U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[The Bread Guy]

Experts think Trump should redraft his EO adding the number of terrorist acts committed by immigrants from the 7 countries cited in the EO. Basically the strategy should be to amend the EO rather than go to the Supreme Court where he might well lose.

If I had to bet a loonie, even if that would fix the situation (or at least give a better rationale for it), methinks he's going to double down and keep pressing.  (Only) one indicator:  one of POTUS45's tweets on this:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

Anyway National Review has an excellent analysis of the ruling.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuit-travel-ban-donald-trump-ruling

Thanks for the link.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Remember Senator Warren claimed to be a native american - when she wasnt.

Actually, T6, she is: She was born in Oklahoma. I know that First Nations of America don't like the term "indian", but that did not give them the right to hijack for themselves only terms that don't really apply, such as "native" or "indigenous". These two terms refer to one person's birth place. All of us presently in America and personally born here are native or indigenous to America. If you apply it to a people as a group, it still doesn't apply: neither the First Nations of America nor the European nations were "native", but rather immigrants - just with a long hiatus between the two migratory phases.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 9th Circus er Circuit is over turned 80% of the time.Both Judge Robard and the appellate court ignored existing law which grants the President the authority to decide who can enter the US.Its a national security issue. I think we shall see a full court press to get Judge Gorsuch approved by the Senate. I have to say that this stumble is due to inexperience.

Experts think Trump should redraft his EO adding the number of terrorist acts committed by immigrants from the 7 countries cited in the EO. Basically the strategy should be to amend the EO rather than go to the Supreme Court where he might well lose. Anyway National Review has an excellent analysis of the ruling.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuit-travel-ban-donald-trump-ruling

I don't think FJAG was taking position one way or the other. The "cheers" emoticon is simply his usual signature for his posts.

This said, T6, I am not convinced that just inserting a "number" of terrorist acts would make the E.O. valid by miracle. It would need to be much more specific than that, so that the courts can actually verify the facts, especially considering that throughout the election and in part thereafter, this administration has clearly demonstrated that it has a strained relationship with actual proven or provable facts - or even reality sometimes.

Everyone has to remember here that this EO was supposed to be a "temporary" ban of 90 days while the proper permanent new process is established. Instead of fighting over the temporary order's re-instatement - which could end up eating the whole period covered by the E.O. - it seems to me that the administration should concentrate on getting the new permanent rules out and preparing all the actual factual evidence they will need to fight any court challenge to it.

BTW, everyone should remember that in countries that live under the rule of law (and the US claims to be one of those - at least until Trump was elected, according to some  ) even very broad "discretionary" powers are far from absolute and their exercise reviewed by courts for administrative law reasons - not just constitutional law. For instance, even within the use of discretionary powers, the administration can not treat people in the same factual situation differently, just because they don't like one of them, or use improper basis for action, such as I am not giving X this permit because he voted against me, or make patently unreasonable policies within their discretion (such as a ban - for instance _ of entry to the US to any person whose family name ends with the letter "l", which would exclude me so patently unreasonable  :nod. In the present case, even if the administration was to put "proof" of terrorist originating in the banned country, it may have to explain why other countries with similar acts or even worse on their rap sheet were not included. We know we are all thinking Saudi Arabia here - the main origin country of the 9/11 terrorists.

To quote FJAG:  :cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

The US, like Canada, is a nation that submits to the Rule of Law.  It should not be a nation that submits to the Rule of Lawyers.  Lawyers are professional debaters.  Judges are hired to decide cases based on the laws.

The laws are subject to change.  And are subject to the consent of the governed as expressed by their elected representatives.  And there is nothing to prevent, in fact it is specifically permitted, for one elected house to completely overturn the decisions of previous elected houses.

Lawyers and Laws do not descend from on high.  They are servants of the nation that hires them.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The US, like Canada, is a nation that submits to the Rule of Law.  It should not be a nation that submits to the Rule of Lawyers.  Lawyers are professional debaters.  Judges are hired to decide cases based on the laws.

The laws are subject to change.  And are subject to the consent of the governed as expressed by their elected representatives.  And there is nothing to prevent, in fact it is specifically permitted, for one elected house to completely overturn the decisions of previous elected houses.

Lawyers and Laws do not descend from on high.  They are servants of the nation that hires them.

I sense some frustration on your part here, Chris.

Sure, laws are subject to change and it is permitted for one elected house to overturn decisions of previous ones. But in the US, the "house" is not the President, it is the legislative branch composed of the House of representatives and the Senate. They are the only ones who can enact, abrogate or overturn legislation.

The President may have some power to enact regulations, but only to the extent that that power is given to him in the legislation adopted by the "house" and only to to give effect to the said legislation. A new President may decide to change or eliminate some of the regulation, but not if the effect is to change the enabling legislation or to fail to give it effect. Otherwise, in the discharge of his executive powers, the president may have some areas where he has discretionary powers, but in a state under the rule of law, even that is constrained by law - be it the constitution or the generally applicable administrative law limitations (which may be varied by the legislative power only, if they so wish). Applying these rules to the President's discretion by no means signify that the "law" (or even less so lawyers) descend from on high on anything: It is the actual lawful limit on the powers of even the President. In Rule of law states, there exists no absolute discretionary powers with anyone at all.

Finally, the concept (not legal one, BTW, but a political philosophy one known as the right of revolution) of consent of the governed is not one that attaches to each and every election. It relates to the form of government in place, such as a democracy, a monarchy, a parliamentary monarchy, etc. Within these systems, consent of the governed is presumed to exist at all time until such point is reached that the right to revolution is triggered. This is clearly the type of consent that the American Declaration of Independence aimed at:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It did not apply to every legislature's capacity to enact or not any given legislation it won its election on. The "governed" don't have to consent separately to each legislation applying to them or not.

 

[Rifleman62]

T6:

.....9th Circus er Circuit is over turned 80% of the time....

Actually, in 2014 86% of the time. In 2010 it was 80% as you stated.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/9th-circuit-has-80-percent-reversal-rate-at-supreme-court/

Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

What remedial action is available to change this Court if their performance record is so dismal? Surely something is amiss with this Court that all this time, money is expended needlessly including bogging up the justice system.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html

Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit

I think, now that this EO has been suppressed, the Dems will go full hog to block Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, there is a deal of frustration on my part.  And, I sense, on the part of one or two like me.

While "consent of the governed" as a concept, may not have percolated through the miasma to the core of legal thinking, it remains an indisputable fact.

When "the governed" find that they are at odds with those purporting to "govern"  what are the remedies for each side?

Neither the law, nor lawyers, are sacrosanct.  If you want demonstrable proof you can look to British history, where generally speaking, the governors have changed tack sufficiently to stay ahead of the governed.  But they ride with a loose rein and eschew rowels.  Or you can look to those countries that have imposed constitutions only to see them changed, by fair means or foul every 25 years or so.  Or you can look at the constantly changing borders of nations.  Or you can look at the rise and fall of empires, whose peaks seldom last more than threescore and ten years or the traditional span of life of an individual.  The United Nations is now 70 years old, as is the European project.

You forget the will of the governed at your, and my, peril.  To be honest, I like the order of things.  I like the existing structures.  I don't want to see them blown apart, or torn asunder.  And, to be honest, that is a real concern of mine. 

Equally, I do not like the gaming of the system that occurs.  And I believe it is a natural consequence of any system.  Enlightened self-interest falls prey to unalloyed self-interest. And that is true of any institution, any where, any time.  Which necessitates a corrective from time to time - like a dose of salts a purgative needs to be administered.  Ripping your guts out as an antidote seems counter-productive.  But that is just me.

Your health.

Edit: By the way, the President has authority, limited, as delegated to him by the elected representatives of his nation.  Not the Constitution but the governed.  The Constitution merely describes a framework that is commonly, but not universally, agreed.  And, it is changeable, as described by legally defined procedures.  Procedures accepted by the governed.

 

[tomahawk6]

Is Senator Warren a native American.The hold to my initial stance that she is not.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

Elizabeth Warren is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.

Elizabeth Warren is not enrolled in the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

And Elizabeth Warren is not one of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.

Nor could she become one, even if she wanted to.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As usual, please don't try to make hay out of statistics you don't understand.

There are no appeals of right to the US Supreme Court. Appeals (permission for which is sought by Petition for certiorari) have to be authorized under the Court's judicial discretion. This means that the Court first looks at the case to decide if they will even entertain hearing an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeals or a State Court of Appeals.

First, as permission is hard to obtain and costs a lot of money to make, the very large majority of cases from any Court of Appeals are never appealed to the Supreme Court. They don't count in the statistics. The large majority of cases asking permission to appeal to the Court are rejected even from being heard. They don't count in the statistics either.

Since the Supreme Court picks the appeals it wants to hear, it obviously pick mostly cases they feel were wrongly decided and they feel are important nationally. As a result, the record of just about every Court of Appeals decisions that make it before the Supreme Court is a negative record: they are mostly over turned.

However, as a percentage of the total number of decisions from any Court of Appeals, it is a very small percentage that is overturned.

For instance, Appeals Court "A" may render 2500 decisions in one year, have 250 of those subject to a request for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, have 50 of them retained for Appeal to the SC, and 40 of those overturned. While the "overturning" rate from the SC is 80%, it remains that overall, that means that only 1.6% of that Court of Appeals decisions were ever overturned.
 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Is Senator Warren a native American.The hold to my initial stance that she is not.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

Elizabeth Warren is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.

Elizabeth Warren is not enrolled in the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

And Elizabeth Warren is not one of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.

Nor could she become one, even if she wanted to.

I am not disputing your point in reality, T6. I was merely venting my frustration with the First Nations hijacking of the terms "native" or "indigenous". They don't mean just what they try to limit them to. That's all. You had to take my point tongue in cheek. 

 

[Kirkhill]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/trumps-travel-ban-popular-trump/

Well there you have it. After almost two weeks of braying and spluttering about Donald Trump’s immigration plan, it turns out the public supports the proposed visa ban after all. Here in the United States, a poll by Morning Consult and Politico last week revealed that 55 per cent of voters back Trump’s executive order, while only 38 per cent oppose it. In Europe, the results are even more jarring: when asked whether immigration from mainly Muslim countries should be halted entirely, 55 per cent of the 10,000 people asked by Chatham House agreed. Davos folk might have taken umbrage at Trump’s executive order, yet compared to the type of policy that voters think should be implemented, the Donald’s plans suddenly look like a halfway house. Europeans have seen Trump’s notorious seven-country list and raised him Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan.

In Poland, this sentiment runs especially hot. Voters in France and Belgium, sites of recent attacks by Islamic terrorists, are also much more likely to back a punitive immigration policy. While in Germany, 53 per cent of people want an end to all further immigration from mainly Muslim countries  – a striking rebuke to Angela Merkel’s policy of refugee absorption en masse. This is a mutiny against the left’s code of manners, which falsely conflates Trump’s order with a Muslim ban and from there claims it is not just wrong but such an affront to Western values as to be virtually unspeakable. Yet it turns out most people of the West don’t really mind that much. Far from being his most scandalous policy yet, Trump’s executive order is more popular than Trump himself.

Count me as among the out-of-touch Acela Corridor dwellers over here: I oppose the immigration pause, which seems designed more as political kerosene than effective policy, but I must admit I didn’t spew my craft beer all over my gluten-free locavore charcuterie when I read about these polls last night. Political observers in America have taken to treating the election of Trump as a crazed bacchanalia. After it, Trump voters were supposed to have woken up aching and realised the error of their ways. Not so. The West’s nationalist fever has yet to break. Americans and Europeans alike have assessed the current political consensus, rejected it, and set about electing lawmakers who are more heedful of national identity and sceptical of immigration.

In the West, the gulf between people and their political leaders has grown dangerously wide. This divide between governors and governed isn’t just a quibble over policy; it’s a clash of moralities, a fundamental disagreement over what the West is to be. National sovereignty is the fulcrum issue here, but immigration is its most visible expression, one that’s deeply impassioning and affects us all.

The people don’t always get what they want, of course. My country is not a democracy but a constitutional republic in which democracy is only a single and necessarily limited component. Still, the American people have plenty of ways to overhaul their government, and indeed they already have. That the political class’s opinions remain unchanged only guarantees that more disruption is on the way. The most stunning omen of this came out of the European Union last month, when President Donald Tusk penned a letter to his colleagues warning of the threats conspiring against the EU, among them many of his own citizens, whom he accused of suffering from ‘national egoism’. The EU knows an inflated ego when it sees one so Tusk may have a point. Either way, one of the most powerful men in Europe now regards his own voters as a sort of enemy within. In doing so, he’ll only widen the political chasm further.

 

[Rifleman62]

She is a nutter though.

Senator Tom Cotton (R) did say she was a good law professor though. Cotton has a pretty good military record, Ranger qualified, with deployments. One of my favs about Cotton was a couple of weeks ago when he and Sen Chuck Schumer got into it on the Senate floor in a one on one sidebar and Schumer said to Cotton he should have been here 4 years ago. Cotton replied four years ago he was getting his ass shot at in Afghanistan.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/24/i-was-getting-my-a-shot-at-in-afghanistan-sen-tom-cotton-explodes-at-top-dem-over-pompeo-delay/

Another good one is (can't find a video. It's priceless)

In testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, Kelly turned to an argument the executive branch has used often to defend its policies: national security. The administration, Kelly asserted, would not have proof that terrorists are exploiting the temporary pause in the travel ban ― as he and Trump himself claimed ― “until the boom” occurs in the U.S. sometime in the future.

”Let’s just say, for instance, a person who is trying to get to the United States to do some harm, some terrorist attack, is coming in during this period that the courts put a stay on our enforcement, we don’t know that until an individual who’s a bad person, until they do something bad,” Kelly said during the hearing. “But it’s entirely possible that someone that’s coming in, whether it’s during this stay court action or previous to this, they intend to do us harm.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking member on the committee, pressed Kelly on whether the administration had proof that those targeted by Trump’s order ― including refugees ― intended to harm the U.S.

”Not until the boom,” Kelly responded. “Not until they blow something up and go into a mall and kill people. Not until then.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

... In testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, Kelly turned to an argument the executive branch has used often to defend its policies: national security. The administration, Kelly asserted, would not have proof that terrorists are exploiting the temporary pause in the travel ban ― as he and Trump himself claimed ― “until the boom” occurs in the U.S. sometime in the future ...

Surely, given all the investigating/screening already under way at various levels thanks to 9-11, there has to be some evidence of "hey, we caught this person trying to sneak in to do x"?  Or is it a question of "intelligence indicates" not being up court standards?

 

[tomahawk6]

Over 108 people for supporting the Islamic State in the US and 58 of them were convicted so far.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/isis-suspects/

 

[Brad Sallows]

>US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision here:

I read Charles Krauthammer this morning, and agree that Trump should let it go, for reasons including some of the comments above.  Briefly: it's an unnecessary battle.

But Trump can't let anything go if it looks like a defeat.  The only upside for him is that those opposed to him burn a lot more (irreplaceable) time pushing back against his pushback.  They, too, are often incapable of avoiding the unnecessary battle.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Over 108 people for supporting the Islamic State in the US and 58 of them were convicted so far.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/isis-suspects/

Cool list - thanks for sharing it.

I'm seeing a lot of "stan's" that don't appear in the EO, specifically I-stan-bul, Uzbekistan & Kazakhstan.

 

[tomahawk6]

One problem we have that Canada has also experienced are the green card holders who then go overseas for terror training and return.France and the other EU nations have had a similar experience.The EO I believe addresses this issue.

 

[Kirkhill]

>US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision here:

I read Charles Krauthammer this morning, and agree that Trump should let it go, for reasons including some of the comments above.  Briefly: it's an unnecessary battle.

But Trump can't let anything go if it looks like a defeat.  The only upside for him is that those opposed to him burn a lot more (irreplaceable) time pushing back against his pushback.  They, too, are often incapable of avoiding the unnecessary battle.

Or, putting it another way... while the press is focusing on him and his tweets and immigration.... what are Congress and the Senate doing?

 

[Journeyman]

One problem we have that Canada has also experienced are the green card holders who then go overseas for terror training and return.

According to Public Safety Canada's 2016 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada, our government is aware of 60 extremist travelers who had returned to Canada.  I assure you that, from compadres in ITAC, tabs are  being kept on them. 

Now, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I think it's madness, bordering on criminally immoral, to think of imposing any sort of Trump-esque, broad-brush travel ban because of SIXTY people.... especially when, as noted repeatedly, it ignores many of the terrorist-producing nations.  : 

If you believe that citing those 60 people justify comparing how Canada and the US are addressing security issues, then you pretty much reaffirm why it's best I avoid posting in this thread.  So how about you stick to commenting US issues, as per the thread's title, and I'll go back to avoiding posting in this thread.

 

[FJAG]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 9th Circus er Circuit is over turned 80% of the time.Both Judge Robard and the appellate court ignored existing law which grants the President the authority to decide who can enter the US.Its a national security issue. I think we shall see a full court press to get Judge Gorsuch approved by the Senate. I have to say that this stumble is due to inexperience.

Experts think Trump should redraft his EO adding the number of terrorist acts committed by immigrants from the 7 countries cited in the EO. Basically the strategy should be to amend the EO rather than go to the Supreme Court where he might well lose. Anyway National Review has an excellent analysis of the ruling.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuit-travel-ban-donald-trump-ruling

Sorry to burst your bubble as well, but that's what you get when you read stuff from Hannity - a statistic which on the surface seems relevant but when you dig down deeper you see that it actually means very little.

The USSC is very selective on the cases it takes and overturns a very large percentage of the ones it takes on from all the circuits. More accurate representations of the statistics can be found here:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

and here:

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

As far as the decision itself is concerned I only wanted to post the full text version so that people could read it for themselves. There are so many legal "experts" pontificating on this issue that you can literally find dozens of articles which will support whatever position that you favour.

I don't have a dog in this hunt and really couldn't care less how this TRO plays out.  What's really important, from my point of view, is that the crew that now runs the White House doesn't seem to have any concept of how to govern except by royal fiat justified by a continual stream of blatant falsehoods. Rather than mobilising and unifying the country they're scaremongering and catering to their base. That doesn't bode well for the long term.

Back to my listening watch and going to see Lynyrd Skynyrd tomorrow.  ;D

:cheers:

 

[QV]

Keeping "tabs" on 60 people, eh?  Wtf does that mean?  I doubt there is full surveillance on all these bad dudes.  But anything less would be criminal IMO.