More Muslim Violence

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Bubba wrote:Trump attacked his own Justice Department in a tweet this morning and simultaneously undercut their stated position that the travel ban was not a ban but merely a pause to "find out what's going on ". Furthermore, since the "pause" was only for 90 days and more than 90 days has passed, the court can legitimately ask what they've learned since, presumably, the administration has been studying the issue with or without the pause in place. Unless the court chooses to focus solely on the issue of presidential authority under the law (clearly an issue) Trump and the administration have undercut if not obliterated their own position.
opposition to the presidents travel been is pure partisan stupidity... there isn't a legitimate reason under the sun for accepting anyone from anywhere that doesn't have a govt with credible means of positively verifying the identity of it's citizens who seek to travel abroad...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26276
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Bubba »

madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:Trump attacked his own Justice Department in a tweet this morning and simultaneously undercut their stated position that the travel ban was not a ban but merely a pause to "find out what's going on ". Furthermore, since the "pause" was only for 90 days and more than 90 days has passed, the court can legitimately ask what they've learned since, presumably, the administration has been studying the issue with or without the pause in place. Unless the court chooses to focus solely on the issue of presidential authority under the law (clearly an issue) Trump and the administration have undercut if not obliterated their own position.
opposition to the presidents travel been is pure partisan stupidity... there isn't a legitimate reason under the sun for accepting anyone from anywhere that doesn't have a govt with credible means of positively verifying the identity of it's citizens who seek to travel abroad...
All of which is irrelevant to the legal questions before the court.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Bubba wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:Trump attacked his own Justice Department in a tweet this morning and simultaneously undercut their stated position that the travel ban was not a ban but merely a pause to "find out what's going on ". Furthermore, since the "pause" was only for 90 days and more than 90 days has passed, the court can legitimately ask what they've learned since, presumably, the administration has been studying the issue with or without the pause in place. Unless the court chooses to focus solely on the issue of presidential authority under the law (clearly an issue) Trump and the administration have undercut if not obliterated their own position.
opposition to the presidents travel been is pure partisan stupidity... there isn't a legitimate reason under the sun for accepting anyone from anywhere that doesn't have a govt with credible means of positively verifying the identity of it's citizens who seek to travel abroad...
All of which is irrelevant to the legal questions before the court.
really? I'd say the president has every legal right to impose whatever travel restrictions he wants to...

Section 212(f), states: "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."

activist judges may dissent but in the end the supreme court is very likely to concur w the president...we'll have to wait and see there...hard to see where the above doesn't apply...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26276
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Bubba »

madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:Trump attacked his own Justice Department in a tweet this morning and simultaneously undercut their stated position that the travel ban was not a ban but merely a pause to "find out what's going on ". Furthermore, since the "pause" was only for 90 days and more than 90 days has passed, the court can legitimately ask what they've learned since, presumably, the administration has been studying the issue with or without the pause in place. Unless the court chooses to focus solely on the issue of presidential authority under the law (clearly an issue) Trump and the administration have undercut if not obliterated their own position.
opposition to the presidents travel been is pure partisan stupidity... there isn't a legitimate reason under the sun for accepting anyone from anywhere that doesn't have a govt with credible means of positively verifying the identity of it's citizens who seek to travel abroad...
All of which is irrelevant to the legal questions before the court.
really? I'd say the president has every legal right to impose whatever travel restrictions he wants to...

Section 212(f), states: "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."

activist judges may dissent but in the end the supreme court is very likely to concur w the president...we'll have to wait and see there...hard to see where the above doesn't apply...
If the court sticks narrowly to that language and decides that the President has full authority, regardless of motive and regardless of whether the intent is ethnically discriminatory, then you are correct and the court will decide in favor of unlimited Presidential power in this area. My point, however, was that the court has wider latitude to interpret intent based on statements made during the campaign and after, and especially when the President contradicts his own Justice Department as to that intent. If the court rules that Presidential power is limited by and measured against discriminatory intent or other illegal/unconstitutional reasons, they can rule against the President's actions. If one takes the position that a President is not above the law (see Clinton, William Jefferson, or Nixon, Richard Milhouse) then you would also agree that the President's motives in this case might run afoul of that test, at least in the eyes of some justices, including the most conservative. Keep in mind that the newest member of the court, Justice Gorsuch, has stated quite clearly that he is skeptical of governmental power, and conservative justices would typically lean in that direction.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Bubba wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:Trump attacked his own Justice Department in a tweet this morning and simultaneously undercut their stated position that the travel ban was not a ban but merely a pause to "find out what's going on ". Furthermore, since the "pause" was only for 90 days and more than 90 days has passed, the court can legitimately ask what they've learned since, presumably, the administration has been studying the issue with or without the pause in place. Unless the court chooses to focus solely on the issue of presidential authority under the law (clearly an issue) Trump and the administration have undercut if not obliterated their own position.
opposition to the presidents travel been is pure partisan stupidity... there isn't a legitimate reason under the sun for accepting anyone from anywhere that doesn't have a govt with credible means of positively verifying the identity of it's citizens who seek to travel abroad...
All of which is irrelevant to the legal questions before the court.
really? I'd say the president has every legal right to impose whatever travel restrictions he wants to...

Section 212(f), states: "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."

activist judges may dissent but in the end the supreme court is very likely to concur w the president...we'll have to wait and see there...hard to see where the above doesn't apply...
If the court sticks narrowly to that language and decides that the President has full authority, regardless of motive and regardless of whether the intent is ethnically discriminatory, then you are correct and the court will decide in favor of unlimited Presidential power in this area. My point, however, was that the court has wider latitude to interpret intent based on statements made during the campaign and after, and especially when the President contradicts his own Justice Department as to that intent. it's always been a ban, it's never been permanent and its never been about muslims...not seeing the contradiction...pause ban stop halt suspension, whatever... If the court rules that Presidential power is limited by and measured against discriminatory intent or other illegal/unconstitutional reasons, they can rule against the President's actions. If one takes the position that a President is not above the law (see Clinton, William Jefferson, or Nixon, Richard Milhouse) then you would also agree that the President's motives in this case might run afoul of that test, at least in the eyes of some justices, including the most conservative. Keep in mind that the newest member of the court, Justice Gorsuch, has stated quite clearly is skeptical of governmental power, and conservative justices would typically lean in that direction.
yeah the problem is that the countries on the list for the travel ban were put there by the obama administration because of their ties to terrorism, lack of stable govt and a viable state dept...hard to see how trump is discriminating there...the ban is based on country of origin and nothing else...one can suppose all one wants but I'm guessing it goes 5-4 in favor of trump...the court should not have wide latitude in interpreting the law which clearly says "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens " to mane anyting other than what it says...


it doesn't say sometimes it says WHENEVER

it doesn't unless the supreme court says they are being discriminated against it says ANY aliens or ANY CLASS of aliens

it doesn't say he has to check w anyone else it says BY PROCLAMATION

it doesn't say for a limited or specific period of time it says FOR SUCH PERIOD AS HE SHALL DEEM NECESSARY

it doesn't say he can only pause it says ANY RESTRICTIONS HE MAY DEEP APPROPRIATE


seems pretty straightforward...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

madhatter wrote:yeah the problem is that the countries on the list for the travel ban were put there by the obama administration because of their ties to terrorism, lack of stable govt and a viable state dept...hard to see how trump is discriminating there...the ban is based on country of origin and nothing else...one can suppose all one wants but I'm guessing it goes 5-4 in favor of trump...the court should not have wide latitude in interpreting the law which clearly says "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens " to mane anyting other than what it says...
The Obama administration did not ban travel to the US from the 7 countries they identified, they simply required that travelers be in possession of a valid visa - pretty reasonable and clearly constitutional. Gump, on the other hand wants a full travel ban, except for effectively Christian minorities in those countries. The courts have correctly determined this amounts to an unconstitutional religious ban since the vast majority of the population in those countries is Muslim and Gump foolishly carved out a minority religious exception. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, hard to see any constitutional grounds for siding with Gump.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:
madhatter wrote:yeah the problem is that the countries on the list for the travel ban were put there by the obama administration because of their ties to terrorism, lack of stable govt and a viable state dept...hard to see how trump is discriminating there...the ban is based on country of origin and nothing else...one can suppose all one wants but I'm guessing it goes 5-4 in favor of trump...the court should not have wide latitude in interpreting the law which clearly says "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens " to mean anything other than what it says...
The Obama administration did not ban travel to the US from the 7 countries they identified, no one said they were, they were designated as countries that have unstable govts they simply required that travelers be in possession of a valid visa - pretty reasonable and clearly constitutional. Gump, on the other hand wants a full travel ban, except for effectively persecuted)Christian minorities in those countries. The courts have correctly determined this amounts to an unconstitutional religious ban since the vast majority of the population in those countries is Muslim hence the persecution...and Gump foolishly carved out a minority religious exception. pretty sure that language is not in the second EO...If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, hard to see any constitutional grounds for siding with Gump.
good grief...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/p ... trump.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The order was revised to avoid the tumult and protests that engulfed the nation’s airports after Mr. Trump signed his first immigration directive on Jan. 27. That order was ultimately blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order continued to impose a 90-day ban on travelers, but it removed Iraq, a redaction requested by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who feared it would hamper coordination to defeat the Islamic State, according to administration officials.

It also exempts permanent residents and current visa holders, and drops language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, a provision widely interpreted as favoring other religious groups over Muslims. In addition, it reversed an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria, replacing it with a 120-day freeze that requires review and renewal.

guess you'll be siding w trump now...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

Oh yeah, I was referring to the "original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to the S.C". This one is not a travel ban at all, simply a temporary measure until we can get our extreme vetting process in order. I wonder how long will that take?
Gump wrote: In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the US in order to help keep our country safe.
Good job, already done! So why do we need the travel ban that is not a ban but Gump insists is a ban? And why is it "politically correct"? Could it really be a pretext for a religious ban? Guess we’ll have to wait for the next Tweet storm.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:Oh yeah, I was referring to the "original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to the S.C". This one is not a travel ban at all, simply a temporary measure until we can get our extreme vetting process in order. I wonder how long will that take?
Gump wrote: In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the US in order to help keep our country safe.
Good job, already done! So why do we need the travel ban that is not a ban but Gump insists is a ban? And why is it "politically correct"? Could it really be a pretext for a religious ban? Guess we’ll have to wait for the next Tweet storm.
bla bla as if any of that has any bearing on the case before the supreme court...again ban, pause, stop, halt, temporary whatever the terminology:
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."
if you actually give one crap about the sanctity of law and the validity of the supreme court you have to side w trump here... otherwise you are advocating for the subversion of written law in favor of politically expedient interpretation whenever it suits your needs or the needs of your ideology...the law is quite clear and specific...what he may have meant or what was written in a previous EO or said on the campaign trial or said in a comment years ago or even yesterday is irrelevant to the current EO which is also very specific...to watch you make a huge stretch to call it religious persecution or discrimination just to "get trump" is really pretty sad...there's just no there, there...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

As far as I recall, POTUS, even Gump, cannot violate the Constitution. If SCOTUS accepts the totality of evidence and deems Gump's travel ban that is not a ban though he insists is a ban to really be a pretext for religious discrimination, it will be rejected no matter how Gump and his Trumpeteers try to spin it.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:As far as I recall, POTUS, even Gump, cannot violate the Constitution. If SCOTUS accepts the totality of evidence and deems Gump's travel ban that is not a ban though he insists is a ban why bother with this idiotic wording if you have such a strong case? to really be a pretext for religious discrimination, it will be rejected no matter how Gump and his Trumpeteers try to spin it.
it's always been a ban, it's never been a religious ban...none of the wording has anything to do with religion....it's why we have laws that are written specifically, so there is no room for "interpretation"... you want an EO that is written to comply w the law to be thrown out because it was once written or discussed in a manor that left open the possibility to be in contrast w the law... really? so a contract once written can never be re-written in order to be more amicable? a law once discussed can never be construed to mean anything other than what was once discussed regardless of whether that discussion is reflected in the law or not? I'm not sure where you are going with this besides down a rabbit hole...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Coydog »

John Kelly wrote: "The fact is that in those countries, we have very little ability to actually verify, vet the people that are coming out of those countries. So, what the president and it's not a travel ban, remember. It’s a travel pause. What the president said, for 90 days, we were going to pause in terms of people from those countries coming to the United States that would give me time to look at additional vetting…"
John Kelly wrote: I'd like to clarify that the most recent executive order what it does and does not mean. This is not a travel ban; this is a temporary pause that allows us to better review the existing refugee and visa vetting system.
Sean Spicer wrote: "First of all, it's not a travel ban ... I think Secretary Kelly or one of the other individuals that got up there from DHS mentioned I think a million people have now come into this country. That's not a ban …

"When we use words like ‘travel ban,’ that misrepresents what it is. It's seven countries previously identified by the Obama administration where, frankly, we don't get the information that we need for people coming into this country.

"I think the president has talked about extreme vetting and the need to keep America safe for a very, very long time. At the same time, he's also made very clear that this is not a Muslim ban, it's not a travel ban. It's a vetting system to keep America safe."
It appears the travel ban wasn't always considered a travel ban.

But I suppose you're right. The law is what the law says and never open to wider interpretation given a broader context. That's why Congress allows literacy tests at the polls, because no one could reasonably argue such laws are just a pretext for racial discrimination and voter suppression.
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by freeski »

Another muslim attack in Paris. Some say not a big deal. Others say I'm glad I wasn't wacked in the head with a hammer today. :shock:
Also, it's official, the United States is fighting in the ISIS capital of Raqqa. We're going to rocka your world. Including butt not limited to death from above with burning bodies. :like This will go slow as we're hoping to wipe out ISIS with not even a smidgen of US casualties. Go Trump :!:
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:
John Kelly wrote: "The fact is that in those countries, we have very little ability to actually verify, vet the people that are coming out of those countries. So, what the president and it's not a travel ban, remember. It’s a travel pause. What the president said, for 90 days, we were going to pause in terms of people from those countries coming to the United States that would give me time to look at additional vetting…"
John Kelly wrote: I'd like to clarify that the most recent executive order what it does and does not mean. This is not a travel ban; this is a temporary pause that allows us to better review the existing refugee and visa vetting system.
Sean Spicer wrote: "First of all, it's not a travel ban ... I think Secretary Kelly or one of the other individuals that got up there from DHS mentioned I think a million people have now come into this country. That's not a ban …

"When we use words like ‘travel ban,’ that misrepresents what it is. It's seven countries previously identified by the Obama administration where, frankly, we don't get the information that we need for people coming into this country.

"I think the president has talked about extreme vetting and the need to keep America safe for a very, very long time. At the same time, he's also made very clear that this is not a Muslim ban, it's not a travel ban. It's a vetting system to keep America safe."
It appears the travel ban wasn't always considered a travel ban. so that language is crucial but the language of the bill is wide open ?

But I suppose you're right. The law is what the law says and never open to wider interpretation given a broader context. That's why Congress allows literacy tests at the polls, because no one could reasonably argue such laws are just a pretext for racial discrimination and voter suppression.
well except there isn't a law enacted by congress we are talking about here...we are talking about an executive order where the president at his discretion and by proclamation can impose whatever restrictions he wants for however long he wants...the previous EO was struck down on specific language that language has been eliminated...where does the current EO fail to fall in line w the presidents privilege as chief executive spelled out above? try and leave out the useless snark and wordsmithing.. present a legal case not daily show quality accusations...

I've already said about 800 times pause, ban, stop, halt, suspension, restriction, vetting, temporary , permanent , until further notice, whatever it's irrelevant...the president may impose by proclamation any restrictions for however long he sees fit, to claim otherwise is to intentionally circumvent the law for ideological purposes...the ridiculous machinations you go to may prove a point to you but you're only seeking to convince yourself of that which is easily dispelled in much simpler terms...

also seems based on ginsburgs public comments of disdain for the president she needs to recuse herself from any case involving him...

bored w this roundy round BS...out...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26276
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: More Muslim Violence

Post by Bubba »

freeski wrote: Another muslim attack in Paris. Some say not a big deal. Others say I'm glad I wasn't wacked in the head with a hammer today. :shock:
Also, it's official, the United States is fighting in the ISIS capital of Raqqa. We're going to rocka your world. Including butt not limited to death from above with burning bodies. :like This will go slow as we're hoping to wipe out ISIS with not even a smidgen of US casualties. Go Trump :!:
You could at least wait until the Paris police release the name of the assailant before reaching a conclusion. :roll:
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Post Reply