The Ninth Circuit per curiam opinion authorizing the continued injunction prohibiting enforcement of President Trump’s executive order is a farrago of nonsense. The court should be embarrassed by its decision. Indeed, it appears that at least one of the Ninth Circuit judges may actually be embarrassed by it.Yes, but it keeps the subject in play and forces us to keep looking and taking different perspectives on it.
The court filed an order this afternoon stating: “A judge on this Court has made a sua sponte request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judge motions panel on February 9, 2017, should be reconsidered en banc.” In other words, no party moved for the rehearing; one of the court’s many judges did so on his own (i.e., sua sponte). I’m guessing it might be Judge Kozinski or Judge Bybee. I would love to hear from a knowledgeable court watcher on this point....
The Ninth Circuit is insanely liberal. Evidence of its insanity is all over the oral argument of the case and the opinion on which the vote for rehearing has been called. The Ninth Circuit gets a lot wrong in its 29-page opinion, but can it be rectified by this court? Not bloody likely....
Even the New Yorker is conceding "The Vulnerabilities of the Ninth Circuit's Executive-Order Opinion." It's a modest little piece by Jeffrey Toobin, but the important thing is that it exists at all. For the "farrago of nonsense" take, we'll have to look elsewhere.
("Farrago" is a great word. It just means a medley, mixture, hotchpotch.)
पोस्ट्स
८८ टिप्पण्या:
I think that horse is out of the barn.
The next step will be a harsh set of rules for immigration coming in about a month.
The left has outmaneuvered itself again.
I would not be surprised to see legislation reversing the 1965 Kennedy law.
Yes, great word, farrago.
Sua sponte means Trump has not asked for anything. The Chinese fire drill pretense of a court is stuck with their decision revoking the Executive Branch article of Constitution. DJT will let them sit in that mess they made, smelling up the idea of Judicial Review.
Today Trump hinted some more Orders might be coming. He needs to issue them about something broader to assert his Power. But he should avoid fixing the disaster this clown court brought down on its own pointy head.
"Farrago" is indeed a lovely word. I first heard on the Flanders & Swan LP, "At The Drop Of A Hat." Which I highly recommend.
I agree with Michael K: that ship has sailed. The 3-judge panel opinion will remain as a kind of stub of jurisprudence, and a whole new Executive Order will issue, rendering the old controversy moot but preserving the court's reasoning for the world to wonder at.
Michael K said...
I would not be surprised to see legislation reversing the 1965 Kennedy law.
That would be my hope. I believe it was Kennedy and LBJ.
"but can it be rectified by this court? Not bloody likely...."
Can the government say they don't want the Ninth Circuit having a new hearing? It wouldn't hurt the government's cause, the Ninth Circuit isn't going to right this wrong, and it would be a great diss.
It's an olio.
Sua sponte en banc won't rectify farrago.
But DJT may end up winning by losing.
Beyond EOs, immigration overhaul is needed. If the lefties want their equal protection in immigration, let's have a point system that judges skills, public charge likelihood, etc., objectively, rather than the veiled national-origin preference in the current family-based system.
A woman running for dog-catcher in San Francisco once said "farrago" and got run out office.
Over at Conservative Tree House there are some descriptions of the roundups going on this week. Austin Texas, which has a leftist Mayor, has the state police directing traffic for ICE and lots of white vans are noted picking up illegals.
No local cops involved.
The hammer is coming down.
Farrago rhymes with Virago, andother fine word. Great for limericks.
I don't know what all that "farrago" stuff is about. I read the opinion and didn't see a single "ja, you betcha".
Have not researched it but believe i have read that even though the Sua sponte motion will most probably be denied, in connection with the denial a judge can issue a dissenting option (to the denial) setting forth all of the errors in the opinion at issue.
""Farrago" is a great word". BS. Typical psuedo-intellectual jargon.
"in connection with the denial a judge can issue a dissenting option (to the denial) setting forth all of the errors in the opinion at issue."
Seems like a great term paper for a constitutional law class.
I think I used to have a Plymouth Farrago....Sport Pack, giant rear deck spoiler with a cartoon Whizzer White on it....and, of course, a Learned Hand shifter.
Perhaps Trump should issue a new EO stating that all refugees from the seven countries of the original EO will be relocated to California and Washington State, to be dropped off in front the federal court houses.
The politics of the courts issuing another stay essential stating "Hey, hey, hey, you can't force us to take those refugees we won't let you vet" would be pure win for Trump.
Farrago? Why not just eschew obfuscation?
I think this particular drama will have trouble dying. It will be interesting to see how Trump responds, and how the public responds.
We are going to have to figure out what we are going to do. The Boston Bombing happened. Pulse happened. Pulse was followed by the Chelsea bombing attempt, also aimed at homosexuals (remember the fake letter left). There are the pop-up campus attacks, and the stuff like the Tennessee lone-wolf attack on the military. And then there are all the preemptive arrests. We're in the loop of violence, and controlling the risks without resorting to French tactics or simply going nuts and trying to wipe out innocent Muslims is going to require a difficult and painful balancing act.
I have felt guilty about the Pulse attack ever since, because I knew that sort of attack was going to happen, but I think few Americans had a clue. I don't know what I could have done to make the Pulse attack less likely, but I do know that effectively, I did NOTHING. I think my sense of guilt is in some sense warranted.
So I am not willing to support anything or anyone that doesn't recognize the risk and attempt to deal with the risk as humanely as possible. The first such prerequisite is to recognize that a whole bunch of immigration from individuals that do not believe in the US Constitution can only increase the risk.
I would be happy to see Trump's EO withdrawn and reissued with some changes. Among the changes I would like is a statement of preferred refugee status for homosexuals from impacted countries and all persecuted religious/ethnic minorities, which yes, does involve Christians but includes Yasidis, Jews, etc. Those people have NOTHING. They can't even go to the refugee camps. They'll probably never be safe in their country of origin again. The US is deeply to blame for allowing the smaller religious minorities to be essentially wiped out in Iraq.
There are tons of Muslims in the world that would be happy to live under and support the US Constitution. Those who are not should not be admitted to this country except for extreme circumstances (specialty medical care, for example). They should not be admitted as refugees.
We can not afford what we are doing and we had better stop. Under Obama, official US policy was essentially that we tried to make friends with the Muslim brownshirts in order to make them nicer and easier to work with. It failed. It was doomed to fail. It is a vicious policy that, ironically, has the most immediate negative effects on moderate Muslims who then come under more pressure from the militants, except, of course, for the imperiled communities of outsiders that live within the extremist countries.
The time has finally come to address the excessive size of the Ninth Circuit. Let's assign Judges Canby, Clifton, and Friedland to the new Twelfth Circuit, with appellate jurisdiction over the Northern Marianas Islands and Guam.
My question is, would it be the full 29 members or one of the 3 sub groupings?
A Learned Hand shifter? Was the car a Judge?
I prefer my court decisions to be a gallimaufry of nonsense, or a hodgepodge, or a melange, or an omnium gatherum, or mingle mangle.
"There are tons of Muslims in the world that would be happy to live under and support the US Constitution. Those who are not should not be admitted to this country except for extreme circumstances (specialty medical care, for example). They should not be admitted as refugees." There's no way to gauge that happiness. There's no way to predict whether any Muslim will remain happy to live under the Constitution. There's no way to predict whether their children will, or relatives arriving later under immigration law preferences. But nearly all Muslim communities in the West show serious problems of assimilation -- Turks in Germany eagerly support the authoritarian Islamist Erdogan, Algerians in France make the banlieus no-go zones, Somalis in Minneapolis resist law enforcement and support terrorists in their midst, "Asians" in Rotherham organize the most massive sexual assault ever recorded in Europe in peacetime, and across the board Muslim communities display homophobia and antisemitism.
There is a judge on the 9th who realizes the danger itself the 3-judge panel has created here, but I think Michael K is right- it is too late to stop what is about to happen.
This goes hand in hand with the previous post about the threat to swamp the immigration courts. I think Trump's enemies are going to try to replicate the present result and get a federal court judge and then panel to put a stop to all deportations, too, with a stay.
This isn't going to end the way Trump's enemies think it is going to end, and they are not going to like the result. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the judge asking for the en banc review is a liberal, not a conservative.
"The Sua Sponte Motion" was a big hit in early 1973, but "The Hustle" overtook it quickly, and nobody remembers it now.
Farrago is even better in Latin: it means "A mixed crop of inferior grains, etc., grown for animal feed" (Oxford Latin Dictionary). Juvenal used it in a self-deprecating way to describe his own satires, and English took it from there. In short, calling something a "farrago" is (at least to those who know their etymologies) a genteel way of calling it "pig swill" or "dog food".
It seems to me that the argument that admitting Christian refugees constitutes "religious discrimination" might be misunderstanding the legal principles.
Suppose, for example, that in some American state, a radical nativist movement started setting fire to mosques. And suppose the police in a city in that state assigned officers to keep special watch on mosques, to protect them against arson, only to have a church or synagogue go to court and describe this as religious discrimination against non-Muslims. Would that case be valid? Or would it be legitimate for the police to say that it was the arsonists who were discriminating, and the police were protecting the people who were the targets of that discrimination, who had a special need for the kind of protection that the police offer?
It seems as if, if Christians in a Muslim country are the targets of violence or oppression, that gives them a claim to refugee status that goes beyond what Muslims in that country might have; and the United States can take that into account in deciding who to admit as refugees. That's not discriminating in favor of Christians; it's applying the neutral category of "refugee" to a group of people who, because they are Christians, are singled out by actors other than the United States as targets for hostile act.
Wilbur: "It's an olio."
Is that anything like an "oh e oh e oh"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouATRBkFguE
whswhs: "It seems as if, if Christians in a Muslim country are the targets of violence or oppression, that gives them a claim to refugee status that goes beyond what Muslims in that country might have"
That is specifically what Obama and his minions, on a policy basis, purposely ignored.
Muslims killing, torturing and enslaving Christians by the thousands was of zero concern to president zero.
Oh - and those who are sincerely grappling with this very difficult issue ought to be aware the that Germans are now rolling over and going French about it. The Koeln New Year's ban of Muslims has achieved near universal political and popular approval. Muslim organizations with some non-criminal activity that are also associated with radical activity are being banned right and left. The Germans banned the Muslim equivalent of the Gideon Bible society.
For a western country to maintain its Enlightenment principles, no large groups that are inimical to those principles may be permitted to take root. That's the lesson of Europe.
As seriously botched as this Ninth Circuit opinion is, all sides assume that all 4 Democrat-appointed Justices on the SCOTUS would vote to uphold it if it were appealed to an 8 Justice Court. That perception, more than any disparaging words of Donald Trump, should dishearten any lawyer or judge in the USA.
Merkel trying to save her ass by deporting muslim asylum seekers.
Open borders have no real support except with Oligarchs and some paid protesters. Have fun with less than 40 seats in the senate democrats.
I can't wait for the 9th circus to be moved to Alaska. They fucked up badly this time. They should have to live in fairbanks or nome.
This is a good time for a fight to happen between the judiciary and the executive.
The judiciary has gone too far and on silly pretense. The media currently hates the executive. So the right will be front and center.
"There are tons of Muslims in the world that would be happy to live under and support the US Constitution. "
I'm OK with that as long as they remain a small minority. I don't know about second generation, though. We are seeing radicalization of second and third generation Muslims here and in Britain,
A lot of the radicals are well educated and even scientific in interest. They may, if fact, be even more susceptible to the rage that seems to drive many "lone wolf" jihadis. Islam is a failed system, especially evident to any well educated Muslim.
There was a failed car bomb attack in Scotland that was carried out by a Muslim doctor. Major Hassan was not only a doctor but second generation.
The Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian would-be dictator has a PhD in Petroleum Engineering from USC, my alma mater.
The Press abused their privileged status and they invited greater scrutiny.
The Judges abuse their privileged status and they invite greater scrutiny.
It's We "the People" and "our Posterity". The Constitution quite clearly identifies the parties to its contract and the government established to serve them.
That said, the work of anti-native factions in our nation and abroad also invite greater scrutiny, especially when they wage social justice or act in defense directly or by proxy then "vote present" and force refugee crises.
As for immigration, first there needs to be emigration reform. The causes of mass exodus, exporting a native population, and refugee crises need to confronted directly, not obfuscated with immigration reform. Second, evidence of principled alignment is probable cause to discern character. The first duty of the government is to the People and our Posterity, not special and peculiar interests, especially anti-native factions and [class] diversitists.
Also, there is a conflict of interest between advocates for abortion rites, demographic redistricting (e.g. [class] diversity), labor arbitrage, and welfare industry.
The fact is that the present 3-judge ruling is now judicial precedent. Precedent that CANNOT stand because, if it did, it would be the end of national sovereignty and the separation of powers and the rule of law. Thus, it needs further review.
Had someone issued a dissenting opinion at the very least, it would rightly detract from this highly destructive decision. But they did not.
The overriding concern here is not the substance of the EO -- much less it is about the person who issued it -- but our constitutional and national order.
Can the government say they don't want the Ninth Circuit having a new hearing?
You mean acquiesce and implicitly and effectively concede that the ruling is correct?
So "farrago" is a word meaning "hotchpotch" but according ti wikidiff.com
Hotchpotch is a synonym of hodgepodge.
As nouns the difference between hotchpotch and hodgepodge is that hotchpotch is (dated|or|obsolete) a hodgepodge; a collection containing a variety of miscellaneous things while hodgepodge is a collection of miscellaneous things; a jumble.
"You mean acquiesce and implicitly and effectively concede that the ruling is correct?"
No, state explicitly that the Ninth Circuit is incapable of rendering a lawful ruling (which it is) and move on with a new EO.
Guilt over the Pulse attack is unwarranted. Could you have stopped it? Is your life completely dedicated to LGBT issues? And even if it was would you have had the power to reach singly or as a group to all areas of the world and change people's opinions instantly? Would that be ethical to force change on people like that? I think what most people do is to try and make sure they smile more and talk to people who don't talk much. If you are doing that you are making the world less violent. Cognitive Behavior Therapy.
Regarding Syrians --
Since the Obama Administration largely contributed to their suffering by encouraging and aiding the civil war there in its obsession with toppling Assad like they did with the governments in Libya and Egypt, the United States does have an obligation to provide them humanitarian assistance, just as we have an obligation to help Iraqis since, again under Obama, the U.S. simply cut and ran away leaving chaos behind.
But that humanitarian assistance does not necessarily mean receiving them into this country, much less automatically granting any and all claim to refugee status, especially when the claimant is a healthy single male in his 20s (even though he insists he is 12 years old).
Not even in a minor aspect does the opinion focus on that 1952 statute on which Trump, Ike, Carter, Reagan, and the One relied.
state explicitly that the Ninth Circuit is incapable of rendering a lawful ruling
You are suggesting that, in their filing with the court saying that the government did not want review, the lawyers for the government explicitly disparage the court in that way??
Probably a great way to get cited for contempt of court, if not disbarred.
A lawyer can think that a judge is a piece of crap, and the whole world may know he is a piece of crap, but that lawyer damn well better never say that to the judge if he wants to ever practice law again.
Mark said...
You are suggesting that, in their filing with the court saying that the government did not want review, the lawyers for the government explicitly disparage the court in that way??
Probably a great way to get cited for contempt of court, if not disbarred.
A lawyer can think that a judge is a piece of crap, and the whole world may know he is a piece of crap, but that lawyer damn well better never say that to the judge if he wants to ever practice law again.
This works if the judges are independent thinkers that follow the laws they are meant to review. But if the judges clearly go outside the law and the constitution as intended they need to lose this protection.
The 3 judges in the 9th have done massive damage to the perception of an independent judiciary on an issue where a strong majority of americans disagree with them in service to a small elite who wants to import cheap labor. And people show surprise when the unions back Trump.
Blogger Mark said...
" . . . the United States does have an obligation to provide them humanitarian assistance"
The US government is bound by laws. What law says that we have obligation to provide the Syrians humanitarian assistance?
You may feel an obligation as an individual American to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrians, which, of course, you are free to do.
Personally I do not feel the need to provide the Syrians with humanitarian assistance. Any public dollars spent on humanitarian assistance for the Syrians are public dollars not spent on something else.
I find it interesting that the newest season of Homeland references the Orlando massacre.
It seems to me that the argument that admitting Christian refugees constitutes "religious discrimination" might be misunderstanding the legal principles.
The fact that the 9th Jerkit Judge said that was discriminatory towards Muslims proves their moral degradation. The Christians are the ones being exterminated as we speak. Are there any left or have they been successfully genocided by ISIS? Can we hold these so-called judges personally accountable for the genocide of Christians in the Middle East?
The most amazing aspect of the 9th Circuit opinion is it drones on for 29 pages yet never mentions 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which is the statute at issue, which states:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
While there is no ambiguity, only the vulgar and the droll consider the statute when assessing an action. The 9th Circuit is above such trifles. Instead, they are only interested in legislative history. Absent any history, campaign rhetoric will have to do. After all, what the law says does not matter, only what outcome we reach. Limiting judicial review to what the law says is for the profane.
One of the 9th Circuit judges was embarrassed by this opinion, knowing it would lead to more ridicule of the 9th Circuit as a leftist political, and not judicial, body. and that judge is right.
What law says that we have obligation to provide the Syrians humanitarian assistance?
The law of not being an asshole. The law of human decency where if you shit on someone, you at least wipe it off. And you don't hide behind some banality of evil tripe about laws.
What happened to 'Never Again'? I guess it was all talk.
Mark said...
The law of not being an asshole. The law of human decency where if you shit on someone, you at least wipe it off. And you don't hide behind some banality of evil tripe about laws.
For real refugees of persecution(Yazidis, Jews, Christians) or Muslim males 18+ who claim to be refugees but really plan murder & mayhem in Western countries? Details please on your view.
Alex: "I find it interesting that the newest season of Homeland references the Orlando massacre"
Not to worry. Like "24" I can't wait to see which white, Christian, conservative, anti-muslim, racist, republican, ex-military and/or business type male politician is actually the "brains" manipulating the peace-loving muslim "terrorists" to commit heinous acts.
The fun part is guessing early on which white guy is responsible and watching it play out that way. Always look for the most famous white guy actor to be the bad guy. Just like "Law and Order".
Mark said...
The law of not being an asshole. The law of human decency where if you shit on someone, you at least wipe it off. And you don't hide behind some banality of evil tripe about laws.
So how about Soros, the clintons, Obama and all the fuckheads that screwed up Syria start hiring those protesters to go help people in Syria instead of running around US cities shitting on Americans and being assholes?
Oh that's right you want America to suffer and be drug down into poverty with the rest of the world. You want America to be less free and less wealthy.
Who is the asshole? Go help some Syrians in Syria douchebag.
"You are suggesting that, in their filing with the court saying that the government did not want review, the lawyers for the government explicitly disparage the court in that way??
Probably a great way to get cited for contempt of court, if not disbarred."
No, I'm suggesting Trump say it.
Mark:
Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq... and Ukraine. After the coup in Kiev, there are refugees in Crimea, which would have been yet another crisis without Russian aid. And other diverse plaves where we have made half-hearted, suspect, possibly illegal interventions.
I heard this via Jonah Goldberg yesterday and was flabbergasted (since we're on old words now) - it hadn't even close to occurred to me: that the potential precedent set by the 9th Circuit's decision was that any State could overrule the Federal executive branch's orders concerning national security in wartime simply by claiming in a local jurisdiction that the State would or could be harmed by the Federal action. Goldberg pointed out that in a war, different States would suffer different degrees of potential and real harm based on their economies, their population makeup, etc., and that it is patently ludicrous - I would say Articles-of-Confederation weak - to allow the States to have a say in whether and how we are at war as a nation, simply on that basis.
Thus, from both a standing and a constitutional standpoint, I (a non-lawyer) call BS on the 9th Circuit.
Mark said...
What law says that we have obligation to provide the Syrians humanitarian assistance?
The law of not being an asshole. The law of human decency where if you shit on someone, you at least wipe it off. And you don't hide behind some banality of evil tripe about laws.
Mark seems to believe that the moral sense of obligation he feels requires me to spend my money. What an odd philosophy
There's little risk that this ruling could be used as a precedent for a state to interfere with Presidential actions needed for security. I think there is an unstated "Trump exception clause" in the 9th Circuit Court ruling. This decision could only be used as a precedent while Trump is in the White House.
Seriously, in some future Administration, I really think this decision would be ignored, even if it's not overturned.
Blogger n.n said...
Mark:
Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq... and Ukraine. After the coup in Kiev, there are refugees in Crimea, which would have been yet another crisis without Russian aid. And other diverse plaves where we have made half-hearted, suspect, possibly illegal interventions.
In the 90s, we told the Ukrainians that if they gave up their nukes, we would guarantee their territorial integrity (see Budapest Memorandum). I think that Mark should be required to send some humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
send some humanitarian aid to Ukraine
Why? They receive European aid and American security in the occupied areas. While the refugees in Crimea receive aid from Russia. The situation is more or less stable unless there is further provocation.
It sounds like an Alex Kozinski move. No doubt Jay Bybee has strong feelings and extensive knowledge of national security and executive branch law. But I thought of Bybee as a more quiet and procedurally cautious member of the Ninth Circuit. If it was Bybee who was so extraordinarily moved, look out for one hell of an opinion. The sort of opinion that will make President Trump want to make him "Justice Bybee."
"I prefer my court decisions to be a gallimaufry of nonsense, or a hodgepodge, or a melange, or an omnium gatherum, or mingle mangle"
"Dog's breakfast" is kind of nice.
David in Cal said...
There's little risk that this ruling could be used as a precedent for...
Famous last words, as the Constitution dies, usurped by Precedent.
"Mark seems to believe that the moral sense of obligation he feels requires me to spend my money."
Of course he does; it's a simple division of labor: Mark provides the outrage and moral guidance we lack, and you supply the money to fix the problem so he can feel better.
For gosh sakes, the poor guy can't do it all on his own!
The law of not being an asshole. The law of human decency where if you shit on someone, you at least wipe it off. And you don't hide behind some banality of evil tripe about laws.
I prefer the law of survival. Protecting oneself, family, community. If YOU want to commit suicide, literally or culturally, be my guest.
we have definitely garnered a farrago of nonsense these past couple months
Michael K: I would not be surprised to see legislation reversing the 1965 Kennedy law.
AllenS: That would be my hope. I believe it was Kennedy and LBJ.
Hart-Celler. I would be surprised, but pleasantly so.
@Cronus - the other part of that is that there was no mention, whatsoever of Youngstown Steel, and the three prong analysis required in reviewing executive actions. This is pure first prong, where the executive is operating in strict conformity with the law and utilizing discretion granted it by Congress. Which means that there should have been maximum defference towards the legality of the EO, because the courts here are essentially second guessing both other branches of the govt.
A lot of the radicals are well educated and even scientific in interest. They may, if fact, be even more susceptible to the rage that seems to drive many "lone wolf" jihadis. Islam is a failed system, especially evident to any well educated Muslim.
I don't think it's even necessary to posit that "Islam is a failed system". The failure is in delusions about human nature. Islamic countries may not be the most functional, dynamic places in the world (and they vary a great deal here), but they are the home of the Muslims who live there. A sane life for most people involves living in familiar territory, among people and mores you understand.
They'd be happier there. They don't belong here. Being where you don't belong can make you angry. You get even angrier if you keep getting told that you do belong here, but there's just something "out there" (racism, Islamophobia, blah blah blah) making you feel alienated, empty, miserable.
Cultures differ, and they differ in profound ways. A culture is a web of meaningful human relations whose rules, especially the unspoken, uncodifed rules, are understood by its members. Despite the hallucinations of the globalists, human beings are not interchangeable widgets who can be fit in anywhere, as long as they subscribe (or are forced to subscribe) to a set of abstract "values" dreamt up by some deracinated bureaucrat. A life of alienated, cultureless anomie is crazy-making. (That some individuals manage and thrive as immigrants doesn't change that general rule.) And we don't have an obligation to de-culture and deprive ourselves of "home" (which is what "multiculturalism" is) to make them feel more "at home". There is nothing here that can be fixed.
They'd be happier there. They don't belong here. (And we don't belong there, "fixing" their countries to conform to our delusions of universal abstract culture.)
Alex said...
What happened to 'Never Again'? I guess it was all talk.
2/11/17, 1:28 PM"
In 1939 how many Jewish nation states were there? In 2017 how Islamic nation states are there?
As for "Never Again" it is all talk (except for the Israelis how do take it seriously). Obama gave the Islamist terrorist state $150bn and his blessing to build the instruments to wipe out the only Jewish national state. The UN is of the opinion there should be no such thing as a Jewish nation state. So yes, "Never Again" is all talk and wholly without meaning and consequences for those who would destroy the Jewish state but for the Israelis having the bomb.
Blogger Ron said...
I think I used to have a Plymouth Farrago....Sport Pack, giant rear deck spoiler with a cartoon Whizzer White on it....and, of course, a Learned Hand shifter.
Did it have MD plates? I think Andy Kelp stole it once. It might have been for that job out on Long Island in Carr Port.
I really, really, really, miss Donald Westlake and John Dortmunder.
John Henry
@Bruce The 9th Circuit opinion is a caricature of a results-oriented decision. You make a good point that they evaded mentioning Youngstown Steel. So in a case testing the limits of Executive authority, they failed to address the statutory authority (which is mentioned several times in the EO) and the key Supreme Court decision. But they were sure interested in campaign rhetoric and what they believe is the ulterior motive (found nowhere in the EO).
As well, they found only very narrow parts of it problematic, which normally means the remainder survives (like the Obamacare decisions). But they were bent on sticking it to Trump. The standing analysis is just as nuts.
It was an embarrassing opinion because it is a political, not legal, opinion. One of the judges on the 9th Circuit knows that it reflects poorly on the 9th Circuit, and wants no part of it.
Blogger Paul J said...
"I prefer my court decisions to be a gallimaufry of nonsense, or a hodgepodge, or a melange, or an omnium gatherum, or mingle mangle"
"Dog's breakfast" is kind of nice.
"Snake's honeymoon" also works, even if it is British
John Henry
As an attorney who doesn't care that I'm an attorney, barring criticism of judges is BULLSH**. These appointed-for-life judges that view each case through the lense of furthering socialist policies deserve more than criticism of their decisions. Their character IS indeed in question.
Congress should hold hearings on the decision and it's reasoning or lack there of. If the decision is well reasoned, that shouldn't be a problem. If it's just a political hack with no backing in the law or the Constitution, then that should be brought to light. Such malfeasance should be grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
"There are tons of Muslims in the world that would be happy to live under and support the US Constitution."
That categorically wrong. Let's take a look at what a Professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University has to say. If you believe in what he says, and he's an islamic islamic scholar, not a Christian apologist for islam. Belief's like that are completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
A muslim in the United States cannot practice his or her religion. The men are not allowed to have multiple wives. They can't divorce by saying 3 times "I divorce you." If they accost a scantily clad non-muslim woman- they're held accountable for a CRIME! (I've read that accountability for that is disappearing in Dearbornistan.) Islamic cab drivers are even required to let seeing eye dogs into their cabs! A law, BTW, they do ignore with no penalties. So they really aren't required to...
Now if you can find a muslim who doesn't believe in polygamy, who doesn't believe in islamic divorce, who doesn't feel that sharia should be imposed on all, whether or not they're muslim, who doesn't believe they should be required to follow secular law when it bumps up against their beliefs, then you have a muslim who will be content to live peacefully under the U.S. Constitution. Just one thing. If you have a muslim who believes all that- he's not muslim.
"It sounds like an Alex Kozinski move. No doubt Jay Bybee has strong feelings and extensive knowledge of national security and executive branch law. But I thought of Bybee as a more quiet and procedurally cautious member of the Ninth Circuit. If it was Bybee who was so extraordinarily moved, look out for one hell of an opinion. The sort of opinion that will make President Trump want to make him "Justice Bybee.""
When you provide insight of this nature it's appreciated, Chuck.
whswhs: "It seems as if, if Christians in a Muslim country are the targets of violence or oppression, that gives them a claim to refugee status that goes beyond what Muslims in that country might have"
Immigration / refugee law already specifically singles out religious minorities for receiving preferential treatment in refugee immigration. (Don't have specific law, but saw it on another blog when this issue first came up.) That would mean in this case Christians and Yazidis, first off. (Are there any Jews left? I don't think so.)
This law was disgracefully ignored by the Obama administration. Par for his course.
There may be more here with the sua sponte motion than appears on the surface. Before this case came up, Senator Flake was raising cain over annonymous 9th Circuit Judges opposing his pending bill to split the Circuit. This order only makes that a greater possibility than it already was. Anthony Kennedy is a very close friend of Alex Kozinski. Powerline speculated that Kozinski was the possible author of the sua sponte request. That seems likely. Anthony Kennedy presides over the 9th Circuit. Anthony Kennedy does not want the Circuit split, either. (How do I know this? Trust me. For one thing there wouldn't be nearly as many resorts to choose from for their annual, ultra plush, judicial conferences. But, seriously, Kennedy is close to retirement. Does he want his legacy to be presiding over a Circuit that went rogue and got split up?)
So, might it not be within the realm of possibility that Kozinski and Kennedy see the stakes of leaving this order standing as involving something closer to home and much more personal? If they do, rest assured the other judges will get the message.
JDNiner - No, as I noted I don't think that under the status quo I could have done anything to prevent the Pulse massacre. Nor apparently could the FBI, even though the perpetrator had expressed sentiments that caused enough alarm among those exposed to them that he had been reported multiple times to the FBI. Once by a sheriff.
The fact that we had a system in place that meant that such a person could not be stopped, and that the Boston Bombers were not stopped, despite multiple reports from foreign governments that the older brother was a dangerous character, means that we have a structural problem. Oh, yeah, and Major Hassan was doing stuff that triggered every monitoring system set up, and he wasn't stopped, despite triggering the equivalent of the red alert on the Starship Enterprise.
What needed to be changed was that structure.
The best that I could do with what I have is vote for Trump, who at least seems to take this structural problem seriously. But I think it takes the whole society working together to imposes some sort of more workable system. Without the courts, the chances of a moderate solution are poor.
Harold - but the huge majority of the Muslims (non-Palestinians) who immigrated a few generations or two generations ago DO believe in an Islam that you claim doesn't exist. They do not believe in sharia law.
This is really a question of law rather than religion. Being a citizen or resident of the US should require a willingness to be bound by the law of the land. You are correct that anyone who wants to live under sharia law is not going to be comfortable here.
There are many Muslims who don't. What is happening around the world is that the regressive factions (Salifists and their Shia equivalents) are fighting a very violent war against the more traditional Muslims, and largely winning. We cannot afford to import those who want an Islamic law system.
MaxedOutMama said...
Harold - but the huge majority of the Muslims (non-Palestinians) who immigrated a few generations or two generations ago DO believe in an Islam that you claim doesn't exist. They do not believe in sharia law.
But they do believe in taqqiyah. Which you have evidently fallen for. Sharia is an integral part of the koran. Islam and sharia are inseparable. I have yet to hear any muslim religious leader in the United States condemn an Islamic act of violence. Instead, I have seen them all warn of an anti-muslim backlash that always seems to be just around the corner. Back in 2009 one of those moderate muslims, Muzzammil Hassan, founder of a TV show to improve relations between muslims and the rest of the community by showing how normal they were, reverted to type and beheaded his wife. According to authorities, it wasn't an honor killing and had nothing to do with islam. Except of course, it was and it did.
Numerous examples abound of moderate muslims who suddenly suffer sudden jihadi syndrome and go on killing sprees. Surveys of muslims in the United States show the majority of them want to live under sharia. Of course, they also say sharia shouldn't displace the Constitution. believe one or believe the other.
Another leftist narrative falls to truth. The 3 "judges" lied in their bullshit ruling.
72 terrorists from 7 named countries have been convicted since 9/11.
The left is self immolating. The lies you are telling will only work on yourselves.
Dear Liberals: When you've lost Toobin, you've lost.
"Did you order the sua sponte?"
"YOU'RE GODDAMNED RIGHT I DID!"
I found this theory about the FISA Courts intriguing! Any lawyers wish to opine about whose authority is greater - Circuit Court - 9th Court of Appeals - FISA COURT - only on national security.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/attorney-trump-should-take-travel-ban-to-fisa-court/
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा