Support NeoGAF

[Anarion07]

Hooooly shit. The "if something happens, blame the court," to me seems waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past the line. He's basically inciting a mob against our country's courts if anything randomly happens. That's so reckless and irresponsible...

Nono. I'm sure they will stay rational until they finished an investigation as to where the possible attacker came from, probably none of those 7 countries.


/s

 

[Inspectah_Deck]

I really hope all the higher judges in the country gather together on monday and call him out on those tweets.

 

[everyday math]

16 state AGs are filing brief supporting WA, MN, & HI arguments against Trump ban.
NY is leading effort.

 

[RPGCrazied]

16 state AGs are filing brief supporting WA, MN, & HI arguments against Trump ban.

And Trump thinks he can win this? Hahahaha, he is going to get crushed.

 

[Log4Girlz]

And Trump thinks he can win this? Hahahaha, he is going to get crushed.

He'll just settle to make it go away

 

[RPGCrazied]

He'll just settle to make it go away

Then that means his EO gets trashed and the ban goes away.

 

[Ac30]

I mean, dude. You reposted another persons's piece of art and people liked that piece of art. Should we applaud you? o0

He's a member of the Pirate Party

 

[Red]

And Trump thinks he can win this? Hahahaha, he is going to get crushed.

donald v United States

 

[AndyD]

Then that means his EO gets trashed and the ban goes away.

As long as the media moves onto something he perceives as positive for him, he won't mind.

 

[DangerMouse]

Nope! New tweet: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828342202174668800

When will this guy just shut up?

This.
What an irresponsible asshole.

And there's that one word "!" stinger bullshit again from someone in this position of our country. We've got a mad man in our highest office...
Sweet Jesus, we're fucked.

I really hope all the higher judges in the country gather together on monday and call him out on those tweets.

This. It's absolutely insane what he's getting away with, even since before the actual election, but now while in office. None of it stuck during the entire process but officials and the media need to hold his ass to the fire for this stuff eventually.

 

[MIMIC]

And Trump thinks he can win this? Hahahaha, he is going to get crushed.

I feel like anytime someone says this, it's a huge jinx :-/

 

[SJurgenson]

Seems no-one has posed this, but the oral arguments for the emergency stay request from the Government are scheduled for today (Tuesday) at 3PM Pacific time.

They will be live-stremed here. Note that the arguments are occuring over telephone, so there will be no video component of the stream, just audio.

Additionally a bunch of new filings have dropped, as seen on the special site set up by the 9th Circuit.

Some interesting filings:

• Several states joined in to file an amicus brief on the side of Washington State.
• A bunch of conservative groups including our friends at Citizens United filed an amicus brief on the side of the government.
• More tech companies have signed on to the original tech company brief from yesterday, as did Groupon (in a separate filing).

There is more at the site. If nothing else, this has been very enlightening and envigorating to watch how the courts and seemingly everyone but the Trump/Conservative die-hards are rallying in offense against the order.

 

[Raiden]

I love how he tweets, its like something out of a childrens book. Little Jimmy ate his candy without asking his mommy, which is bad! Very, very bad!

 

[appaws]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

SNIP

Well, that's not good.

 

[gazele]

Very interesting insight, thank you

Not happy about it, but if it's precedent there's not much that can be done (in a legal sense)

 

[captive]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



”The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty," the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, ”inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation."

”It is not within the province of any court," the court noted in that decision, ”unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien."

”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."

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his ”authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, ”an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative."

seems like this would cover new visas and green cards etc?

Not existing visas and green cards?

Also the government lawyers still have to lay this out to the judge, so far not only have they not, they've seem to done a shit ass job presenting any good case. Going for an emotional appeal? c'mon.

 

[Carpe Carnim]

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

This ignores the argument that the policy was enacted with discriminatory intent, and has the effect of discrimination based on race and/or nationality.

Trump and his friends can't help but make WA and the ACLU's case for them. Unless Congress repeals the Hart-Eller Act. Congress has retained their jurisdiction over this aspect of immigration, despite the deference to the Executive's prerogative.

 

[Barzul]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:


“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

I always felt this was the case. I'm hoping what happens is that the order ends up getting neutered in some way. I believe the justice department even offered some sort of middle ground in their appeal, where I think those who have previously been given authorization can come in basically reinstating cancelled visas and allowing them entry, this prevents the bad optics of students and professionals being barred just because of national origin, but that the issuance of new ones is not allowed for the duration of the EO. This I think might be the best outcome from this.

 

[JP_]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding was that he'd lose the bits of the EO against green card holders but rest of law was pretty safe. Unless they could prove it was driven by religious discrimination, sort of like the voter id rulings -- legal on their face, but not in their intent.

 

[Stinkles]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

All of these require that the president had made those informed decisions based on sound and constitutional data and reasoning.

I mean you may well be right but His own tweets and statements will be brought up in animus if it gets that far. So no matter what he will be exposed here.

 

[gaugebozo]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

Obama didn't ban anyone. He ordered new guidelines which meant many had to be reviewed, and the number approved slowed to a trickle for 6 months. People were still coming in.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

 

[Armaros]

Forgive me if I wait to hear from constitutional lawyers vs Lawyers on a forum.

 

[KHarvey16]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

I guess I can only suggest you check out a summary of what's happening:

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

Specifically the section on legal bases of the challenge.

 

[appaws]

Just to follow up, one of my biggest problems with this is Congress giving Presidents too much unilateral authority. This problem long predates Donald Trump. Congress just creates a lot of legislation with provisions that leave massive leeway and grants power to executive branch officials the make decisions without Congressional review.

Obviously, there is going to be some of that in the modern administrative state. Congress cannot micromanage everything. But, I think we have gone too far. Since about Teddy Roosevelt, Congress has too often acted like a lovesick puppy rolling over and licking masters boots.

I emailed Rand Paul's office and expressed my concerns about this. I also said that we should hold Trump's feet to the fire about "vetting" being legitimate, but a "ban" is not. I have no objection to careful research into the backgrounds of prospective new Americans, but that "vetting" should have some reasonable time constraints established by Congress.

Unfortunately they have given up the authority to weigh in on the decision, and it would take (presumably) a veto override to get it back.

 

[antipode]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

The ACLU weighed in on this through more recent Supreme Court decisions.

 

[SJurgenson]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

“It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

“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.”

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

I am not a lawyer, and I hold out hope that you are wrong.

Your citations are all well and good, but the idea those make this EO legal ignores the facts that the EO is a) obviously an Established Clause violation and b) without any defensible policy/governing purpose.

The government can claim all they want that is not a Muslim Ban, but with hundreds of hours tapes of Trump promising a Muslim Ban and Guliani talking about trying to create a 'legal' version of the Muslim Ban are pretty compelling.

Also, while the government loves to trot out the idea the courts cannot look into the realunstated reasons behind laws/orders, the courts can, do, and will. There has been nothing even close offered by the government as to a logical and reasonabke purpose as to why they would blanket ban all nationals of 7 countries. Unless it comes out that Iranian doctors implanted explosives in all Iranian nationals at birth, I don't see how they can offer anything to reasonably explain it.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

You doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[appaws]

I guess I can only suggest you check out a summary of what's happening:

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

Specifically the section on legal bases of the challenge.

Yeah, I read that. I do agree that the statutory challenge is the strongest chance of prevailing. A lot of these other challenges are actually pretty flimsy, IMO. The constitutional challenges may apply to a subset of the visa holders, but obviously not to prospective new visa applicants.

There are a lot of good moral arguments being made here. I agree with a lot of them. They hold no water in a court which is properly carrying out its duties, however.

Congress should have repealed the 1952 language in the 1965 legislation which granted the president such massive unilateral authority.

 

[GameAddict411]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



”The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty," the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, ”inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation."

”It is not within the province of any court," the court noted in that decision, ”unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien."

”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."

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his ”authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, ”an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative."

You are ignoring the intentions behind the ban itself. There is substantial amount of evidence with intent to discriminate and target Muslims from just looking at the campaign promises and also what Giuliani said in an interview admitting to wanting to approach this on legal level. There is also the legal argument of how the ban would help the national security of this country and the economical impact on many companies. Large corporations will start filing lawsuits for damage and it doesn't look good for Trump.

The legal argument that you presented also ignores the moral aspect of it which the judges have full discretion on how they take that into account. I am no lawyer by any means, but I don't think it's as cut and dry a you make it out to be. But I appreciate your post but it gets to show that it's still an up hill battle and it's not going to be easy to stop Trump. There is still a big chance of the ban being reinstated and it's really sad.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yeah, I read that. I do agree that the statutory challenge is the strongest chance of prevailing. A lot of these other challenges are actually pretty flimsy, IMO. The constitutional challenges may apply to a subset of the visa holders, but obviously not to prospective new visa applicants.

There are a lot of good moral arguments being made here. I agree with a lot of them. They hold no water in a court which is properly carrying out its duties, however.

Congress should have repealed the 1952 language in the 1965 legislation which granted the president such massive unilateral authority.

Flimsy? I don't really understand how you first claimed to have looked at both sides to this and then ignored almost all of their legal arguments.

 

[appaws]

I am not a lawyer, and I hold out hope that you are wrong.

Your citations are all well and good, but the idea those make this EO legal ignores the facts that the EO is a) obviously an Established Clause violation and b) without any defensible policy/governing purpose.

Landon is still law. It has not been overturned or even challenged or diluted in any way. You are wrong about this.

You doth protest too much, methinks.

Yes, IRL I am Jeff Sessions.

 

[trembli0s]

Flimsy? I don't really understand how you first claimed to have looked at both sides to this and then ignored almost all of their legal arguments.

Because there simply isn't a lot of legal backing for the challenging states. This isn't just an immigration issue. It involves Article II Executive authority over foreign affairs which is one of the strongest fonts of Executive authority.

The statutory conflict argument is the strongest one. Otherwise you're asking for courts other than the Supreme Court to overturn precedent, which they are very hesitant to do.

 

[Gutek]

For the record, I am a libertarian and I hate this executive overreach. (Unlike most of you, I also hated it when Obama did it.)

I am also a lawyer.

Trump is going to end up winning on this. I've read both sides, its not even close. Maybe some weirdness in the 9th Circus today could delay it, the are known for being out of kilter with the other federal circuits....but if this made it to the Supremes, it would be unanimous in Trump's favor. The precedents are overwhelming.

Again, to keep from getting called names and dogpiled, I disagree with the order.

The following are quotes from federal law and previous decisions that are still standing. They present a pretty overwhelming case:



”The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty," the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, ”inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation."

”It is not within the province of any court," the court noted in that decision, ”unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien."

”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."

When the president has such authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court held in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952, his ”authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, ”an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative."

Yup. Said it before. America is not ready to handle a full on authoritarian fascist.

 

[KHarvey16]

Because there simply isn't a lot of legal backing for the challenging states. This isn't just an immigration issue. It involves Article II Executive authority over foreign affairs which is one of the strongest fonts of Executive authority.

The statutory conflict argument is the strongest one. Otherwise you're asking for courts other than the Supreme Court to overturn precedent, which they are very hesitant to do.

The precedent cited isn't relevant to the facts of this case. If you look at the summary provided on the wiki page I haven't seen anything mentioned that nullifies any of it.

This "not even close" attitude is very strange given the near unanimous determinations by multiple courts about the likelihood of these plaintiffs prevailing.

 

[nintendoman58]

Yup. Said it before. America is not ready to handle a full on authoritarian fascist.

You're really underestimating your own country and all the people against this man.

I really wish I'd stop seeing this rhetoric of "Trump is going to win everything. It's a 100% fact" on GAF. This is the kind of rhetoric that his supporters want other people to have.

 

[greatgeek]

Because there simply isn't a lot of legal backing for the challenging states. This isn't just an immigration issue. It involves Article II Executive authority over foreign affairs which is one of the strongest fonts of Executive authority.

The statutory conflict argument is the strongest one. Otherwise you're asking for courts other than the Supreme Court to overturn precedent, which they are very hesitant to do.

I think the government made a good argument on this point in their brief. IIRC they pointed out that under INA the president has the discretion to restrict the admission of certain aliens, while the anti-discrimination provision only affects the issuance of immigration documents. I suppose, though, it would be strange if the president could still effectively regulate immigration on the basis of nationality by focusing on admission.

 

[appaws]

The precedent cited isn't relevant to the facts of this case. If you look at the summary provided on the wiki page I haven't seen anything mentioned that nullifies any of it.

This "not even close" attitude is very strange given the near unanimous determinations by multiple courts about the likelihood of these plaintiffs prevailing.

You think the presidential authority level recognized in Youngstown is not relevant? Landon's almost absolute statement against applying constitutional protections to immigrants seeking entry to the United States...is not relevant? The 1952 statutory language is not relevant?

The "not even close" thing is on the issue of the stay. The court in Washington really laid an egg with that one, and I could see the current SCOTUS going 8-0 against the stay. The substantive issue underlying it is the issue of the two conflicting statutes and how they would be interpreted. I could see that one being a party line decision if it got to the Supremes.

 

[KHarvey16]

You think the presidential authority recognized in Youngstown is not relevant? Landon's almost absolute statement against applying constitutional protections to immigrants seeking entry to the United States...is not relevant? The 1952 statutory language is not relevant?

The "not even close" thing is on the issue of the stay. The court in Washington really laid an egg with that one, and I could see the current SCOTUS going 8-0 against the stay. The substantive issue underlying it is the issue of the two conflicting statutes and how they would be interpreted. I could see that one being a party line decision if it got to the Supremes.

That is not the only court that issued a stay. Every single suit, save for the extension requested in Boston, has led to a judge determining the plaintiffs are likely to succeed. Did they not all read the same information as you? Is there some incredibly obvious point they're all missing?

 

[Armaros]

You think the presidential authority level recognized in Youngstown is not relevant? Landon's almost absolute statement against applying constitutional protections to immigrants seeking entry to the United States...is not relevant? The 1952 statutory language is not relevant?

The "not even close" thing is on the issue of the stay. The court in Washington really laid an egg with that one, and I could see the current SCOTUS going 8-0 against the stay. The substantive issue underlying it is the issue of the two conflicting statutes and how they would be interpreted. I could see that one being a party line decision if it got to the Supremes.

Are you a consititional lawyer? Is this section of law your bulwick? Because you are acting like it is.

 

[numble]

You think the presidential authority level recognized in Youngstown is not relevant? Landon's almost absolute statement against applying constitutional protections to immigrants seeking entry to the United States...is not relevant? The 1952 statutory language is not relevant?

The "not even close" thing is on the issue of the stay. The court in Washington really laid an egg with that one, and I could see the current SCOTUS going 8-0 against the stay. The substantive issue underlying it is the issue of the two conflicting statutes and how they would be interpreted. I could see that one being a party line decision if it got to the Supremes.

Mr. Lawyer, you are getting your terminology mixed up.

The court in Washington issued a TRO.
The DOJ appealed to get a stay on the TRO.
The ruling on the stay has not been handed down.
Your argument is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would issue a stay, the plaintiffs would appeal to SCOTUS and you would see SCOTUS going 8-0 against the stay and supporting the TRO?

 

[KHarvey16]

Arguments (by phone) will be live streamed at 3PM PST/6PM EST (~1.5 hours).

 

[Cat Party]

Arguments (by phone) will be live streamed at 3PM PST/6PM EST (~1.5 hours).

Thanks. Should be interesting.

 

[SJurgenson]

The hearing is starting in 5 minutes.

I believe this day sheet lists the judges and attorneys who will be speaking.

The direct YouTube URL for the stream is https://youtu.be/DEK8FCBMkMQ

Edit: Does anyone with thread-making powers think this is new thread worthy?

 

[Rebel Leader]

I would but I'm on a phone.. i hatte making threads on it


Edit

Someone did
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1341866&page=100000#footer

 

[appaws]

Mr. Lawyer, you are getting your terminology mixed up.

The court in Washington issued a TRO.
The DOJ appealed to get a stay on the TRO.
The ruling on the stay has not been handed down.
Your argument is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would issue a stay, the plaintiffs would appeal to SCOTUS and you would see SCOTUS going 8-0 against the stay and supporting the TRO?

Sorry I was whipping things off and using slipshod terminology. I read the order from Judge Robart earlier, yes I know what it was he issued....poorly (not at all) reasoned as it was, I could tell that much.

 

[numble]

Sorry I was whipping things off and using slipshod terminology. I read the order from Judge Robart earlier, yes I know what it was he issued....poorly (not at all) reasoned as it was, I could tell that much.

You stated that you thought that even SCOTUS might rule 4-4 on the merits. What would be the reasoning for them to rule against the TRO if you think that 4 SCOTUS justices will rule that the case should succeed on the merits?

 

[appaws]

You stated that you thought that even SCOTUS might rule 4-4 on the merits. What would be the reasoning for them to rule against the TRO if you think that 4 SCOTUS justices will rule that the case should succeed on the merits?

My spur of the moment thinking was that any judge would probably find on the procedural question that Washington and Minnesota relied on a pretty thin thread to establish standing. Judge Robart's TRO was pretty weak on explanation, which isn't necessarily totally his fault considering the fast time frame involved. Unlike Trump I respect judges even when I think they make bad decisions.

As far as the substantive question, my gut reaction is that the court is so politicized that the 4 lefties would go against Trump even if he cured cancer or pulled back a puppy dangling off the edge of a cliff. On the merits, I would think the administration should win really easily. The plenary power of the other two branches (which congress stupidly gave up, IMO) to regulate entry of foreign nationals, and the decision in Landon still stands.

I think Landon is dispositive against those who DO NOT already have US documents, etc. I am not sure about students, etc. who are trying to return. That is a different issue.

The statutory issue is where the action is. Congress drafted really stupidly in 1965 and left almost unlimited power in the hands of the executive branch.

These issues about the Establishment clause and the 14th Amendment are total bullshit. No court is going to rule that every human being on earth is covered by the US constitution. Nor should they, no matter how much you hate Donald Trump, you have to see that would be a recipe for chaos.

 

[numble]

My spur of the moment thinking was that any judge would probably find on the procedural question that Washington and Minnesota relied on a pretty thin thread to establish standing. Judge Robart's TRO was pretty weak on explanation, which isn't necessarily totally his fault considering the fast time frame involved. Unlike Trump I respect judges even when I think they make bad decisions.

As far as the substantive question, my gut reaction is that the court is so politicized that the 4 lefties would go against Trump even if he cured cancer or pulled back a puppy dangling off the edge of a cliff. On the merits, I would think the administration should win really easily. The plenary power of the other two branches (which congress stupidly gave up, IMO) to regulate entry of foreign nationals, and the decision in Landon still stands.

I think Landon is dispositive against those who DO NOT already have US documents, etc. I am not sure about students, etc. who are trying to return. That is a different issue.

The statutory issue is where the action is. Congress drafted really stupidly in 1965 and left almost unlimited power in the hands of the executive branch.

These issues about the Establishment clause and the 14th Amendment are total bullshit. No court is going to rule that every human being on earth is covered by the US constitution. Nor should they, no matter how much you hate Donald Trump, you have to see that would be a recipe for chaos.

The establishment clause is about what laws can be made, it does not mean Congress can make laws respecting an establishment of religion as long as it is about non-citizens. Can Congress make a law saying only Christians from X country are allowed in?

You keep making your arguments about the merits yet keep claiming that the slam dunk is against the TRO without elaborating very much on the TRO. What authorities are you relying on to say that the states do not have standing?

 

[Back-In-Black]

Yeah, I read that. I do agree that the statutory challenge is the strongest chance of prevailing. A lot of these other challenges are actually pretty flimsy, IMO. The constitutional challenges may apply to a subset of the visa holders, but obviously not to prospective new visa applicants.

There are a lot of good moral arguments being made here. I agree with a lot of them. They hold no water in a court which is properly carrying out its duties, however.

Congress should have repealed the 1952 language in the 1965 legislation which granted the president such massive unilateral authority.

I'm a lawyer, I think I'm going to have to agree with you. I'm still getting up to speed reading all the rulings and briefs, however, I've just gone through and read the briefs of both sides, the TRO order from the district court, and the order denying an extension of the TRO in Massachusetts. I think the state government has some very tough issues to overcome regarding standing, that said I think they can overcome this hurdle. But, they'll lose on the merits of the case specifically as it applies to non-resident aliens. A subset of visa/green card holders will be exempt from the order but all new applicants and aliens barred from entering the country will be upheld.

The President simply has too much authority with regards to immigration that is pretty much unreviewable by the courts giving the high deferential standard afforded to the Executive in this matter. I believe the Massachusetts District Court's decision on the matter is indicative of how the order will play out in the higher courts:

(Scroll down to Exhibit B on p.41 for the decision)
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/04/17-35105%20motion.pdf

Though, to be fair, the MA case dealt with the individual plaintiffs affected and not the state government as a party. I also take issue with the judge's reliance on a WH memo as proof positive of the order's intent.

 

[brau]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html

US appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came in a challenge to Trump's order filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the case's final outcome.

I wonder how things will turn out on the Supreme Court. Might not follow suit there.

WaPo