A little judicial overreach, anyone?
As most of you should know, a Seattle federal district judge, James Robart, has issued a stay against the Trump administration immigration ban on travel from seven countries that pose a threat of terrorist infiltration. That this same judge recently decreed in his court that “black lives matter” couldn’t possibly lead one to consider that there just might be some liberal politics at play in a Seattle judge’s decision, now, could it? That’s almost like saying “California judge” or “New York judge” – know what I mean?
But here we have a federal district judge with no access to any of the classified intelligence that likely went into implementing the ban decision, yet he considers himself supremely qualified to overrule the commander-in-chief of our armed forces on this national security matter. That, folks, is precisely the kind of judicial overreach and judicial activism that we elected Donald Trump to do away with, because we, the people who have to live with the real-life consequences of such a unicorn judiciary, are sick of it and want our nation to be free of it.
That this judge is a George Bush appointee just adds to the argument that none of these turkeys needs to be appointed for life, because their comfortable lifetime sinecures lead many of them to come to see themselves as beneficent dispensers of broad social justice remedies rather than the civil and criminal matters they are appointed to deal with. The old argument that appointing federal judges for life puts them beyond the reach of temptation or undue influence is horse puckey. The list of corrupt federal judges may not be long, but there damned sure is one.
But what is worse is the socio-political corruption that occurs with too many supposedly conservative federal judges after they have become accustomed to looking down on the world from their lofty, high-minded perches. They become comfortable with the idea that they have the power and authority to change society itself.
Hey, it’s fine to hear and rule on civil rights cases, but to issue nationwide stays directly challenging national security policies of the sitting administration is purely and simply judicial overreach. We need to be done with it.
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
It is an even simpler matter than that libtard judge. The black letter law specifically grants Trump the right to do this. The judge does not have the legal discretion to do anything related to it. Trump should do the full democrat and ignore this asshole, and if he makes waves, threaten to have him arrested on national security matters.
Indeed it does. From 8 USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
The judge in this case has his head firmly and fully inserted up his 4th point of contact. I’m pretty sure I can guess his political leanings and make a fair guess regarding which of two POTUSes appointed him without doing any research whatsoever.
You were guessing G.H.W. Bush, right?
Another of those “let’s appease the lefties so maybe they will like us” moves. His name was put forward by Patty Murray, wasn’t it?
Sorry Hondo, but I think there is more to this than one statute..
USC 1182 does say what you say it does but 8USC § 1152(a)(1)(A) says the following:
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
So while USC 1182 does allow the barring of specific immigrants or classes of immigrants, USC 1152 says what classes of people cannot be barred.
One the classes that cannot be barred is people based on their nationality which is what Trump’s ban does.
This means that for instance, you could ban students from a certain country as the class of people would be defined as “students,” (no pun intended.) But Congress seems to have stopped short of allowing wholesale bans on countries.
What is interesting is that USC 1182 was passed in 1952. Then Congress in 1965 passed The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which is USC 1152.
That seems to indicate that while the Congress initially wanted to allow the banning of all classes of people, in 1965 the Congress (which has the authority to set the laws of immigration) came back and said “the President can ban some classes of people, but not these classes of people.”
I think that is the only way what appears to be two conflicting statutes can be resolved.
Go back and reread President Trumps EO. No mention of race or religion or country. Simply a reaffirmation of the seven countries stipulated in Obama’s EO.
The problem with that thinking is that the Order specifies that the countries will be those listed in another document.
Is it really your contention that the DHS document referenced in the EO doesn’t list the countries?
Obama’s order was in response to a specific threat to the US. There is no evidence that Trump has provided where the EO is in response to a specific threat. It was not a general ban as is Trump’s EO.
Furthermore, Obama’s ban was for new refugees. (Refugees would be a class of people under the law.) Trump’s EO banned everyone from certain countries – even those with legal visas.
The breadth of the Trump order seems to be the issue and the problem. If Trump were to pare down the scope of the order to refugees from those countries, he’d have a much better case. As it is, he may very well be outside the law.
That is why the Washington Court got it wrong as well. The judge put a hold on the entire order. Other courts have found portions of the order to be legal.
The law doesn’t appear to allow the banning of everyone from a country nor does it appear to say a president cannot ban classes of people that are not listed in the USC 1152.
I am not arguing that Trump cannot ban classes of people. But it seems his EO went to far and that’s the real problem.
Once again, Carver, your argument fails on your inability to separate what you actually do know from what you think you do. How can you possibly say that there was no precipitating specific event?
If you’re getting a copy of the daily White House security briefing would you be kind enough to share it with all us ignorant folks here at TAH?
You’re making statements of certitude based on information you can’t possibly have.
Poetrooper,
It is not up to me to provide the justification for the order. It is up to the President.
He has not. If you actually read the order, the ban it is to review policies and procedures on immigration.. There is no mention of a threat – specific or not.
(That would mean that your argument is somewhat of a red herring and lacks the very specificity you say I am not providing.)
The law allows him to ban classes of people. It does not appear that he can ban people based strictly on their nationality as he has done.
Citizens/nationals of a particular nation form a “class of people”.
By your logic, the POTUS would not have the authority to ban immigration from nations with whom the US is engaged in war. That contention is patently absurd.
You also need to read the history of the 1965 law. Congress’ intent in passing that was to level the immigration “playing field” by removing the European bias previously present in US immigration law. It was not intended to forbid the POTUS from banning entry of persons posing a potential or demonstrated threat to US security.
Carver, where does it say that any issued visa cannot be suspended for a national security emergency as decided upon by the commander-in-chief?
Probably no where. I don’t think the law allows him to make an exception whole cloth as you are saying. The fact of the matter is that it is not the President that controls the laws on immigration – it is the Congress. The President would have to have the authority to make this order and because of the clash of the two statutes, I don’t think he has it.
Furthermore, in the briefs submitted to the judge, the government argued that very point saying:
Furthermore, while the review is pending, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security have discretion to grant visas on a case-by-case basis. Id. §§ 3(g), 5(e). Washington’s interpretation of the two provisions, in contrast, would lead to the untenable result that the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a country with which the United States is at war, which would raise a serious constitutional question about Congress’s ability to restrict the President’s Article II authority to ensure the nation’s security.
Therefore, even the government is basing their argument on what the President can do in this case because to deny the administration’s interpretation would be to deny the President use of a similar authority in a time of war.
The problem with that is we aren’t at “war” as far as the Constitution is concerned. Can you show me where that declaration is?
The weak link in your argument is, “I don’t think…”
The weak link is that I was trying to be polite.
I gave you the laws, and gave you the arguments from the administration lawyers. They are not the same as the ones you are hanging your hat on.
Therefore, if you have more information or a specific threat, go ahead and post it. Otherwise, it appears you are trying more to defend Trump rather than his actions.
Blind loyalty is never a good thing.
I’ll say it again,.,,,,, the order appears to be too broad in its scope. It bans people on the basis of their nationality, which is clearly against the law as it stands now.
Blind loyalty? Go back and read my writings during the campaign when I stated clearly that I was voting for Trump purely because of who his opponent was and that I would hold my nose while doing so.
You keep trying every way you can to discredit the temporary ban; and I keep saying you don’t have enough information to make such pronouncements with such certainty.
All I’m doing is saying that the president acted within his legal purview and that the federal judge stepped well beyond his.
Oh, and by the way, your original question was “Carver, where does it say that any issued visa cannot be suspended for a national security emergency as decided upon by the commander-in-chief?”
This is putting the cart before the horse.
Where is the declared national emergency that you believe would allow Trump to issue the order itself?
It was declared on 14 September 2001 by then-POTUS George W. Bush. It has been continuously in effect since, last being extended by the former Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, last September.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/09/obama-extends-post-911-state-national-emergency-16th-year/90004960/
Bingo! Thank you, Hondo. I had forgotten that and apparently so has Carver.
And I would ask you, “Who says it has to be declared?” You keep assuming much that doesn’t necessarily have to be so.
Correct. The TRO defies judicial precedent, constitutional and statutory authority, and misapplies the rational basis test. And then there’s the recent Boston decision which came to the opposite conclusion.
How did the Judge in Alabama who ruled against the obama gay marriage EO get removed?
I believe they impeached him. A federal judge can indeed be impeached for such things as misconduct. And this would definitely be misconduct. He has absolutely no authority to make a nationwide ruling on anything. And if he hasn’t been in a coma for the last several years he can reasonably be assumed to know this is willful judicial overreach.
Another Federal Judge turned Bench Activist, ain’t they just wonderful critters?
And slimy cocksuckers.
I have been an opponent of life terms of service for federal judges for as long as I can remember. Perhaps if judges had to have, oh, 30 years experience as litigators to be considered for a federal judgeship, I might go along with the lifetime ride. But a lifetime appointment for a 30 or 40 something year old? Hell no. In this case, Robart had to find that the state of Washington was suffering immediate and irreparable harm by the executive order. I have no idea what form or fashion that harm took but, on its face, that sounds laughable. And relief from Robart’s stay? That had to come from the nuttiest circuit of them all, the 9th. Needless to say, that didn’t happen.
My Spidy Senses went up when I saw that the judge is a bow tie type of guy.
Yeah. He wears a bow tie and is a fly fisherman. Still, he’s no Judge James Hardy.
I should point out that I bear no grudge against Robart. As PT points out, it’s the system that is off the rails, permitting, as it does, solitary lawyers who happen to wear black robes to use the law and their judicial discretion to effect changes they and theirs desire. I mean, how in the world, as I’ve wondered here a few times, can a fundamental right to marriage be discovered by five lawyers, go unseen by four others on the same court, and become the law of the land? It’s insane.
+10
I’m pretty sure the harm was done to their tech industry, because some programmers are caught up in the ban….so they have a claim that people working in their state have been impacted.
It doesn’t change the fact he has no juice on this issue, it just gives the litigants a reason to enter the case into his (favorable) court.
Bingo. When the original TRO request was filed in Robart’s court, it apparently included an amicus curiae brief supported by more than 90 tech companies including Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. All of which depend on gaming the H1-B visa system to drive down wages or replace American engineers.
Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, as just two examples, don’t give a rusty rat about U.S. sovereignty or national security. To them, it’s all about pushing globalization and grabbing for the money with both hands. Not to mention Sergei Brin of Google who has been taking part in anti-Trump protests.
I don’t think “harm to an industry” is what’s being argued. As usual the leftie petitioners portray non-citizens as victims. (Because vetting young military-age Moslem males “endangers” the US. Didn’t know that?)
They also argue that giving priority to the actual victims of jihad– the Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities that ISIS especially enjoys raping, killing or selling into slavery– “unfairly favors certain religious groups”. Go figure.
Congress can act to impeach this ID-10-T “judge”, and/or remove this topic from Court authority.
Or, the Administration could ignore the ignoramus since it was determined over the last 8 years that States have no authority, say or standing in cases involving borders and immigration – just ask (retired) Sheriff Joe and the State of Arizona.
Since it was a Federal judge, the Administration can’t really ignore him. They have to go through the Federal courts until they find some adults who actually, you know, research the law before issuing BS opinions.
Congress can indeed impeach the tool. However, removal from office still requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Given the Senate’s current makeup, that simply ain’t gonna happen.
While he is a federal level judge, his ruling is null and void on its face. He has no ability to order a “nationwide” ruling, only ones within his purview.
Impeachment is pretty extreme. The remedy for an incorrect ruling is an appeal, which the 9th Circuit is hearing on an expedited basis. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up before SCOTUS in short order.
Just FYI, only fifteen federal judges have been impeached in the history of the United States; four were acquitted, eight were convicted, and three resigned. Their offenses varied, but none were removed merely for ruling incorrectly in a case.
https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges
But warranted for flagrant politicization of the bench, something that lifetime appointments were supposed to prevent.
Most likely will end up with SCOTUS, given that this is in the 9th Circuit – the most overturned Circuit in history.
9th supported him.
My bad, ignore the above… they ruled against lifting the travel ban (but did not rule on the actual ban.
Remedial reading needed…
Given that this is a case of willful judicial misconduct that affects national security, I find impeachment fully justified and appropriate.
Does Washington have some sort of Baker Act equivalent? The guy is obviously nuts.
We live in a representative democracy, a republic. Our representatives, those who make law in our name, deriving their power to do so from us, are in Congress and one is in the executive branch, the president or chief executive. These are the only two branches that set national policy, at least if the Constitution matters and our democracy matters. This judicial tyranny, where a few dictate to 320 million or so has turned our republic on its head. It can be stopped. The power to do so is in the hands of Congress and the president.
You are so full of shit.
Congress and the president may be the two branches that set and execute national security policy..,
But the judiciary is constitutionally empowered to determine if those policies are constitutional. That is part of the checks and balances.
In fact, the area where policies are MOST likely to be unconstitutional is national security policies. Which make the judiciary’s role in protecting the people from government intrusion vital.
And the sheer hypocrisy of your position is astounding. If congress were to ban guns on the basis of National Security because access to guns was determined to be a national security threat you would sure as shit not be whining that it was not the judiciary’s job to determine that the ban was unconstitutional.
You are wrong. Read your constitution, lad. They were set up as co-equal branches. In this case, a federal judge who has a set range of authority has intentionally and knowingly exceeded his legal authority, and made an illegal ruling. In this case, he is potentially endangering national security. Most worthy of impeachment. And in this case particularly, the law is being executed well within the president’s lawful authority exactly within the limits set forth in that part of the federal law.
No, the Judiciary is not “Constitutionally Empowered” to determine the Constitutionality of law or EOs. That was an authority the SCOTUS usurped from the States/People in Marbury vs Madison.
Congress has the authority to delineate where the courts have jurisdiction and where they do not, not just in physical territory but also in topic.
Nice try, Lars. Go look up Marburg v Madison. Judicial Review authority was established by court precedent, not by the Constitution.
Next time try reading history before you lecture about it. Once again, you demonstrate that your mom should’ve swallowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Zampolit,
How many times have you complained about people not discussing, but instead insulting?
And you started your comment with “You are so full of shit.”
Wow. Way to stay both intellectual and classy.
Not judicial overreach. It is literally what the judiciary is supposed to do. Constitutionally empowered to do.
For all this “patriotic” talk many of you really love authoritarianism.
“But the judiciary is constitutionally empowered to determine if those policies are constitutional. That is part of the checks and balances.” I guess I missed that provision in grade school, high school, and law school. Would you kindly cite to it?
Lars, you are so full of shit–when a federal district judge issues a restraining order against a president for an action that is clearly spelled out in the law as within the president’s duties, then that, you twit, is the very definition of judicial overreach.
I refer you to Hondo’s post above:
8 USC 1182:(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Why does it appear that some in the Judiciary, Congress, and Media can’t read simple English any more????
Don’t you have store windows to smash, fires to set and guest speakers to shout down?
👍🏻
Perfectly well played 68W58!
Actually, don’t bother. I’m dealing with Commissar, the guy who begins his reply to my comment with, “You are so fill of shit.” Normally, I wouldn’t mind that opening but you are an exception because you claim that you appreciate an exchange of positions, of ideas, sans attacks. Funny how that works. You would like to have your views respected and open up with “You are full of shit.” And wash your pussy cap. It’s discolored and beginning to stink.
He also seems to single out certain people. That is obviously discriminatory ,prejudicial and does objectify one commenter over another.
I am happy he tries to go after me. It keeps my record with him unblemished. Whenever he attempts to assert himself in jurisprudential matters, he gets his ass kicked. Hell, whenever he asserts himself in any matter, he gets his ass kicked here.
There is no judicial review power in the US Constitution. Lars can’t cite to it because there is none. He also asserts that policy oversight is a function of the courts. He is wrong.
The Left has used the courts to foist its social agenda on us for many years. This is not news. Amenable courts, staffed by unelected lawyers who serve for life, have been only too happy to assist the Left in bypassing democratic decision making, whether it be through representatives or the direct voice of the people.
You beat me to it, Cav–I was about to comment that we will never have judicial reform in this country because the Democrats do not want it. When the people show through their elected representatives that they do not want the policies of the left controlling their lives, the only avenue open to the Democrats is the courts who seem to be only too willing to accommodate them and their utopian fantasies.
The only people who disagree with that position, which is as plan as the pussy cap on Commissar’s head, are those like him, those who understand that admitting the obvious is not in the best interest of moving their agenda.
Here’s the i. You know where it goes.
Not a lawyer, not a judge, don’t even play one in my own mind much less on TV. My understating is this ruling does not have standing because the State of Washington, et.al, cannot sue for redress without actual, living, breathing victims. These suits were filed, and the rulings were based upon, fictitious plaintiffs that were manufactured out of supposition.
And judicial overreach and what everyone else said.
The judges in these cases could have continued to kowtow to their liberal ideologies and colleagues by taking this sidestep, without fundamentally violating Fed law. As it is, for reasons cited above, they will be overturned by the SCOTUS, solidifying the EO. Won’t that make liberal heads explode…but maybe that is the real end game. Definitively end the ridiculousness. But, then what would that mean for the Gorusch confirmation?
Interesting times, indeed.
Denise. The state had to show that the state was suffering immediate and irreparable harm as a direct result of the executive order. In the view of Robart, it met this standard.
Air Cav, thanks for explaining.
See? Not a law person, taking correction. Maybe if I set the example others will follow?
Law is not difficult, Denise. Proof of this is the number of idiot lawyers, some of whom wear black robes and bow ties.
Five gets you ten that Lars is madly googling “judicial review” and “arguments against judicial activism claims” or some such thing.
He’s probably trying to find it in Urban Dictionary…
First he has to find a place that sells the Urban Dictionary.
Or he’s at the local co-op coffee shop talking with Soros’ kid – the one that’s a PhD candidate at Bezerkley – or the hippy, pinko prof that hasn’t bathed since 1967 about the concept of “judicial review”
I think he is blowing his roommate while his neighbor gives him titty-twisters.
His cat is Googling “how to self admit yourself to the pound”.
If I had a Time Machine, the first thing I’d do with it would be to go back to the night Lars was conceived and make his father wear a condom!
who knew that anal sex…
I love how judicial overreach is a thing until it’s something we agree with. Brown vs Board of Education overturned 70+ years of judicial precedent and hundreds of State and local statutes. No one says now “My what an awful decision”. We shouldn’t be so quick to judge (no pun intended) the long term effects.
“I love how judicial overreach is a thing until it’s something we agree with.” Your we does not include me. It was an abuse of the Equal Protection clause, which was never intended to be used as it was in that series of cases known as Brown. A good outcome can be reaced many ways. One that I find abhorrent to our system of governments is judicial fiat.
add the h and strike the s. Thanks.
I am unclear. Which was an abuse of the Equal Protection Clause? Brown? I’m not a lawyer, but from a logic perspective, I don’t see a difference in application. He’s an accomplished attorney and judge and was confirmed 99-0. I would say he’s qualified to rule on the case. I don’t know a damn thing about the final legal outcome, but I absolutely believe that the executive order was stupid, mean-spirited and made us less safe.
All of what you say about the judge may be true. However, his rulings normally only apply to the federal district he presides over. That would be the Western District of Washington.
How would this order make us “less safe”? And, kindly link to where you pointed out that Obama’s order suspending immigration from Iraq for 6 months back in 2011 was “stupid, mean-spirited and made us less safe”.
Frosty, you care to explain that “Less safe” contention that you throw out there with no supportive evidence?
Not Frosty, but I feel the same way – and it’s a matter of direct vs. indirect effects. The direct effect is it’ll stop any would-be terrorists who might’ve passed the existing screening. Given that the sum total of fatalities from refugees from those seven countries over the past few years is zero, the direct effect seems to be pretty small indeed. Not definitively zero, but still tiny, in so far as statistics can ever be accurate for rare situations.
On the flip side, you have indirect effects – the fact that this plays into ISIS’s rhetoric that we hate Muslims, for example, allows them to garner more support in these countries. Instead of the shining beacon of openness and freedom, we’re seen as anti-Islam. This hinders recruiting people attracted to our ideals (and there are some), it gives ISIS more room to operate because people may not condone their activity but they sympathize given how we’re seemingly anti-Islam. What’s the net effect of all of this? Hard to say, but there is an effect. And since we’re comparing that effect vs. zero effect (historically), it’s not hard to draw the conclusion that this hurts more than it helps.
Even on the home-front, the fact that it impacted lots of people who’d already been here for years, being productive members of society who’d done no wrong, and who know American citizens who are pissed at how their friends were treated, surely that too is a downside to how this was done.
In short, directly this would’ve saved no lives in the past few years, but it did hurt businesses, families, and our perception as a land of opportunity for all.
Bad guys always have and always will use any excuse presented to them or make one up if they want to to justify their actions. It really doesn’t matter what you do, you will NEVER appease the bad guys by doing anything other than exactly what they want you to do.
Why bother to try to appease them? Just secure yourself and get on with life. In the case of the current crop of terrorists, they are just like terrorists have always been, but thanks to our efforts to please them, there are more of them than anything anyone has ever dealt with before.
The situation was bad enough back in the late 60’s when they started misbehaving on a grand scale. Pretending other than that their end game will require that we eliminate them completely has only made the situation worse each passing year. Some of us call it death by a thousand cuts.
I understand that, but we’re still making their jobs easier – you can’t dismiss the secondary effects of how this ban was done by simply pointing out that they’ll find another way. That’s like saying I can dismiss any value to the ban, or the planned wall for that matter, by saying terrorists will find another way into the country. They will, absolutely, but there’s still an effect. The question is whether the effect is a net positive or net negative for the country on the whole.
Given that, again, in terms of its direct effect, this would have had no effect whatsoever in the past few years -the only thing we can reliably measure- I think there’s a fairly low bar to cross for the indirect negative effects to render the whole thing an overall loss rather than a win.
It ain’t about appeasing the bad guys, ti’s preventing people from seeing us as ‘bad guys of a different shade’. I feel our allies think we’re a bunch of idiotic pansies right about now – the whole thing was done poorly, and we’re freaking out over something that hasn’t happened. That costs us political capital and influence, if nothing else. And both of those translate into an ability to wage direct action when necessary.
No doubt – both our friends and our enemies think we are a bunch of idiots. Only idiots would refuse to protect their own borders, hire people in significant policy positions who are aligned with our sworn enemies and the myriad ways we are committing collective suicide with the way we do things.
I am an all-of-the-above kind of citizen. We need the wall, very selective approval of who gets in legally, and a bunch of other things. Apparently a whole lot of folks agree with me hence the new guy in DC instead of more of the same. We are tired of being perceived as idiots.
What we do, or do not do, is irrelevant to what ISIS says about us, or thinks of us. They see us as the enemy because we will not submit to their insane homicidal views.
Opposing the enemy does not “make their job easier”. Anything we do short of total submission to their particular whack-job understanding of Islam is proof to them that we are their mortal enemy. Nothing less than total submission -to them- will placate them.
If you haven’t figured that out, you haven’t been paying attention to how many -muslims- they have massacred for wearing beards wrong, or otherwise just not getting obedience to their “caliphate” 100% right.
They, and their compatriot maniacs elsewhere have -chosen- to set their socio-political pointer to “maniac”. Allowing such folks free access to our homes is kinda really fucking stupid.
Acting stupid and weak does not make their job harder. It actually encourages them in their belief that we are weak and vulnerable.
I think this type of viewpoint is spot-on when it’s literally a two-actor conflict – us vs. them. The problem is that’s not the reality we’re facing. There are countless third parties – from innocent people living their lives in ISIS territory, to other countries, to individual Muslims sympathetic to both sides of this conflict, etc.
Every action we take that has a net negative effect on how the US is perceived translates into a shift in the dynamics against us by those independent actors. Sure, nothing we do is going to sway a hard-core ISIS supporter, but they only represent a small portion of the total potential battlefield. The goal isn’t just to kill those guys, it’s to ensure nobody else joins their twisted cause.
And again, net effect is the key. I think securing our borders is important, and protecting against terrorists is important, but how far do we go? Plenty of people are frustrated with TSA for having to go through all their steps at the airport. What if we took that further? Strip searchers for everyone. In the name of protecting against terror. Would that be OK? Or does the negative indirect effect -pissing off a lot of Americans and whatever results from that- outweigh the benefits? I’d argue the latter. Same with banning travel for people who’ve already been approved for visas and whatnot.
If the ban had just been on granting new visas, I’d have had less of a problem with it. If it had been based off some actual intelligence, I’d have had none. It’s based off fear, though, and we’re better than that.
Where is your evidence, LC, that this ban is based on fear? Are you sitting in on high-end security briefings? No, you are not. You’re making an assumption that this ban is based on emotional reactions to current news, when it is not. You have no idea how many real-time viable threats there are, any more than I do. To assume that this ban is based on an emotion is just dumb. THAT is not the basis for it.
Lars, you’re still in that Obama unicorn mode of wanting the world to love us rather than the Reagan/Trump mode of not giving a shit whether they love us as long as they fear us and respect our resolve. The Muslim world hates Israel but they sure don’t mess with her much do they?
Now why do you suppose that is Lars?
Poetrooper, et.al., there is one point the communist in residence keeps making and doubling down on that is driving me nuts. It’s assumption is predicated on the idea that the perception of the enemy-crazies is being served by our actions. But it is our own crazies giving them the fodder, headlines and text for their justifications. So, in a twisted sense, our pseudo-intellectual pinko is correct. We are making the recruitment job easier for those crazies.
The ‘we’ in the previous sentence is my being inclusive of our crazies.
First, once again, I’m not Lars. Not everyone who disagrees with the majority here is Lars.
And I don’t want everyone to love us, I just don’t want everyone to hate us. Not because I want hugs and rainbows and unicorns, but because it’s a whole lot harder to project power and be a leader in the world when you’re disliked. I’m a liberal who is all for American exceptionalism.
To quote Teddy Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We’ve got a big stick, but we’re throwing tantrums rather than ‘talking quietly’, and it’s hurting us.
There is an excellent presentation of the problems associated with this judge’s order, complete with explanatory citations in this Breitbart article:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/travesty-legal-errors-immigration-eo-lawsuit/
Commissar has something to say. Please be respectful and hear him out:
2/17… that donkey has a higher IQ than the “professional student”.
And a lot more common sense…
Donkeys are useful, they’re good pack animals as well. Lars, well he’s good for occasional laughs and snickers, but anything else? I fookin’ doubt it.
Except that the donkey makes more sense, and has more respect for us than does your favorite chew toy, A/C.
That donkey has a striking resemblance to John “D Student” Kerry. Am I the only one that sees it?
You are certainly correct with the comparison. However, the donkey speaks more distinctly and is a lot prettier.
Well, it’s not quite a unicorn but probably close enough for Lars.
Well, anyone care to guess who is throwing money behind this cause?
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/soros-fingerprints-all-over-anti-trump-lawsuits/
The Hungarian Nazi…
No surprise at all. He’s also behind the funding for Antifa,the group that started the riots at Berkeley.
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=61465
Here’s a list of groups that get their money from him.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewsubcategory.asp?id=1237
Here’s a little history on the roost of Antifa.
http://www.ibtimes.com/what-antifa-anti-fascist-group-behind-violent-berkeley-protest-against-milo-2485217
Okay, I’m done but, of course, I’m only done after one more. The issue of outcomes is neither here nor there when it comes to law. It is the process that needs to be predictable, sure, and fair, not the result. This is a simple truth that is lost to many people. We may agree or disagree with a given result or outcome but that’s personal to each of us. The problem comes in when the process is skewed and a judge or judges decide what outcome is desired and then set about using the law to achieve that end. THAT is judicial tyranny, wholly antithetical to good law and, more importantly, the reason the judiciary is not respected as once it was.
Bingo.
Should I bring up that the judge made the decision unilaterally without there being a case brought before him regarding the issue? You know, which is illegal and unethical coming from a judge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/05/uber-twitter-netflix-and-other-tech-giants-to-call-travel-ban-unlawful-in-rare-coordinated-legal-action/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_techbrief12a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4bf132331a33#comments
In a coordinated action, 97 tech companies are opposed to the ban, stating that it impacts their ability to recruit the best and brightest. One question: can anyone associated with ANY of these companies please enumerate how many Somalis, Libyans, Iranians etc. that they have currently working for them now?
And apparently both Kerry and Albright are claiming that this is a national security issue because it encourages and supports ISIS’ contention that the US is anti-Muslim. Given that there are many other nations’ Muslims allowed free entry, and that the main people squealing about this being an anti-Muslim ban is our own fucking left wing mass media… that’s a bit of a stretch. Maybe they should accuse the NYTimes of being a security risk? Closer to the truth…
It’s called ‘a conclusion’.
You jump to it. No brain power involved at all.
No one has posed the obvious question here.
If this travel ban order is so dreadful and so very un-legal (no, it is not), then why was there no noise, no furor, no scramble to issue TROs against the ban imposed by Obama in 2011?
There were differences, yes, but why no noise?
Well, it’s quite simple: no one was paying any real attention to any of this kind of thing in 2011, because 2017 was so far, far away.
Or the ban in January 2016….
One of the more interesting things behind all of this is that the suit was brought by the State of Washington. Arguing for the State of Washington is its solicitor general Noah Purcell. Mr Purcell previously was general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.
In Arizona v. USA – the State of Arizona sought to enforce immigration law with the passage of legislation. The Obama administration objected and took Arizona to court. Mr Purcell represented the Obama administration in that case and argued that the government had sole exclusive power over immigration matters.
In that case which the government won, the Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration that
“The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled.”
“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”
“Federal governance of immigration and alien status is extensive and complex. Congress has specified catego-ries of aliens who may not be admitted to the United States. ”
” it is an “ ‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.’”
So exactly what happened to make him change his mind?
Never mind – It’s apparently ok when the Dems do it, but not when the GOP does it
(Fuggin’ Lars and his “hit and run” tactics).
Notice how he chimes in with a few lines of nonsense and disappears?
In all the discussions about the temporary travel ban outside this forum, I’ve yet to hear any discussion about American sovereignty and the laws that govern it (among other things).
And so on…
If you’re referring to LC, he is not Commissar. They are two separate people.
LC, however, likes to intellectualize everything to death, especially when it is not necessary.
Well, here’s an expected but unhappy update on Robart’s stay of the executive order that temporaily restricted SOME citizens of SOME countries from coming to the US. The 9th Circus upheld the stay, 3-0. Here’s the kicker, at least for me. Not only did the three jurists override what is clearly and squarely within the exclusive province of the chief executive to determine–matters of national security–but standing was found by virtue of the finding that Washington and Minnesota were being irreparably harmed by their assertion that some students couldn’t get to the schools from their native lands and that some researchers could not conduct their important research. (Helluva of a sentence that.) There is a bill being introduced to break up the 9th circus. It’s long overdue. I am so pissed right now, even though I knew damn well those three lunkheads would find a way to rebuff President Trump’s action.
“that some students couldn’t get to the schools” I was referring to the state universities.
“there is a bill being introduced to break up the 9th circus.” The bill would create a 12th circuit and transfer to the 12th a few states that are now pieces of the 9th. It can’t happen quickly enough.