• 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.

Seattle Fed. Judge grants temporary restraining order on Immigration Ban nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

everyday math

Banned
"Courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the President's prospective judgment about future risks. ...Unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process." -DoJ
Click to expand...

Could the court now ask to to see definitive proof that there is a terrorist attack in the works?
 
T

Tovarisc

Member
everyday math said:
Could the court now ask to to see definitive proof that there is a terrorist attack in the works?
Click to expand...

Yes. Such proof, if any exist, can be shown to judge behind closed doors afaik.

Edit: If judge just takes at DoJ's argument at face value and doesn't ask / demand to see evidence it's huge letdown.
 
Z

zelas

Member
jellies_two said:
What is scary is Trump is screaming on twitter that a judge is opening the door to a terrorist attack. Right now. Anytime now. A big one. Please. Still waiting. Use lane 5 at JFK. I suggest central station and a suitcase..

If something happened on US soil of the right scale he'd have the people with rifles in the government to swing an immediate imposition of emergency rules and no judge is going to stand up to it.

So actual terrorists aside ( who clearly would also be interested in this unique moment of weakness ) the only thing between now and suspension of opposition is our trust that nobody in government at a high level, with a contact in Iraq private security or something, decides they can swing one and #maga for team trump.
Click to expand...

Any attack would be just be further proof of their incompetence. Trump and his fools should fucking do their job and vet people like they said they would. If they can't stop organized, 9/11 style attacks like the last administration did then that's on them. The only option is to rip up the constitution. If he was taking the intelligence briefings seriously, instead of getting on twitter shouting about how "only he can save this country," he'd know that.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Meus Renaissance said:
If the reason the EO was dismissed was because it speculating upon the threat posed by these seven countries, then there is a good chance the order will be overturned if the White House is able to present data.
Click to expand...

Data showing that no US citizens have been harmed by anyone from those 7 countries in terrorist attacks? That kind of data?
 
M

Malleymal

You now belong to FMT.
Problem here is that I think there will be a staged act to make trump get his way. I have been thinking that for a little bit..... they have every thing to gain now. A big I told you so, and Obama let them in. It would be the end times indeed
 
S

SlipperyFishes

Banned
Tovarisc said:
It's his personal account that he uses daily. I expect to get salvo of tweets in next ~3h, usually window for when he tweets.

Edit: You should read some of his stuff from the past, greatest stuff
Click to expand...
Trump hasn't tweeted in 14 hours - that's weird. I guess his phone has run out of white power.
 
O

Osiris

I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
SlipperyFishes said:
Trump hasn't tweeted in 14 hours - that's weird. I guess his phone has run out of white power.
Click to expand...

Either that or a staffer suggested a temporary twitter black-out and the WH medical staff are still dealing with the fall out. :p
 
S

Saint Gregory

Member
SlipperyFishes said:
Trump hasn't tweeted in 14 hours - that's weird. I guess his phone has run out of white power.
Click to expand...
Considering that I read yesterday that Trump's Tweets and the Administration's media appearances are ruining their case in the courts it's not that surprising.

How stupid and arrogant do you have to be to think that you can *nod nod* *wink wink* like they've been doing in public and then argue in court that their ban isn't a ban?
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
NullPointer said:
God damn I'm sick of this man and his blanket "bad people" shit. "So called judge" is the icing on the idiot cake.

He talks like a grumpy child.

And to whom is he asking all of these twitter questions? Isn't he the one in the oval office? Shouldn't he be the one who knows?

His followers actually appreciate this kind of social media stream of consciousness?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's how they get their talking points.

Jackpot said:
Trump posted a story from InfoWars and Sputnik that Kuwait had instituted a similar ban. Turns out it was fake.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-denies-donald-trump-fake-news-a7563716.html
Click to expand...
Remember, those guys have White House press credentials now.
 
L

Loki

Count of Concision
Merits (or lack thereof) of the ban notwithstanding, can anyone explain to me how US Constitutional rights - whether it be for due process, first amendment, or whatever is being cited - apply to people who aren't only not US citizens, but aren't even on US soil and have literally no status here (resident etc.).

Obviously non-citizens have rights if they are in the US (due process etc.), but how can they have rights if they are in another country assuming they have never been here, have no legal standing here, and are looking to come here for the first time. Just genuinely curious as to how it's being framed.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Loki said:
Merits (or lack thereof) of the ban notwithstanding, can anyone explain to me how US Constitutional rights - whether it be for due process, first amendment, or whatever is being cited - apply to people who aren't only not US citizens, but aren't even on US soil and have literally no status here (resident etc.).

Obviously non-citizens have rights if they are in the US (due process etc.), but how can they have rights if they are in another country assuming they have never been here, have no legal standing here, and are looking to come here for the first time. Just genuinely curious as to how it's being framed.
Click to expand...

Well the initial block didn't get into the nitty gritty finer legal details, but I would assume that part of the grounds for dismissing it would be the religious targeting. Though they made efforts in the official language to make it a matter of security screening, they've gone on record far too many times in the press now (Guliani most notoriously paraphrasing the president on national television) calling it a Muslim ban.

People with valid visas do have rights - for travel, due process, education, and employment - and the DOJ would have to justify nullification of those rights for national security as well.
 
L

Loki

Count of Concision
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Well the initial block didn't get into the nitty gritty finer legal details, but I would assume that part of the grounds for dismissing it would be the religious targeting. Though they made efforts in the official language to make it a matter of security screening, they've gone on record far too many times in the press now (Guliani most notoriously paraphrasing the president on national television) calling it a Muslim ban.

People with valid visas do have rights - for travel, due process, education, and employment - and the DOJ would have to justify nullification of those rights for national security as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Again, though, it begs the question of how our Constitutional religious discrimination protections can apply to people who have no status/standing in the US and aren't even on our soil (the latter part is what I'm most curious about, because essentially it seems like it's being argued that US Constitutional rights apply to everyone in the world insofar as the US would make any law/policy affecting them in any way, and that seems...odd).
 
W

Walter White Walker

Member
Loki said:
Thanks. Again, though, it begs the question of how our Constitutional religious discrimination protections can apply to people who have no status/standing in the US and aren't even on our soil (the latter part is what I'm most curious about, because essentially it seems like it's being argued that US Constitutional rights apply to everyone in the world insofar as the US would make any law/policy affecting them in any way, and that seems...odd).
Click to expand...

The ban did affect Americans - employers, families, etc.

The complaint asserts that the President's actions are ”separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging Washington's economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and undermining Washington's sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees."
Click to expand...

http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-seeks-halt-trump-s-immigration-executive-order
 
X

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Roland_Gunner said:
Like Presidents, judges can only be impeached by a super-majority vote in both houses of Congress.
Click to expand...
The House can pass impeachment charges for the President with a simple majority vote. The Senate would then try the impeachment case brought on by the House and then it would take a 2/3 majority to remove the President from office.
 
notworksafe

notworksafe

Member
Nokterian said:
My tweet went viral and still going, amazing seeing this.

https://twitter.com/Nokterian/status/828164934760595458
Click to expand...

odd that you are posting this for a second time. are you the artist or just someone not so subtly begging for social media attention while also using someone else's work to do so?

on topic, one assumes this case will be pursued to the supreme court, correct? any ideas of how that will lean? or is this something to be settled by legislation instead?
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Loki said:
Thanks. Again, though, it begs the question of how our Constitutional religious discrimination protections can apply to people who have no status/standing in the US and aren't even on our soil (the latter part is what I'm most curious about, because essentially it seems like it's being argued that US Constitutional rights apply to everyone in the world insofar as the US would make any law/policy affecting them in any way, and that seems...odd).
Click to expand...

My gut reaction is that it's odd that people have internally okayed the thought that some people shouldn't get protections because they're on a certain part of the map.

I prefer the ideal that in theory, everyone in the world should be covered by the Constitution, not just people within certain boundaries. "We find these truths to be self evident" was radical in a time where people thought rights were inherited from a diety. "It's okay because they're not standing on our dirt" has always been a disturbing line of thought, to me.
 
S

Shoeless

Member
Culex said:
Serve for life, just like SCOTUS judges. Only way to get rid of a federal judge is to ask for impeachment.
Click to expand...

Well, depending on deep his vindictiveness runs, which I assume is Marianas Trench depths, he might try to go for the impeachment.

I think Trump is probably just running into the brick wall of corporate versus government. He thought running the country would be the same as running a company, because as a CEO/president of a company, you basically are an autocrat. You can fire whomever you like without process or explanation, hire/promote with the same freedom, and basically just run things as you see fit, because everyone is your employee, or your subjects, they HAVE to do what you tell them.

He wasn't counting on the idea that some people in government wouldn't consider themselves employees of the President, so much as employees of a government designed to serve the people, and would act that way. He's also never encountered concepts like lifetime appointments for certain positions, so I think he's getting a crash course now in the differences between a country and a company and probably finding that he prefers corporate power over government. A little too late, since he's in charge now, but oh well.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
notworksafe said:
odd that you are posting this for a second time. are you the artist or just someone not so subtly begging for social media attention while also using someone else's work to do so?

on topic, one assumes this case will be pursued to the supreme court, correct? any ideas of how that will lean? or is this something to be settled by legislation instead?
Click to expand...

Does calling either of the two out make you just feel super good? Lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
3K
ManaByte replied
  • Locked
Seattle federal judge grants temporary restraining order on immigration ban on nation
2
577
ValkyrUser replied
Supreme Court rules in favor for Trump in 'Muslim' travel ban
2
83
5K
ic3cait replied
No Job, Loads of Debt: Covid Upends Middle-Class Family Finances - WSJ
Social
17
3K
daveonezero replied
  • Locked
Federal appeals court upholds nationwide block on Trump's travel ban
3
1K
Madness replied
Top Bottom