Althouse: "A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the ban was set to go into effect."

March 15, 2017

"A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the ban was set to go into effect."

CNN reports.

273 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 273 of 273

Drago said...: The complete alignment of the Western left and "lifelong republicans" with the islamists is nearly complete in the US and probably irreversible in Europe.; 3/16/17, 9:35 AM
Chuck said...: Amazing, how the Trumpkins take narrow arguments about litigation defense, and turn them into allegations that people like me want open borders, the establishment of sharia law, and the destruction of American culture. All at the same time that they talk about the destruction -- perhaps the forcible destruction -- of the entire federal judiciary.; 3/16/17, 9:39 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I think that this means war. Dramatic? Maybe. But, we are talking the safety and security of the country here, and part of the reason that Trump was elected was that he made a much better case that he would protect us.

Also, you can't take the Hawaii case on its own. The 9th Circuit yesterday refused, en banc (which means something different there than in the other Circuits) on pretty much partisan lines, to let the original injunction remain in effect, and not to reopen the case. As others have noted, this looks to a lot of America like a naked power grab by the left.

But, getting back to political reality, my bet right now is that the Gorsuch nomination is punched through fairly quickly in order to get the 9th Circuit straightened out here. The Dems running the Senate are probably going to try to filibuster, but this is one case where they may not be successful. Those 8 Trump state Senators up for reelection in less than 2 years surely don't want to go back to their states and try to explain this, how they filibustered Judge Gorsuch so that Trump couldn't protect us from potential terrorist threats. If Trump doesn't have them scared yet, he should - it is highly likely that he is better at getting his message out than they are, dependent upon the MSM and their free mailings. Expect Trump and AF1 at continuous rallies in Trump states with Dem Senators up for reelection who balk here, come 2018. And, if a filibuster looks likely to succeed, there is, now, close to zero likelihood that the Senate Republicans won't go nuclear. The Dems already did so for lower court nominations, and it is a tiny step to extend their precedent to the Supreme Court.

Longer run, I expect that this will be emphasis for splitting the 9th Circuit. Should have been done years ago. The fact that en banc hearings there only utilize a larger panel, instead of the entire court, as is the case in other Circuits, is indicia that the Circuit is too big. Maybe move the more obnoxiously liberal judges to a new circuit base city, in, say, Boise, or Helena. I think Helena, since Boise seems to be becoming a bit more cosmopolitan.; 3/16/17, 9:43 AM
Birkel said...: @ Chuck, so called

Nobody takes you seriously. You sold your credibility cheap and now the attention people pay you is mockery.

The problem the judiciary, as represented by this judge, faces is similar. Many here doubt the judiciary will be any more prudent than you have been.

Where will you or the judiciary go to recapture what is lost?; 3/16/17, 9:46 AM
JAORE said...: Birkel, I appreciate the brevity of your answer.

But I rarely find things are quite that clear cut.

And, FWIW, I've read that part of the Constitution. And I've seen the summaries of the handful of impeachments that have taken place. So (I presume) there must be a crime involved, in your mind, or some unsavory behavior like gross conflict of interest?

If so, how do you handle a judge with obvious signs of dementia? Or who makes absolutely unhinged rulings?; 3/16/17, 9:55 AM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" Chuck: "Amazing, how the Trumpkins take narrow arguments about litigation defense, and turn them into allegations that people like me want open borders, the establishment of sharia law, and the destruction of American culture."

The arc of history and its inevitable consequences don't care about your feelings, warped illusions or self-pity.; 3/16/17, 9:56 AM
Drago said...: Bruce: "As others have noted, this looks to a lot of America like a naked power grab by the left"

Well, a naked power grab by the left and "lifelong republicans".

This is what happens when the left is sufficiently emboldened to let the mask completely slip. And it only happens....every...single...time.

Unexpectedly!; 3/16/17, 9:58 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Birkel said...
now the attention people pay you is mockery.

These kinds of personal attacks are only designed to stifle debate and should be deplored by all reasonable people.; 3/16/17, 10:04 AM
mtrobertslaw said...: Watson's new principal of statutory interpretation: "The true meaning of a law is not what its clear and unambiguous language says. No, the true meaning of a law is determined by the motive of the lawmaker. This motive can be established by what the lawmaker has said or written either before or after the enactment of the law. But if this is not possible, a trial must be held to determine his true motive."

Progressive Jurisprudence reigns!; 3/16/17, 10:05 AM
Static Ping said...: The judiciary is destroying itself. It's true power is dependent on its non-partisanship and dedication to the protection of the Constitution. Once that respect is gone, all that remains are un-elected lawyers ruling by fiat. Given the judiciary has no power to actually enforce its rulings other than the cooperation of the other branches, it is playing a very dangerous game. The worst part about it is I don't think these judges really care. They just want what they want regardless of the facts, regardless of the law, regardless of their authority. If the courts are not going to perform their constitutional duties faithfully, there is no real reason for its survival.; 3/16/17, 10:06 AM
~ Gordon Pasha said...: Remember back in the late 19th Century when Congress enacted bans on religious practices and the immigration of refugees who were adherents to that religion, and the Supreme Court upheld those laws? Fun times, fun times.; 3/16/17, 10:06 AM
Chuck said...: Bruce Hayden said...
I think that this means war. Dramatic? Maybe. But, we are talking the safety and security of the country here, and part of the reason that Trump was elected was that he made a much better case that he would protect us.

Nonsense.

What we have is a debate over the construction and limits of presidential power.

We don't have a national security crisis.

I don't feel any more or less safe, than I did in March of 2016, or March of 2008, or March of 1978. My chances of having a debilitating illness, or being in a car crash, or maybe being hit by lightning, are all far greater than my being harmed by a "radical Islamic terrorist" form one of Trump's EO-named countries.

The realistic impact of all of this on me is more goddamned hassles at the airport, and at the Detroit-Windsor border, and a bigger goddamned chunk of my federal taxes going to Security Theater.

Doesn't anyone wonder, where is the report, from the CIA or NSA or DIA, that singles out these countries for urgent (and what will be only temporary) security action? Yes, I know that they were all mentioned in Obama-era orders and legislation. Got it. But I don't recall anybody at that time recommending urgent immigration policies. And of course recent history tells us that of the limited number of terrorist actions in the U.S., almost none of them would have been averted by the Trump EO.

You Trumpkins are as bad as the Democrats who want extremist gun laws -- like, say, an assault weapons ban -- after a shooting in which the weapon was a pump-action shotgun.; 3/16/17, 10:09 AM
grackle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/16/17, 10:16 AM
grackle said...: The point made by Grackle would actually be easier to defend, if Donald Trump had long ago said …

My point has less to do with what Trump said and more about the suitability for Muslims to be immigrating to Western democracies. What I’m saying is very simple: If you want more misogyny, more homophobia, more sharia, more terror attacks, then by all means take in as many of the Muslims as you can. If you want to prevent those social pathologies then ban Muslims.; 3/16/17, 10:17 AM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" Chuck: "We don't have a national security crisis. I don't feel any more or less safe, than I did in March of 2016, or March of 2008, or March of 1978"

This is relevant due to the "Chuck's Feelings And Sense Of How Things Are Going Baby!" clause of the Constitution.

Not to mention Chuck's long history of service to our nation within the military and intelligence service which makes his assessment of the threats really really super duper spot on.; 3/16/17, 10:18 AM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" Chuck: "Yes, I know that they were all mentioned in Obama-era orders and legislation. Got it. But I don't recall anybody at that time recommending urgent immigration policies"

This comment also reflects that other key area of Law which stipulates policy changes from one executive administration to the next must be held consistent.

Of course, it goes without saying that this rule ONLY applies when an administration changes from Democrat to Republican.

When it goes the other way then Transformation is all the rage baby!; 3/16/17, 10:20 AM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" Chuck: "You Trumpkins are as bad as the Democrats who want extremist gun laws -- like, say, an assault weapons ban -- after a shooting in which the weapon was a pump-action shotgun"

We return now to another interesting setting of equivalence by our "lifelong republican" amigo between actual constitutionally protected rights (at least for as long as his Maddow approved pals don't take power) related to the 2nd Amendment and the completely brand new and special made up rights the left and "lifelong republicans" are happy to extend to non-citizens living overseas.

Gee, it's hard to see how any lifelong republican could ever accept such glaring and jarring judicial overreach.

Now, for 'lifelong republicans", it's not hard to see at all.; 3/16/17, 10:24 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: @Chuck - we may not have a real security problem in this country, esp in regards to Muslim terrorism, but much of the country believes that we do, and Europe clearly has a significant Muslim problem. Reality here isn't important - appearances are. And what makes ch of the country believes, and, in particular, what much of the Trump base believes. They also blame much of the problem on the Obama Administration, and esp their failed policies in most of the countries covered in the EO ban, causing them to be failed states, unable to control their own security (and help us vet immigrants from those countries).; 3/16/17, 10:24 AM
Drago said...: ARM: "These kinds of personal attacks are only designed to stifle debate and should be deplored by all reasonable people."

You'll have to speak up.

We can't hear you over all the violent protests being viciously acted out by the left and supported wholeheartedly by the liberals.

Our apologies.; 3/16/17, 10:26 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Drago said...
We can't hear you over all the violent protests being viciously acted out by the left and supported wholeheartedly by the liberals.

I hate it when they do that, although I can't actually hear them over here.; 3/16/17, 10:31 AM
Drago said...: ARM: "I hate it when they do that, although I can't actually hear them over here"

Closing your windows was a prudent move.; 3/16/17, 10:32 AM
Chuck said...: Bruce Hayden I really hate to disagree with you, and so it was with great pleasure that I read this (the typo in your comment did not detract from my understanding the gist):

Bruce Hayden said...
@Chuck - we may not have a real security problem in this country, esp in regards to Muslim terrorism, but much of the country believes that we do, and Europe clearly has a significant Muslim problem. Reality here isn't important - appearances are. And what makes ch of the country believes, and, in particular, what much of the Trump base believes. They also blame much of the problem on the Obama Administration, and esp their failed policies in most of the countries covered in the EO ban, causing them to be failed states, unable to control their own security (and help us vet immigrants from those countries).

Well said. And emphasis added.; 3/16/17, 10:39 AM
khesanh0802 said...: This will be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. A few courts have taken upon themselves the role of determining what does and does not effect national security. That is not their role and ultimately they will be slapped down. In the meantime, with or with out the EO in effect,-as a practical matter- you can bet there will be very few visas issued for the listed countries.

Trump is doing what he said he would do. A few courts are opposing him. The ultimate effect is going to be growing support for appointing more conservative judges to the Federal bench. I know that that there are over 100 vacancies currently. Trying to deny common sense actions and the will of the people does not help the Dems at all - and don't give me the bullshit about the popular vote, that will have no impact in the upcoming red state Senate elections.; 3/16/17, 10:40 AM
Chuck said...: khesanh0802 said...
...
...
Trump is doing what he said he would do...

You still don't get it, do you?

This is the problem for the Trump Administration! Federal district courts are finding exactly that. That the Trump EO's are in fact expressions of what Trump said he'd do, during the campaign, during the transition, and in later interviews as president. Trump said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims..." And that reckless and indefensible statement is now haunting the legal defense of the order(s).

You Trumpkins are either the worst lawyers, or the worst legal clients, in history. Just like your leader.; 3/16/17, 10:48 AM
Todd said...: Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
khesanh0802 said...
...
...
Trump is doing what he said he would do...

You still don't get it, do you?

This is the problem for the Trump Administration! Federal district courts are finding exactly that. That the Trump EO's are in fact expressions of what Trump said he'd do, during the campaign, during the transition, and in later interviews as president. Trump said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims..." And that reckless and indefensible statement is now haunting the legal defense of the order(s).

You Trumpkins are either the worst lawyers, or the worst legal clients, in history. Just like your leader.
3/16/17, 10:48 AM

No. When will YOU get it. What Trump may have said or done out side of this specific EO has NO legal bearing on this EO. Is this EO legal and within the authority of the President or NOT. THAT is the only test and this particular judge failed that test.; 3/16/17, 10:58 AM
Chuck said...: Todd said...
...
No. When will YOU get it. What Trump may have said or done out side of this specific EO has NO legal bearing on this EO. Is this EO legal and within the authority of the President or NOT. THAT is the only test and this particular judge failed that test.

There you go again. I've lost count of all of times I have made this observation in this thread.

Okay, so this EO is NOT an expression of any anti-Muslim goal. Okay, if you say so. Tell it to the judge. And now, tell it to the panel of Ninth Circuit judges. You may get to tell it to the US Supreme Court.

All of that work, and delay, and potentially bad law made in the process. All because of Trump's idiotic comments playing to his base. Trump is the guy who has made this EO so hard to defend. All because Trump just had to say something that he could never, ever hope to legally defend; "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims..."

You slackjawed yokels need to understand; you are not getting any Muslim ban. That was never going to happen. Trump could never deliver on that. And he is not going to deliver on that. This new EO is not a Muslim ban. Precisely because a Muslim ban could never be defended in court.

I don't think any of you really know what the fuck you want, apart from Donald Trump blowing shit up.; 3/16/17, 11:08 AM
Todd said...: Chuck said...

Okay, so this EO is NOT an expression of any anti-Muslim goal. Okay, if you say so. Tell it to the judge. And now, tell it to the panel of Ninth Circuit judges. You may get to tell it to the US Supreme Court.

All of that work, and delay, and potentially bad law made in the process. All because of Trump's idiotic comments playing to his base. Trump is the guy who has made this EO so hard to defend. All because Trump just had to say something that he could never, ever hope to legally defend; "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims..."

You slackjawed yokels need to understand; you are not getting any Muslim ban. That was never going to happen. Trump could never deliver on that. And he is not going to deliver on that. This new EO is not a Muslim ban. Precisely because a Muslim ban could never be defended in court.

I don't think any of you really know what the fuck you want, apart from Donald Trump blowing shit up.

3/16/17, 11:08 AM

You still don't understand. This could actually be a muslim ban. It. Does. Not. Matter. All that matters is, is this EO on its own legal. Yes or No. This one is legal. The judge decided he didn't like a possible reason for it and stopped it. Trump could have gone on national TV and said he wanted all muslims kicked out of the country after having all of their money confiscated and then deport them to Antartica, butt naked. Does. Not. Matter. Is the EO legal ON ITS OWN?; 3/16/17, 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Bruce Hayden: ...we may not have a real security problem in this country, esp in regards to Muslim terrorism, but much of the country believes that we do, and Europe clearly has a significant Muslim problem. Reality here isn't important - appearances are.

There is of course the possibility that these fantasists composing "much of the country" are not fantasists at all but rather sensible people who can observe cause and effect and make reasonable predictions about the future based on accurate observations of phenomena in the past and present.

A great deal of care seems to be put into making sure that public debate on this issue is kept within a strictly limited "local snapshot" view, as if the historical or the larger contemporary context were entirely irrelevant. It is very odd to state that "while we have no "real security problem [now], Europe clearly has a significant Muslim problem", and then conclude that people worried about a Muslim problem are the ones distracted by "appearances" and indifferent to reality.; 3/16/17, 11:14 AM
Night Owl said...: "You Trumpkins are as bad as the Democrats who want extremist gun laws -- like, say, an assault weapons ban -- after a shooting in which the weapon was a pump-action shotgun."

It's a temporary ban. On six countries. Which will affect a small percentage of the world's Muslims. What's so extreme about it?

A temporary ban while our new administration analyzes vetting procedures in those countries, seems like common sense. People dead set against ANY type of ban look like the extremists to me.; 3/16/17, 11:19 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I'd ask if you have any thoughts on the issue of standing, Chuck, but since the ruling's against Trump I guess that doesn't matter.

There's a right to have foreign members of your family visit in the U.S. now, so that's nice--I didn't see it in the Constitution but I guess you need judge-glasses or something. Anyway that's definitely a right, starting yesterday.

Oh and universities have a right to revenue from potential foreign students, too. I mean, if a law might possibly interfere with a university making money from a potential foreign student, that law can't stand. I guess to me that means pretty much any restriction on immigration must automatically generate an actionable harm to universities (since it means SOMEONE somewhere is potentially barred from being a foreign student at that university) which seems pretty fucking absurd...but hey, tell it to the judge, right?

The important thing is that Trump got smacked, right?; 3/16/17, 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Todd: Is the EO legal ON ITS OWN?

Compare and contrast Chuck's fulminations on this EO to his dry legal punctilio elsewhere:

Chuck @9:39 AM: "Amazing, how the Trumpkins take narrow arguments about litigation defense, and turn them into allegations that people like me want open borders, the establishment of sharia law, and the destruction of American culture."

Chuck doesn't know what the fuck he wants, apart from blowing Trump up.; 3/16/17, 11:22 AM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" Chuck: "All of that work, and delay, and potentially bad law made in the process. All because of Trump's idiotic comments playing to his base."

And there you have it.

Leftist judges doing leftist things is all because of Trump.; 3/16/17, 11:24 AM
Drago said...: Angel-Dyne: "Chuck doesn't know what the fuck he wants, .."

Chuck simply wants what the entire left wants.

It's no mystery.; 3/16/17, 11:28 AM
Drago said...: Hinderaker at Powerlineblog captures it perfectly: “What we are seeing here is a coup: a coup by the New Class; by the Democratic Party; by far leftists embedded in the bureaucracy and the federal judiciary. Our duly elected president has issued an order that is plainly within his constitutional powers, and leftists have conspired to abuse legal processes to block it. They are doing so in order to serve the interests of the Democratic Party and the far-left movement. This is the most fundamental challenge to democracy in our lifetimes.”

The only thing Hinderaker missed was including "lifelong republicans" amongst the culprits.; 3/16/17, 11:50 AM
Night Owl said...: "It is very odd to state that "while we have no "real security problem [now], Europe clearly has a significant Muslim problem", and then conclude that people worried about a Muslim problem are the ones distracted by "appearances" and indifferent to reality."

Well said. People see the chaos in Europe due to uncontrolled Muslim immigration and are afraid that it will happen here. Women and gays have every right to fear sharia law, and every right to express their disapproval of having it gain a foothold in their country. It's unfairly dismissive and somewhat sexist and anti-gay to dismiss their concerns, as if these Americans have no right to have their opinions represented in their own govt.; 3/16/17, 11:57 AM
Chuck said...: HoodlumDoodlum said...
I'd ask if you have any thoughts on the issue of standing, Chuck, but since the ruling's against Trump I guess that doesn't matter.

That is a very good question, apart from the fact that I have already spoken to it.

My thought is that it was a huge stretch, for the US district judge in Washington state to have found standing in the first EO case. Althouse posted on that; she questioned the standing issue and I agreed with that overwhelming question. And my thought is that it is a laughable stretch, for Judge Watson to have found standing in this case.

Thanks for asking. It gave me a chance to say what dubious law might be coming out of these cases. There is very little I like about any of these cases. Nothing much good is being articulated or vindicated, and I share none of the sentiments of the district judges in question.

I long for the days of Jay Bybee and John Yoo in the OLC, Don Rumsfeld at Defense, with Dick Cheney as Veep and W. as Prez. Good, clear, hard fights over real threats.; 3/16/17, 1:05 PM
Friedrich Engels' Barber said...: I suppose this speculation is not new, but is Laslo Spatula just a nom de plume for Althouse? Has anyone ever seen them both in the same room at the same time?; 3/16/17, 1:32 PM
Birkel said...: Chuck, so called, says no standing.
Further, Chuck (so called) says, Trump's reckless statements allow judges to find the executive orders unconstitutional because of some divined improper (if constitutional) purpose.

The first assessment negates the second, of course.

So called Chuck does not care.; 3/16/17, 1:44 PM
Todd said...: Friedrich Engels' Barber said...

I suppose this speculation is not new, but is Laslo Spatula just a nom de plume for Althouse? Has anyone ever seen them both in the same room at the same time?

3/16/17, 1:32 PM

Well there is rumored to be a photograph that shows proof positive that Althouse is NOT Lasko Spatula as they are together in it BUT it is also said to be not safe for anyone under the age of 26 to view as well as those with weak hearts. So go searching at your own risk!; 3/16/17, 1:51 PM
David Baker said...: I see the president on the floor, legs up, tail wagging, surrounded by judges rubbing his soft belly.

I voted for a pit-bull, but I got a French poodle.; 3/16/17, 1:59 PM
Drago said...: David Baker: "I see the president on the floor, legs up, tail wagging, surrounded by judges rubbing his soft belly.

I voted for a pit-bull, but I got a French poodle"

So, you would strongly recommend the President do......what specifically?; 3/16/17, 2:02 PM
ccscientist said...: The terrorists by vast vast majority happen to be muslim and happen to be coming from those countries (though a few key countries were left out, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). To claim it is a muslim ban when Indonesia and India are not on the list is just nuts. These judges are saying you can't try to screen immigrants? Oh, that will turn out well.; 3/16/17, 2:04 PM
Chuck said...: Birkel said...
Chuck, so called, says no standing.
Further, Chuck (so called) says, Trump's reckless statements allow judges to find the executive orders unconstitutional because of some divined improper (if constitutional) purpose.

The first assessment negates the second, of course.

So called Chuck does not care.

Don't try that shit on me. I never tried to justify the District Court rulings. I said so specifically. I've said repeatedly that I won't side with the rulings themselves.

I chose a much simpler, and far more indisputable position; that the chief complaint against the EO's at this point was none other than Trump's (and team-Trump's) own idiotic statements about what the ban was for and why and how it was being rolled out. No matter what side you are on, or how you think the issue should be decided, that is a fact.

I don't need to find any legal or logical consistency in the District Court rulings. They aren't my opinions.

You fuckhead.; 3/16/17, 2:11 PM
David Baker said...: @Drago,

"So, you would strongly recommend the President do......what specifically?"

Ignore the order. Stop rolling over.; 3/16/17, 2:18 PM
Todd said...: David Baker said...
@Drago,

"So, you would strongly recommend the President do......what specifically?"

Ignore the order. Stop rolling over.

3/16/17, 2:18 PM

Question for lawyer types, what would the judiciary do, what could they do, if Trump told this judge to pound sand? Where does the Judge's "might" come from other than paper and ink? Trump has the SS, the army, etc. What recourse [really] do any of the judiciary have if POTUS tells them to shove off?; 3/16/17, 2:45 PM
Drago said...: David Baker: "Ignore the order. Stop rolling over"

This was addressed upthread.

That is precisely what the left wants so that they and their "lifelong republican" allies can run with the "Trump is now a dictator just like Putin!" line.

Trump, Kelly and Tillerson have probably already addressed much of this internally but know it's important to win the legal battle, so timing is not quite that critical.

Once Gorsuch is confirmed we can have a bit more confidence that the leftists on the SC won't have the power to continue the lefts/"lifelong republicans" tactic of ignoring the law and simply making it up as they go.

Trump will win that argument and he can wait a few months for that to officially occur. He will then pivot from that and crank it up.; 3/16/17, 2:49 PM
Drago said...: Todd: "Question for lawyer types, what would the judiciary do, what could they do, if Trump told this judge to pound sand?"

The left and "lifelong republicans" would use it to precipitate a larger political "crisis" with their MSM allies.

Not necessary at this time. But I do see a time after an initial SC ruling in Trumps favor where Trump uses that as the foundation for more rulings which, if denied by some crazy downstream leftist/"lifelong republican" judge, Trump would then roll over them since he would already have won on a few of the fundamental questions.; 3/16/17, 2:52 PM
Chuck said...: Todd;

Impeachment of the president becomes a pretty easy call, if said president is in open, flagrant, deliberate, clear contempt of a federal judicial order.

But before we get there; since when do you think that thousands of TSA, ICE, CBP and military officers will "obey" orders from the president when the federal courts have spoken directly?

You Trumpkins are on a very bad trip these days it seems. Contempt of court? Intragovernmental rebellion? Civil war? Is this something that Michael Savage has been talking to you about? Is there an InfoWars special on this or something?; 3/16/17, 2:52 PM
Todd said...: Chuck said...
Todd;

Impeachment of the president becomes a pretty easy call, if said president is in open, flagrant, deliberate, clear contempt of a federal judicial order.

But before we get there; since when do you think that thousands of TSA, ICE, CBP and military officers will "obey" orders from the president when the federal courts have spoken directly?

You Trumpkins are on a very bad trip these days it seems. Contempt of court? Intragovernmental rebellion? Civil war? Is this something that Michael Savage has been talking to you about? Is there an InfoWars special on this or something?

3/16/17, 2:52 PM

If I recall my civics, the judiciary can not initiate impeachment. That must come from congress. So what would/could the judiciary do? That was my question. Especially since Trump is correct on the law, in this case, which is the case in which I raised the question.

Also, you seem to be confused, I think only you would label me a "Trumpkins". Is that the new "Teabagger"?; 3/16/17, 2:57 PM
Chuck said...: Since you all are talking about crazy scenarios, I have another one for you.

Say that the Ninth Circuit hears the Hawaii case. And maybe similar cases from Washington, and California and others.

And say that immigration activists get similar cases going in all of the other circuits.

And with all of this litigation, we (unsurprisingly) get inconsistent rulings from the various circuits.

And the US Supreme Court, cognizant of the conflicts, waits until most of the Circuit Court appeals are played out, to develop all of the relevant records. And only after that agrees to hear it. Say, with briefing in the fall of 2017, oral arguments in 2018, and a ruling in late spring 2018.

A year away. By that time, where the hell is the urgency in any suspension of immigration routes? Why can't our repesentatives "figure out what the hell is going on" by that time? What, then, is the point of any ban? Why can't the "vetting" process get sorted out before then?; 3/16/17, 3:05 PM
Chuck said...: If I recall my civics, the judiciary can not initiate impeachment. That must come from congress. So what would/could the judiciary do? That was my question.

The judiciary would only issue orders. They have very limited ability to order U.S. Marshals to do some things. Traditionally, it has only been in the enforcement of court-procedural stuff. With people who owe money to the court, jurors, court witnesses, etc.

If you don't mind a respectfully-submitted Wikipedia page, you could check out the Marshals' Service page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service; 3/16/17, 3:10 PM
StephenFearby said...: Earmarks of bloggable:

University [of Wisconsin La Crosse] Employee Allegedly Fired For Defending Trump’s Immigration EO

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/university-employee-allegedly-fired-for-defending-trumps-immigration-eo/

[University of Wisconsin La Crosse] Employee Allegedly Fired For Defending Trump Offered Job Back

'The University of Wisconsin La Crosse has offered Kimberly Dearman her job as law enforcement dispatcher back upon receiving advice from its legal staff, as reported by Wisconsin Watchdog. This decision comes three days after the school sent Dearman her termination letter Monday, March 13...

[Precious snowflake] Chancellor Joe Gow of UW La Crosse said that Dearman had been fired for making “racist comments.”...'

'“Like so many of you, the UW leadership team and I are shocked and saddened by President Donald Trump’s order prohibiting refugees and people from certain predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States,” said the administrators in their initial email. “Here at UWL we do not discriminate based on a person’s religion or country of origin, and it is very troubling to see the leader of our country doing exactly that.”

Gow retracted this paragraph in a subsequent email, but stood by the rest of his statement, which had professed commitment to inclusiveness and tolerance.'

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/16/employee-allegedly-fired-for-defending-trump-offered-job-back/; 3/16/17, 3:10 PM
David Baker said...: @Drago,

Interesting and entirely predictable; what I call the French poodle strategy. And in conventional terms, perfectly sound reasoning.

Meanwhile, Trump is getting rolled at every turn (see; Ryan on healthcare, McConnell on taxes, et al). And when it comes to the judiciary, compare his approach to Obama's - who single-handedly turned no less than the chief justice of the United States into his own personal defense attorney. Not by some pussyfooting art-of-the-deal, but by pure, unadulterated intimidation.

Now the courts have declared war on Trump. And Trump has no clue what to do, other than travel the timid, conventional path until they ride him out of office.; 3/16/17, 3:23 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: A year away. By that time, where the hell is the urgency in any suspension of immigration routes? Why can't our repesentatives "figure out what the hell is going on" by that time? What, then, is the point of any ban? Why can't the "vetting" process get sorted out before then?

3/16/17, 3:05 PM

OK, let's try this.

Let's sat Trump leaves office one day. Dies a horrible death such as you would want for him, or is impeached, or defeated, or serves two terms and leaves. Either way.

Now someone you like is elected.

Same tactics are used against your guy - Cruz, Kasich, Pence, Zombie Reagan, whoever.

What will then be your grounds to object? They didn't speak offensively? You know something would be trumped up. Then, because maybe Kasich's barber called some black guy an N-word, President Kasich can't take action against Boko Haram. Won't that be nice?

For the Nth time,

It's. Not. About. Your. Personal. Feelings!; 3/16/17, 3:25 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Blogger David Baker said...

Most efficient response would be to kill some of these people.

You sound like a tough guy, why don't you lend a hand? Like I said, judges are easy meat. This guy lives in Hawaii, probably doesn't even lock his doors.; 3/16/17, 3:27 PM
Birkel said...: So called Chuck wants to use an issue, on an online comments section, that he knows is worthless because it hurts the president.

Chuck, so called, does not care that the courts are crafting new legal rules. Chuck, so called, does not care that the judges are throwing 200 years of precedent overboard. Chuck, so called, wants to talk out of both sides of his mouth and pretend that nobody notices.

So called Chuck is intellectually dishonest. Chuck, so called, is hoping for impeachment. Chuck, so called, does not care about the country. So called Chuck cares about the raw exercise of power in pursuit of his preferences like every other fascist.; 3/16/17, 3:34 PM
Chuck said...: Birkel said...
...
... Chuck, so called, is hoping for impeachment.

Only a really good impeachment. An impeachment on grounds so crystal clear, that even Sean Hannity can't complain about it. Trump, on video, with a live boy or a dead girl. Or a Russian dog, or cat. Or a couple of Russian call girls soiling a bed. You get the idea. You may have ideas of your own. I'll bet you do have ideas of your own. You собаки, you.; 3/16/17, 3:44 PM
Drago said...: It's always amusing when the Moby's forget themselves and completely drop the mask.

All those carefully crafted public positions and "principles" go POOF!; 3/16/17, 3:53 PM
Drago said...: Thanks "lifelong republican"!; 3/16/17, 3:54 PM
Chuck said...: Drago; in fairness, I should add something. If there is video of Trump with a live boy/dead girl/Russian animals, I do hope that Sean Hannity is in it too. NTTAWWT.; 3/16/17, 3:58 PM
damikesc said...: I may have to plead guilty, sir. It seems like a kind of righteous fetish to me. There are many worse fetishes, yes? I don't know much about fetishes.

Name one instance where an apology helped, at all, politically.; 3/16/17, 4:02 PM
Drago said...: Poor Chuck. That Maddow fail is clearly causing extraordinary mental anguish for the Dems/"lifelong republicans".

He has regressed all the way back to the fake dossier.

Any port in a storm for Chuck and his lefty pals.; 3/16/17, 4:05 PM
Drago said...: It has to be hard enough on Chuck that he has once again beclowned himself. But to have his beloved Rachel Maddow be the trigger for his sad breakdown?

Well, that just doesn't seem fair.; 3/16/17, 4:12 PM
Chuck said...: I think I should probably make it clear for you, Drago. I am trolling you. And I thank you for playing. I have to get my shots in today because tomorrow Michigan plays Okie State and I'll be tied up.; 3/16/17, 4:12 PM
Birkel said...: So called Chuck admits he wants to exercise raw power, by agreeing that he wants impeachment.

Did you ever figure how defamation of anonymous internet commenters would be sustained?; 3/16/17, 4:13 PM
khesanh0802 said...: Ignore Chuck. He's not worth the exasperation.

These EO's will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. We will have our answer then about the president's security powers. Until then there will be very few people coming from the designated countries. Because who controls the visa process? Trump does.

BTW ICE picked up 26 illegals in Mn this week targeting "immigrants with criminal convictions, previous deportations and pending deportation orders." Very little "to-do'. One commenter said this was nothing different from the occasional Obama administration sweep.; 3/16/17, 4:17 PM
damikesc said...: Amazing, how the Trumpkins take narrow arguments about litigation defense, and turn them into allegations that people like me want open borders, the establishment of sharia law, and the destruction of American culture. All at the same time that they talk about the destruction -- perhaps the forcible destruction -- of the entire federal judiciary.

Again, what courts overturned a single Obama regulation impacting coal based on his comments while campaigning?

The courts are acting illegally. I feel no need to respect a court that is acting illegally. I hope Trump tells them to go fuck themselves.

Destruction of the entire LEGAL PROFESSION is hardly a negative in my eyes.

Bare minimum: The ability of district courts to ban a law nationally needs to be ended immediately.

You slackjawed yokels need to understand; you are not getting any Muslim ban. That was never going to happen. Trump could never deliver on that. And he is not going to deliver on that. This new EO is not a Muslim ban. Precisely because a Muslim ban could never be defended in court.

There's WAY more of us than there are members of the legal profession. If you wish to substitute law for your impression of law, there are OTHER means to deal with it. And the other means won't be nice or friendly...but it's what you wanted. C'est la vie.

We're trying to warn you of what your behavior and actions will lead to. You don't wish to listen or learn. That's fine.

You're trying to play an elite, superior card when you don't have one in your deck any longer. We don't care about niceties and we will honor the agreement we made as citizens only as long as the government does so. If the courts choose to act illegally, well, the means to resolve that will be a bitch.

Impeachment of the president becomes a pretty easy call, if said president is in open, flagrant, deliberate, clear contempt of a federal judicial order.

Grand. And we'll view it as a coup d'etat.

But before we get there; since when do you think that thousands of TSA, ICE, CBP and military officers will "obey" orders from the president when the federal courts have spoken directly?

Trump can always decide to stop giving visas to ANYBODY. Period.

And the US Supreme Court, cognizant of the conflicts, waits until most of the Circuit Court appeals are played out, to develop all of the relevant records. And only after that agrees to hear it. Say, with briefing in the fall of 2017, oral arguments in 2018, and a ruling in late spring 2018.

A year away. By that time, where the hell is the urgency in any suspension of immigration routes? Why can't our repesentatives "figure out what the hell is going on" by that time? What, then, is the point of any ban? Why can't the "vetting" process get sorted out before then?

Because COURTS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER THEY ARE CLAIMING HERE.

Once that is decided, then, a permanent ban. Period.

You're advocating that a President doesn't have the power he has and, in an emergency, cannot act for over a year because progressives activists and judges don't want it. Fuck them.

As I said a while ago, I have no issue with an armed insurrection. But if we can get CA to vote to leave and take the PNW with them, a lot of problems are resolved.; 3/16/17, 4:17 PM
Drago said...: Chuck, by definition, Moby's are Trolls.

You have been "trolling" since day 1.

Unfortunately for you, your sad attempt at "hey, I meant that" comes far too late in the game and long after your usefulness in that role has been hopelessly compromised.

Tsk tsk.; 3/16/17, 4:20 PM
Drago said...: Khesan: "These EO's will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. We will have our answer then about the president's security powers. Until then there will be very few people coming from the designated countries. Because who controls the visa process? Trump does."

Yep.

As addressed up thread there is no hurry here.; 3/16/17, 4:21 PM
Birkel said...: Go Buck Eyes. Make so called Chuck sad, please.; 3/16/17, 4:25 PM
Chuck said...: Birkel said...
Go Buck Eyes. Make so called Chuck sad, please.

Cowboys. Oklahoma State.

Ohio State's basketball season is over.; 3/16/17, 4:40 PM
Birkel said...: So, go Oklahoma State. Make so called Michigan fans cry.; 3/16/17, 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Bad Lieutenant: Let's sat Trump leaves office one day. Dies a horrible death such as you would want for him, or is impeached, or defeated, or serves two terms and leaves. Either way.

Now someone you like is elected.

Same tactics are used against your guy - Cruz, Kasich, Pence, Zombie Reagan, whoever.

What will then be your grounds to object? They didn't speak offensively? You know something would be trumped up. Then, because maybe Kasich's barber called some black guy an N-word, President Kasich can't take action against Boko Haram. Won't that be nice?

For the Nth time,

It's. Not. About. Your. Personal. Feelings!

But it is absolutely about his personal feelings, and why should that be a problem in a post-law, "one rule for us and another for them" society? After all, it's been working out just fine for the shitlibs lo these many decades. It's already who, whom all the way down now, and Chuck will have no problem and feel no shame arguing against tomorrow what he is so vociferously defending today. (Though he will no doubt still be able to put up a wall of bullshit attempting to convince you that he is doing no such thing.)

You see, Bad L, Chuck is a cargo-cultist of the law. For him, the traditional processes and procedures of our legal system are not there as a vehicle for the efficient administration of a society's coherent system of justice, the practical tools of an institution that gains its meaning in the context of a larger culture. No, they are ends in themselves, which are now and then appropriated and re-purposed to serve personal or partisan ends, and then returned to their ritual function.

As long as the physical forms are observed, the law is "working". That contemporary judges have succeeded in destroying the integrity and credibility of the American judiciary is neither here nor there. Lawyers still argue, judges still judge, journals and archives continue to fill up with deep thoughts on decisions and precedents and legal theory, and Chuck gets up in the morning and goes about physically doing whatever it is he does in the "legal system". That a cabal of capricious Humpty Dumpties rule therein is not any kind of threat to the continued existence of the "federal judiciary", because the "federal judiciary" is no longer anything but the observance of these rituals in the service of whoever controls them.

At this point, to a priest of the cult, from where a judge derives his opinions (a constitution, precedent, his butt) is not a matter of importance. The important thing is that the judge-oracle be approached according to the correct ritual.; 3/16/17, 5:22 PM