The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Jan 26, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Having a little trouble reading? Christians do think the Pope is an important religious leader; Republicans do not. Republicans no longer represent Christianity or Christian ideals.
    And you think the Pope was behind the child molestation scandal?
    Correct. They should do it of their own accord. A Christian nation would welcome refugees with open arms. A Christian nation would make sure no one went hungry. A Christian nation would not build walls to keep the needy out; they would build bridges to welcome them. A Christian nation would embrace the differences amongst people rather than sow hate and fear for those who are different. A Chrisitian nation would see wealth as a tool to help others, not as something to be hoarded, jealously guarded and built upon.

    All of which is diametrically opposed to modern Republican dogma.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    That's in part because it seems Modern Republican Dogma is "how much can I siphon from these suckers before I lose the job... hmm...."
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    actually, that is the modern political dogma... not just R's

    LMFAO

    EDIT: offered IMHO
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I believe that there are still some politicians who want to make the country better overall, and aren't in it for purely personal gain. Not many, but some.

    Right now, though, I have to say that the vast majority of Senate Republicans are NOT among that group... especially the ones who decided to confirm DeVos and have received hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in campaign contributions from her family.
     
  8. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    i agree... but they are so few and far between, IMHO
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Huh? The original question is: "If all are willing and satisfied, why should a polyamorous relationship be prohibited."

    You did not respond. You merely repeated the original statement in different words.

    When someone asks why something should be illegal, "it is against the law" is not an answer. It's simply a restatement of the original statement.

    The question we're discussing is, regardless of the wording, "Why should polygamy be illegal?" You did not answer the question. All you did was point out the fact that it already is illegal. You haven't explained WHY you think it should be illegal.

    And perhaps you don't realize that polygamy actually IS LEGAL in several countries. Even right here in the USA, there are Mormons with polygamous families, who work very hard to avoid discovery by the authorities.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    With the greener pasturage of the much missed Bachmann, the entire Minnesota contingent to Congress - Republicans and Blue Dogs included, although to a visibly lesser extent - seems more or less free of personal venality, at least to that degree. Probably that is true of many places.

    Having to draw big donations to win election is not necessarily personal greed. And that is the greater evil of it, imho - that we have set up the corruption of all, not the personally flawed alone. Al Franken obviously isn't in it for the money and the dental plan - but he has to attract big donors, nevertheless. Likewise Tim Walz, a couple of others.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I'm sure I did respond to the question why should a polyamorous relationship be prohibited which was asked in a slightly different fashion why should it be illegal

    My answer was there is no reason why it should be illegal

    On a personal level I have no interest in what happens between as you put it If all are willing

    I suspect there is a wowser element on the illegal side and a hedonism aspect to the free for all side

    What ever ties your shoelaces

    And now I have

    I don't

    Again on a personal level I don't care

    I am well aware

    Again don't care

    Again well aware

    And again again don't care

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    IMO there is little doubt he will, due to his NPD, inevitably call the powers of the Judiciary into serious question by doing something like writing another order that has the same effect deliberately attempting to circumvent and defy the judiciary and due process.
    I truly do hope he does, as it is only then that people will see him for what he really is...

    Will Trump issue a now illegal executive order, to replace the suspended order?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2017
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I was reporting on this elsewhere.

    This appeal is publicly available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860

    It's on PACER, but Appellate Courts not well-supported at the best of times. It's marked FOR PUBLICATION , It's marked PER CURIUM . And it happens to be the unanimous decision of the 3-judge panel. Now freely available at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

    Here are some highlights and snark.

    Page 3: “Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” Win for the States, but we knew that already. I will highlight excerpts which are meaningfully different than just "Win for the States"

    Page 7: “We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction.” Win for the WH

    Page 9: “At this very preliminary stage of the litigation, the States may rely on the allegations in their Complaint and whatever other evidence they submitted in support of their TRO motion to meet their burden.” Win for the States

    Pages 10-11: “Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the Executive Order.” Win for the States

    Footnote, Page 12: “The Government argues that the States may not bring Establishment Clause claims because they lack Establishment Clause rights. Even if we assume that States lack such rights, an issue we need not decide, that is irrelevant in this case because the States are asserting the rights of their students and professors.” Win for the States

    Footnote, Page 13: “The States have asserted other proprietary interests and also presented an alternative standing theory based on their ability to advance the interests of their citizens as parens patriae. Because we conclude that the States’ proprietary interests as operators of their public universities are sufficient to support standing, we need not reach those arguments.” Punt.

    Page 14: “Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.” Win for the States

    Page 15: “The Government omits portions of the quoted language [from Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)] to imply that this standard governs judicial review of all executive exercises of immigration authority.” Own goal by WH leads to another ...

    Page 16: “The present case, by contrast, is not about the application of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an individual visa application. Rather, the States are challenging the President’s promulgation of sweeping immigration policy.” ... Win for the States

    Page 17: “Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict.” Win for the States

    Page 18: “In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” Win for the States

    Pages 18-19: “Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” ... We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay.” Win for the States

    Page 19: “We emphasize, however, that our analysis is a preliminary one. We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.” Win for the process and calmer heads.

    Page 21: “The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States.” Win for the States

    Good Guess. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457
    @realDonaldTrump
    SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!​
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Part 2:

    Pages 21-22: “At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.

    Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.” Win for the States and Win for the Court calling out BS.

    Pages 22-23 “Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, ...;non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, ...; refugees, ...; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, .... Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order. Indeed, the existence of such persons is obvious.” Win for the States (Citations omitted)

    Page 23: “First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. ... That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. ” Win for the States (Citations omitted)

    Page 24: “Second, we decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy.” Win for the States, Win for Irony (This was based on a decision in Texas that harmed Obama's DAPA/DACA update.)

    Page 24: “More generally, even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects, it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order.” Win for the States, Win for the court rubbing the GOP's noses in their diatribes versus activist judges.

    Page 26: “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these [Establishment Clause] claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.” Punt.

    Page 26: “Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” ..., the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.” Win for the States. (Citations omitted)

    Page 26-27: “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” Win for the States.

    Page 27: “To the extent that the Government claims that it has suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers, that injury is not “irreparable.” It may yet pursue and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation.” Win for the States. Win for the process. Crybabies lose big league. So sad.

    Page 28: “By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple “other parties interested in the proceeding.” ... When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms.” Win for the States. (Citations omitted)

    Page 28: “The Government suggests that the Executive Order’s discretionary waiver provisions are a sufficient safety valve for those who would suffer unnecessarily, but it has offered no explanation for how these provisions would function in practice: how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when? Moreover, as we have explained above, the Government has not otherwise explained how the Executive Order could realistically be administered only in parts such that the injuries listed above would be avoided.” Win for the States.

    Pages 28-29: “Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.” Win for the States.​
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2017
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    If I was Trump I would invite ALL the judges involved into the Situation Room, give them copies of the Top Secret (or higher if available) accessments of terrorism

    Once they have read and discused the assessments I would have them arested on the way out the door on the basis they could not be trusted with such material based on their past behaviour

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    If the Trumpsters had actual security related evidence they would have shared it with the judges in a confidential manner. (with support from the relevant intelligence organization of course)
    Perhaps trumps legal team should be arrested for attempting to mislead the court?
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    He doesn't trust them and in my opinion he has good cause not to trust them
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and if the POTUS can not trust his own intelligentsia then how is he going to prove anything to the court?
    What ..."hey Judge my cronies in Moscow suggested the following".... eh?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Don't worry , the authorities will be on the look out for a "contrived" "told you so" terrorist attack... ..
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    He doesn't trust the courts to rule on law and give judgements on the legality of the Order

    When they wander down the path of the intent of the Order they are no longer in Kansas
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The appeals court ruled against The Donald. So for now Trump's executive order has been muted.
     

Share This Page