February 4, 2017

"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

"When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security - big trouble!"

Trump tweets, quoted in Yahoo's "Trump fumes, vows to act, after judge lifts travel ban."

145 comments:

rhhardin said...

That's the best legal analysis I've seen, so far.

The judge appears to think judges decide who comes into the country. I don't know if the Iranian constitution is involved, or they just use ours.

rhhardin said...

Where is Volokh on this, and so forth.

There's zero comment from people who are supposed to be legal pundits.

Just the fake news.

rhhardin said...

Irreparable damage to ISIS was shown, so it's stayed.

rhhardin said...

There's soemthing deep-state about the thing.

Chuck said...

Does a "so-called judge" have less jurisdiction than a "Mexican judge"?

Kate said...

The judge -- as I understand it -- says that the ban keeps tech workers and students from WA state, which gives the university and companies (like Amazon) standing to challenge the EO.

So, legal visas for students and tech workers need to be reduced asap. The judge has done immigration hawks a favor by emphasizing the next legislative target.

Mike Sylwester said...

This is what happens when a Scientific Progressive is allowed to become a federal judge.

rhhardin said...

Trump has the popular reaction down. Common sense vs the judiciary again.

A legal pundit might be able to push back with a good point if there were any. So far the common people are being asked to think of it for themselves, which isn't happening.

rhhardin said...

Trump is allowed to damage anything he wants because he sets those immigration rules.

Collateral damage is no business of the judiciary.

sunsong said...

Expect more of this :-)

readering said...

This is what happens when a nut job is given both a smart phone and the presidency.

Will be interesting when Gorsuch is asked about the so-called judge insult.

rhhardin said...

I think it's the asshole problem. They're all over.

Mark said...

Since foreign relations is exclusively an executive function and any challenge to it presents a non-justiciable political question, Trump has a point about judicial interference.

rhhardin said...

Maybe deport the judge back to Syria.

Chuck said...

readering said...
This is what happens when a nut job is given both a smart phone and the presidency.
Will be interesting when Gorsuch is asked about the so-called judge insult.


I had the exact same thought. And I think I know the answer, consistent with what the cabinet nominees said in their confirmation hearings.

They will say that they disagree with the language, that it's not something that they'd say, and that they've never discussed any such thing with the President. Distancing themselves from the Trump Twitter account effectively, and then moving on to confirmation.

rhhardin said...

Gorsuch would say he may have to rule on it so does not want to comment.

Mark said...

The judge -- as I understand it -- says that the ban keeps tech workers and students from WA state, which gives the university and companies (like Amazon) standing to challenge the EO.

By that reasoning, if they wanted to hire a convict on death row, they would have standing to challenge the sentence.

rhhardin said...

You just have to find one nutball and you can stop Trump in everything.

More judges than presidents.

rhhardin said...

So now nobody believes judges. It's all political.

Mark said...

Gorsuch would concede that judicial precedent is entirely on the president's side. And, if asked, he would explain political question, justiciability doctrine.

Fabi said...

Vichy Chuck agrees with a comment that Trump is a nut job.

Unexpectedly.

rhhardin said...

It may be time to pack the court with smart people.

Rob said...

Though I haven't been able to confirm it on the Internet, my recollection is that George Wallace once referred to "the New York Times, the Washington Post and the so-called Baltimore Sun."

Mark said...

So if a president who was not Trump were to suspend entry into the country by people from another nation -- say, refugees from Iraq for example -- that president would be a nut job too?

rcocean said...

The congress passes laws, someone sues, and then some Federal judge decides the Federal Government can do this, but not that. The basis? Just whatever they pulled out of their ass.

Its all bullshit. We all know that if this gets to the SCOTUS the 4 liberal democrats will vote against Trump and the 3 Republicans will vote for Trump and it'll be up to drama queen Kennedy to decide what the immigration policy of the United States of America is.

Crazy. Why do we even have elections?

Michael K said...

There's zero comment from people who are supposed to be legal pundits.

I've already posted some analysis by sophisticated lawyers with links to other opinions.

The case is styled State of Washington et al. v. Donald J. Trump. Judge Robart disposes of the issues in a decision less than seven pages long. The heart of the court’s order, such as it is, amounts to about one page. It is entirely conclusory. If the order had been submitted to me when I was teaching legal writing at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis I would have agonized over whether to award it a D- for satisfying the the formal requirements (barely) or flunk it outright. At American Thinker, Ed Straker finds the order wanting. Ed’s assertions are at least arguable; the judge’s decision makes no arguments.

It's a law student level ruling.

tcrosse said...

This is what happens when a nut job is given both a smart phone and the presidency.
This nutjob has the Presidency because Hillary and her campaign were too fucking stupid to figure out how the Electoral College works. This orange moron figured out how to win the presidency with millions fewer votes and at half the expense. And those geniuses at the Clinton campaign couldn't figure out how to turn that Popular Vote victory into Congressional Seats.

jimbino said...

Of course, a country has a right to bar entry of persons it considers undesirables. Except that it is prohibited by our constitution and laws to bar entry based on religion, among other protected categories.

Can you imaging barring brown-eyed people who are not members of a specifically protected class?

readering said...

He would if he tweeted that a federal judge was so-called for issuing an opinion he didn't agree with. But hasn't happened before so who knows. Maybe it's a trend in presidential conduct.

Mark said...

Federal judge [for a specific, limited district] decides the Federal Government can do this, but not that

Meanwhile, another judge from another district on the other side of the country rules that the government can do what the other judge said it could not do.

Were I the second judge, I'd tell the first judge to get lost, that he doesn't have any jurisdiction in my district or circuit.

BillySaturday said...

Rhhardin is especially disturbed today, lol.

It was only a matter of time before Trump ran into reality. The Courts apparently aren't impressed with his celebrity or illegal Executive Orders.

HT said...

He's right. Define country.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"This nutjob has the Presidency because Hillary and her campaign were too fucking stupid to figure out how the Electoral College works."

Yeah, the sooper geniuses on the Hillary campaign were running ads in Chicago and LA, while ignoring Wisconsin. Robby Mook knew better than Bill Clinton did.

Has there ever been a time in history when the elites were so stupid and had convinced themselves they were so smart?

Drago said...

BillySaturday: "The Courts apparently aren't impressed with his celebrity or illegal Executive Orders."

Note to self, "The Courts" now = 1 judge in WA.

Interesting.

I guess the science is settled.

cubanbob said...

Kate said...
The judge -- as I understand it -- says that the ban keeps tech workers and students from WA state, which gives the university and companies (like Amazon) standing to challenge the EO."

Maybe Ann can chime in on this: about 50 years ago the Supreme Court ruled a State cannot decide who is a resident of the State. If memory serves me right this may have had to do with restrictions on welfare benefits (for non-state residents until they had resided for a certain period of time) or for whether or not public schools could exclude illegal alien students or perhaps there were several decisions along these lines. The point is if I am correct then no state has standing to decide who is a resident of the State and thus no subdivision of the State can make the claim for standing and a private party has no standing in deciding who is a resident of the State. Unfortunately these stunts won't get cleared until there is a new AG and the vacancy of Scalia is filled. Then it would appear that these issues would be resolved rather quickly.

Lyle said...

Trump is right!

BillySaturday said...

I see the "country" is out on the streets again today protesting the so called President's illegal Muslim travel ban.

Owen said...

Michael K: "...It's a law school level ruling." I think you may be too generous. I was recently made aware of 18 USC 1182(f) which appears to give the President absolute and plenary power to include or exclude whomever he chooses from entering (non-citizens, of course). Ideally he would exercise this power wisely and predictably and with careful guidance and preparation; but those are style points. On the substance he can do what he damned well wants.

I just don't see (yet) how there can be anything there that is open to judicial review. But I guess I'll learn more; and right soon.

More popcorn.

cubanbob said...

jimbino said...
Of course, a country has a right to bar entry of persons it considers undesirables. Except that it is prohibited by our constitution and laws to bar entry based on religion, among other protected categories."

You do realize the US Constitution only applies to the US and to those who are subject to it. People outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitution have no US constitutional rights including the right to immigrate to the US for any reason.

readering said...

I'm sure Obama was pissed when a judge in Texas stayed his executive order on immigration. Somehow it didn't occur to take to twitter. Just hit a golf ball extra hard. Trump should play more golf.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Well, if we have to let the refugees in, can Trump make sure they are relocated in Beverly Hills and Westchester County and Berkeley? I'd like to see the ones Australia was eager to get rid of moved in next to the homes of Ivy League professors. Stick them in the blue cities so they can enjoy the diversity of the Folsom Street Fair and Slut Marches.

After all, the Tsarnaev boys were Muslim refugees whose lives were greatly enriched by living in tolerant Cambridge and look at what model citizens they turned out to be!

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
Vichy Chuck agrees with a comment that Trump is a nut job.


No, I said I had the exact same thought, as to what Judge Gorsuch being asked, by a panel of hostile Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, about Donald Trump's comments concerning "a so-called [U.S. District Court] judge" or a "Mexican [U.S. District Court] judge."

Jim at said...

"Expect more of this :-)"

Blood will be on your hands.
Let's see your smiley face then.

James Graham said...

Not to worry.

The stay will simply add to Trump's support in future elections, including the next Congressional and 2020.

MountainMan said...

In case no one is familiar with it this is 18 USC 1182(f):

"​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."

There is also this SCOTUS decision:

"At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe." - U. S. Supreme Court, In United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)

Jim at said...

"The Courts apparently aren't impressed with his celebrity or illegal Executive Orders."

One judge.
In Seattle.

Who famously declared from the bench that Black Lives Matter.

One.
Judge.

BillySaturday said...

"Note to self, "The Courts" now = 1 judge in WA."

You are poorly informed. There have been at least 6 Federal Judges that have ruled against Trump's illegal Muslim travel ban.

Fernandinande said...

"So-called judge" = government lawyer.

rhhardin said...
Where is Volokh on this, and so forth.


I think they're stuck between a rock and a hard place - they hate Trump and want (mostly) open borders, but apparently there wasn't a legal basis for the government lawyer's decision.

There's zero comment from people who are supposed to be legal pundits.

Absurd Fed Ct TRO halts enforcement of entire Executive Order on visas, refugees

James Pawlak said...


Volley fire works against violent mobs.

EDH said...

Widely publicized as a GWB appointee to the federal district court, maybe this will prompt Trump to take a second look at the tradition of home state senators in the selection process for federal judges.

Role of Home State Senators in the Selection of Lower Federal Court Judges

This report examines the role that home state Senators, historically and in the contemporary era, have played in the selection of nominees to U.S. district court and circuit court of appeals judgeships. It also identifies issues that have arisen in recent years over the role of home state Senators in the selection process for federal judges.

Jersey Fled said...

Off topic, but didn't someone here say that we wouldn't see 20,000 on the Dow again while Trump was in office?

Just wanted to know where to send their Krugman award.

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
...
After all, the Tsarnaev boys were Muslim refugees whose lives were greatly enriched by living in tolerant Cambridge and look at what model citizens they turned out to be!


See, how Trump's campaign rhetoric, and the adoration of the extremist Trump supporters who loved that rhetoric, have made the task more difficult.

Trump originally talked about a Muslim ban. His supporters wanted a Muslim ban. Sensible people warned that a Muslim ban would never, ever fly in the federal courts. So Trump gets into office, and apparently asks his staff and advisers to craft something close to a Muslim ban. People like "exiledonmaintreet" are all excited about something that gives them the feeling of a Muslim ban.

But because of the general tenor of it being a Muslim ban, even some careful legal drafting can't fulfill Trump's desires and still make it pass muster under constitutional principles.

Trump's having been such a wild, undisciplined, extremist blowhard is making it hard to do what some immigration hawks with manageable ideas would have liked to do.

Admit it, Trumpkins; while the Trump pundits and the attorneys in the Justice Department will argue that it is NOT a "Muslim ban"; what you wanted all along was a "Muslim ban."


TwilightofLiberty.com said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
Well, if we have to let the refugees in, can Trump make sure they are relocated in Beverly Hills and Westchester County and Berkeley? I'd like to see the ones Australia was eager to get rid of moved in next to the homes of Ivy League professors. Stick them in the blue cities so they can enjoy the diversity of the Folsom Street Fair and Slut Marches.

After all, the Tsarnaev boys were Muslim refugees whose lives were greatly enriched by living in tolerant Cambridge and look at what model citizens they turned out to be!

2/4/17, 12:42 PM

Fantastic! Yes, small Southern towns and random small Western communities have taken their share. Put them all in Beverly Hills and Martha's Vineyard.

Fernandinande said...

Jersey Fled said...
Off topic, but didn't someone here say that we wouldn't see 20,000 on the Dow again while Trump was in office?


Yup, but I hope it has been banned.

Dow Jones Industrial Average
INDEXDJX: .DJI - Feb 3, 4:37 PM EST
20,071.46 Price increase186.55 (0.94%)

Fabi said...

"Chuck said...
readering said...
This is what happens when a nut job is given both a smart phone and the presidency.
Will be interesting when Gorsuch is asked about the so-called judge insult..."


You included the "nut job" quote, Chuck -- not just the Gorsuch question quote. Do try to be honest.

Owen said...

James Pawlak: "...a whiff of grapeshot" was, I think, Napoleon's phrase for how to calm down the mob. His method helped him rise from a nondescript corporal to Emperor.

History: never repeats, often rhymes.

Chuck said...

James Graham said...
Not to worry.
The stay will simply add to Trump's support in future elections, including the next Congressional and 2020.


I think that this may well be true. Even more powerful would be the signal if the EO were eventually upheld in the Circuit Court of Appeals. And then the Supreme Court. I think it will be a year before that happens.

And the appeal of the Washington District Court ruling has a hard road ahead. That appeal goes to the Ninth Circuit; along with the Obama-packed D.C. Circuit, it is the most liberal Court of Appeals in the federal system.

I think that there is time, and some legal room, to adjust the order and to defend it on appeal, such that presidential prerogatives in immigration policy will be preserved. There would be some basis, in the end, for Trump to claim a victory before the 2018 general election.

Chuck said...

Fabi I merely quoted the entire quote. I said nothing about endorsing the "nut job" language.

I would not call Trump a "nut job." I'd stick to the facts, and call him a Birther, a Truther, a Vaxxer, a crypto-Democrat, a former assault weapons ban proponent, a former "pro-choice" advocate, and a pathologicl liar.

The guy behind the "John Miller" debacle is probably a "nut job" in common parlance. But I wasn't dealing in common parlance.

Donald Trump's 'John Miller' interview is even crazier than you think:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/donald-trumps-john-miller-interview-is-even-crazier-than-you-think/?utm_term=.592673a04358

Bad Lieutenant said...

But because of the general tenor of it being a Muslim ban, even some careful legal drafting can't fulfill Trump's desires and still make it pass muster under constitutional principles.


The Boston judge said you're full of it, Chuck.

Angel-Dyne said...

Kate: The judge -- as I understand it -- says that the ban keeps tech workers and students from WA state, which gives the university and companies (like Amazon) standing to challenge the EO.

So, legal visas for students and tech workers need to be reduced asap. The judge has done immigration hawks a favor by emphasizing the next legislative target.


Let's hope so. It's been easy to bamboozle an inattentive public by trying to restrict any media focus to the tech workers most people would be happy to have here, but the H-1B visas have become an appalling racket.

EDH said...

Chuck said...

Admit it... what you wanted all along was a "Muslim ban."

Honestly, from reading the commenters on this blog, I think more commenters want a "Chuck ban."

Jay Elink said...

BillySaturday said...
Rhhardin is especially disturbed today, lol.

It was only a matter of time before Trump ran into reality. The Courts apparently aren't impressed with his celebrity or illegal Executive Orders.

****************

Go to Legal Insurrection, and you'll find you are wrong, and reveal yourself to be just another low-info Trump h8r.


http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/02/absurd-fed-ct-tro-halts-enforcement-of-entire-executive-order-on-visas-refugees/

You especially need to read yesterday's decision by the US District Court of Massachusetts, "refusing to extend a TRO because those security decisions were beyond the purview of the courts."

From the Mass. court's decision:

"The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a “fundamental sovereign attribute” realized through the legislative and executive branches that is “largely immune from judicial control.” …. Federal classifications based on alien status are evaluated using rational basis review…. Rational basis review examines whether the “classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.” … It is “not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” …

Under rational basis review, a classification is permissible “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis.” … Because the EO involves federal government categorizations with respect to non-resident aliens, rational basis review applies. According to the EO, its purpose is to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists . . . . Exec. Order 13,769 § 3(c). The EO specifically asserts that permitting aliens from the countries identified in section 217(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12), to enter “would be detrimental to the United States.” The order provides a reasonably conceivable state of facts [which concerns national security and] that could provide a rational basis for the classification….

Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions…."

There's much more. You can read the entire decision, with case citations, here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/338363465/MA-District-Court-Denial-Extension-TRO-Re-Trump-Executive-Order-on-Refugees-February-3-2017

Wanna take any bets that the Washington decision will be reversed on appeal?

hombre said...

Trump isn't fuming, he's trolling and the fish are biting.Trump issues order, keeps his promise to protect us from Middle Eastern potential terrorists using Obama DHS list of risky nations. Dems rush in, prevail upon their toady judges to let potential terrorists in. Judges agree. Dem mediaswine applaud. Fast forward: Middle Eastern immigrants do what they do in Europe, grab pussies shoot people.Clever Dems.

Here's the argument for the lefties of the Ninth Circuit: "May it please the Court, the President asserts that counsel advised him this order is obviously constitutionally and statutorily sustainable, a proper exercise of his foreign policy authority and consistent with his responsibility to protect Americans from potential terrorists. Should the Court choose to decide otherwise, arrogate the President's foreign policy responsibility and assume responsibility for admitting potential terrorists, presumably, the Court also will assume responsibility for the consequences. I will be happy to answer any questions."

The implication for the Court are clear, are they not?

Jay Elink said...

Chuck bloviated:

"But because of the general tenor of it being a Muslim ban, even some careful legal drafting can't fulfill Trump's desires and still make it pass muster under constitutional principles."

******************

If it's a Muslim ban, how come 87% of the world's Muslim's aren't covered by it?

Wanna 'splain that?

Chuck said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
...
The Boston judge said you're full of it, Chuck.

We'll see. It really doesn't matter right now. The legal principles will be sorted out on appeal. I've never predicted that the EO will fail.

I just love seeing pro-Trump assclowns like Eric Bolling and Sean Hannity swear up and down that it isn't a Muslim ban at all. "It's not a Muslim ban!" is what Eric Bollin is yelling on-air about a cozen times a day.

Right, Eric; it's what we mainstream Republicans told you and your man a year ago; that he shouldn't even be talking about "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..."

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

But let's face it. I know it and you know it. In working class bars all across the United States, from Levittown, Long Island, to Madison Heights, Michigan, to Birmingham, Alabama, to Midland, Texas; there are millions of white Trump voters all saying that they agreed with Trump's original "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."



Chuck said...

Jay Elink said...
Chuck bloviated:
"But because of the general tenor of it being a Muslim ban, even some careful legal drafting can't fulfill Trump's desires and still make it pass muster under constitutional principles."
******************
If it's a Muslim ban, how come 87% of the world's Muslim's aren't covered by it?
Wanna 'splain that?


Yes. I wanna 'splain that.
My explanation; the Trump administration endeavored to make it NOT a Muslim ban. If I were a District Judge looking at this case as a matter of first impression, I might agree.
I am NOT arguing that Trump's EO is a Muslim ban.
My argument is that Trump made it all dangerous territory for himself, with his original call for a "Muslim ban." I also strongly suspect that Trump wanted to roll out something that looked and sounded a whole lot like a Muslim ban. BEcause his fans wanted a Muslim ban. Trump's staff tried to do it, without it actually being a Muslim ban. It would be a dangerous game, but for the fact that I don't think it is entirely serious, and not much about actual national security. I think it is a uniquely Trumpian political stunt.

Fabi said...

Vichy Chuck thinks the guy who just nominated a superb conservative like Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is a crypto-Democrat. Lulz

buwaya said...

Chuck,
If a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration is the will of the people, which it clearly seems to be, then shouldnt that be the policy of the government?

Drago said...

Fabi: "Vichy Chuck thinks the guy who just nominated a superb conservative like Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is a crypto-Democrat. Lulz"

The more conservative and effective Trump is in enacting republican/conservative policies the more we can expect "lifelong republican" Chuck to melt down.

You may draw your own conclusions.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
Vichy Chuck thinks the guy who just nominated a superb conservative like Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is a crypto-Democrat. Lulz


I sure do. When Trump submitted the names of 14, then 21 conservative judges who might be considered for elevation to the Supreme Court, I'd wager that it was a list prepared by The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, and handed to Trump.

And Trump publicized it, to get the votes of people like me. And it worked.

Donald Trump doesn't know shit about the Supreme Court. Trump, the consummate tv-watcher, was parroting the criticisms of left wing pundits he saw on tv, and was criticizing Justice Scalia, just one year ago:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/13/donald-trump-hits-scalia-over-affirmative-action-remarks-video/

(Remember, that was the controversy that Michelle Fields was asking Trump about when Corey Lewandowski grabbed her.)

Drago said...

Poor "lifelong republican" Chuck.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/03/report-card-conservatives-just-had-their-best-fortnight-in-a-decade/

snip: "Today we hit the end of the first fortnight of the Trump administration, and … even conservatives skeptical of Trump have to admit that they’ve so far been on a solid winning streak."

Ouch. "lifelong republicans" and leftists hardest hit.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Donald Trump doesn't know shit about the Supreme Court."

LOL

President Trump refuses to nominate unknown and probably secret leftist leaning judge to the Supreme Court.

Again, leftists and "lifelong republicans" hardest hit.

And the hits will keep coming.

It's got to be tough on Chuck knowing how wrong he has been every step of the way. Therapy cannot be far off for him.

Chuck said...

buwaya said...
Chuck,
If a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration is the will of the people, which it clearly seems to be, then shouldnt that be the policy of the government?


LOL! Uh, no. If the "will of the people" was to outlaw Islam, and to establish slavery, and to force homeowners to quarter federal troops in their homes, and to make laws so that only with men who owned real property could vote, that should not make it the policy of the government. Because, uh, "Constitution."

But I love your question. It reveals so much. That a notion exists widely, that a "Muslim ban" would be good policy.


Drago said...

Poor Chuck.

He has difficulty following the points being made, so he makes up his own.

Unexpectedly!

Fabi said...

You're mentally unhealthy, Vichy Chuck. I hope when you get stabilized via medication you'll look back at what a fucking douchebag you've been over the last nine months and apologize. Or simply admit that you're just a Hillary bot and a moby.

Jay Elink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

"llfelong republican" Chuck, SLAYER OF STRAWMEN EXTRAORDINAIRE!

Coming to a big screen near you undoubtedly!

Chuck said...

Drago you miserable worthless fuckhead.

I've said repeatedly that I liked the Gorsuch nomination. I'd have been happy with a Pryor nomination.

Gorsuch is essentially about 50% of the reason that I voted for a complete asshole like Trump.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I've said repeatedly that I liked the Gorsuch nomination. I'd have been happy with a Pryor nomination."

LOL

Sure you do Chuckie. Sure you do. Your astonishing and uncontrollable rage is indicative of someone who gets what they want.

I can't wait for your next link to Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart. It's sure to be a hoot!

Drago said...

Boy that Chuckie. How is he not the head of the Michigan Republican Party, one wonders.

Jay Elink said...

Chuck, your "analysis" boils down to:

Trump wanted to make it a "muslim ban".

But he learned he couldn't. So he settled for something he COULD do. Which Jimmy Carter (ban and kick out Iranians here) and Obama (2011 six-month ban on Iraqis) did.

Namely, he temporarily suspended all immigration, aside from waivers, from seven countries, using a list the Obama administration had created. He justified that action based on "national security", saying we needed time to figure out "what the hell was going on."

(No BS please, attempting to distinguish and "explain away what Obama did. BOTH presidents had the plenary power to do what they did.)

According to you, it still wound up being a "Muslim ban", even though it affected only about 13% of the world's Muslims. In fact, you leftnoids complained that the EO didn't ban Saudi or Pakistan, IOW that the nefarious Trump didn't "ban" *enough* Muslims!

Is that about right?

Drago said...

Just think, if "lifelong republican" Chuckie had his way why, right now we could be fully engaged in the hilarious pursuit of an impeachment for Hillary in 6 years, just as soon as Hillary nailed down every leftist policy/judicial dream and turned us into a weaker France.

But if that's the cost to maintain Chucky's tenuous sanity, hey, small price to pay, eh?

Chuck said...

Buh-bye. Going to the Ohio State-Michigan basketball game.

Drago said...

Jay, are you really trying to reason with this Chucky creature?

Your time would be better spent teaching seal pups to type.

Drago said...

Chuck: "Buh-bye. Going to the Ohio State-Michigan basketball game"

I am going to miss that guy.

Fabi said...

Go Buckeyes!

hstad said...

rhhardin states "....There's zero comment from people who are supposed to be legal pundits...." I think you need to more patient.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/restrain-this.php

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/muslim_ban_injunction_is_a_judicial_coup_against_president_trump.html

I'm sure more will come out. But we'll never get an opinion from this "so-called judge" on how the states of Washington and Minnesota are harmed by Trump's EO.

buwaya said...

But former immigration laws that preferred one country over another or simply banned immigration from certain countries were presumably constitutional, such as the Asian exclusion laws, Irish preferences, European visa lotteries, and pretty much all pre-1965 quota and other systems.
These were not constitutional matters, IIRC.
They, and their modification to current policies were purely political decisions.
I would think this point is clear, obvious even to me. It certainly isnt the sort of thing that would be a constitutional matter in any other country that I know of, even in that vast variety.
So, again, there being no constitutional issue, isnt this all simply a matter of the popular will against special interests?

Charlie Currie said...

rhhardin says: "So now nobody believes judges. It's all political." Fake Law

readering said...

It's funny. Another Althouse post about the people organizing to get under Trump's skin. Commenters believe it counterproductive. This post commenters largely devoted to getting under Chuck's skin. Seems unproductive. But in both cases makes people feel good, I guess.

Drago said...

readering: "It's funny. Another Althouse post about the people organizing to get under Trump's skin. Commenters believe it counterproductive. This post commenters largely devoted to getting under Chuck's skin. Seems unproductive. But in both cases makes people feel good, I guess"

Uh, yeah, that's what this is.

Keep up the solid "analysis" readering.

Fabi said...

It's highly entertaining, readering. Drago cracks me up!

Mark said...

I'm sure Obama was pissed when a judge in Texas stayed his executive order on immigration.

When Obama was pissed at a court ruling, his Administration simply ignored it, just like they ignored and refused to enforce statutory laws they did not agree with, yet had a legal duty to enforce.

Charlie Currie said...

rhhardin says: "So now nobody believes judges. It's all political." Fake Law

Drago said...

Charlie Currie: "..."


Does Madame Marie know you are out and about?

Robert Cook said...

Isn't it built-in to our system that the three branches of government act as checks on each other? Does Trump not expect the courts (or Congress) to oppose his executive orders if they see reasons to oppose them? This is the way our government is designed to work. A higher court may reverse the original court's ruling, or Congress may weigh in, and in such ways are actions performed and policies are shaped.

Mark said...

And who checks and balances the unelected, life-tenured courts? Other than other courts in the same branch, who holds them accountable?

Freder Frederson said...

You do realize the US Constitution only applies to the US and to those who are subject to it. People outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitution have no US constitutional rights including the right to immigrate to the US for any reason.

You do realize that this order was applied to people who had valid visas to enter the U.S., and initially (and maybe again if Steve Bannon changes his mind) even to Green Card holders. Such people are entitled to due process.

If the EO weren't so badly drafted and apparently not vetted by anyone outside the White House, Trump wouldn't be in so much trouble. If he had stopped the issuance of new Visas, rather than victimizing people who had visas as well, I doubt there is anything the courts could do.

Jay Elink said...

Cook:

"Does Trump not expect the courts (or Congress) to oppose his executive orders if they see reasons to oppose them?"

*******************


Judges are not empowered to ignore precedent, or to simply make up "reasons" to oppose them that are not grounded in the law..

The judicial record regarding the President's plenary power to do what he did is overwhelming.

The Mass. District Court's refusal to grant a TRO lays out the legal arguments very well.

Read the whole thing.

Jupiter said...

Chuckles,

In addition to being a "lifelong Republican", you have also claimed to have legal training. Perhaps you could quote the portion of the Constitution that gives Muslims the right to enter the US? Donald Trump and I don't seem to be able to find it, although you and that so-called judge don't have any problem.

And while I am on the subject, you are damned straight that lots of Americans can see no reason at all to allow any Muslims into this country. Just like Communists. They are worthless at best, and dangerous at worst. Who needs them? We have to tolerate American citizens who voluntarily join organizations explicitly calling for the overthrow of Constitutional law, such as the Communist Party and Islam. As you correctly pointed out, the First Amendment requires it. But there is no reason that we should let more of them in from other countries. None. I have to question the sanity or else the patriotism of anyone who argues otherwise.

Sebastian said...

The WA "opinion" is embarrassing in every way. Thanks, W.

roesch/voltaire said...

I thought this wasn't a ban, and now Trump calls it a ban, but in any case we must insult Judges who do not agree--what will his supreme court nominee say to this?

Commander Crankshaft said...

And as usual, you have no opinion.

Is an executive-ordered judicial branch really what you want? For how long have you been cool with this idea?

Or is it just something in Mr Excitement's personality that makes you loathe to criticise his abominations?

Craig said...

In alphabetical order:

* cubanbob, "if I am correct then no state has standing to decide who is a resident of the State and thus no subdivision of the State can make the claim for standing and a private party has no standing in deciding who is a resident of the State." This is potentially interesting stuff, and I shouldn't classify your comment with the laughers to follow. But: I think you are confusing a) who has the authority to determine who counts as a resident and b) who can claim standing based upon residents. Even if you are right that Washington cannot decide whether Ahmad, Barbara, or Carlos are residents or not, there are facts of the matter about those individuals' residency (determined by, assuming arguendo, someone other than Washington), and, assuming that Washington has any residents (which neither counsel before the judge denied), it is a substantive matter whether and how Washington can claim standing based upon its residents.

* ---, "You do realize the US Constitution only applies to the US and to those who are subject to it." This is analytic and uninformative. The interesting question is asking about the extension of "those who are subject to it."

* exiledonmainstreet, "After all, the Tsarnaev boys were Muslim refugees whose lives were greatly enriched by living in tolerant Cambridge and look at what model citizens they turned out to be!" This is false, best I can tell: e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/details-emerge-on-suspected-boston-bombers/2013/04/19/ef2c2566-a8e4-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/the-boston-bombers-were-n_b_8584016.html. Perhaps you want to use the terms colloquially, failing to recognize distinctions which the law (including the executive order) is concerned with--that's fine, but then you (and we) should recognize that you're not talking about the same things the President, the courts, or anyone serious is talking about, at least not in readily understood fashion.

* Mark, "Since foreign relations is exclusively an executive function and any challenge to it presents a non-justiciable political question..." It is simply false that "any challenge" to "foreign relations" "presents a non-justiciable political question." The federal reporters are full of courts taking up cases which have relevance to foreign relations.

* Michael K, "the judge’s decision makes no arguments." That's false; you might not like the arguments, but there are combinations of premises and conclusions. It isn't clear to me whether you are applying some misguided notion of what an argument is or whether you are unable or unwilling here to write precisely; I also worry that you do not understand the purpose of the writing here--specifically its role in setting up what the judge described as getting his homework checked.

* rhardin, "The judge appears to think judges decide who comes into the country." Nope. That's not the appearance. You can go to the tape, if you wanted some idea of what's going on.

* ---, "Trump is allowed to damage anything he wants because he sets those immigration rules." Good luck finding anything supporting that.

---

Also, Ann Althouse: "don't make personal attacks on other commenters". I didn't make the rule, though it seems like a pretty good rule to me. And yet: "Vichy," "Therapy cannot be far off for him," "You're mentally unhealthy, Vichy Chuck. I hope when you get stabilized via medication you'll look back at what a fucking douchebag you've been over the last nine months and apologize. Or simply admit that you're just a Hillary bot and a moby.", "you miserable worthless fuckhead.", "Your time would be better spent teaching seal pups to type.", ...

Oso Negro said...

@Robert Cook - our government is not designed for nuisance lawsuits to go Federal Court to oppose every action a President takes. But keep cheering it! It would be helpful if someone could dox the judges so that when the shooting starts collateral damages to their neighborhoods could be prevented.

Joe said...

The opinion was so poorly "reasoned" that perhaps it's a conspiracy.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Craig, or should I say Chuck, it's okay for you to crack under the pressure, but then why don't you just stop posting? Take a break from it. Why come back under another sockpuppet? You're not helping yourself, C/C.

Craig said...

Bad Lieutenant: "try to be responsive to the post, don't make personal attacks on other commenters, bring some substance or humor to the conversation, and don't do that thing of putting in a lot of extra line breaks." You're batting one out of four.

hombre said...

Chuck, lifelong Republican, channels Chuck Shumer, lifelong Democrat.

I suppose it beats listening to Shumer, but not by much.

Drago said...

Joe: "The opinion was so poorly "reasoned" that perhaps it's a conspiracy"

Once this WA Judge opinion is washed away I fully expect the left, led by diminutive Robert Reich, to claim that the Judges decision was hijacked by a right-wing operative trying to make the real judge look bad.

That ought to be good for the trashing of at least 3 more starbucks and a bank branch.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck couldn't help himself, but he did commit to leaving, hence "Craig" appears.

One wonders what happened to "lifelong republican" Chucks erstwhile amigo "Thoughtful" Christopher Souza?

Drago said...

CC: "Or is it just something in Mr Excitement's personality that makes you loathe to criticise his abominations?"

That's "President Mr Excitement" to you, bub.

Jay Elink said...


* ---, "You do realize the US Constitution only applies to the US and to those who are subject to it." This is analytic and uninformative. The interesting question is asking about the extension of "those who are subject to it."

If you really had legal training you would have been curious enough to find the answer.

The Mass. case lays it out:

"The power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative” and aliens seeking admission to the United States request a “privilege.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). It is “beyond peradventure” that “unadmitted and non-resident aliens” have no right to be admitted to the United States. Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir. 1990). There is no constitutionally protected interest in either obtaining or continuing to possess a visa. The due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment “attaches only when the federal government seeks to deny a liberty or property interest.” Knoetze v. U.S., Dep't of State, 634 F.2d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 1981). A non-citizen has no “inherent property right
in an immigrant visa.” Azizi v. Thornburgh, 908 F.2d 1130, 1134 (2d Cir. 1990); see also Legal Assistance for Vietnamese AsylumSeekers v. Dep't of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 104 F.3d 1349, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (holding that aliens “may not assert a Fifth Amendment right in challenging the procedures for granting immigrant visas”); Knoetze, 634 F.2d at 212 (concluding that “revocation of an entry visa issued to an alien already within our country has no effect upon the alien's liberty or property interests”); De Avilia v. Civiletti, 643 F.2d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 1981) (determining there is “no vested right in the issuance of a visa”). Thus, because an alien does not enjoy a property right in a visa, he has no due process right that protects the manner in which a visa is revoked.."

Jupiter said...

Craig said...

I gather your point is that a judge, once seated on the bench, may exercise his fatuity to its furthest extent, and his rulings shall stand until they are struck down by a higher judge. Certainly true, although hardly anything to crow about. You have picked your nits fairly comprehensively. Now perhaps you would like to explain where in the Constitution or the laws of the United States foreigners derive a right to enter the US? Or how it is that states have a right to choose which foreigners they will allow to enter, without considering the decisions of the federal authority? Or are you simply arguing that this so-called judge must, unfortunately, be humored until he can be overruled? That at least appears to be the case.

Craig said...

* Jay Elink, "If you really had legal training you would have been curious enough to find the answer." This conditional is false, for a whole host of reasons. But set aside your implausible claim that there is a ready and specific inference from someone's training to their particular curiosity, your quoted passage does not answer the question. Your quoted passage addresses whether an individual has a certain interest; it does not address whether an individual is "subject to" the Constitution. You might think the former matter is the really important thing here--I don't want to presume what you think. I was just addressing what cubanbob actually said.

* Jupiter, "I gather your point is that a judge, once seated on the bench, may exercise his fatuity to its furthest extent, and his rulings shall stand until they are struck down by a higher judge." That's not my point, and I don't think I said anything even remotely like this.

* ---, "[A]re you simply arguing that this so-called judge must, unfortunately, be humored until he can be overruled?" Nope, I am not making making any argument about whether the judge should be "humored."

* ---, "Now perhaps you would like to explain where in the Constitution or the laws of the United States foreigners derive a right to enter the US? Or how it is that states have a right to choose which foreigners they will allow to enter, without considering the decisions of the federal authority?" I'm not claiming that the Constitution gives foreigners the right to the United States, nor that the laws do so (though I would not be surprised if some laws give at least some foreigners some sort of right to enter the United States); nor am I claiming that "states have a right to choose which foreigners they will allow to enter, without considering the decisions of the federal authority" -- I haven't seen anyone claiming that, though there are people of all sorts on all sides of this issue, if you look far enough on the Internet.

* ---, "You have picked your nits fairly comprehensively." Ha, fair enough! One commentator's matter of substance is another commentator's nit. Certainly not everyone must be equally concerned about everything. Here I cite our host's repeated insistence that she permissibly attends to what interests her, and I simply generalize, only noting as supplement that all of the "nits" were points that other commentators thought important enough to be worth posting. I take you all as at least sometimes earnest participants!

hombre said...

Cook: "Isn't it built-in to our system that the three branches of government act as checks on each other? Does Trump not expect the courts (or Congress) to oppose his executive orders if they see reasons to oppose them."

(Hey, Cookie, read Lincoln's 1857 speech on the Dred Scott decision.)

Of course Trump expects that. I'm guessing he also intends that they not emerge unscathed, as they have in the past, for basing their decisions on politics as they so often do. He's not a lawyer and does not have a lawyer's resistance to hammering judges for their partisanship or their stupidity. It's just another swamp that needs draining.

traditionalguy said...

The world awaits a ruling from a Washington State District Court that Enjoins Trump from Commanding the US Military in any winning War against Foreign Citizens because they have Constitutional Rights to Equal victories.

Winning is what Trump does. This Judge Ordered that he Lose to Terrorists. He must be a New World Order UN Judge.

Michael K said...

Except that it is prohibited by our constitution and laws to bar entry based on religion, among other protected categories.

Not true but nice try. The "religious test" was for those seeking office, not seeking immigration.

There is a debate about Muslims' suitability to become citizens and accept the culture and laws of the US.

So far, we have avoided religious bans but Britain and Germany are showing that this may not last forever,

The problem with Islam is that it is a political system masquerading as a religion.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck couldn't help himself, but he did commit to leaving, hence "Craig" appears.

One wonders what happened to "lifelong republican" Chucks erstwhile amigo "Thoughtful" Christopher Souza?
2/4/17, 3:23 PM


A-ha!

Bad Lieutenant said...

Craig said...blabbity blah...

You're batting one out of four.
2/4/17, 3:19 PM

A fig for your opinion, sir.

Robert Barnes said...

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

Jupiter said...

Michael K said...

"The problem with Islam is that it is a political system masquerading as a religion."

Would that it were so. The masquerade could be exposed. But in fact, Islam is simply a religion which contains a political ideology among its precepts. And authorizes its adherents to kill or enslave anyone who does not grant the primacy of that ideology.

The problem is with the people who confuse tolerance of religion with respect for religion. We tolerate religions because, people being what they are, the alternative is violence. But in the case of Islam, you get violence either way, so we may as well take such steps as suggest themselves to keep them out of our lives.

Bad Lieutenant said...

But what, did Chuck actually promise to leave the blog?

Sad! <--lying

Jupiter said...

OK, Craig, I think I get it. Your point is that some of the people commenting on this thread have made arguments that you find unpersuasive. You would be the best arbiter of that, so it isn't really necessary to produce evidence. I will say, that you will find a lot of that here on Earth, people making unpersuasive arguments. You needn't be constantly calling attention to it.

Birkel said...

The statutory language referenced above, in which Congress gave plenary power over alien entry to the U.S. to the president, is all that is needed. The judiciary knows the power rests on either the Executive or the Legislative branch. If the Legislative branch gave its power to the Executive, there is no argument that can legitimately sway the Judiciary. Any other decision is the Judiciary taking power over immigration unto itself and that is plainly unconstitutional.

The federal judge in Massachusetts was gilding the lily and removing all doubt as to the nature of the president's powers.

Jay Elink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay Elink said...

Craig said...
* Jay Elink, "If you really had legal training you would have been curious enough to find the answer." This conditional is false, for a whole host of reasons. But set aside your implausible claim that there is a ready and specific inference from someone's training to their particular curiosity, your quoted passage does not answer the question. Your quoted passage addresses whether an individual has a certain interest; it does not address whether an individual is "subject to" the Constitution. You might think the former matter is the really important thing here--I don't want to presume what you think. I was just addressing what cubanbob actually said.

****************

I am very, very sorry that I did not take the proper fork to your poorly-tossed word salad.

Jay Elink said...

What Birkel said.

Drago said...

Boy, I hope "JV" Craig gets "llfelong republican" Chuck back into the conversation as soon as possible in order to up the game of the anti-Trumpers.

Particularly since "Thoughtful" Christopher Souza has gone missing.

jacksonjay said...

So, itt's not just dishonest media forcing Trump to Tweet. So-called judges also inspire the Tweeter-in-Chief. Sad!

Charlie Currie said...

Drago said: "Charlie Currie: "..."


Does Madame Marie know you are out and about?"

She wouldn't be Madame Marie if she didn't.

rhhardin said...

The judiciary knows that it controls immigration because sadz.

Drago said...

jacksonjay: "So, itt's not just dishonest media forcing Trump to Tweet. So-called judges also inspire the Tweeter-in-Chief. Sad!"

This judges ruling won't survive scrutiny.

#DoublySad!

Birkel said...

jacksonjay is firmly in the NeverTrump camp. But the law in this matter favors executive authority.

The jurisprudential issues are enough to dismiss all these cases. They likely all fail at standing or justiciability.

But even if the cases are heard in the merits the power rests - at present - exclusively with the Executive.

The judge with her knows this is true or is unfit for the federal bench.

Birkel said...

The judge either...

Hyphenated American said...

"My argument is that Trump made it all dangerous territory for himself, with his original call for a "Muslim ban." I also strongly suspect that Trump wanted to roll out something that looked and sounded a whole lot like a Muslim ban. BEcause his fans wanted a Muslim ban. Trump's staff tried to do it, without it actually being a Muslim ban. It would be a dangerous game, but for the fact that I don't think it is entirely serious, and not much about actual national security. I think it is a uniquely Trumpian political stunt."

So, you concede this was not a misled ban, and its most certainly legal.

In other words, a lot of fury signifying nothing. Liberal judge who put a stay on president's executive order should be disbarred for failure to properly ex cute his duties. Agreed?

Mike Sylwester said...

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, she would have flooded our country's entire judicial system with judges like this arrogant Seattle judge.

jacksonjay said...

Of course my point has nothing to do with the ban or the "jurisprudential issues."

Birkel said...

jacksonjay:
Of course you are not arguing the law. You are pounding the desk.

Your distaste for Trump has not overwhelmed your logic of your conscience, yet. That is to your credit, so far.

Jay Elink said...

Hyphenated Fuckwit said...

"In other words, a lot of fury signifying nothing. Liberal judge who put a stay on president's executive order should be disbarred for failure to properly ex cute his duties. Agreed?"


*****************

What bullshit: the Constitution does not allow that. Unlike you lo-info types, WE KNOW THAT.

We oppose the judge on "the merits" In the coming days you will learn that you are a moron.



Joshua Barker said...

Blogger jimbino said...
Of course, a country has a right to bar entry of persons it considers undesirables. Except that it is prohibited by our constitution and laws to bar entry based on religion, among other protected categories.

Can you imaging barring brown-eyed people who are not members of a specifically protected class?

2/4/17, 12:27 PM

------------------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 8 USC 1182 (f) pretty much give the President the authority to bar ANY class of people (whether brown-eyed or muslim or eastern european pig farmers) from entering the US if s/he deems them to be a threat to the US?

As far as I can tell, to my non-lawyer brain, this pretty much gives the President carte-blanche in this matter. I have not seen a single post or news story discussing this, or how this WA judge has any authority at all in the presence of this law?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

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.

Joshua Barker said...

readering said...
I'm sure Obama was pissed when a judge in Texas stayed his executive order on immigration. Somehow it didn't occur to take to twitter. Just hit a golf ball extra hard. Trump should play more golf.

--------

I seem to recall that Obama just ignore the ruling and continued implementing his policies anyway. And didn't a bunch of DOJ lawyers get in hot water for essentially lying to the judge about it?

Mick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction". Art. 3 S. 2 US Const.

EASY PEASY OVERTURNED:

1) "Some of these contentions may be dismissed at the outset. The word "person" in the context of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment cannot, by any reasonable mode of interpretation, be expanded to encompass the States of the Union, and, to our knowledge, this has never been done by any court. See International Shoe Co. v. Cocreham, 246 La. 244, 266, 164 So.2d 314, 322, n. 5; cf. United States v. City of Jackson, 318 F.2d 1, 8 (C.A. 5th Cir.). S. Carolina v. Katzenbach 383 US 301, @ 323, 324 (1966)

"Nor does a State have standing as the parent of its citizens to invoke these constitutional provisions against the Federal Government, the ultimate parens patriae of every American citizen. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 262 U. S. 485-486; Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 273 U. S. 18". Id. @324

So "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" do not apply to the States, only against the States. The PLAINTIFF is the state of Washington, not any individual. The STATES have no standing to use "due process" as a cause of action.

2) 8 US Code 1182 (a)(4)(A):

(a)Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admissionExcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(4)Public charge

(A)In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

So yes, the POTUS can exclude individuals from certain countries from obtaining a Visa if they are likely to be on the public dole.

(C)Foreign policy

(i)In general

An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.

Self explanatory.

3) Establishment Clause--- Non starter. No religion is mentioned.

So where is the "lawprof" Althouse' brilliant analysis? This ruling is so bereft of law that it is embarrassing--- The "supposed judge" is purely a paid stooge of Bezos (WAPO and Amazon).

Jeff said...

The setup here is obvious, no?

The so-called 'opinion' from the kook judge in WA has few, if any legal references; it didn't need to. The whole point was to force it to 9th, with another predictable outcome.

The long game here; get it to a 4:4 Supreme Court. And the ladies of the left on the SCOTUS will do exactly what their masters want them to do. Not even a 'smart Latina' will get it right.