Judicial Tyranny II: Trump Must go to SC

SmarterthanYou said:
I look forward to seeing the next major terrorist attack end up being a muslim from one of those countries. will you libs accept the blame?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Allowing refugees in to our country doesn't increase the chance of attack and may even decrease it.

Will every minute/hour/day that goes by without such an attack, will you admit you're wrong?

Your suggestion is logically nonsensical.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I look forward to seeing the next major terrorist attack end up being a muslim from one of those countries. will you libs accept the blame?
Click to expand...

WILL YOU ACCEPT THE BLAME IF IT COMES FROM ONE OF THE COUNTRIES THAT TRUMP DOES BUSINESS IN .. THUS WON'T PUT THEM ON HIS LIST?

WILL YOU ACCEPT THE BLAME IF IT COMES FROM RUSSIA?
 
NOVA said:

Did Robart ever actually clarify exactly what “immediate and irreparable injury,” Washington state would endure ?

Why a pause and vetting of immigrants to this country would have “immediate and irreparable injury,” to his State ?
Click to expand...

I'm new here, so I'm not sure if someone's already mentioned this, but the plaintiffs in this case were a group of people (two specifically named and "others similarly situated"), not the State of Washington.

Robart (and the Ninth Circuit) were talking about irreparable injury to the plaintiffs, not the State.
 
barrycarter said:
Of course not. Allowing refugees in to our country doesn't increase the chance of attack and may even decrease it.

Will every minute/hour/day that goes by without such an attack, will you admit you're wrong?

Your suggestion is logically nonsensical.
Click to expand...

:0) Welcome aboard.
 
barrycarter said:
I'm new here, so I'm not sure if someone's already mentioned this, but the plaintiffs in this case were a group of people (two specifically named and "others similarly situated"), not the State of Washington.

Robart (and the Ninth Circuit) were talking about irreparable injury to the plaintiffs, not the State.
Click to expand...
Welcome!
 
Judges are allowed to consider intent, and it's especially relevant in criminal cases ("mens rea" is the Latin term). They are not limited to determining if the executive order itself is legal in wording.

Of course, executive orders are an anomaly anyway. Laws are usually passed by Congress and enforced by the President/executive branch. Trump would've been much better off if he introduced this as a law, not simply an executive order.

The personal attack on Jarod seems unnecessary: this is pretty much what Robart and the 9th Circuit said, and they are judges (and were probably lawyers at one point). Agreeing with federal judges should not bring into question someone's statement that they are attorney.

As the judges noted, creating a religious test for entry into the United States might be "establishing" a religion (ie, all the other religions), and thus violate the rights of Muslims and others already in the United States.

A ban based purely on national origin isn't inherently illegal (there's no Constitutional protection for that), but a ban that has the effect of banning people based on religion could be.

Again, if Trump had simply banned/delayed ALL immigration, he would on much more solid footing.
 
Washington State Attorney General Promises To Uncover ‘What Truly Motivated’ Trump’s Travel Ban
He said he would also move to depose administration officials.

excerpt

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson signaled on Sunday that he will move aggressively to obtain written documents and emails authored by administration officials that might contain evidence the order was unconstitutionally biased against Muslims or Islam. He said he would also move to depose administration officials.

---

Stephen Griffin, a professor of constitutional law at Tulane University, said cases like this make it clear that the court can look beyond the words of Trump’s executive order. “Motive is relevant,” he said.

One question in the current case is likely to be which, if any, of Trump’s statements should be admissible in examining the administration’s motives in issuing the order.

“If you’re allowed to use evidence from the campaign, the state’s case is very strong,” said Griffin.

In December, 2015, days after a mass attack by an Islamic State sympathizers in San Bernardino, California,*Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what is going on.” He later said he supported only suspending immigration from areas with a history of terrorism.

Stanford University Law School professor Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals judge, said the court should not consider campaign statements, because Trump only swore an oath to uphold the Constitution after he became president.

In its complaint, Washington cited an interview the president did on the day the order was signed with the Christian Broadcasting Network, saying he would prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...rumps-travel-ban_us_58a1c255e4b0ab2d2b1728c4?
Legal scholars say this could move the court into uncharted waters.
 
barrycarter said:
I'm new here, so I'm not sure if someone's already mentioned this, but the plaintiffs in this case were a group of people (two specifically named and "others similarly situated"), not the State of Washington.

Robart (and the Ninth Circuit) were talking about irreparable injury to the plaintiffs, not the State.
Click to expand...

thats cool. Like I said standing is a lame argument anyway and is used to avoid talking about the merits.

The main issue is that with this ruling leaning on lukumi they can use that to block any action by trump period no matter what the EO actually says.
 
blackascoal said:
Washington State Attorney General Promises To Uncover ‘What Truly Motivated’ Trump’s Travel Ban
He said he would also move to depose administration officials.

excerpt

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson signaled on Sunday that he will move aggressively to obtain written documents and emails authored by administration officials that might contain evidence the order was unconstitutionally biased against Muslims or Islam. He said he would also move to depose administration officials.

---

Stephen Griffin, a professor of constitutional law at Tulane University, said cases like this make it clear that the court can look beyond the words of Trump’s executive order. “Motive is relevant,” he said.

One question in the current case is likely to be which, if any, of Trump’s statements should be admissible in examining the administration’s motives in issuing the order.

“If you’re allowed to use evidence from the campaign, the state’s case is very strong,” said Griffin.

In December, 2015, days after a mass attack by an Islamic State sympathizers in San Bernardino, California,*Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what is going on.” He later said he supported only suspending immigration from areas with a history of terrorism.

Stanford University Law School professor Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals judge, said the court should not consider campaign statements, because Trump only swore an oath to uphold the Constitution after he became president.

In its complaint, Washington cited an interview the president did on the day the order was signed with the Christian Broadcasting Network, saying he would prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...rumps-travel-ban_us_58a1c255e4b0ab2d2b1728c4?
Legal scholars say this could move the court into uncharted waters.
Click to expand...

exactly I bring this up as well. In lukumi you had the legislative intent very clear. Trump changed the muslim ban multiple times over the course of the campaign.

"Legal scholars say this could move the court into uncharted waters."

This is true. If this ruling holds then any statement made in the campaign trail or anywhere else by you or one of your surrogates can be used to derive legislative intent for the eo.

I said this on the earlier article I made. The courts should hold nowhere near that much power but the democrats seem insistent to give it to them at the time when a conservative court for the next generation is guaranteed.
 
tsuke said:
exactly I bring this up as well. In lukumi you had the legislative intent very clear. Trump changed the muslim ban multiple times over the course of the campaign.

"Legal scholars say this could move the court into uncharted waters."

This is true. If this ruling holds then any statement made in the campaign trail or anywhere else by you or one of your surrogates can be used to derive legislative intent for the eo.

I said this on the earlier article I made. The courts should hold nowhere near that much power but the democrats seem insistent to give it to them at the time when a conservative court for the next generation is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

"In its complaint, Washington cited an interview the president did on the day the order was signed with the Christian Broadcasting Network, saying he would prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees."

That was not on the campaign trail.
 
barrycarter said:
Judges are allowed to consider intent, and it's especially relevant in criminal cases ("mens rea" is the Latin term). They are not limited to determining if the executive order itself is legal in wording.

Of course, executive orders are an anomaly anyway. Laws are usually passed by Congress and enforced by the President/executive branch. Trump would've been much better off if he introduced this as a law, not simply an executive order.

The personal attack on Jarod seems unnecessary: this is pretty much what Robart and the 9th Circuit said, and they are judges (and were probably lawyers at one point). Agreeing with federal judges should not bring into question someone's statement that they are attorney.

As the judges noted, creating a religious test for entry into the United States might be "establishing" a religion (ie, all the other religions), and thus violate the rights of Muslims and others already in the United States.

A ban based purely on national origin isn't inherently illegal (there's no Constitutional protection for that), but a ban that has the effect of banning people based on religion could be.

Again, if Trump had simply banned/delayed ALL immigration, he would on much more solid footing.
Click to expand...

Judges are allowed to consider intent, and it's especially relevant in criminal cases ("mens rea" is the Latin term). They are not limited to determining if the executive order itself is legal in wording....lol

That akin to "gleaning the intent of Fla. voters by looking at the hanging chads in 2000...in other words, its bullshit...

The words of the presidential order are exactly what is relevant...not what one persons interpretation is....
Like your claim that executive orders are an anomaly....of course they are not and have been used extensively by just about all presidents....

The ban wasn't based purely on national origin...it was based on what country said immigrant was entering from...whether they were native to that country or not...in others words ALL persons immigrating from that location....their religion not withstanding...

By the way, welcome aboard....
 
blackascoal said:
"In its complaint, Washington cited an interview the president did on the day the order was signed with the Christian Broadcasting Network, saying he would prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees."

That was not on the campaign trail.
Click to expand...

sure. Now I understand that you want to assign legislative intent based on the interviews not on the EO itself. I truly think people dont undersand how far reaching the effects of those are.

For example. Obama and his surrogates repeatedly said the individual mandate was not a tax. Roberts the swing vote could only declare it constitutional because he argued it was a tax. If we apply this standard it would have been struck down 5-4.

Because liberals are afraid of Trump you are giving the judiciary too much power. A conservative judiciary you will not be able to change in your lifetime.
 
tsuke said:
sure. Now I understand that you want to assign legislative intent based on the interviews not on the EO itself. I truly think people dont undersand how far reaching the effects of those are.

For example. Obama and his surrogates repeatedly said the individual mandate was not a tax. Roberts the swing vote could only declare it constitutional because he argued it was a tax. If we apply this standard it would have been struck down 5-4.

Because liberals are afraid of Trump you are giving the judiciary too much power. A conservative judiciary you will not be able to change in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

Liberals aren't afraid of Trump .. they simply hate him. There is a difference.

I believe the courts will consider intent.
 
blackascoal said:
Liberals aren't afraid of Trump .. they simply hate him. There is a difference.

I believe the courts will consider intent.
Click to expand...

le sigh. Again if you wanna open that door and make this the precedent then you open it. It will not stop with Trump. Every president and congressman/senator can have legislative intent ascribed by some statement he made in public.

You dont want people who you dont even elect and cant get rid of to have that much power.
 
tsuke said:
le sigh. Again if you wanna open that door and make this the precedent then you open it. It will not stop with Trump. Every president and congressman/senator can have legislative intent ascribed by some statement he made in public.

You dont want people who you dont even elect and cant get rid of to have that much power.
Click to expand...

The courts already consider intent. That door is already open.

Courts likely to probe Trump's intent in issuing travel ban
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-legal-idUSKBN15S14H
 
tsuke said:
View attachment 3826

https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/judicial-tyranny-ii-trump-must-go-to-sc/

Judicial Tyranny II: Trump Must go to SC

The 9th circuit declined to remove the TRO for two reasons. First they had due process considerations for the green card holders that were affected by the ban. Second the court used the precedent of the Lukumi case to look beyond the EO and declare that the intent was to disfavor Muslims. For this article I will be focusing exclusively on Lukumi and pointing out why Trump MUST go to the Supreme Court to have it overturned. First because an EO is either constitutional or its not so if the EO doesn't clear either of these standards then it will be unconstitutional and second because the Trump administration already provided an exception to the Green Card holders and most of the people of that nature affected by the ban the courts just did not want to recognize it.

Lukumi

The Lukumi case was used as precedent to allow the courts to look beyond the four borders of the EO. The Church of Lukumi is a religious entity with some very particular beliefs. Without going into the details one of them happens to do with animal sacrifices. In 1987 the Hialeah city council passed a series of ordinances banning animal sacrifice. They then proceeded to make exceptions for Kosher butcheries and most other things that may fall under the ordinance.

The Supreme Court held that while the statute was fine on face value taking the exceptions into consideration, the recording of the council deliberations, and various other details the EO was unconstitutional. They said that while the EO again was facially neutral the intent was to gerrymander it to target the Lukumi church.

Travel Ban

In the case of Trump v Washington the ninth circuit accepted the arguments of the plaintiffs that the various statements made by President Trump during the initial period of the campaign as well as a statement from Rudy were enough to declare that the legislative intent behind the EO was to target Muslims. They specifically used the precedent of Lukumi to allow them to look beyond the EO.

Contrast the facts of the Trump situation vs Lukumi. In Lukumi the law was crafted to specifically target the minority group. In the travel ban most muslims were left out and are not impacted in any way. Six of the seven countries have governments that barely function so it is hard to get data from them but according to worldwide census data 10% or less of the worldwide Muslim population live in these countries. In Lukumi the town council was consistent that animal sacrifices were anathema to their community values and this was reflected in the deliberations. President Trump started with a Muslim ban back in the primaries, modified it almost immediately to exclude citizens, it then underwent sever al more modifications to become the extreme vetting we have today.

Anyone can see that the standards of Lukumi has been greatly expanded to make the case for Trump. The main issue here is that Lukumi already presupposes a constitutionally sound EO, which in all honesty the travel ban is. The argument was to look beyond the ban for the legislative intent. This means that there is no possible way for Trump to change the EO to make it constitutional. The argument of intent will always be there and will always be used to declare it unconstitutional.

This has far deeper implications than just this one EO. Suppose there is a country whose populace just had a holiday where they all chanted death to America. Whose leadership was openly hostile to America and had a history as the very first entity to use suicide bombers. Since they are a Muslim majority this same argument could be used to declare it unconstitutional. You could even make the argument that this could extent to other things. Trade executive orders, foreign policy orders, anti-terrorism ones. This is a perfect example of why this is judicial overreach. With this one decision the courts have essentially taken away all the powers of the Executive regarding immigration.

TRO

Liberal lawyers will say I am wrong and this is merely a temporary restraining order so I am getting bent out of shape over nothing. I agree this is still a TRO. However anyone who is making this argument is naive and does not look at the practical effects. Any time President Trump makes a law regarding immigration then anybody can file a case and get a TRO on these grounds. Given the liberal interpretation of standing the ninth circuit uses it is possible to get it filed in the courts under their jurisdiction have a friendly judge issue a TRO and the ninth will then use the same argument to uphold the TRO.

There is no other recourse here. Trump has to go to the Supreme Court to get them to declare that these arguments are nonsense. I have no doubt they will do that as when you start getting legislative intent from the campaign trail then it opens up a wide door that changes the legal system forever. On a practical note this is a very easy case to win and the democrats have shown that they will be filing cases against Trump at every turn. Having a history of the Supreme Court siding with Trump should help to discredit their lawsuits as frivolous. Trump should take every law they challenge to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

It is no secret that the EO was intended as a religiously bigoted hate order...
The courts shot it down as such...
Trumph lost...
Get over it asshole...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top