Trump's immigration ban

[swansont]

The courts have ruled the immigration EO invalid.

 

Those are temporary orders, AFAIK. Lawsuits are being and/or have been filed (I think the state of Washington is filing one*; it's not just individuals) for a more complete investigation of the issues.

 

But the fact that people are ignoring the judicial orders is very troubling. And that Trump fired the acting AG (especially the explanation of it) is also troubling. The person now acting is the 3rd or 4th in the line of succession for the acting AG spot, implying that Trump had to shop around to find his updated version of Robert Bork.

 

*edit: Four states https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/31/trump-travel-ban-state-lawsuits?CMP=share_btn_tw

[rangerx]

 

I think the state of Washington is filing one*; it's not just individuals)

 

Indeed they have.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317884-washington-state-judge-halts-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide

[ecoli]

The courts have ruled the immigration EO invalid. However, they have no power to enforce the ruling, and Trump is ignoring the courts. The House and Senate can impeach the president. I think there is no way to make him comply.

 

This is false...

"In accordance with the judge's ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,’” Gillian Christenson said."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-legal-win-234634

[EdEarl]

 

This is false...

"In accordance with the judge's ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,’” Gillian Christenson said."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-legal-win-234634

If Trump orders immigration officers to follow his EO, instead of the court order, how would the court enforce their ruling?

[ecoli]

If Trump orders immigration officers to follow his EO, instead of the court order, how would the court enforce their ruling?

By issuing a contempt of court ruling, at which point it would be up the the US Marshalls to enforce the court ruling. But my point is that Trump and the DHS is not ignoring the ruling of the Washington Judge, but using the Justice department to appeal the ruling, which is the proper channel.

[rangerx]

If Trump orders immigration officers to follow his EO, instead of the court order, how would the court enforce their ruling?

 

By charging Trump with contempt of court. He's not above the rule of law.

But my point is that Trump and the DHS is not ignoring the ruling of the Washington Judge, but using the Justice department to appeal the ruling, which is the proper channel.

 

Trump fired the AG. In retrospect she was wrongfully dismissed, but I'm inclined to think stacking the office of AG to challenge the rule of law makes no difference. What it does do though, is show the length the current administration will go to cram their agenda down everyone's throats at any cost. Even if it means failure... which they'll never accept, but to blame liberalism, activist judges or whatever alternate facts d'jour they cook up.

[EdEarl]

Have the people turned away in the first few days, and sent back to those seven countries come back into the US, or is the EO still being enforced?

 

 

The 60,000 visas canceled under President Trump's executive order are now again valid following a federal judge's temporary blocking of the executive action, the U.S. State Department said Saturday.

Edited February 4, 2017 by EdEarl

[swansont]

Have the people turned away in the first few days, and sent back to those seven countries come back into the US, or is the EO still being enforced?

 

I've seen a number of pictures on Twitter of people arriving (and being reunited with their families) who were turned away a few days ago.

[StringJunky]

 

The US authorities have rolled back a controversial travel ban on people from seven mainly Muslim countries after a judge suspended it.

 

The state department said it was reversing the cancellations of visas, 60,000 of which were revoked after President Donald Trump's order.

Judge James Robart ruled there were legal grounds to challenge the ban.

Mr Trump called the verdict by the Seattle judge "ridiculous" and vowed to restore the ban.

People affected by the ban treated news of the suspension warily as airlines began allowing them to board flights to America on Saturday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38868571

The latest on the BBC site.

Edited February 4, 2017 by StringJunky

[StringJunky]

This graph is interesting from the BBC. The number of terrorism-related cases since 9/11 and where the perpetrators come from:

 

Includes those charged with or died engaging in jihadist terrorism

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38766364

Edited February 6, 2017 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

“I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” Mr. Trump told a gathering of sheriffs and police chiefs on Wednesday in Washington. “But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban.html?_r=0

 

This is our new reality, preposition followed by contradiction. Trump states that he won't call the court bias then calls the court bias.

 

Trump campaiged on a Muslim ban. Qoute from Donald Trump's own website "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

 

Now that he is in court and it is being made clear to him that a Muslim ban is illegal he is claim that his Muslim ban isn't really a Muslim ban. Preposition followed by contradiction. it is blatantly dishonest. Such behavior from a President is unethically unpatriotic to a level that soils the moral standing of government.

[DrKrettin]

This is our new reality, preposition followed by contradiction.

 

Good post, but isn't that "proposition"?

[geordief]

Is he just being clumsy in this instance? Does he have a point but is unable to or cunningly avoiding articulating it clearly ?

 

Does this area of confusion allow him more leeway in (ironically and perhaps disingenuously ) profiting from his own confusion?

 

To explain, he says the courts are not "biased" but are "political". (not terms which are complete opposites)

 

Now there is a point here. The courts are indeed "political" insofar as appointments are political appointments at the highest level (and for good reasons perhaps -could it be otherwise?)

 

We all know about the "separation of powers". Is it a good thing?(I say "yes") and can the three branches be entirely independent or do they have to "rub shoulders" with each other?

 

So Trump uses the word "political" and it sounds like he is saying "judges are crooked" but there is a point about the system that could lend specious respectability to his idea which he may come back to later and claim "that is what he meant".

 

He is never willing to agree that he is wrong or to be pinned down on his assertions (even attacking the 4th estate) and so ,for that reason alone in my eyes is unfit to hold his office.

 

I draw comfort from the fact that his pick for the Supreme Court has come out against his attacks on the judges:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38914598 "Trump attack on judges 'demoralising' says Supreme Court pick"

 

 

 

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

A Lincoln

Edited February 9, 2017 by geordief

[StringJunky]

 

Now there is a point here. The courts are indeed "political" insofar as appointments are political appointments at the highest level (and for good reasons perhaps -could it be otherwise?)

The UKs appointment of the Lord Chief Justice (UKs highest judge) doesn't have much, if any, politics in it.

 

 

The appointment of the Lord Chief Justice is made by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor following the recommendation of an independent selection panel chaired by Christopher Stephens, Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission. The other panel members were: Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, Dame Valerie Strachan (DCBE), lay member of the JAC, Professor Noel Lloyd (CBE), member of the JAC, and Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls. This selection exercise was run under the relevant sections of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and was the first time that the panel had a lay member majority.

In accordance with section 70 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the panel determined the selection process to be followed and consulted the Lord Chancellor and the First Minister of Wales on the process followed.

In accordance with s.10(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 c.54, the selection exercise was open to all applicants who satisfied the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 7-year basis, or were judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, or High Court.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appointment-of-the-lord-chief-justice-of-england-and-wales

Edited February 9, 2017 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

@ geordief, many of the people Trump has nominated have come out against various Trump policies. They mostly have no choice since, as you pointed out, Trump refuses to be clear on what his policies are. During the confirmation process most nominees as a matter of basic professional integrity attempt to give answers in the affirmative or the negative. Betsy Devos being an example of how a nominee is received when they fail to achieve that simple benchmark.

 

Court appointments are for life. They are structured that ways to prevent them from being political. Judges don't have to campiagn to keep their job. So in theory they can just focus on the law and doing wht is right rather than what is popular. Of course as with anything corruption can creep in. The Republican Party has created their own interpretation of law. They have the Federalist Society which is a full network of lawyers and jduges who network together in politics and business.

http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/

 

As for Trump's use of "biased" and "political" I think he was being fairly clear. He was saying courts in this case are politically bias. In the past he accussed a judge of being ethnically bias. In this case he is claiming it is political. It the judge was Muslim I am sure he'd claim the bias was religious.If the judge a women, sexist. Trump's arguments are not incredibly complicated. That is one of the reasons his audience likes him so much. They feel like they understand him. The nuance is all pretend.

 

Good post, but isn't that "proposition"?

prepostion - a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause;

 

proposition - a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.

 

I meant prepostion but now, looking at the definitions, perhaps proposition is better? “I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” “But courts seem to be so political," The proposition is the assertion that the court is "so political". That is the judgement Trumpo makes. The preposition, the preceding related to it, is that he doesn't "want to call the court bias".

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[DrKrettin]

 

I meant prepostion but now, looking at the definitions, perhaps proposition is better? “I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” “But courts seem to be so political," The proposition is the assertion that the court is "so political". That is the judgement Trumpo makes. The preposition, the preceding related to it, is that he doesn't "want to call the court bias".

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

It would be a grammatical quibble were it not for the (potentially) excellent labelling of Trump's absurdity. I can see why you use the term, but a preposition is a single word, a part of speech (others are noun, verb, adjective... etc.) and as such can have no meaning on its own. But you are using it for an actual statement ("...so I won’t call it biased,") . Perhaps "statement" or "declaration" are even better than "proposition".

[geordief]

@ geordief, many of the people Trump has nominated have come out against various Trump policies. They mostly have no choice since, as you pointed out, Trump refuses to be clear on what his policies are. During the confirmation process most nominees as a matter of basic professional integrity attempt to give answers in the affirmative or the negative. Betsy Devos being an example of how a nominee is received when they fail to achieve that simple benchmark.

 

Court appointments are for life. They are structured that ways to prevent them from being political. Judges don't have to campiagn to keep their job. So in theory they can just focus on the law and doing wht is right rather than what is popular. Of course as with anything corruption can creep in. The Republican Party has created their own interpretation of law. They have the Federalist Society which is a full network of lawyers and jduges who network together in politics and business.

http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/

 

As for Trump's use of "biased" and "political" I think he was being fairly clear. He was saying courts in this case are politically bias. In the past he accussed a judge of being ethnically bias. In this case he is claiming it is political. It the judge was Muslim I am sure he'd claim the bias was religious.If the judge a women, sexist. Trump's arguments are not incredibly complicated. That is one of the reasons his audience likes him so much. They feel like they understand him. The nuance is all pretend.

.

So you don't feel that Trump is playing to the "stupid gallery" in a similar way that some people use their "faults" to make a connection with the people (stammers can be seen as appealing and accentuated occasionally)

 

Trump has form,does he not?

 

"I love the uneducated" "I could shoot someone in the street and they would still vote for me" (or words to that effect)

[Delta1212]

@ geordief, many of the people Trump has nominated have come out against various Trump policies. They mostly have no choice since, as you pointed out, Trump refuses to be clear on what his policies are. During the confirmation process most nominees as a matter of basic professional integrity attempt to give answers in the affirmative or the negative. Betsy Devos being an example of how a nominee is received when they fail to achieve that simple benchmark.

 

Court appointments are for life. They are structured that ways to prevent them from being political. Judges don't have to campiagn to keep their job. So in theory they can just focus on the law and doing wht is right rather than what is popular. Of course as with anything corruption can creep in. The Republican Party has created their own interpretation of law. They have the Federalist Society which is a full network of lawyers and jduges who network together in politics and business.

http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/

 

As for Trump's use of "biased" and "political" I think he was being fairly clear. He was saying courts in this case are politically bias. In the past he accussed a judge of being ethnically bias. In this case he is claiming it is political. It the judge was Muslim I am sure he'd claim the bias was religious.If the judge a women, sexist. Trump's arguments are not incredibly complicated. That is one of the reasons his audience likes him so much. They feel like they understand him. The nuance is all pretend.

 

prepostion - a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause;

 

proposition - a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.

 

I meant prepostion but now, looking at the definitions, perhaps proposition is better? I dont ever want to call a court biased, so I wont call it biased, But courts seem to be so political," The proposition is the assertion that the court is "so political". That is the judgement Trumpo makes. The preposition, the preceding related to it, is that he doesn't "want to call the court bias".

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Prepositions are, for example:

 

About, above, across, after, against, along, among, around, at, before, belong, by

 

And so on.

[geordief]

Did Ten Oz also confuse "preposition" with "premise" perhaps?

Edited February 9, 2017 by geordief

[Phi for All]

Such behavior from a President is unethically unpatriotic to a level that soils the moral standing of government.

 

It's hard not to be depressed thinking about how many people consider him to be an American leader. He's a billionaire with a crippled grasp of right and wrong who lies to Americans about solutions to every fear they can think of, so he can gain the power to do whatever he wants.

 

Did no one's grandma tell them the stories about wolves and sheep with wool over their eyes?

[StringJunky]

 

It's hard not to be depressed thinking about how many people consider him to be an American leader. He's a billionaire with a crippled grasp of right and wrong who lies to Americans about solutions to every fear they can think of, so he can gain the power to do whatever he wants.

 

Did no one's grandma tell them the stories about wolves and sheep with wool over their eyes?

After reading iNow's link on his business history, all I can say is that he is a cucking funt and I hope that the avalanche of shit that is following behind will fall on him before too much damage is done. It's reallly, really sad to be thinking about an American president this way.

Edited February 9, 2017 by StringJunky

[geordief]

The UKs appointment of the Lord Chief Justice (UKs highest judge) doesn't have much, if any, politics in it.

 

There were recent attacks on the judiciary in the newspapers as a consequence of the Judges finding that Parliament had to have the final say on Brexit.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-attorney-general-condemns-daily-mails-vitriolic-attack-on-brexit-judges-a7462851.html

[StringJunky]

There were recent attacks on the judiciary in the newspapers as a consequence of the Judges finding that Parliament had to have the final say on Brexit.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-attorney-general-condemns-daily-mails-vitriolic-attack-on-brexit-judges-a7462851.html

You've lost me. What does that have to do with appointing the top legal mind? The Daily Mail is like your Fox News; Right-wing, hypocritical whingers.

[geordief]

You've lost me. What does that have to do with appointing the top legal mind? The Daily Mail is like your Fox News; Right-wing, hypocritical whingers.

Nothing to do with the appointments but connected in that the judge was described as an "enemy of the people" on the front page of a newspaper which is presumably well regarded by a substantial number of its readers (not by me ,for sure)

 

Such an attack on the judiciary I cannot personally recall in over half a century and it was very unwelcome .

 

Just to say , the independence of the judiciary is not a given -it has to be appreciated and defended (if it is there in the first place).

 

Judges were a first line of physical attack from terrorists in Ireland ,Germany and Italy in the 70s. Warts and all they are societies' bastion and hopefully be such in the forthcoming American developments .

[StringJunky]

Warts and all they are societies' bastion and hopefully be such in the forthcoming American developments .

I''m sure they will be.