Saturday, February 4, 2017

The System Works

I really love our incredibly frustrating system of checks, balances and gridlock.

Now the question is what will the POTUS do now, double down on his dumbest act so far or start listening to the State department experts and the business leaders?  Thoughts?

CNN Judge Blocks Travel Ban
CNN Facts Still Matter


29 comments:

John said...

By the way, you really have to read that Facts Matter article. It is fascinating and scary.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to imagine Trump deferring to others. It's not what he does.

--Hiram

John said...

I am sure it will be hard for him to get used to it.

Apparently the wall is getting harder to sell.

Laurie Wagner said...

I believe 60,000 people have had their visas revoked for no good reason and are still unable to travel and return to this country. The system doesn't work that great. The ruling is a very small, and perhaps temporary victory or our so called president.

John said...

Apparently half the population thinks there was a good reason... I mean look at all the people who are supporting the pause... Jerry for one.

But I would think you would just be happy that the system stalled Trump's order...

John said...

CNN DOJ Appeals

John said...

CNN Trumps Bone Chilling Tweet

I am so hoping the Appeals court supports the lower court's ruling!!! For many reasons !!!

Anonymous said...

American law has a hard time thinking of people in groups. Any order like Trump's banning of individuals from specific countries is just sort of going to be rejected. There will be a lot of legal rationalizing of the decision, but really the reaction is more visceral. America just isn't like that.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but when you rely on CNN for "facts" you are relying on the roulette wheel to always land on double-zero. It's just not likely that, in the whole context of an issue especially, CNN will report reliable information, and such is the case here. It is in fact the case that, worldwide, Islamic Terrorists have killed vastly more people than American (even including Canadian) right-wing extremists have. When you start your reckoning AFTER 9/11, you are already, as Prof. Harold Hill says, "closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge." I simply do not understand why, with the clear evidence of Islamic attacks in Europe and ISIS' CLEARLY STATED intention to "infiltrate the refugee population," that we would want to HELP them be successful at killing us. Because we have been mildly effective so far does NOT mean that more should not be done. It appears to me that this court ruling is a danger to national security, allowing 60,000 people with existing visas (tourist, business, relatives, terrorists, etc.) to come in with insufficient vetting. Add a bit of extra vetting and let them come in, I say, and THEN close the gates while we think up something more prophylactic.

And Hiram, when we suggest vetting it is of individuals within groups, while the judge has ruled for treating every individual in that group the same.

John said...

Jerry,
Of course we ignore 9/11 in the data set. It is an outlier and a huge number of changes have been implemented to US security since it happened.

And if Trump wanted to base his decision on 16 year old data... He would have made sure Saudi Arabia was on the list.

As for Europe, talking about false equivalency. They have tons of illegal refugee crossings occurring in comparison to the USA. The refugees headed to the USA by comparison have been studied for more than a year by multiple experts.

Now if you were concerned about terrorists running across our Southern border... Then you would have a good point, but Trump's silly order would not stop that.

John said...

And if you don't like the CNN facts. Please provide some alternative facts for our review.

These statement seem incredibly unproven by the Right... Kind of like millions of illegal voters...

"we have been mildly effective so far"
"with insufficient vetting"

Doesn't it scare you in the least that Trump is using the same tactic as the Nazis?
HP Lugenpresse was a term most famously used by Adolf Hitler Apparently it means "Lying Press".

John said...

I mean Trump and his aides have stated dozens of lies and/or things that are just plain old not factual. (ie inauguration crowd size, bowling green attack, etc)So they either have bad intent or they are really incompetent.

And then Trump like Hitler accuses the free press of lying or making fake news. Even attacking the NY times, one of the USA's most prestigious news sources. There should be a little bell in your head ringing a warning tone by now.

jerrye92002 said...

First off, it isn't Trump's list, it's Obama's.

Second, you are correct it is not correct to compare Europe and the US, because we have an ocean protecting us. However, that is the only thing we have going for us. The "pool" of potential migrants is the same for the EU as for us, it's just that we have, supposedly, an easier way of stopping them and we should exercise it.

You are the one insisting we have been mildly effective, because we haven't (or have we?) had a high-profile immigrant turn terrorist... yet ... that we know about. And if you think the vetting is sufficient, well, I suppose you think we have adequate checks to prevent voter fraud, too.

I will make the same offer as before. We can let all of these folks (from the seven countries) in, under whatever vetting rules are currently in use, on one condition: they are going to live at your house or in your neighborhood.

John said...

I am fine with them living in my neighborhood... I am not a big chicken...

I am much much much more like to die riding my snowmobile than I am because a refugee turns terrorist. Or deer hunting. Or almost during any of my hobbies.

How did all the gun toting and loving Conservatives become so fearful

John said...

CNN Strike 2 Appeals Court Denies Emergency Request

jerrye92002 said...

Technically it was a 2-judge review from the court. CNN obviously lied.

So let me ask: If you are not afraid of terrorists because you consider it unlikely to affect you, what level of terrorist-created death are you willing to inflict on somebody else? Is there an acceptable level of terrorist violence? You seem very concerned that we must "do something" for the essentially non-existent problem of global warming. Shouldn't we be equally concerned with something considerably more likely, like terrorism? Especially if it can actually be prevented?

Speaking of odds, I know people that get on airplanes all the time, knowing they occasionally crash, and saying "it won't be me." People get into cars every day, knowing the odds of death or injury are many times higher than for planes, saying, "it won't be me." But how many people every day buy a lottery ticket and insist, against odds higher than for either, "This is gonna be me"? Wishing the odds were different does not change them one bit.

John said...

What is your source? This article also says it is a 3 justice panel.

LA Times 9th Agrees to Rule Quickly

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined early Sunday to immediately block an order from a federal judge in Washington that halted the travel ban.

Instead, the panel established a rapid schedule for written arguments.

A brief from the two states that challenged the ban will be due at 1 a.m. Pacific time Monday and the administration’s response at 3 p.m. A panel ruling could come anytime after that — most likely within a week, experts said.

In the meantime, the judges probably are already doing legal research on the issues.

The three judges who happen to be sitting on the 9th Circuit’s motions panel this month and who will rule on the case are William Canby Jr., a President Carter appointee; Richard Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush; and Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by President Obama.

Clifton is considered moderately conservative and the two Democrats are viewed as moderately liberal. The 9th Circuit is broadly viewed as the most liberal federal appeals court.

The panel’s decision will not determine whether Trump's order is constitutional. The court will decide whether an emergency hold should remain in force against the order until the constitutional issues are decided.

If the court decides to continue to block the ban, travelers who already have visas may continue to enter the U.S.

In issuing a temporary restraining order against Trump's directive, the federal court in Washington state determined the states that challenged the ban would suffer immediate and irreparable harm in employment, business, education, familial relations and freedom to travel.

Some legal experts have described the dispute as uncharted, both in the legal sense and in the extraordinary scope of the travel ban.

If Trump loses, he could immediately go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who handles matters from the 9th Circuit, would probably ask the other justices to weigh in.

The Supreme Court could issue a decision immediately, though it normally asks for written arguments. If the court were to tie 4-4 — the Senate has not yet confirmed Trump’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia — the 9th Circuit decision would prevail.

The case before the 9th Circuit stems from a challenge by the state of Washington, which Minnesota quickly joined. The states argued the ban would harm their economies and colleges."

John said...

Were you talking about this quote?

"Since the federal appeals court rejected a request to immediately reinstate the travel ban, lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have until 3:59 a.m. ET Monday to file legal papers, and the Justice Department lawyers have until 6 p.m. ET Monday evening to reply.
The 9th Circuit extended the filing deadline for one hour because of computer system maintenance.

Then a three-judge panel will decide whether to schedule a hearing or issue a ruling."

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, it says "the federal appeals court rejected..." It was not the full court, or even a 3-judge panel, as is usual for a preliminary ruling. And "the court" has not issued a ruling one way or the other. CNN lied.

John said...

Cherry picking / taking out of context are we? Here is all they said. Now what is inaccurate about this? You are correct that the court has not issued a ruling, however the "court" following whatever is their normal process agreed to not reinstate the ban immediately.

"A federal appeals court early Sunday morning denied the US government's emergency request to resume President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makes its final decision after a federal judge halted the program on Friday.

What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart, who suspended the ban, will remain in place -- for now."

"Since the federal appeals court rejected a request to immediately reinstate the travel ban, lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have until 3:59 a.m. ET Monday to file legal papers, and the Justice Department lawyers have until 6 p.m. ET Monday evening to reply."

John said...

I am assuming that you would have liked CNN to say. 2 of the 3 Judges reviewed the emergency request, and based on their initial opinions and a lack of legal arguments from both sides decided to reject the emergency over ride request. Therefore the Court officially rejected the emergency request and created a plan to expedite a hearing...

Is that the kind of detail you think they should have added?

I am not sure I consider the omission of info regarding the internal working of the court as lying. Otherwise every time a law was passed by Congress we would need to report on the vote tally. Really?

I mean if 2 of the 3 judges have the authority in this case. They are the court...

Anonymous said...

Here is the deal. American courts have a hard time in thinking in groups. It's why they can't figure out why black children shouldn't be forced to go to racially exclusive schools. It' why they have such a difficult time with affirmative action.

Trump is a racist, and as a racist he is very comfortable with thinking about people in groups. He is also a narcissistic sociopath, and as such he has an inability to think and be sensitive to the interests and concerns of individuals. While these qualities do appeal to much of the electorate, thankfully most people reject them, something of which our nation can be proud, even at this late stage. But that aside, we are dealing with the reality that much of what Trump believes is contrary to our law, and what our nation stands for. It is indeed possible, that Trump will prevail in federal courts. But it won't be easy. The principles of American law are very deeply embedded in members of the federal judiciary, and Donald Trump is not the sort of guy one wants to be associated with in rejecting those principles.

--Hiram

John said...

Now I agree that Trump is a narcissist, a liar, a loud mouth and a bully.

However a sociopath and racist seem a stretch. Evidence?

Anonymous said...

Trump attacked a judge who ruled against him based on his ethnic heritage.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

How about "Federal District Court judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order against Trump's Travel Executive Order." Completely accurate. Saying otherwise is knowingly deceptive and therefore a lie.

John said...

Actually the above article was mostly about the Appeals court action. And they did say

"What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart, who suspended the ban, will remain in place -- for now."

"Robart, a Bush appointee sitting in the Western District of Washington, ruled Friday that the states that filed the lawsuit "have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the executive order.

Robart explained that Trump's executive order adversely affects "residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.""

And this one says

"The enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order halting the admission of refugees to the United States came to a grinding halt this weekend after a federal judge in Washington state issued a temporary restraining order. The judge's ruling, which the President soon condemned on Twitter, raises more questions than it answers.

The state of Washington argued before Judge James Robart that the restraining order should be issued to stop any harm while it pursues its case."

So I must be where they lied in any way.

jerrye92002 said...

The last article is better, but they can't help throwing in there that Robart is "a Bush appointee," as if that mattered somehow. The decision itself is ridiculous, just as Trump said, because there is no one with "standing" (i.e. was harmed) in the case, because the law is entirely clear and in the administration's favor, and there ARE no constitutional issues, since foreign citizens are not entitled to US rights. Better, but only in that it is less misleading than the first.

John said...

We will find out what the Appeals Court has to say...

And of course it is important that they note it was a Bush appointee. Otherwise folks like yourself will blame it on those darn Liberal judges...

And I am thinking there were many citizens who were waiting for their child or spouse to come join them in America. And then that silly Trump guy pulled the rug out for no good reason. I am thinking that is pretty good standing. Not to mention all the businesses that were waiting for their professional employee, consultant, Professor, etc.

Yep... I don't finding people with standing will be a problem.

John said...

An interesting and timely example.