July 19, 2017
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily allowed the Trump administration to enforce restrictions on the nation’s refugee program..."
"... but it let stand a court order from Hawaii that grandparents and other relatives who want to travel to the United States to visit family must be admitted while the case proceeds on appeal," the NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
67 comments:
We don't want you to know what the law is because that makes us important.
We don't want you to know what the law is because that makes us important.
Punctuation, or something, lacking here.
Compromise: the genius of Constitutional balance of powers.
...what am I missing here?...
"Hagar @2:03pm"
Address the substance of his comment! Stop trying to be cute as the 'Grammar Policeman'.
So, it will be a [class] diversity judgment based on the degrees of consanguinity.
It seems that a rational and principled alternative would be to offer priority placement for family, but would not preclude or reduce increased scrutiny when there is evidence of character alignment by individual, or social (e.g. community) and geographical proximity, or local incompetence or resistance to verify emigrant status.
That said, rather than force catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform to coverup the collateral damage from social justice adventures, to create democratic leverage (e.g. gerrymandered districts), for redistributive change (e.g. welfare profits), and other purposes, why not colonize these unstable nations and share resources?
The Chinese have done this in Africa to great success. It may also be a reason why they ended their "Pro-Choice"-like policy of denying lives deemed unworthy in their own nation. So, they managed to reduce Planned Parenthood, stabilize foreign populations, make capital investments, open or expand new markets, and receive exclusive access to natural resources. Win, Win.
We, don't want you, to know what. The law is, because that makes us. Important.
( I couldn't help it)
Hagar: I think that rhhardin wrote exactly what he meant at 1:51pm. Over the years of reading Ann's blog and rhhardin's commentary, I've concluded that Mr. Hardin thinks....."differently"..... that 99% of the other commenters. I believe that most people write just as they think (not as they talk) and after a while a discerning reader might be able to determine how a particular commenter will express their thoughts in regards to a particular topic of discussion. Call it a "style" of writing. But the style of rhhardin is exceptionally tough to predict. In fact, he's almost always unpredictable in his written expressions. I enjoy his writing immensely as it keeps me guessing, "what will he say next?!" Don't forget also that rhhardin is a favorite of Ann and Meade. The "vectors" of their thinking and writing are as different and unpredictable as rhhardin.
I guess the Trump administration didn't count the number of grandparents on the Court.
We don't want you to. Know what the law is. Because that makes us important.
Hagar said...
Punctuation, or something, lacking here.
AFAIK, the Hawaiian philosopher-king invoked "common sense" in redefining the meaning of "close family relationships", rather than referring to some boring old laws, so what's lacking is the rule of law, not the rule of punctuation.
Precisely why a broad moratorium on all immigration (with few minor exceptions) is a much more preferable tactic than a temporary ban on residents of certain countries.
other relatives
Do first cousins count? What percentage of the worlds population has at least a first cousin living in America? I'm guessing it's gotta be more than 50%. So it's a travel-ban-in-name-only (TBINO).
Other relatives includes cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, and in-laws. In the Middle East, where first cousin marriages are extremely common (as high as 50%) and polygamy fairly widespread, we're are essentially talking about whole clans. Here is hbdchick's go to blog post on the subject: https://goo.gl/q18ekk
I don't think the Supreme Court knows much about clans in Middle Eastern societies. In fact a few years ago I read about Supreme Court clerks seriously considering whether polygamy might ought to be legally acceptable? I find such naivete distressing.
What percentage of the worlds population has at least a first cousin living in America? I'm guessing it's gotta be more than 50%.
I can't imagine it would be anywhere near that number. 3.5 billion people have first cousins in America?
“ ... temporarily ...”
He gets to keep his name on the tower for one more day.
The Bin Laden Family thanks you.
I've lost track. Are they fighting over the temporary travel ban exe. order or the new vetting procedures that were promised? The point of the original ban was to keep bad people from sneaking in before new (presumably better) procedures could be implemented, so its effectiveness is kaput.
The reporting I've seen has been the usual horserace crap.
I think the Supreme Court just wanted to allow the 9th Circuit the chance to get it right. I think they gave a strong hint how the Supreme Court would rule on the question of the stay should the 9th uphold the lower court's application of the Supreme Court's order in this case. The Court didn't need to point out that three of the Justices would have stayed the lower court's order in its entirety. There's little doubt there are at least two more votes to stay the lower court should the 9th Circuit not take the hint.
I fail to find a problem with rhhardin's sentence. Other than a comma before "because", any added punctuation would undermine a clear statement.
The Bin Laden Family thanks you.
They may be good people, but because of institutional [class] diversity, they too will be judged by the "color of their skin", rather than the content of their character.
Speaking of color, where does brown fit on a rainbow spectrum?
White is rarefied and redistributed by its constituent colors, and black is simply excluded. Brown, similarly.
Oh, well. Pro-Choice.
I had no idea, the guy who drafted, the Second Amendment, was still around.
We are all members of one big family, the Family of Man.
That was predictable, wasn't it? The Court says family and Trump interprets that as nuclear family and the Court says no we meant family.
I think the Supreme Court has tipped its hand enough that we now know that these cases will ultimately turn on the reverse of the right to travel, a right to be visited. It's not going to be an absolute right, just a right to be visited without religious discrimination as to the relatives of the U.S. person being visited.
In other words, Syrian Uncle has no right to travel to the U.S., but U.S. nephew has the right to get him admitted for a visit.
Left Bank,
The Tsarnaev Brothers have uncles. Perhaps we'll get another decent movie if their uncle travels on their posthumous right to be visited. I hope you are there for the action sequences when the Tsarnaev Brothers' uncle scouts locations. For the movie, you see.
Just for the record, can you find the right to be visited in the law, please? I'm interested in finding a precise citation.
can't imagine it would be anywhere near that number. 3.5 billion people have first cousins in America?
Actually it's an interesting question. Assuming there's 330ish million people in the USA at the moment, and the USA is at or near the top of places people want to migrate to, it might not be 50% but it's probably higher than one may initially think.
At any rate, I would guess that in many of the countries in question it could certainly approach 50% or higher.
My first reaction was, who is "us"? The Supremes or the lower court judges who have chimed in?
Then Ralph L. said he had lost track of what, if anything, this was all about, and I think that is another valid comment.
If the Supremes wished to be "important," I think they should have told the district judges to sit down and shut up to start with. It is not their place to review the details of US foreign policy.
But if the Supremes think that it is the business of the 700-odd district judges to do so, then at least they should make it clear what the issues are and to what extent these lower courts have jurisdiction.
(And I fully agree I am in no position to criticize anyone for grammar or punctuation, never having learned grammar and being quite confused between American and European as well as modern and 19th century punctuation practices)
I don't understand how the courts get to decide who is allowed a visa and who isn't. Those are the kinds of negotiations that take place in the legislature not the court - I thought. As a thankful, non-lawyer it seems to me that the executive is allowed to restrict travel visas, according to guidelines set out by Congress, or it isn't. It seems entirely inappropriate to me for any court to be deciding which categories can or can't be included once it has confirmed the executive has the power to make that decision.
C'mon, Ann, help me out!
I think I have read that Osama bin Laden was the 50th-some child of bin Laden Sr., and I am not sure they count the girls in Saudi Arabia.
gbarto said...
I fail to find a problem with rhhardin's sentence.
I agree.
"Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Court’s order affords no protection to distant
family members, such as second-cousins and great-aunts."
That quote is from Hawaii's response to the administration's appeal of Judge Watson's injunction. I searched his opinion and found no reference to degree of cousinship. The lack of precision is odd.
To follow up on the above the WSJ says: "Court rulings so far on Mr. Trump’s travel restrictions haven’t been final decisions on whether they are legal. Judges instead have been considering whether the ban could go into effect while the litigation continued on the underlying merits of the executive order." Which I guess is why the bouncing around on "family". Taking that into consideration, the rest of my questions stands.
We don't want you to know what the law is because that makes us important.
The law is the will of the elite, which is why every society will eventually collapse into barbarism.
Of course, the whole charade is a form of arbitrary judicial tyranny. They are all fabricating stuff as they go along. The rule of law in the US means: whatever.
Anarchy in the law does not make anyone important.
Quite to the conntrary.
Isn't this sort of continual litigation exactly what Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito predicted?
Good God, we need two more like Gorsuch to replace RBG and Kennedy, and quick.
After redefining who is and who is not a human being and what is marriage, the Supremes rightly observe that they can push their will on the rest of us with little consequence to them.
Another aspect of these cases is the academic angle:
"The Ninth Circuit concluded that §2(c) would harm the State [Hawaii] by preventing students from the designated nations who had been admitted to the University of Hawaii from entering this country."
Isn't that a right to scholar? Hawaii is being harmed by not being allowed to teach the Syrian student it has admitted to its University. And the same right would apply to a Harvard or Yale, not just state schools.
grab family by the pussy
The "technology we've got in this country today" is unlikely to solve the problem of judicial overreach. Technology can't even keep a stupid and persistent troll off a website where she's been repeatedly and emphatically banned.
Book of Knowledge 1698: A child born on Friday, shall be of a strong constitution, but very lecherous, and if it be a female, is in great danger of turning whore.
Put that in your wallet or purse.
When the courts go to meddling in politics, the judges will be seen as another form of politicians and respected accordingly.
"other relatives who want to travel to the United States to visit family"
Visit? Watch how narrowly the Trump administration can interpret that. Yes but no.
Luke Lea said...
I don't think the Supreme Court knows much about clans in Middle Eastern societies. In fact a few years ago I read about Supreme Court clerks seriously considering whether polygamy might ought to be legally acceptable?
Of course there's serious consideration about legalizing polygamy. And the reasoning behind SSM is going to be the reasoning behind the legalization of polygamy. Although we were all told one wouldn't lead to the other.
Chain migration has destroyed Britain. The traditional English are self segregating to southeast England or, for the lower middle classes, to France where depopulation has left villages with plenty of affordable housing,
This has created havoc with the French health care system as the English retirees are registering for the health system without ever having paid into it. They are enrolling in that portion allocated to the poor.
They steadfastly refuse to go back to Cookie's NHS.
I would suggest a small addendum to the ruling. The cousins and aunts and uncles should be allowed to visit but only to Hawaii and not permitted to go anywhere else.
Or at least to "full-blooded" siblings and aunts and uncles. The number of "half-blooded" relatives in the bin Laden family, f. ex., is staggering.
and the bin Ladens themselves could not possibly know what they all are up to.
"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 be they immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate."
The clear meaning of this law is that any federal judge can decide who can enter the country, not the President. The obvious references to grandparents as an exempted class is right there for all to see, next to the part where it says the President's reasons for the suspension have to be pure of heart and not objectionable at all.
Any idiot can clearly see that. Some idiots already have.
@Dan: That is what I had in mind when referring to judicial tyranny and fabrication and the rule of whatever.
What does the actual law have to do with anything, DanTheMan? Haven't you heard about the judicial precedent of feelings?
/s
I hope Trump gets re elected and then learns to tell the courts to pound sand.
>>What does the actual law have to do with anything, DanTheMan? Haven't you heard about the judicial precedent of feelings?
That's my point exactly, Fabi. Only low-brow trigger-pumping flag waving right wing morons can't see the obvious references to feelings right there in the law.
That's why it falls on judges and law professors to tell us what all those big words really mean.
"Of course, the whole charade is a form of arbitrary judicial tyranny. They are all fabricating stuff as they go along. The rule of law in the US means: whatever."
That's certainly how it appears to this layperson. Judges and courts seem more and more to think themselves superheros to be called upon to fight for their view of truth, justice, and the American Way rather than officers tasked to interpret written law when conflicts arise. Vigilanteism not law.
I was hoping that the Court would slap down the idiot with the phrase "what do you not get about the word 'Supreme'?" transcribed into legalese. Do they realize that they've opened themselves up for second guessing? Probably don't se enough chess moves ahead.
Thomas' opinion last time around said the following:
"Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt—whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed “simply to avoid §2(c)” of Executive Order No. 13780. And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now— unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected." (citations omitted)
I wonder if Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are shaking their heads and mutter "f-ing told you so, dummies"
That's some funny shit, DanTheMan!
All these folks attacking judicial activism who no doubt excoriated CJ Roberts over upholding Affordable Care Act.
readering:
Do you mean when Justice Roberts rewrote the law to preserve some but not all parts of the Obama Insurance Act?
Yes, we were displeased at that act of judicial overreach as well.
Consistency is hard to see when power is your only goal.
Facts don't change. The Law remains the same.
Yet, every judge in the country will issue a different ruling, based on those same facts and law.
To compound the matter, they rely on previous "rulings" to justify their actions.
Yet, they are not to be questioned.
Lifetime appointments, able to over-rule every other branch of government.
Quite the racket.
"All these folks attacking judicial activism who no doubt excoriated CJ Roberts over upholding Affordable Care Act."
No, just his amendments. I wondered what Obama had on him.
On version had it was something about his adopted kids.
Of course there's serious consideration about legalizing polygamy. And the reasoning behind SSM is going to be the reasoning behind the legalization of polygamy.
We’ve seen this argument before. It’s not a bad point to make. Hell frequently comes through the door with baby-steps. History is chock full of slippery slopes. But I try to put myself in the frame of mind illustrated by the comment. I try as hard as I can to imagine the SCOTUS legalizing polygamy. I just cannot get there.
I can see the Court striking down blue-nose laws that might restrict a group of people from cohabiting if they want to. I believe people should be free to do that if they wish. Communes were common in the flower-power sixties. None lasted – it seems the communal system, which is an ancient system, is impractical in the modern world.
But to legally institutionalize polygamy as officially sanctioned marriage? I can’t imagine it, not with the present SCOTUS.
Then I take another imaginative excursion and imagine a Hillary appointed Court and I can imagine polygamy legalized without much effort at all.
It's.not just Kennedy, it's Roberts too. What dirt do they have on Roberts?
>>What dirt do they have on Roberts?
Ask Pastraeus. He's been on the receiving end of that game...
Khesanh 0802 @ 3:00 PM,
I don't think it's you that's lacking understanding, it's the courts. Damn them for further squandering their legitimacy... when it's gone how do they imagine they'll ever get it back?
AlbertAnonymous
"Good God, we need two more like Gorsuch to replace RBG and Kennedy, and quick."
Got any pillows?
To get to polygamy do we need a polyamorous public persona first?
Or if we get there, then do away with ' official' marriage altogether and leave it as contract which it is and should be
"I would suggest a small addendum to the ruling. The cousins and aunts and uncles should be allowed to visit but only to Hawaii and not permitted to go anywhere else."
Heh. Let them eat pineapple upside-down cake.
Post a Comment