Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Courts Vs. Muslim ban

2017 Executive Orders Muslim ban District Judge Ann Donnelly Separation of Powers

  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#121 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,626 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 11:53 AM

^

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the USSC rules. And given the fact that 9 times out of 10 they overturn the 9th circus...My money is on the travel ban being ruled legal, and the ban being ruled illegal and unconstitutional.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#122 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:11 PM

^ It wasn't the 9th circuit/ "circus" that recently upheld this decision against the Muslim ban. Nor was it the Barnum and Bailey Ringling Bros. Circus. It was the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, a 10-3 decision. Maybe you should check Fox or Breitbart for your stats on the 4th Circuit's overturn rate?

I just like pointing out when you're wrong, but selectively since I don't want it to be a full time job.

By the way, your quote..."My money is on the travel ban being ruled legal, and the ban being ruled illegal and unconstitutional" is a pretty safe bet seeing as how you're betting it both ways, both being ruled legal and simultaneously being ruled illegal and unconstitutional.

Schr÷dinger's Supreme Court decision? Will Clarence Thomas let the cat out of the box?

And just food for thought, you do realize that the USSC doesn't have to take under consideration every case petitioned for its review, don't you? If they refuse to accept this issue for deliberation it's over and done...decision reverts to the Court of Appeals.

Edited by yadda yadda, 27 May 2017 - 02:42 PM.


#123 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:12 PM

Your money? Whatevs. I'd settle for you not calling all the Judges who are against upholding the Muslim Travel Ban activists judges, whether they number 1, 4, 5 or more on the USSC.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#124 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 28 May 2017 - 07:35 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 26 May 2017 - 01:24 AM, said:

And as I said before, the judges on this appeals court can also sleep easy in the knowledge that if a terrorist that would've been stopped by the ban gets through, because of their freeze, then those deaths are also on their hands. Hope they sleep well in that knowledge.

I have dissected this line of thinking you have before. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.

Edited by sierraleone, 28 May 2017 - 07:36 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#125 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,626 posts

Posted 28 May 2017 - 12:54 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 27 May 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:


And just food for thought, you do realize that the USSC doesn't have to take under consideration every case petitioned for its review, don't you? If they refuse to accept this issue for deliberation it's over and done...decision reverts to the Court of Appeals.


True, they don't have to review the case at all. That would actually be a easy win for the far left, in that case...Well, at least til the next Democrat becomes President. Pretty sure once the next Democrat is elected President, the Left won't like the idea of courts having limited a President's constitutional power at all.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#126 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 28 May 2017 - 01:01 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 28 May 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 27 May 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:


And just food for thought, you do realize that the USSC doesn't have to take under consideration every case petitioned for its review, don't you? If they refuse to accept this issue for deliberation it's over and done...decision reverts to the Court of Appeals.


True, they don't have to review the case at all. That would actually be a easy win for the far left, in that case...Well, at least til the next Democrat becomes President. Pretty sure once the next Democrat is elected President, the Left won't like the idea of courts having limited a President's constitutional power at all.

The LEFT won't have to worry since Democrats are not authoritarian wannabe dictators, by and large honor the rules of law, respect the Constitutionally imposed imperative of equal and separate branches of government and judicial independence, and wouldn't try to make a Muslim ban by Executive Order. So I'm pretty sure you're wrong again.

Edited by yadda yadda, 28 May 2017 - 01:50 PM.


#127 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,988 posts

Posted 28 May 2017 - 02:17 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 27 May 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

^

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the USSC rules. And given the fact that 9 times out of 10 they overturn the 9th circus...My money is on the travel ban being ruled legal, and the ban being ruled illegal and unconstitutional.

Lies.

http://www.politifac...court-country-/

The USSC overturns about 80% of the appeals from the 9th THAT THEY ACCEPT.  They accept a vanishingly small number of appeals. The 9th circuit's overturn rate is under 1%.

#128 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 04:07 PM

Trump has asked the Supreme Court to revive his muslim travel ban. And I don't mean via twitter or social media. CNN
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#129 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 06:42 PM

Wow, if the USSC hurries, they can maybe reinstate 45's ninety day Muslim ban like ninety or so days after it was declared to be urgently needed or all sorts of terroristic hell might break loose. You'd figure that with all those top of the line, cream of the crop brainiacs in the White House they'd have been studying those six or seven countries in the 90 day interim and had it all figured out by now. Just sayin'....   :)

#130 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 06:47 PM

^ It is the liberals fault for keeping them busy in court instead of figuring that out! :D
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#131 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,626 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 09:15 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 02 June 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

Wow, if the USSC hurries, they can maybe reinstate 45's ninety day Muslim ban like ninety or so days after it was declared to be urgently needed or all sorts of terroristic hell might break loose. You'd figure that with all those top of the line, cream of the crop brainiacs in the White House they'd have been studying those six or seven countries in the 90 day interim and had it all figured out by now. Just sayin'....   :)

I was actually wondering about this.

For argument's sake, say the USSC takes the case this Monday, and the following Friday rules in President Trump's favor. Does that then mean the President can start the travel ban back from zero, back to day One as it were? or must it be the same exact time frame laid out in the EO?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#132 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:14 AM

Gotta hate this president, gotta love his tendency to cut the legs out from those arguing on his behalf. Here he's set his DOJ legal beagles on trying to get the USSC to accept and rule favorably on his travel ban. They've been arguing consistently before all court venues that it is not in fact, a travel ban. 45 this morning in a petulant tweet retort to an MSNBC program spelled out that is most definitely a TRAVEL BAN, and that his DOJ shouldn't have I guess twisted his arm to re-issue his poorly worded first EO with the watered down namby- pamby slightly less anti-religious second EO, because the first one really laid out his blatant anti-Muslim sentiment most accurately.

I'm sure that the Supreme Court will be thankful for his forceful part in clearing up the issues for them.  ;)

Edited by yadda yadda, 05 June 2017 - 11:15 AM.


#133 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:23 AM

Is Twittler trying to make the argument for those fighting the Muslim Travel Ban in court? Wait, never mind, great job Donald! Keep it up!

Though, of course there is no thought behind this besides what is in it for me, and how does this make me look strong/dominant.

I think we should rename the witching hour the twittling hour.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!
3:25 AM - 5 Jun 2017

Um, so you are basically saying forget the legalize dressing on it, and forget the laypeoples/surrogates attempts at excusing your rantings and pretending to assert that this is based on a rational thought out policy position or policy strategy (besides throwing your base red meat)? Also, the Muslim Travel Ban was supposed to be only for 90 days right? While you guys figured out what the heck was going on, and fix it?


Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump


The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!
3:37 AM - 5 Jun 2017

Um, so you assert that the original Muslim Travel Ban is better, the one that, in its text, is more problematic? Also, you are going to court over Muslim Travel Ban 2.0, USSC will not be entertaining a "tougher version", that only isn't their job in this case, that is not their role. They *may* consider Muslim Travel Ban 1.0 & how it sheds light on what Muslim Travel Ban 2.0 is really about.

  
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump


In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!   
3:44 AM - 5 Jun 2017


Um, you are extreme vetting right now? If accurate, why the need for a Muslim Travel ban at all? If you are saying we need extreme vetting, well, you have had over 90 days from the 1st Muslim Travel Ban, very nearly 90 days on the 2nd Muslim Travel Ban… Have you figured out what is going on yet? What are you waiting for to fix it?


You know, the government lawyers tried to argue that one shouldn't look at candidate Trump's statements, he was campaigning (*rolls eyes*), but Trump wants to give more ammo for the other side's lawyers as POTUS? Go right ahead.

Edited by sierraleone, 05 June 2017 - 11:23 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#134 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 26 June 2017 - 11:40 AM

Per the other SCOTUS thread, the travel ban has been allowed to partially go into effect in 72 hours and SCOTUS will hear the case in Oct.

WaPo
https://www.washingt...m=.1d33b07844f8

Note, this means the 90 day visa/immigration ban(?) will be in effect until about Sep 27, and the 120 day refugee ban until about Oct 27.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#135 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 413 posts

Posted 28 June 2017 - 07:06 PM

Trumpcare will kill more people in one or two hours of every day than terrorist refugees have killed in the U.S. in forty years.

The ban has nothing to do with national security. It's entirely about bigotry.

http://blog.independ...efugees-killed/

Quote

According to the Cato Institute, the United States admitted 3,252,493 refugees between 1975 and 2015. Twenty of them were terrorists. This represents some 0.00062 percent of all refugees. Only three attacks carried out by these refugees were successful.

In total, in a span of forty years, “terrorist refugees” have killed three people in the United States.

But what about the attacks in San Bernardino, the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Boston Marathon bombings, and 9/11? Are these not “proof” that such a ban is warranted? After all, the individuals responsible for the attacks had some connection to foreign countries.

In reality, the current executive order would have stopped exactly none of these attacks.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter was born in New York and was a U.S. citizen. Of the two San Bernardino shooters, one was born in Chicago. The other, his wife, was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia—neither country is on the “banned” list. The Tsatnaev brothers, responsible for the Boston bombings, were born in Kyrgyzstan. People from Kyrgyzstan aren’t banned under the current executive order. Of the 19 people responsible for hijacking four airplanes on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Again, these countries aren’t on the “banned” list.

When I have the occasion to discuss the economics of terrorism, I always offer a list of things more likely to kill a U.S. citizen than a terror attack. It seems appropriate to include here. (You can find links to source material for most of these here.)

Heart disease (35,079 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Cancer (33,842 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Medical Error
Alcohol (4,706 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Poisoning from prescription drugs
Suicide
HIV
Syphilis
Starvation (187 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Brain-eating parasites (22 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Food poisoning (110 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Drowning in a bathtub
Being struck by lightning (four times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Dying in a fire
And my personal favorite—toddlers. Yes, you are more likely to be killed by a gun-wielding toddler than a terrorist.


#136 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 08:39 PM

WaPo: White House expands travel ban, restricting visitors from eight countries.

Quote

Trump’s original travel ban, signed as an executive order in the first days of his presidency, was always meant to be a temporary measure while his administration crafted more permanent rules. A senior administration official cautioned the new restrictions are not meant to last forever, but are “necessary and conditions-based, not time-based.’’

Three new nations were added to the list of countries whose citizens will face the restrictions: Chad, North Korea and Venezuela — although the restrictions on Venezuela are narrowly crafted, targeting that country’s leadership and their family members.

One country, Sudan, fell off the travel ban list … [due to] cooperation with the U.S. government on national security and information-sharing.

My initial thinking is, besides being a***oles and providing an useless fig leaf for their muslim ban, they are doing this to test their limits in the USSC. The USSC could have just brushed the travel ban originally as being already or nearly over via some procedural thing and not really thoroughly ruled on it. Now they may have to.

Edited by sierraleone, 24 September 2017 - 08:57 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#137 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,626 posts

Posted 25 September 2017 - 08:49 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 24 September 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

The USSC could have just brushed the travel ban originally as being already or nearly over via some procedural thing and not really thoroughly ruled on it. Now they may have to.

I'm actually curious to see how the USSC rules on the travel bans. Not that curiosity is a good reason for issuing EO's.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#138 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,812 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 07:57 PM

^ They aren't ruling on it, because the issue is now "moot". They are basically going to ignore it unless maybe new cases come up the pipe due to the new muslim/travel ban. They really don't want to get in the middle of this. I suspect the new muslim/travel ban was made hoping for exactly this result. And hoping that if the new muslim/travel ban goes before the court they can, to re-package a metaphor, ignore the poisonous tree that this new improved muslim/travel ban is the fruit of. I certainly understand the appeal of such an approach/decision from their perspective. Why decide on something if you don't have to?

Supreme Court dismisses case against Trump's expired travel ban

Edited by sierraleone, 10 October 2017 - 07:58 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2017, Executive Orders, Muslim ban, District Judge Ann Donnelly, Separation of Powers

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users