ADDED:
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017
९ फेब्रुवारी, २०१७
"Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss."
The NYT reports, and I'm not at all surprised.
ADDED:
ADDED:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४६ टिप्पण्या:
246 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»BOOM! There goes Trump's head.
Exploding out of anger, of course. I can't wait to see if they keep his tweeter away from him tonight.
AA Assume you will give us the benefit of your thinking that led to" I am not surprised" Thanks.
The Ninth Circus strikes again.
It is difficult not to read this as a sign that the judicial system does not work because it is so highly politicized.
" I am not surprised"
My guess is........Just knowing it was the 9th Circuit should have been enough.
Who is?
This is a sign that the Executive isn't more powerful than the other two branches.
And it was 3-0!!!!!
Obligatory --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQp9RC2sfT0
Can't wait to go back in time for the 9th Circuit: "We hereby override President Roosevelt's December 8th declaration of war because it is unconstitutional because it affects immigration from Japan. This nation must needs invite several hundred thousand Japanese nationals a year because business.... and if they arrive in large groups labeled "Japanese Army" even better. The German Panzer drivers are openly welcome too, with all their gear."
--Vance
So, how about that other judge in Boston?
Isn't somebody obliged to straighten things out betwen them when there are dueling Federal judges?
As for the argumnts on TV, I think they are ignoring the phony arguments for Judge Robart giving the the states of Washington and Minnesota standing to sue in the first place, and, more importantly, everybody are totally ignoring that the President only odered a temporary "ban" of 90 days. I do not think there is any way that makes a case for "irrepairable harm" that justifies the TRO in the face of the Constitution and the statute law quoted.
I am not surprised.
Who is?
Why? Because the Ninth Circuit long ago stopped being a court of law. It is a court of raw power. They rule the way they do because they can and because FU. They are the judges, you ain't, so GFY.
I'm not surprised, either. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the President's use of discretion in this area is unreviewable, so I don't see how the state's can succeed in this area. Perhaps the 9th Circuit believes that prior precedents on Presidential power shouldn't be applied to this President. If Trump ever issues a pardon, I'm sure some court will be willing to entertain review of Trump's motives to see if the court shouldn't reverse the President's decision.
The courts' position in this case is almost, but not quite, as ridiculous as would be their review of President Trump's pardons. The only difference is the Constitution grants the President the unlimited authority to grant pardons. Here, the statute grants the President the unlimited authority to ban any individual, group, or class of individuals from entry into the US whenever the President determines that to be in the US interest. The statute grants that authority to the President and only the President and the Supreme Court has said that courts do not get to look over his shoulder to determine if his determination was reasonable.
Trump tweets: SEE YOU IN COURT! No.... really? LOL.
The Wall Street Journal in the 1980s up until mid 90s used to run an editorial every year or so advocating a Constitutional Amendment declaring that the USA has no borders. How naive to go to all that trouble when all it takes is a few Democrat judicial appointments.
Now Congress shall make no law authorizing the Executive branch to exclude any person unless there is probable cause to suspect that he or she is planning a terrorist attack.
Revenge of the elites!!
This is a sign that the Executive isn't more powerful than the other two branches.
No, this is a sign that some judges have lost all perspective of their proper role.
"AA Assume you will give us the benefit of your thinking that led to" I am not surprised" Thanks."
It's in earlier posts.
Basically, the govt was asking for a stay and needed to show irreparable injury from the district court's TRO. The judges didn't see it, because it's just a continuation of the situation before the EO. Trump's lawyer made a feeble effort at arguing that Trump's opinion is all that's needed to establish the irreparable injury and that left the judges in a position to most comfortably do nothing.
Trump is not in trouble at all. The Seattle Judge is the one with all of the pressure on him now. He is responsible for all of the deaths caused by the immigrant muslim flood from the Terrorist 7 that will be living and chanting Domination Chants anywhere but in any Federal Court Judge's neighborhood.
We may need a Constitutional Convention. That will be the quickest way to establish an Executive Branch of Government. As it stands now we have three branches of Government: The unelected, lifetime political appointee, Judge, and the unelected, lifetime political appointee 3 Judge Panel, and the unelected, lifetime political appointee en banc Judges.
On the other hand, we save lots of money by not having Salary and Pemsions for 535 Congress people and the now useless Executive Branch. Or we can hire those at H1b immigrant visa wages from Iraqis and Somalis.
She was not surprised based on how the argument went. The only issue the Republican really pushed back on was religious discrimination as ground for the stay and the panel punted on that one (didn't need to rule to uphold the stay). Now from here goes to Supreme Court where unlikely to be 5-3 to overturn.
But hey, Trump will blow up about a hundred other things, large and small, and this will recede into the background.
I assume the Professor's lack of surprise is due to the fact that the appeal only pertains to the TRO, and for the appeals court to overturn that the government would need to show that it will suffer irreparable harm if the TRO is not lifted. Unless the government has specific info about terrorists infiltrating from those 7 countries in the next couple of months, it couldn't meet that standard.
The final decision on the EO will still be decided in the district court, and once that happens that decision can then be appealed.
On to the Supreme Court.
I for one am relieved that any Federal district court anywhere in the nation can stop a national program related to national security, even if every single other court disagrees, the house disagrees, the senate disagrees, and the president disagrees. I love my articles of confederation.
I took a quick look at the ruling.
Among precedents that the judges cited were the Boumedienne case, in which the Supreme Court had overridden Presidential prerogative on national security to require Gitmo inmates to be able to enter a writ of habeas corpus. So the judges rejected the contention that the President's authority in wartime is not subject to judicial review.
Then the judges went on to say that the Executive Order deprives people of the right to travel without due process.
What seems to have really gotten under the judges' skin was the contention by the Trump administration that its actions in national security are not subject to judicial review. Even I know that's wrong, with examples going all the way back to World War II.
The absurd and specious assertion of "irreparable harm" from a delay in entry into the country would mean that when you, an American citizen, is coming home and going through customs, they damn well better not stop you to ask questions, otherwise your free flow into the country would be denied. It means that it is unconstitutional for any international airport to shut down arrivals due to weather, otherwise you would be delayed. It would mean that the much-touted vetting process of the Obama Administration was itself unconstitutional, since it required people to wait months and years to get a visa.
If the Supreme Court considers the case in good faith and considers the ramifications of such a ruling, it should be an unanimous decision for the federal government here.
It needs to get to the Supreme Court after Gorsuch is confirmed.
I am surprised, only in the sense that I did not expect that this would be the hill the judiciary would want to die on. The judges have no leg to stand on legally. This is pure power grabbing. Then again it is the 9th Circuit where the law would probably be better served with random names out of the phone book.
If the Supreme Court goes along with this, then we are in full Constitutional crisis time. They are going to make me side with Trump as he tries to destroy one of the branches of government. Sure, why not. I didn't have anything else scheduled.
As for the speed of developments; in 1948 Harry Truman turned Hugo Black out of bed 4 o'clock in the morning to stop a judge in Austin, TX from ordering that "Landslide" Lyndon's ballot box be opened, so who knows?
It is amazing what can be done when the powers that be want to.
The threat to the lives of the Trump electorate is only seen as a good thing. The multi billionaire World Governance elites, living behind their walls and oceans with a private Army of armed security, wants those surplus people dead anyway.
DKWalzer said: "No, this is a sign that some judges have lost all perspective of their proper role."
Ever since the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, the Supreme Court has had the role of national evaluator of constitutionality (a.k.a. judicial review). They have shot down law after law that they regarded as unconstitutional. They have stopped certain Executive Orders.
They intervened in the treatment of detainees at Gitmo. Remember?
When you can effectively predict the outcome of a hearing based upon the political backgrounds of the judges involved, justice in this country is toast.
I hope the Ninth Circuit Court takes full responsibility for any terror attacks by the hundreds of 'immigrants' entering since the ban was put on hold.
If the EO is unlawful or otherwise unconstitutional, then the United States is no longer sovereign. We are no longer a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Big Mike reminds us: It needs to get to the Supreme Court after Gorsuch is confirmed.
Good point!
Basically, the govt was asking for a stay and needed to show irreparable injury from the district court's TRO. The judges didn't see it, because it's just a continuation of the situation before the EO. Trump's lawyer made a feeble effort at arguing that Trump's opinion is all that's needed to establish the irreparable injury and that left the judges in a position to most comfortably do nothing.
I agree that the DOJ attorney did a horrible job on that question (and several others). He should have answered that the courts have consistently held that interference in the executive's ability to fulfill his Article II responsibilities and prerogatives has consistently been held irreparable injury -- just as the courts have found that an infringement on free speech rights, no matter how temporary, is an irreparable injury.
the contention by the Trump administration that its actions in national security are not subject to judicial review
That is basic Con Law 101. The EO presents a non-justiciable case because the judiciary has zero authority when it comes to foreign policy, which is entirely within the power of the executive and to a certain extent the legislative, and because the unelected life-tenured anti-democratic judicial branch is NOT supreme over the other two branches.
Ever since the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, the Supreme Court has had the role of national evaluator of constitutionality (a.k.a. judicial review). They have shot down law after law that they regarded as unconstitutional. They have stopped certain Executive Orders.
They intervened in the treatment of detainees at Gitmo. Remember?
Yes, I remember. Do you remember that the Supremes also said that the President's determinations of who could or could not enter the country are not reviewable? I'm not questioning the need for judicial review of some types of discretion. I'm saying that (some) judges seem to have forgotten that not all executive actions are subject to their veto.
Strangely Trump wins. The pushback is from the elites and no-one is more elite than judges. Trump ran against the elites and he gains strength if the elites continue to oppose him. The judicial branch had better hope that no-one come into the country as a result of this decision and causes mayhem. If I were Chief Justice I would be very concerned. The judicial branch has placed itself in a very, very vulnerable position.
The Admin will ultimately win this in the SCOTUS because they have previously established that they need to give maximum deference in situations where the President's Commander and Chief powers are aligned with Congressional Statues. In this particular case, Congress has expressly
(8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens) given its power to the Executive.
(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....
Unless they declare the existing law Unconstitutional
IIRC, its been reported that more than a hundred law suits have been filed trying to block the executive order. Chief Justice Roberts should consolidate all those cases into one district court. There's one in Boston that I would like him to choose.
Regarding habeas corpus for Gitmo detainees -- such writs are inherently a judicial power. It is for the judiciary to determine what is permissible within the judiciary. But the judiciary is not an authoritarian dictator over the other branches.
I guess any terrorist attacks that occur from ISIS disguised as refugees (as Mosul falls in the next several months) are not irreparable harm in the 9th Circuit panel's eyes. Hopefully such attacks will be confined to 9th Circuit states and Minnesota.
Big Mike reminds us: It needs to get to the Supreme Court after Gorsuch is confirmed.
To be clear, he needs to arrive before Oral arguments...
not before they take the case...
Trump's lawyer made a feeble effort at arguing that Trump's opinion is all that's needed to establish the irreparable injury and that left the judges in a position to most comfortably do nothing.
I still think DOJ should have pointed out that Obama actually found it necessary to drop 26,169 bombs on six of the seven countries on the list in 2016.
How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?
So, a president can bomb but not ban travel unless he can show irreparable harm? Can the court stop bombing without a showing of immediate irreparable harm by the president?
And just to fuck with the 9th Circuit, argue that the ban was necessary to screen-out the foreign travelers from those countries who had been terrorized by Obama's bombing, which as we all know "only creates more terrorists."
OK, I haven't read the opinion. So the question of "irreparable injury" goes to harm to the president/federal government? I would think before you get there, you have the primary issues of jurisdiction and justiciability. And that in any event, ANY interference in the exclusive power of the president in matters of foreign affairs, and of the commander in chief in matters of national security, would be an impermissible harm.
If a judge had enjoined the Normandy invasion, would the government have to show irreparable injury if it did not take place on D-Day, June 6? Or, would it be none of the court's damn business?
Big Mike reminds us: It needs to get to the Supreme Court after Gorsuch is confirmed
By then the issue will be moot because by its own terms the EO is a temporary suspension (NOT a "ban").
walk don't run said, "Strangely Trump wins...The judicial branch has placed itself in a very, very vulnerable position."
That would be true if this were a purely political question. The judges still have a high degree of respect, publicly, and that rests on the notion that judges are apolitical.
If that notion blows apart completely in the public's mind, as I think it should, then we have a new problem.
But fixing the problem requires heavy changes to the Constitution and/or respect for existing decisions, all the way back to Marbury, as noted above, and that seems like an insurmountable political challenge.
And, to be totally clear --
The issue is NOT the legality or constitutionality of the EO. The EO only implements existing statutory law, which Trump had nothing to do with. Any problems with the legality, constitutionality, or morality of the suspension is entirely on Barack Obama who signed the law, and on Congress (including many Dems probably) who enacted the law designating the foreign countries at issue.
If there is a bad guy in all this, it is Obama.
Lawfare....the Dems are very very good at that.
To me the question was "is this within a president's legal authority per the constitution"? I think the answer is Yes. Yet the Dems use Lawfare and BOOM they win again.
Let me get this straight. Arizona usurps federal power on immigration when it wants to detain and refer to federal authorities people who have violated immigration law, but Washington State does not usurp federal power on immigration when it claims that temporarily blocking the entry of unnamed aliens overrides federal authority to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions."
To my knowledge, federal courts have never held immigration law, duly enacted by Congress, unconstitutional. If Congress cannot decide on religious preferences or hurdles, and if the courts are going to impose first amendment and fourteenth amendment restrictions on not just executive but on congressional authority, that truly will cause a crisis.
Who will check and balance the so-called judiciary?
Mark, isn't it a 1952 statute?
"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"
To the barricades, it's all caps! Accepting the argument that Trump's travel ban order is not subject to judicial review, what is Trump's best next move?
(A) Go back to the District Court
(B) Appeal to Supreme Court
(C) Flaunt Ninth Circuit ruling
(D) End run around court system
(A) and (B) seem likely to lose, (C) would create a Constitutional Crisis, but what about (D)?
Welcome, walk don't run, and please don't feed the trolls.
EDH:
I like the way you think.
Of course, if the courts really start playing games with this, I suspect Trump is ready to rumble -- new EO every day, formulated slightly differently just to throw a wrench in the works.
"the States’ proprietary interests as operators of their public universities are sufficient to support standing"
Well argued, Sebastian!
EDH is being allowed to post again?
"When you can effectively predict the outcome of a hearing based upon the political backgrounds of the judges involved, justice in this country is toast."
It is always so these days, or nearly. The problem is that this seems to be an unwelcome idea and is still being rejected in spite of the overwhelming clarity of the situation. There are some facts that even intelligent people consciously reject even as their behavior conforms, unconsciously perhaps, according to the reality.
More, the whole ideal of the law in the American conception was always a fantasy. This fantasy could exist as long as the stakes were low. There wasn't very much at stake in the matter of power, that depended on the courts, and there was room and tolerance for live-and-let-live. But when the courts are in a decisive position during a politico-economic-social war to the knife there is no longer room for comfortable fantasies.
Trump destroyed the political elites in the election. Bush/Clinton are gone and destroyed. This the beginning of the destruction of the judicial elite. This decision was a stupid overreach by the 9th circuit. I have no doubt they were influenced and goaded by Trump's tweets. 60% of the country will disagree with this decision and Trump is going to milk it. Watch the destruction emerge. It wont be pretty.
This will ultimately work to Trump's benefit and Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine thinks he should take it to the Supreme Court. Voters know that it's the president's duty and responsibility to keep us safe not a district court judge.
I don't see the relevance of any of the factors reported. In fact, the factors strike me as frivolous.
Equal protection? Not for non-citizens not on US soil.
Can't limit immgration because it hurts businesses that depend on immigration? Umm...
Even for the 9th circuit, this seems weird. Is there any valid legal theory supporting the court's decision?
Have read parts of the opinion now. Stresses due process. Utterly absurd.
Please President Trump, tell them to pound sand.
It's time the judiciary got put in its place.
No need to wait for Gorsuch to be confirmed before appealing to SCOTUS. Even if Trump doesn't win (and he might), that only means that the case goes back to so-called Judge Robart. So-called Judge Robart's final decision in the case will be appealable at about the time Gorsuch gets on the court in the normal course of events. Might as well get all the left-wing judges on record. And maybe Trump will win the appeal on the TRO if he does appeal now.
Bob Ellison said...
Mark, isn't it a 1952 statute?
Two different statues. The one I cite is 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
I think Mark is referring to the much more recent (Obama years) statue that identified the named countries. I think it is 8 U.S.C. 1187
One concerns the POTUS's authority to take the action, the other names the impacted groups
"If that notion blows apart completely in the public's mind, as I think it should, then we have a new problem."
You have a vast number of problems, though none are new. It comes down to the state having acquired enormous power, and that control of or acquiescence to this power is essential to overwhelmingly powerful economic interests.
The low-stakes small-town American civic values cannot survive the current politico-economic system. When they are gone it will be naked and unrestrained power struggles all over.
The only possible outcome is an authoritarian state, controlled by one or another faction, after, probably, a final titanic power struggle.
The only way to prevent that outcome or the power struggle that will create it is to dismantle much of the state apparatus and reduce the stakes.
BSOD + facebook politix + "YOU are the product" + poor disappointed Chuck (Chuck Chuck)" and head clown Chuck and Chuck Whatzis on Tee-Vee.
"What's up with the Kardashians?"
"cheee"
But Gorsuch might not even go Trump's way! We can't know.
The only solution is to appeal to the Star Fleet Federation of Planets. They've got Klingons and who knows what-all on their own panel. They'll get it right.
It's really just a type of filibuster by a clearly biased judiciary to thwart anything and everything Trump directs.
The only solution is to appeal to the Star Fleet Federation of Planets. They've got Klingons and who knows what-all on their own panel. They'll get it right.
Great idea! They are probably the only unbiased legal entity in the universe.
The Drill SGT, thanks for the pointers.
Even for the 9th circuit, this seems weird. Is there any valid legal theory supporting the court's decision?
The order didn't just apply to new immigrants.
It applied to people who were permanent & temporary residents. There's duel UK/ countries in the ban who are working at amazon, zillow, expedia, microsoft, nintendo and all of the other tech in Seattle. Also researchers at University of Washington, engineers at Boeing.
The tech industry is global. People need to fly in and out of SeaTac for these companies. All of those green card & legal temporary residents out of the country on business trips got caught up in this ban. Some got caught overseas.
This Kabuki Theatre comes courtesy of the people who know that The law is a game for lawyers and judges.
Bob --
The relevant provision designating the countries from which entry of foreign nationals is suspended, and cited in the EO, is 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).
That provision was enacted under H.R.2029 on December 18, 2015, with a final passage vote of 65-33 in the Senate (37 Democrats voting yes) and 316-113 in the House (166 Democrats voting yes).
The destruction of the judiciary is commencing. On Fox, "The courts are the problem!" as mentioned by Bill Bennett. Big mistake by the 9th District. "God help us if we see a terrorist act from someone from one of these countries". Powerful message that will be repeated by Trump.
Judges bad, Trump good.
SEC. 203. RESTRICTION ON USE OF VISA WAIVER PROGRAM FOR ALIENS WHO TRAVEL TO CERTAIN COUNTRIES
129 STAT. 2989
Attention: my last post was poetry, not excessive line breaks.
The judicial branch has placed itself in a very, very vulnerable position.
Yes, this is a very dangerous situation. Weimar invited Hitler. I don;t usually get on the left's side in arguments but they are inviting disaster.
If there is a terrorist attack in the next year, the courts will be blamed. Those young twerp WA AGs think they have won. They are preening themselves in front of TV,
This is a life or death contest with a lot of money on the open borders side. Billions.
On the other side are a lot of voters who will choose an authoritarian government if democracy fails them.And it might.
Well, I must say I'm surprised. I thought even the 9th Circuit can't be that injudicious. The decision won't stand (if it does, my head truly will explode).
These ridiculous court jesters will be the architects of their own doom. There's a serious move afoot to create a 12th circuit carved out of the 9th. If Republicans want it to happen, it will happen.
Life-long Republican Chuck just came in his diapers.
Its a victory for ... something or other.
The EO -
"to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order"
"This the beginning of the destruction of the judicial elite. "
I'm not confident of that.
Trump has started a battle against the largest, richest, and perhaps also the most numerous factions in the US, and besides which those that have the greatest degree of foreign support among major countries dominant factions.
This is just the beginning of, if he pushes it as he seems to be, a titanic struggle.
No US leader has even begun such a fight against such a foe.
Trump goes where angels fear to tread.
Idiocy.
Trump needs to get nominations for all empty Federal Judge seats NOW. Get people that will read and understand the Constitution. Not one liberal respects it, what all it --- every word of it and its amendments --- actually says, and therefore, any words coming out of their mouths about it is a lie and irrelevant. If you can interpret it any way you want, it's meaningless, isn't it?>
There's a serious move afoot to create a 12th circuit carved out of the 9th. If Republicans want it to happen, it will happen.
They have invited that.
I gather that the one Trump cited is indeed from 1952: 8 U.S.C. section 1182(f). Cornell still seems to think it's in effect.
That's the one Trump keeps throwing out like a cherry bomb, and some people don't like it or think it's inapplicable.
The Left, including the idiotic judges from the 9th Circuit, have trouble discerning between a political issue and a judicial issue. As a political issue, the 90-day pause from 7 countries may or may not be a good idea. But Trump won the election, and, hence, won the political issue.
As a judicial issue, the President has immense authority, codified by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, make decisions regarding who gets in and who doesn't.
This was an easy judicial matter, but, alas, Yes, the Dems are good at lawfare.
To be continued - for at least 4 years.
This is just the beginning of, if he pushes it as he seems to be, a titanic struggle.
No US leader has even begun such a fight against such a foe.
Agree and he is the only person I can imagine talking it on,. We live in very dangerous times.
And there is provision for waiver --
"(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked."
I wonder how clear you have to make a law so everyone understands it.
Mark, is it a matter of
1) which countries and which types of people the POTUS can crap on, or
2) whether the POTUS has the power to crap on them, or
3) whether one of these three statutes gives him the power to crap on them?
"This is a life or death contest with a lot of money on the open borders side. Billions."
Trillions. And its not just about immigration. The whole corporatist structure is at risk. Trump can't be permitted to succeed on anything that gravely harms part of the system or the rest of the government-crony capitalist nexus can expect stage 2 or stage 3 to take them down in their time.
...or, of course
4) whether some unelected asswipe judge in Seattle has the power to overrule the chief executive of our federal government in foreign policy and statutory power?
It seems to me that the issue in from of the court ought to be whether 8 USC 1182 or 8 USC 1187 is unconstitutional.
The EO just invokes the Power provided by Congress in 8 USC 1182 (and the POTUS own) and curtails entry from the plces named in 8 USC 1187.
Even 1187 were tossed out, POTUS can still use the awesome power of 1182, which has been in place 65 years.
As a Trump supporter I am disappointed that the court made this decision. But I am more concerned at the power this places in Trump's hand to undermine the judiciary. The judiciary is one of the checks and balances on his power. If the judiciary makes an obviously biased and poor decisions, this places power in the hands of the master persuader, Donald Trump. Next step is to undermine the judiciary. Once again the elites are underestimating the Donald. This is a big mistake. Mark my words, the judiciary are not immune from a fight with Trump. Their legitimacy can be easily undermined if they continue to make politically oriented decisions like this one. We should all be worried!!
Congress has given the president the authority to make such findings and determinations and to take such action as he deems appropriate.
The authority is given to the president, whoever that might be. Obama had that authority. Hillary would have had that authority if she were president. Jill Stein would have had that authority if she were president (in addition apparently with the power, as a single individual, to wholly disrupt the election process of the entire nation).
Trump has the authority as well. Although if Obama were to have taken this action -- and he did take similar action with Iraq refugees (as well as basically barring Cuban refugees) -- or if a President Hillary had done so, I suspect that not one person would have objected and if someone did file a lawsuit, it would have been throw back in their faces immediately.
Too much belligerent activity in the White House. I'm thinking the Art of the Deal is a big bluff, and the swamp rats eat bluffs like corn out of turds.
Wilhelmina, do think no-one notices? You've been on break for an hour and a half!
Bob Ellison: "That would be true if this were a purely political question. The judges still have a high degree of respect, publicly, and that rests on the notion that judges are apolitical."
I believe you are mistaken about that. Judges have respect from the people whose interest they serve on a case by case basis. Remember the remarks by Obama in the presence of the Justices?
At any given time the SCOTUS is lucky to reach 45% approval. There is no reason to believe the lower courts fare better. If they rule against Trump, the critism will be scathing. If, as a result, there is a terrorist attack or other serious misbehavior by the "refugees" in question, it will rightly be laid at the feet of the judiciary, the Democrats and the media. The judges will find few friends.
If Trump wins, as he should, they are off the hook that they had no business petting themselves on in the first place. (See Mark's dead on analysis, above.)
How about reform of the judiciary branch? Apparently liddle boys with black robes anywhere can control foreign policy. How about a Constitution that says if upper judges fail to overrule because they're a bunch of panty-waists who think upholding is the better part of valor (no, we're too small to think our liddle boy might just be making a mess in the playroom), then you're up for automatic review upon, say, 40% review of other judges, and if they vote you out, you're gone?
If someone had filed this lawsuit against a President Hillary, they should have been heavily sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit, just as should happen in this case.
WHO the president is is wholly irrelevant. Trump, per se, is beside the point.
Trump can't be permitted to succeed on anything that gravely harms part of the system or the rest of the government-crony capitalist nexus can expect stage 2 or stage 3 to take them down in their time.
Yes, I don't think that many understand the stakes, BREXIT should have been a warning.
I'm just glad the Trump has his own security and that he keeps them. I not only don't trust the USSS but I don't trust their competence,
We are in the opening stages of war with the Deep State,
Wilhelmina aka a dozen other sock-poppet identities:
Trump tweets: SEE YOU IN COURT! No.... really? LOL.
Hi Queen Willy! Where's the rest of the crack Teen Vogue patrol? Solo shift this evening?
"EDH is being allowed to post again?"
EDH is one of the best commenters in the history of this blog.
Andrew Napolitano says Trump should take it to the Supremes. He says this thing is so bad even the liberal bloc on the court very likely will want it stopped for the judiciary's own sake.
Can't wait for judicial review of all military operations and missions.
Which I guess is now required after the judges have usurped clear executive branch authority.
We might also expect the judiciary to cancel Presidential appointments to cabinet positions and offer up the judiciaries selections since clearly any cabinet appointee of Trump is going to upset the left and cause irreparable damage to their psyches.
The President can't block specific foreign nationals from entering the USA, because it affects businesses in the states.
So, no wall along the border with Mexico, right? Really, how much more specific can you get?
Althouse: "EDH is one of the best commenters in the history of this blog."
That is some serious Trumpesque praise right there.
"Once again the elites are underestimating the Donald."
Yes, but they may decide it is easier to just kill him.
The fools among us think Trump resembles Putin.
Serious people know Putin is allied with the Deep State.
We got a glimpse when Hillary signed over 20% of our Uranium supplies to Russia,. Those who were paying attention noticed that Bill approved sending our technology, especially ICBM technology to China.
They didn't do it from a treason intent. It was just that donors bought them.
Putin wanted Hillary, not Trump. Trump is too unpredictable.
DanTheMan: "So, no wall along the border with Mexico, right?"
That is precisely where the leftist judiciary is headed.
The Leftist/Deep State Coup begins.
Ann Althouse said... [hush][hide comment]
"EDH is being allowed to post again?"
EDH is one of the best commenters in the history of this blog.
2/9/17, 6:59 PM
I know it.
So...
Check another thread.
Wall = "Mexican Ban"
Next up: Deporting illegal aliens to be found unconstitutional.
"To the barricades, it's all caps! Accepting the argument that Trump's travel ban order is not subject to judicial review, what is Trump's best next move?
(A) Go back to the District Court
(B) Appeal to Supreme Court
(C) Flaunt Ninth Circuit ruling
(D) End run around court system
(A) and (B) seem likely to lose, (C) would create a Constitutional Crisis, but what about (D)?"
Flaunt it??? Or flaut it?
Can't wait for judicial review of all military operations and missions.
Why do you think there were 10,000 lawyers in the Pentagon when Rumsfeld was Sec Def ?
God knows how many now.
Read Dakota Meyer, on how the lawyers control ROW.
They saved his life, by the way. He was not allowed into the village where the civil affairs team was ambushed and killed because he was caught firing back at Taliban mortar men lobbing rounds into the US base. He was punished because "They were not wearing uniforms."
The Taliban do not wear uniforms but that didn't matter to to the DoD lawyers, It saved his life,
Althouse has a bad attitude tonight.
That should be ROE.
The very fact that the president -- or any of us -- have to go to some court hat-in-hand and say, "Oh please judge, your honor," asking for permission to do what we already have legal authority or the fundamental right and liberty to do, is appalling.
Drago said...
Can't wait for judicial review of all military operations and missions.
Bad news, in the last 8 years, Lawyers have been in the loop for all operational missions and calls for Fire (arty, air support, helos, Naval Gunfire)
It should be pedantically flouted!
The Drill SGT: "Bad news, in the last 8 years, Lawyers have been in the loop for all operational missions and calls for Fire (arty, air support, helos, Naval Gunfire)"
I know. But those were DOD/JAG's.
Just wait until Microsoft talks the Washington State AG to sue on behalf of potential future employees of Microsoft and we get the Field Marshal 9th circuit lefties involved.
Not entirely off-topic, but it was no surprise that all those unlawful combatant detainee lawsuits filed against George W. Bush suddenly came to a screeching halt and no more were filed when Obama became president (and the terrrorists' lawyer Eric Holder became AG).
>>(D) End run around court system
Easily done. Require a specific visa, with very specific criteria, obtained prior to arrival.
No visa=no entry.
And of course ban all flights and ships entering US that originate or stop in the 8 countries.
Not as effective as an outright barrier to entry, but gets 90%+ of the same effect.
I think it dates back to when I claimed that the results of the polls she puts up get sent to the CIA. Harumph! I expect that some people believe that. It was a joke. Sorrry!
Althouse: "Trump's lawyer made a feeble effort...
Although I believe the feebleness was calculated.
I think there is a strong case that the AG who fielded this case threw the case because he didn't agree with it. Either that, or he was an idiot.
If even Althouse is seeing his actions as weak from a third party perspective, than he must have done a singularly inept job at making what should have been a very easy case to make.
This goes to the bureaucracy. You have a lot of Democratic time servers in place and they need to be weeded out. I hate the idea of going back to the spoils system, but having a politically protected class in government reminds me of the Mandarins and Eunuchs in the Imperial Chinese Court.
Oh, and add a long list of federal agencies that must review all of the new visas. Use the Deep State's inertia against itself.
It shouldn't take any longer than getting veteran's benefits... say, three years, tops.
>>(D) End run around court system
Visa's need to be issued by Consular Officers in refugee camps or in the home countries. Just cut the number of Consular officers to zero in those places. Or tighten the screening rules.
The courts have an easier time telling the POTUS what he can't do than mandating a fool proof plan to make him do something that involves resources...
".....what is Trump's best next move?
(A) Go back to the District Court
(B) Appeal to Supreme Court
(C) Flaunt Ninth Circuit ruling
(D) End run around court system."
(E) Issue a re-written EO?
One judge in WA who exclaimed "black lives matter" after issuing a ruling against police unions challenges the president on the nation's safety.......smh.
"I wonder how clear you have to make a law so everyone understands it."
More clear than "shall not be infringed".
It may be up to the Supremes to decide if courts matter any more.
These are dangerous times.
>>Visa's need to be issued by Consular Officers in refugee camps or in the home countries. Just cut the number of Consular officers to zero in those places. Or tighten the screening rules.
Now don't be ridiculous, Sarge. Have at least one per country. Recruit them all from the Post Office or the local DMV's. And 2 hours for lunch, 22 paid holidays and 14 sick days per year. With offices open from 10A to 3PM, Eastern standard time, Tuesday through Friday.
The lines will be well over the horizon....
This president is shockingly, unprecedentedly bad. No one explained to this scowling septuagenerian the concept of separation of powers, apparently. Just like empty shill DeVos, he's trying to learn sixth grade civics on the job.
What a total disaster this douchebag has turned out to be.
Well, like the democrat media, we now know the judiciary now openly supports their democrat party. Party first, legal system second. Trump needs to start putting some openly partisans into judgeships asap.
Even when Roosevelt was challenging the courts early on, I really don't recall that he ever used rhetoric this antagonistic and combative. Trump really does behave as if he has carte blanche to own all three branches. His attitude of disrespect for an independent judiciary is unprecedented.
Correct me if I'm wrong on FDR.
>>trying to learn sixth grade civics
Let us know when you that far, Crankbait.
Under this ruling, the President can only act if a federal judge agrees that he has a good enough reason, regardless of the written law.
"Just like empty shill DeVos"
What do you have against DeVos?
I have been dealing with the US K-12 educational systems for 20+ years, and if anything is due for utter replacement, thats it. Compared to what even much poorer foreign countries have it is a disgusting spectacle.
You are wrong, Commander Crankshaft.
Google "court packing plan" and read a while.
CC: "Trump really does behave as if he has carte blanche to own all three branches."
This is transparently demonstrably false as the executive branch abided by the court TRO's immediately.
If Trump were to behave as if he had carte blanche he would have defied the TRO and dared the courts to enforce their orders.
Lincoln wanted to have the Chief Justice arrested over Habeas Corpus.
" I really don't recall that he ever used rhetoric this antagonistic and combative."
What matters rhetoric? Words are words, not policies or laws or money or concrete and steel.
I would be far more concerned, re words, about what goes on in your local High School.
The NYT reports, and I'm not at all surprised.
That they reported it? Or that the court ruled that way?
Or that Donny Tinyhands responded as he did?
You never know. President Pouty Ducktail Scowl now says terrorism and murder is being unreported. You know. Because if it bleeds, it doesn't lead.
And now we come to learn how Drumpf never came to not only dominate, but even dabble in media - much as he would have obviously liked to.
Oh well. There are steaks, universities, casinos. Only so many business industries one man can fail at.
The key new factor is Soros spent the last two cycles mass funding the election of his own agents as the State Attorney Generals. They remembered Florida's Attorney General in 2000.
Which brings us back to the SCOTUS. And Soros' sleeper agent named Gorsuch.
What do you have against DeVos?
Oh, you mean wanting to run the Education department while having not only no clue - but no interest in learning a single thing about education law or policy?
In the old days, this was known as "embarrassingly unqualified." But the Republicans have given up entirely on even any pretense of competence, and just want to control industries and the government completely by allowing them to achieve regulatory capture of their watchdog agencies in the government. Installing puppets is the easiest way. Ironic, since Trump is himself essentially the most easily manipulated puppet running any country presently.
I like the way the 9th Circuit used the word 'trump' in their ruling:
“To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches,” the court said, “the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals, even in times of war.”
Here I am about to comment that people please, please, PLEASE do not take the bait so that we end up having a 100-comment back-and-forth with this moron that hijacks the discussion -- and by the time I hit the comment button, a dozen of you have already bitten.
Sigh.
So if this round of litigation was about staying a TRO, then the TRO will eventually dissolve, and there should be a hearing on whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction.The parties can then argue that motion, and presumably appeal from it. Is the ruling on the stay motion good only as to the stay, or will it be law of the case? Even if a preliminary injunction is granted, litigation on the merits of the case can proceed.
The United States would be in a better position if it waited until after Gorsuch's confirmation before trying to move any of these issues to the Supreme Court, but somehow I doubt that President Trump will have the patience to do that. Sad.
Lincoln wanted to have the Chief Justice arrested over Habeas Corpus.
Lincoln made some mistakes but he did so at a point in time much earlier in our Republic and under a crisis of an existential magnitude that no president before or since could imagine let alone handle - and let alone Puppet Trump. The constitution was and is a contract and secession was a blatant breach of contract. Huge stuff, let alone figuring out how to get a weak executive to quell the insurrection both militarily and politically.
Lincoln was a giant that dozens of other presidents never came close to touching.
"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!" — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
Trump's almost child-like overuse of the exclamation point has all but eliminated its intended impact.
BTW, he should buy Twitter and give himself a bigger font.
Commander Crankshaft said...
Oh, you mean wanting to run the Education department while having not only no clue - but no interest in learning a single thing about education law or policy?
You must not have seen many of Obama's Ambassadors then, or in general, Secretaries of Commerce, or Postmaster's General.
Bay Area Guy said...
"But Trump won the election, and, hence, won the political issue."
I wasn't aware that the United States and the Constitution say that whomever wins the election shall have the authority to do anything they deem necessary until they lose an election or are retired. I didn't realize we live in a monarchy?
" I really don't recall that he ever used rhetoric this antagonistic and combative."
What matters rhetoric? Words are words, not policies or laws or money or concrete and steel.
I would be far more concerned, re words, about what goes on in your local High School.
Does anyone have as ignorant an example of assessing leadership as shockingly bad as the above? I guess by this reckoning "The Great Communicator" was neither much of a communicator then, nor great. Discuss.
You must not have seen many of Obama's Ambassadors then, or in general, Secretaries of Commerce, or Postmaster's General.
Oh right I know. Ambassadorships to allied countries with negligible militaries are really important positions. Ditto Postmasters. Education secretaries OTOH... who needs an educated republic anyway? Phoooey! Knowing stuff is not for great nations. Our ignorance will lead us to greatness.
CC: "Lincoln made some mistakes but he did so at a point in time much earlier in our Republic and under a crisis of an existential magnitude that no president before or since could imagine let alone handle..."
You are free to surmise that no other President could imagine or handle that situation but I would assert our history is replete with "average" men and women rising to the occasion and meeting the myriad challenges facing our nation.
I am a believer in the American system and its citizens. I do not lean on the "Great Man" theory. I lean on the "Great Struggle" theory.
Perhaps that is why the left is always turning their leaders into cult/god figures.
CC: "Oh right I know. Ambassadorships to allied countries with negligible militaries are really important positions."
Oh, I don't know. I'd say Japan is pretty important militarily. Good thing we had Caroline Kennedy in there doing the hard work!
Lucien said...The United States would be in a better position if it waited until after Gorsuch's confirmation before trying to move any of these issues to the Supreme Court, but somehow I doubt that President Trump will have the patience to do that. Sad.
Trump has two bites at the SCOTUS apple. He can try and get the TRO tossed. Likely that will break 4-4 and the TRO stays
Then it goes to the trial court, on the merits. In the meantime, Trump can slow roll visas. After the trial, rapidly back to the 9 person SCOTUS again.
Mark is giving you guys his own bait. LOL.
DanTheMan said...
Oh, and add a long list of federal agencies that must review all of the new visas. Use the Deep State's inertia against itself.
It shouldn't take any longer than getting veteran's benefits... say, three years, tops.
2/9/17, 7:19 PM
Ouch, dude.
Fundraising bundler and trial lawyer Jeh Johnson was the perfect choice for Homeland Security. Lulz
Jon, it's nice to see you as your old self. ;-)
Commander Crankshaft said...
"Lincoln was a giant that dozens of other presidents never came close to touching."
Basically, Lincoln was America's American leader who first grasped and wielded the immense war power of the modern industrialized State. He was the tool, and slavery the pretext, with which the New England Puritans broke the power of the South. France had Napoleon, Germany had Bismarck. Poor Russia had only a succession of weak-minded Tsars. Of the breed, I'd say better than some, worse than others.
"The constitution was and is a contract and secession was a blatant breach of contract."
That's not what two generations of New England Statesmen claimed, when Virginia dominated the federal government.
Oh, I don't know. I'd say Japan is pretty important militarily. Good thing we had Caroline Kennedy in there doing the hard work!
Wait. When did Japan's constitution stop mandating pacifism?
Japan is basically still somewhat of a client state of ours, at least as far as war and peace is concerned. They've been important economically,... anyway. Mark's right. Why go on like this? Didn't I answer you with the first two sentences out of the box?
Well, whatever it takes to give a Kennedy some grief, I guess.
Matt: "I wasn't aware that the United States and the Constitution say that whomever wins the election shall have the authority to do anything they deem necessary until they lose an election or are retired."
Well, you might want to familiarize yourself fully with US Statutes and Constitutional law as regards the Presidents sole and unreviewable authority to dictate control our borders based solely on the Executive prerogative and proclamation.
As stipulated precisely in the relevant statutes and the Constitution.
At least he did until a couple of judges on the west coast decided to take over that area of national security.
The administration will win this legal battle. The only question is how many lefty "legal" landmines will have to be cleared first and over what period of time in order to achieve that legal win.
If you want to get into particulars re DeVos, or educational policy, or the value of experts thereof, I am perfectly willing to go into particulars Ritmo. It's an avocation of mine, sadly.
Frankly, the worth of experts in this area is such that Trump would have improved on any of these authorities if he had chosen a donkey or a monkey.
I doubt that DeVos can fix anything actually, so far gone are you. But she is at least human and not an "expert".
@AA Thanks for your summary of the situation. I have had a hard time understanding how a court can override actions of the President, that are authorized in law, on the basis that Robarts used. Your explanation of the ninth circuit's decision doesn't help me with that conundrum, but it does explain the 9th circuit's action.
Basically, Lincoln was America's American leader who first grasped and wielded the immense war power of the modern industrialized State. He was the tool, and slavery the pretext, with which the New England Puritans broke the power of the South.
It was the South's choice to be moral laggards and not get around to modernizing their economy in line with the correct moral norms of nearly every civilized nation up to that point. They had expansionist aims of creating a conquered slave empire to the south, as well. Just a disaster in the making. We should count our lucky stars that they were vanquished utterly and completely.
France had Napoleon, Germany had Bismarck. Poor Russia had only a succession of weak-minded Tsars. Of the breed, I'd say better than some, worse than others.
Someone's focusing on power issues and leaving ethically functional republican values as an afterthought.
"The constitution was and is a contract and secession was a blatant breach of contract."
That's not what two generations of New England Statesmen claimed, when Virginia dominated the federal government.
Who cares? The statement is completely correct.
I am about to read the Ninth Circuit opinion and order.
In the meantime, let's recall that the EO issued by President Trump on January 27 consisted mostly of orders that the Department of Homeland Security would prepare reports for the President over the next 30-60 days.
There was a hard limit on any refugee immigration, and that part is now enjoined.
But for the life of me, I do not understand how it is that the Administration can't go ahead with most of the order, and with the completion of all of the reporting by the Department of Homeland Security, et al, they can moot the current order or craft an entirely new order.
I still think that this whole thing is political theater for the Trump base, and for the radicalized opponents of Trump.
Here is the text of the EO, straight from the WhiteHouse.org website:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
Fabi said...
Fundraising bundler and trial lawyer Jeh Johnson was the perfect choice for Homeland Security. Lulz
LOL
Rhodes and Donilon, Hagel, Julien Castro
@Commander Crankshaft
bla, bla, bla, ooh, ooh, snark, TDS.
WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION?
Have fun.
I am.
It appears that some of the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals (The most overturned of all the circuits!) have the same lack of understanding of "the separation of powers" as does Barrack Hussein Obama. That is, those supporting Federal Judge Robart's interference with the statutory and constitutional authority of The Congress AND the constitutional authority of the President.
Those three judge's questions on subjects not related to the Law or Constitution very, very, clearly demonstrate that they were unconstitutionally acting as a legislative body "making law from the bench".
CC: "Wait. When did Japan's constitution stop mandating pacifism?"
Geez. 2014.
Try and keep up.
Here's a little help: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defense-idUSKBN0F52S120140701
snip: "
Japan took a historic step away from its post-war pacifism on Tuesday by ending a ban that has kept the military from fighting abroad since 1945, a victory for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe but a move that has riled China and worries many Japanese voters.
The change, the most dramatic policy shift since Japan set up its post-war armed forces 60 years ago, will widen Japan's military options by ending the ban on exercising "collective self-defense", or aiding a friendly country under attack"
Seeing the growth of Chinese ambitions is likely to give anyone in the area some religion.
I have spent quite a bit of time in Japan over the last several years and I was very pleasantly surprised by the realistic recognition by the Japanese I spoke with for the need for Japan to begin to reassert itself.
Here's another interesting tidbit: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-get-nuclear-weapons-virtually-overnight-biden-tells-xi/#.WJ0eR4-cHOY
If you want to get into particulars re DeVos, or educational policy, or the value of experts thereof, I am perfectly willing to go into particulars Ritmo.
DeVos, the wanna-be education lady who only moonlights as a Republican powermongerer, couldn't answer a single question intelligently.
There's nothing to discuss. She's a puppet. The only question is who pulls her strings. And the answer to that is clear.
Go enjoy the disgrace she will make of the department.
Ok Drago I stand corrected. Thought I'd heard some scuttlebutt to that effect but I guess I hadn't kept up with where it ended up. Thanks.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I still think that this whole thing is political theater for the Trump base, and for the radicalized opponents of Trump."
Well, that "analysis" of yours makes as much sense as anything else you've written over the last 18 months. And by that I mean, of course, no sense at all.
But Caroline Kennedy assumed the office of ambassador to that country in 2013.
So I guess the point is a draw.
So, your wife if you can stand one, would be a teacher.
You be dum.
Japan has been questionably pacifist since, oh, they acquired about as powerful a Pacific Fleet as the US can deploy in East Asia. And more combat aircraft ditto.
They are rather well armed pacifists.
And let us say there are significant diplomatic matters ongoing in the region, Japan being of some importance, seeing as the #2 global power is constantly threatening war with them.
One would think that some substantial person should have been dispatched there.
Commander Crankshaft: "Ok Drago I stand corrected. Thought I'd heard some scuttlebutt to that effect but I guess I hadn't kept up with where it ended up. Thanks"
No worries.
Things are moving very quickly in that part of the world yet most of the west is not kept up to speed on it by either or media or our own administrations.
Not to worry though. That reality wave is headed our way.
Commander Crankshaft: "But Caroline Kennedy assumed the office of ambassador to that country in 2013. So I guess the point is a draw"
I'll accept that.
If only we had a president more concerned with Asia than with being the leader of nationalist Europe and freaking out about the Middle East.
Asia's probably the only part of the world that actually makes sense right now.
buwaya puti: "One would think that some substantial person should have been dispatched there"
Well, there and India. Japan and India represent our best long term hopes to achieve some sort of stabilized parity in the region.
Although Japan's birth rates are a long term cause for concern.
Most of the young men there don't or won't marry and many of them want nothing to do with the Japanese women. It's fascinating.
@mockturtle
Never give an inch to Gore Vidal. NTTAWWT.
Ritmo, as I said, words are words and not substance. Experience in serious affairs should teach you this. I recommend Asia, it's interesting, and you will find that public word games are not substance.
CC: "If only we had a president more concerned with Asia than with being the leader of nationalist Europe and freaking out about the Middle East"
Trump has spoken a great deal about Asia in both economic terms (and trade deals) as well as the military situation.
Let's face it, there is so much "noise" over so many issues and the media is so fixated on such minor things that substantial and weighty topics are not being covered.
Further, how long has Trump even had his National Security team in place? A couple weeks? That's not much time to complete a rigorous strategic review and present the President with options.
How about we give those guys 90 days to get up to speed and round out the strategic options?
I mean, assuming the west coast judges will allow Mattis to develop his plan without having to show there will be no irreparable harm to every beet farmer in Oregon.
No, Asia is the most dangerous area there is. China is always on the edge of a political explosion, such is Chinese history. They are the best armed potential opponent of the US and they are doing all they can to convert their near neighbors to satellites. And China has been threatening to fall in an economic hole for a decade at least. They are due for a crash.
Russia is fundamentally weak and can be bought. They can't afford huge ambitions nor are they likely to get desperate. The Chinese leadership is likely to get desperate and look for foreign distractions.
Crankshaft is boring.
Step it up CC. We're bored. You're boring us.
Aw, Pedro's just used up the time required for today.
See you tomorrow afternoon.
Pedro.
So can we talk now?
Don't forget Viet Nam. They are beginning to fortify heir own sandbanks in the South China Sea and they have fought off the Chinese before, and not so long ago at that.
Chuck said...
"I still think that this whole thing is political theater for the Trump base, and for the radicalized opponents of Trump."
I think that analysis is astute. If all Trump wanted to do was keep a few Muzzies out of the country, he could find a dozen ways to accomplish it, as several commenters have pointed out above. Trump has been throwing bait in the water. I suspect that right about now he is having a long, thoughtful look at the critter that took the hook. Maybe give it a little more rope?
I like the ideas by DantheMan and Drill Sgt for end-running the courts. As noted, requiring specific performance (an "affirmative injunction") is much harder to do than barring actions through a TRO or injunction.
I think I get the posture of the case: as Prof. Althouse says, the only issue before the 9th Circuit panel was whether the TRO should be kept in effect. Since Judge Robarts had decided to issue the TRO he presumably had found that the equities favored the plaintiff(s) and they would be more likely than the defendant to suffer irreparable injury, and it was easy for the panel to decline to doubt his finding --particularly because he apparently didn't bother to show his reasoning.
So, fine. The courts think they can weigh the equities here. On the one hand, some modest number of travelers and their employers are inconvenienced and have to spend time and money: obviously this is intolerable and constitutes a grave injustice for which money damages can never be adequate. On the other hand, people from places already designated as terrorist hot-beds will be allowed to come into the country without any attempt to vet them according to an empirically sound policy (maybe even finding out who they "really are" by coordinating with the shattered excuse of a government in the country from which they come, and determining if responsible people in authority will vouch for them). Among those new arrivals there may well be one or more who --in the weeks and months and years and decades we should prudently assume that a bad actor will endeavor to stay here-- will commit another of the atrocities for which the terrorists in those countries are justly infamous. THAT injury is clearly trivial compared to Microsoft having to find a substitute coder for a few weeks.
Yes: I wish I had a sarc font.
Bottom line, Trump has "lost" but the courts have lost more. Even a quick and "final" resolution will not end the damage.
Ritmo, as I said, words are words and not substance. Experience in serious affairs should teach you this. I recommend Asia, it's interesting, and you will find that public word games are not substance.
Let's see you lead any major organization - ANY one - a business, a civic institution, a government, a serious group of any sort, as a fucking mute.
But no wonder. People are starting to wonder if Trump is even literate.
If words don't matter at all, then I fully expect you to stop posting comments here right now.
Your very next post to me will be proof that nothing you say has any value and is in no way to be trusted.
It was nice talking to you, Mr No Substance. After all, it was only by your "words" that I ever knew you. Or more to the point, didn't know you.
I look forward to having you finally leave me alone. I always wondered why you had so much to say that had so little meaning to it. I guess now I know the answer.
Adios.
Crankshaft is boring.
Step it up CC. We're bored. You're boring us.
Lol. Then go watch a tv show. Like your leader, King Twitter Thumbs does.
Go watch the Ice Capades. Go watch a soap opera.
Leave me out of it. I'm not your Adderall prescription refill line.
You know what else is boring? Facts.
Deadly important things, those facts.
It's the most boring ones that'll get ya killed, if you're not careful and don't pay attention to them.
Man does not live by drama and entertainment alone.
Overtime for Pedro!
yay.
Calm down, Pedro.
Calm down.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा