Travel ban cockup

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

Post Reply
bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:28 am

Turdacious wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:Enjoy this professor demanding that the NYPD "kick the asses" of innocents starting at 10:18. The much maligned Tea Party was a tea party compared to this.
That was the most hilarious 2 minutes I've seen in years.
C33iJ2fUYAQxsEC.jpg
C33iJ2fUYAQxsEC.jpg (150.19 KiB) Viewed 2774 times

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:29 am

C339FH5XUAAalMH.jpg
C339FH5XUAAalMH.jpg (54 KiB) Viewed 2763 times

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20569
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Turdacious » Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:03 pm


TKO
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:28 pm

Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20569
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Turdacious » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:31 am

nafod wrote:The 2 out/1 in on federal regulations is a good idea
That probably depends on the agency.

From a Republican perspective, it makes sense with an agency like the EPA where there is decades-old concern of overreach. The rule in and of itself would probably slow activity as they would have to divert resources towards finding regulations to cut. All in all, Republicans would probably be happy with that.

Doing it with the FDA is another matter-- they're behind on their work and understaffed in key technical specialty areas. Expecting more output while increasing agency workload would probably increase market uncertainty (especially regarding liability)-- and there's demand to increase the output from the FDA in approving both new and generic drugs from both sides of the aisle.

EDIT- here's a better explanation. https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/01/trump-blow-up-fda/
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:04 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
I am curious what you think of Washington State's standing? Hahahahahabab
C38nD3PXUAAPI2c.jpg
C38nD3PXUAAPI2c.jpg (79.05 KiB) Viewed 2676 times

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10837
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:13 am

McCarthy's Sean Spicer impression was amazing.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by dead man walking » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:42 am

if you imagined for a second that melissa mccarthy could impersonate you, you'd have to kill yourself.

there would be no alternative.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:10 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
So, here is the Fed Order from the Judge in the 9th Circuit (ell oh ell). It offers no reasoning. I wonder what any atty's think of the propriety of that? Issuing a nationwide ban on executive action absent legal reasoning or authority? Would you accept this in a TRO issued against a client?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... Order.html

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:19 am

This is the appropriate legal analysis of the EO and exactly what I have been arguing. It is a question of statutory interpretation between two congressional acts:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/02/05 ... migration/

There is no standing by any claimants (nor can there be) and the only issue is whether or not SCOTUS will preposterously further extend the right to due process to even more non-citizens. These people are citizens of foreign nations.

In other words, there is not now and has never been any legal basis for this Ban and the moving parties seek the creation of new rights.

Most importantly, the issuance of these new due process or equal protection or establishment rights will place the fed courts in charge of immigration.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:22 am

bennyonesix wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
I am curious what you think of Washington State's standing? Hahahahahabab

C38nD3PXUAAPI2c.jpg
Do you liberals understand that the basis for Washington's suit is that Trump's EO will hurt employers ability to pay low wages?

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:09 am

bennyonesix wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
I am curious what you think of Washington State's standing? Hahahahahabab

C38nD3PXUAAPI2c.jpg
Do you liberals understand that the basis for Washington's suit is that Trump's EO will hurt employers ability to pay low wages?

Which liberal are you referring to? I just asked a question...you're the one pooping in your shoe here lad. Like I said, we'll know more as this progresses. So far, your arguments don't appear to have a lot of tooth to them.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7937
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by powerlifter54 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:04 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
Fascinating weekend. The Seattle judge's ruling was weak even by the NYT and WSJ standard, who both called it thinly reasoned. But when a Federal judge argues that the rights of a university or company are infringed when they can't import workers and those rights supersede the Presidents authority to control the border, well you just have to let it move up the appeal chain. The 9th Circus is a non issue.

While a short term disappointment judicially, politically this is gold. The people who voted for Trump are seeing exactly what they voted against, a cabal of media, judiciary, and politicians who look for every and any specious argument to go against American's interest. Further, this only helps Trump's Supreme Court pick. A lot.

In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7817
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by johno » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:33 pm

^Yes.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7817
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by johno » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:44 pm

.
Last edited by johno on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7817
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by johno » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:48 pm

Microsoft, Amazon...Starbucks....
"Anti-corporatists" now want corporate interests to outweigh the most basic federal powers.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20569
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Turdacious » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:38 pm

TL/DR-- nobody knows which direction this is going to go.
The executive branch—whether headed by Trump or previous presidents more supportive of the rule of law—often does not like it when lower federal courts, especially single district court judges, purport to bind the executive nationwide with respect to parties not before the court. The Obama administration, for example, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the nationwide injunction halting the DAPA program (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents). The nationwide injunction was issued by a single district court judge in Texas, at the behest of Texas and other states, and approved 2-1 by a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The 2-1 decision approving the injunction was affirmed when the Supreme Court, minus Justice Scalia (and also minus Merrick Garland), deadlocked 4-4.

Critics of nationwide injunctions by the lower federal courts cite the strong incentive of plaintiffs to forum shop (which clearly occurred in the DAPA case and many other instances); the unfairness of a single district judge blocking nationwide a statute or executive policy for up to several years while litigation and appeals drag on; the possibility of conflicting decisions if other lower courts don’t heed the injunction and reach a different result; and, as Amanda Frost puts it, the problem of arresting the development of the law if other lower courts do not weigh in on the issue addressed by a single court, “a problem that should particularly concern the Supreme Court, which prefers to hear and decide cases after they have percolated in the lower courts.” The government often argues that “comity between circuits” should lead lower courts to refrain from issuing nationwide injunctions—the idea being the each federal court should stick within its limited territorial area out of respect for its fellow federal courts in other parts of the country.

Despite these criticisms, lower federal courts have frequently issued nationwide injunctions in recent years—for instance, blocking the Obama Education Department’s bathroom policy for transgender students and enjoining the Obama Department of Labor’s new overtime pay rules. A new paper by Professor Samuel Bray notes that this is a relatively recent phenomena, and one that conflicts with a number of settled doctrines and conceptions about the relationship among courts themselves and between courts, parties, and non-parties.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/nationwide- ... ral-courts
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:11 pm

This is irrelevant and your usual false nuance. I bet your teachers loved you. Fed judges have the right to pass such injunctions. The problem as I and others have been arguing is that in this case there is no standing or legal foundation for the lower court's injunction.

Your argument, if there is one, is that "we'll you just never know what SCOTUS and the Judiciary will do because they now consider themselves unbound by anything other than their own policy preferences".

But let's add up the judges and their policy preferences then:

Neoliberal: kagan, soto, rbg, breyer

Fascist: alito, thomas

Blackmailed: Roberts

Emotional Addle-pated Fag Hag: Kennedy

Tragically and as it has been for decades now, the law is what Tony Kennedy says it is. And he is a dumb cowardly emotional man. There is no way he stands up to the harridans on the court. They will make him cry and then bake him cookies after he knuckles under.

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:37 pm

powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.
Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.

Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20569
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Turdacious » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:57 pm

bennyonesix wrote:This is irrelevant and your usual false nuance. I bet your teachers loved you. Fed judges have the right to pass such injunctions. The problem as I and others have been arguing is that in this case there is no standing or legal foundation for the lower court's injunction.

Your argument, if there is one, is that "we'll you just never know what SCOTUS and the Judiciary will do because they now consider themselves unbound by anything other than their own policy preferences".

But let's add up the judges and their policy preferences then:

Neoliberal: kagan, soto, rbg, breyer

Fascist: alito, thomas

Blackmailed: Roberts

Emotional Addle-pated Fag Hag: Kennedy

Tragically and as it has been for decades now, the law is what Tony Kennedy says it is. And he is a dumb cowardly emotional man. There is no way he stands up to the harridans on the court. They will make him cry and then bake him cookies after he knuckles under.
Thanks for the PSA on why people shouldn't eat paint chips.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by dead man walking » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:23 pm

powerlifter54 wrote: American's interest. . . .
what is in america's interest?
Forty-two percent of office visits in rural America are with foreign-born physicians, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. . . .

Across the United States, more than 15,000 doctors are from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by the travel ban, according to The Medicus Firm, a firm that recruits doctors for hard-to-fill jobs. That includes almost 9,000 from Iran, almost 3,500 from Syria and more than 1,500 from Iraq.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:24 pm

Are you seriously arguing that we can't provide enough doctors from US citizens? This is preposterous post hoc rationalization. Equivalent to "whites won't do x job".

I don't want some god damned arab or paki or indian doctor. Fuck that. And you wonder why the quality of health care has plummeted.

Answer this question if you can: why is there a single foreign trained or foreign born MD working in the US?

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by bennyonesix » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:46 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.
Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.

Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.
You should really make some normative argument. You claim to be up to speed on the case and have read the relevant pleadings but you aren't moving the ball forward with your comments. They are devoid of any legal argumentation as to this specific case or Judicial Comity or even Constitutional Law in general. People who follow SCOTUS know they are capable of arguing any personal policy preference no matter how free from legal justification (roe, obergefell etc). You could at least offer something as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Or even some analysis as to how the ideologies of SCOTUS might condition a ruling. Or even some analysis as to the standing or statutory construction issues. Or maybe you could explain your last gnomic sentence...

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by dead man walking » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:06 am

bennyonesix wrote:Are you seriously arguing that we can't provide enough doctors from US citizens? This is preposterous post hoc rationalization. Equivalent to "whites won't do x job".

I don't want some god damned arab or paki or indian doctor. Fuck that. And you wonder why the quality of health care has plummeted.

Answer this question if you can: why is there a single foreign trained or foreign born MD working in the US?
the facts, according to forbes:
Current estimates suggest that the United States will face a shortage of 46,100 to 90,400 physicians by 2025. The current shortage is no surprise, however, as it was predicted as far back as 1990

Currently, more than one-quarter of physicians and surgeons in the United States are foreign-born. In addition to physicians, roughly one-fifth of nurses and home health and psychiatric aides were foreign born in 2010.
and then there is this (again, forbes):
A study recently published in journal BMJ . . . showi[ed] that Medicare patients treated by doctors from foreign medical schools had a 5% lower chance of dying than those treated by U.S. medical graduates
apparently you're going to die, which saddens turd
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Travel ban cockup

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:20 am

bennyonesix wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.
Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.

Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.
You should really make some normative argument. You claim to be up to speed on the case and have read the relevant pleadings but you aren't moving the ball forward with your comments. They are devoid of any legal argumentation as to this specific case or Judicial Comity or even Constitutional Law in general. People who follow SCOTUS know they are capable of arguing any personal policy preference no matter how free from legal justification (roe, obergefell etc). You could at least offer something as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Or even some analysis as to how the ideologies of SCOTUS might condition a ruling. Or even some analysis as to the standing or statutory construction issues. Or maybe you could explain your last gnomic sentence...
Bitch please.

Thing one: I don't need to. I can watch it play out.

Thing two: I don't engage with slap dicks like yourself. You can be as plainly partisan as PL here but still have a perspective worth entertaining. You don't. Hell you don't even have a training log and you're not funny.

Thing three: I care a bit less about the outcome than the degree to which it makes people say stupid shit. That's the only front on which you've not been a disappointment.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

Post Reply