentation from re-entering the country.
Click to expand...

We do all the time. It's called a no-fly list. It's why Mos Def can't get back in the country. Bush set up the framework for the fascists a long time ago.
 
V

Vixdean

Member
Yeah they are never going to get a judge to throw out the EO entirely, Presidents have always had the power to do this sort of thing. It would be up to Congress to change the law.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Vixdean said:
Yeah they are never going to get a judge to throw out the EO entirely, Presidents have always had the power to do this sort of thing. It would be up to Congress to change the law.
Click to expand...

They can at least get it scaled back, which isn't nothing.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Juliette Kayyem
Juliette Kayyem‏ @juliettekayyem

Hearing that customs officials in tears because they can't get guidance from White House, DHS not returning calls, etc and crowds growing.
Click to expand...
.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Oh, okay

So this is a pretty cut and dry case then.
Click to expand...

I hope so. There's a little precedent, too. There was a government policy in the 90s that required Vietnamese who were living in Hong Kong to go back to Vietnam to apply for a visa, whereas any other applicants could apply anywhere they want. A federal appeals court blocked it. It's not a 1:1 situation but still relevant, I think.

It sounds like Trump is planning on using the 1952 law to justify this, but that doesn't justify banning entire countries. He could probably narrow it down more and target certain groups, like other presidents have done.

Or maybe all precedent will be thrown out the window and it'll be upheld. Who the fuck knows anymore?
 
G

greatgeek

Banned
So if
when
Trump refuses to comply with a federal court order, then he be impeached, right? You would think that's impeachable.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
I am now in firm belief that Trump supporters who say this is perfectly fine are an absolute lost cause to anything logical. The Democratic party needs to reach out and harness that outrage to bring people to together to help them realize that they can make this all stop.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
greatgeek said:
So if
when
Trump refuses to comply with a federal court order, then he be impeached, right? You would think that's impeachable.
Click to expand...
They will just say Supreme Court is establishment/fake news. Jeffrey Lord will bring up Dredd Scott decision to explain why Supreme Court needs to be "reformed". And so it goes.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
It's not legal to bar immigrants, based on national origin, as noted in the link above. That doesn't cover those who are temporary entrants.

Also, a religious ban, on top of being basically impossible to administer, would not pass constitutional muster according to Laurence Tribe.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
shinra-bansho said:
It's not legal to bar immigrants, based on national origin, as noted in the link above. That doesn't cover those who are temporary entrants.

Also, a religious ban, on top of being basically impossible to administer, would not pass constitutional muster according to Laurence Tribe.
Click to expand...

A religious ban seems blatantly unconstitutional. I'm not sure how they ever expected it to hold up in court unless they were going to go the Jackson route and tell the judiciary to go fuck itself.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
shinra-bansho said:
It's not legal to bar immigrants, based on national origin, as noted in the link above. That doesn't cover those who are temporary entrants.

Also, a religious ban, on top of being basically impossible to administer, would not pass constitutional muster according to Laurence Tribe.
Click to expand...
That depends on if they convince somehow that Islam is an ideology and not a religion. It probably hinges on that.
 
R

royalan

Member
greatgeek said:
So if
when
Trump refuses to comply with a federal court order, then he be impeached, right? You would think that's impeachable.
Click to expand...

That's not the problem. Trump could be impeached now. Trump is currently in violation of the emoluments clauses of our Constitution.

Congress isn't refusing to initiate the impeachment process because there's nothing on Trump. It's because the Republicans don't want to, because they're scum, and Trump is their useful idiot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
News NSFW 639 640 641 642 643
32K
2M
EviLore replied
Kanye West Planning Russia Trip to Meet Putin and Perform Sunday Service, Says Advisor
21
2K
It's all in the wrist replied
NYTIMES - Report Points to Microwave ‘Attack’ as Likely Source of Mystery Illnesses That Hit Diplomats and Spies
News
7
2K
DisguiseArrsick replied
Gowdy: Trump advisers should consider quitting over Russia
0
621
Arkage replied
  • Locked
Trump "Owned by Russia for 30 years" says his "Art of Deal" Ghostwriter
2 3
131
10K
FStubbs replied
Top Bottom