IGX

Herv100 wrote:Didn't Obama just deport a bunch a Russians who broke no laws?

actually the russians did break the law.

see if you can remember what it was

nafod wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:So this bitch doesn't even deny fed atty's reviewed it and found it legal (because it obviously is). She is just opposing it because it makes her sad. She has to be forcibly removed from her office. This is no different than if some AG has an epiphany and comes to oppose the death penalty: the remedy is to resign. God damn shitlibs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 1a9b60a4c7

I agree she had to go. She forced the issue.

The OLC found it legal, but she argued that comments made by the principal and his surrogates, spoke to intent, which is part of the law. Rudy Giuliani probably wishes he hadn't said on TV that weekend that, "Trump asked us to find a way to legally ban muslims and this is what we came up with." A religious test is illegal.

No it is not. Religious tests have been part of US immig policy since its inception.

bennyonesix wrote:Moreover, and for your edification, religious tests are kosher (heh)

https://t.co/ndfN6FiVIV

C3XZebbUcAAWQQ_.jpg

Turdacious wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:So this bitch doesn't even deny fed atty's reviewed it and found it legal (because it obviously is). She is just opposing it because it makes her sad. She has to be forcibly removed from her office. This is no different than if some AG has an epiphany and comes to oppose the death penalty: the remedy is to resign. God damn shitlibs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 1a9b60a4c7

Did you get your law degree from Trump University?

No. I got a 175 (cold) on the lsat and a free ride to a top 10 law school.

nafod wrote:

Protobuilder wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Someone tell me what was illegal. Please read relevant docs before doing so. Or not, because you all are hysterical shitlbs.

He's stepping all over the Constitutional rights of Syrians, dumbass.

Bottom line is people with green cards have some rights here. Not all of the rights of a citizen, but some. Those were arguably infringed. The concern was "irreparable harm" in the judges blocking the deportations of green card holders. Heck, everybody has some rights. You can't just kill or enslave an illegal immigrant, even.

This is mostly about the stupidity of execution. Poorly written, unvetted by professionals, did not prepare the playing field, did not inform key implementers, not actually going to keep out or get rid of the most likely perps, optics scream muslim ban thus handing propaganda victory to ISIS and Al Qaeda, also shouts don't mess with countries that Trump is doing business with, pisses off important Allies, etc. WIN!

It could have been implemented a million times smarter, but that would have required smarter people in charge.

No. Immigration and naturalization is the sole province of the Congress. They can create any system they choose. They created a system in which the President has this latitude. Unless that changes by legislation, Trump's actions were legal.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:B16 is trollling and not even well.

Where the Law Was Broken....

There's a huge amount written on this. I've read only a 1/4 of probably including the EO, the statutory authority, the pleadings and injunction. It's pretty well established set of laws, some of which he's on solid ground, (declining to issue visas) some of which is on decent footing but hasn't been fully vetted with this fact pattern (rescinding visas and deporting without due process) and one glaring one that he's very likely to be shown to be dead wrong (essentially rescinding green cards without due process, deportations without process and disallowing green card and visa holders already on US soil access to both attorneys and due process)

It's beginning to look like DHS legal knew that green card holders in the US should not be included in the EO but were overruled by the Exec. Due process clause violations WRT the existing regulations is the part that's on really shakey ground. This is going to be teh center of the challenge including one by several states including Washington

No. Congress has plenary power wrt immigration and naturalization. This has been the unchallenged and unanimous position of all branches since the founding. Therefore, the only questions in this case are of statutory construction as I indicated in my previous post. The 1965 imm act (the single worst piece of legislation in this country's history and the last controlling relevant piece of legislation) does not alter in any way the powers of the executive with respect to this issue as granted by previous legislation.

That being said, SCOTUS is lawless and could very well create a new right to due process. But that right does not currently exist and has never existed in the history of the country. But this is the court that in contravention of both US and English precedent and routine practice created due process rights for enemy combatants captured in foreign lands. It is also the court that issued a ruling in support of gay marriage that contained no legal reasoning whatsoever.

Moreover, as I also stated the Obama AG had the EO reviewed internally prior to her refusal and the results of that review were that it was legal. Her refusal was based entirely on her own conceptions of the good and the just and not constitutionality or legality.

bennyonesix wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:B16 is trollling and not even well.

Where the Law Was Broken....

There's a huge amount written on this. I've read only a 1/4 of probably including the EO, the statutory authority, the pleadings and injunction. It's pretty well established set of laws, some of which he's on solid ground, (declining to issue visas) some of which is on decent footing but hasn't been fully vetted with this fact pattern (rescinding visas and deporting without due process) and one glaring one that he's very likely to be shown to be dead wrong (essentially rescinding green cards without due process, deportations without process and disallowing green card and visa holders already on US soil access to both attorneys and due process)

It's beginning to look like DHS legal knew that green card holders in the US should not be included in the EO but were overruled by the Exec. Due process clause violations WRT the existing regulations is the part that's on really shakey ground. This is going to be teh center of the challenge including one by several states including Washington

No. Congress has plenary power wrt immigration and naturalization. This has been the unchallenged and unanimous position of all branches since the founding. Therefore, the only questions in this case are of statutory construction as I indicated in my previous post. The 1965 imm act (the single worst piece of legislation in this country's history and the last controlling relevant piece of legislation) does not alter in any way the powers of the executive with respect to this issue as granted by previous legislation.

That being said, SCOTUS is lawless and could very well create a new right to due process. But that right does not currently exist and has never existed in the history of the country. But this is the court that in contravention of both US and English precedent and routine practice created due process rights for enemy combatants captured in foreign lands. It is also the court that issued a ruling in support of gay marriage that contained no legal reasoning whatsoever.

Moreover, as I also stated the Obama AG had the EO reviewed internally prior to her refusal and the results of that review were that it was legal. Her refusal was based entirely on her own conceptions of the good and the just and not constitutionality or legality.

We'll know shortly won't we? At least initially, 4 judges disagree with your Bahamanian Law School read.

Your increasing sense of surety is nearly always indicative of your being full of shit. I look forward to seeing if you can beat the spread.

The law, tragically, is whatever Tony Kennedy says it is.

But there is no valid legal argument that the EO was illegal. Congress rules on this issue and delegated huge authority and discretion to the Executive in the past and has not taken it back. I have argued the same when BO was doing his thing. I would have argued the same had Hillary won. And if Tony Kennedy decides on brand new unfounded Due Process rights... Trump should ignore the Court. SCOTUS does not rule this country.

bennyonesix wrote:The law, tragically, is whatever Tony Kennedy says it is.

But there is no valid legal argument that the EO was illegal. Congress rules on this issue and delegated huge authority and discretion to the Executive in the past and has not taken it back. I have argued the same when BO was doing his thing. I would have argued the same had Hillary won. And if Tony Kennedy decides on brand new unfounded Due Process rights... Trump should ignore the Court. SCOTUS does not rule this country.

Lionel Hutz... Constitutional scholar.

Tell me where I am wrong then.

The executive order should be renamed the Immigration Attorney Full Employment Act.

Non responsive.

bennyonesix wrote:Tell me where I am wrong then.

Picking your news sources.

What a big "cockup"! (dork talk)

Slightly OT but fun nonetheless.

I just spent a couple of days in San Francisco where I met with a variety of people in the "professional" class. I'm not friends with these people but have a friendly business relationship with most of them. All are really pleasant and exceptionally nice.

In 3 out of 4 meetings, Tump fear came up in the conversation. It was palpable like we're living in an America that they can't conceive of and it terrifies them. They seem to be waiting for a Trumpocalypse.

I also had a conversation with a colleague in Dallas...oh how we laughed at the unhinged MSM. Very different than my SF experience.

It really brought home the two Amurikkkah's thing.

It's not the media. This dude killed the answer on the unprecedented resistance from federal employees, though:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Asked whether federal workers are dissenting in ways that go beyond previous party changes in the White House, Tom Malinow­ski, who was President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said, sarcastically: “Is it unusual? . . . There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Slightly OT but fun nonetheless.

I just spent a couple of days in San Francisco where I met with a variety of people in the "professional" class. I'm not friends with these people but have a friendly business relationship with most of them. All are really pleasant and exceptionally nice.

In 3 out of 4 meetings, Tump fear came up in the conversation. It was palpable like we're living in an America that they can't conceive of and it terrifies them. They seem to be waiting for a Trumpocalypse.

I also had a conversation with a colleague in Dallas...oh how we laughed at the unhinged MSM. Very different than my SF experience.

It really brought home the two Amurikkkah's thing.

Dallas County was about as blue as California.

DrDonkeyLove wrote: I also had a conversation with a colleague in Dallas...oh how we laughed at the unhinged MSM.

well donnie himself doesn't appear to be entirely hinged.

perhaps we should eliminate fluoride from drinking water and instead treat it with lorazepam.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:It's not the media. This dude killed the answer on the unprecedented resistance from federal employees, though:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Asked whether federal workers are dissenting in ways that go beyond previous party changes in the White House, Tom Malinow­ski, who was President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said, sarcastically: “Is it unusual? . . . There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”

a. DoS appointees, as a rule, do not speak for the 'entire national security bureaucracy.' Malinowski's known for playing by his own rules anyway, so there's a pot/kettle aspect.
b. There's a good chance that these outspoken bureaucrats are playing right into Trump's hands, and bringing knives to a gunfight. Republicans have been trying to gut various bureaucracies since Reagan was POTUS-- with control of (assuming Gorsuch is confirmed) all three federal branches their chances or success are better than they've been in my lifetime.

dead man walking wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: I also had a conversation with a colleague in Dallas...oh how we laughed at the unhinged MSM.

well donnie himself doesn't appear to be entirely hinged.

perhaps we should eliminate fluoride from drinking water and instead treat it with lorazepam.

Low dose lithium in the water supply.

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:It's not the media. This dude killed the answer on the unprecedented resistance from federal employees, though:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Asked whether federal workers are dissenting in ways that go beyond previous party changes in the White House, Tom Malinow­ski, who was President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said, sarcastically: “Is it unusual? . . . There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”

a. DoS appointees, as a rule, do not speak for the 'entire national security bureaucracy.' Malinowski's known for playing by his own rules anyway, so there's a pot/kettle aspect.
b. There's a good chance that these outspoken bureaucrats are playing right into Trump's hands, and bringing knives to a gunfight. Republicans have been trying to gut various bureaucracies since Reagan was POTUS-- with control of (assuming Gorsuch is confirmed) all three federal branches their chances or success are better than they've been in my lifetime.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg ain't gonna be functional forever either.

Do not think he is joking about 10-20% flush of gubmint bureaucrats.

Already cut 10k (seasonally adjusted).

The 2 out/1 in on federal regulations is a good idea

nafod wrote:The 2 out/1 in on federal regulations is a good idea

Starting with Dodd-Frank is an incredibly bad idea. The CFPB has obviously implemented major protections for every day Americans and shut down some scumbag operators who previously preyed on folks who couldn't afford to sue.

This is a hard one to spin. Anybody who knows someone who had a hard time fixing a credit report error pre-2010, or got fucked on a car/home loan, is going to wonder WTF is going on. That's not even taking into account the Wall Street reform.

Can't EO this one.

nafod wrote:UAE sent terrorists for 9/11. Surprised they aren't banned. Oh wait...

A simple question: If after today's UAE jihadi attacking the police at the Louvre, if the Trump administration puts a hold on those people coming in, will you and the ACLU be supportive or non supportive of the hold?

I think UAE, SA, and Pakistan need to be on the list. If you have a green card and you travel over to one of those countries you should be re-vetted. The trip back seems to be a very common part of radicalization. The 'terps and guides should be expedited. That issue was ongoing when I was there in 2013 and had been for a while.