Shit, I can only count to three before cracking a beer

quote:

Neither court must grant a hearing. In any event, the best thing probably is to rescind this order, mooting the cases, redraft an EO with the criticisms in mind, and issue another.

This sounds too easy - what is the risk of this strategy?

I get to one and throw up

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Let's step back for a moment and get things into perspective: All this shit is small potatoes.

Close your eyes, imagine Hillary Clinton as our president, and count to ten.



Things ain't really so bad, are they?

Thanks for curing my tunnel vision

Agree Jim S. So glad we have this President and his Cabinet! We'll be OK.

Ninth Circus doin' their thang

I'd think the SCOTUS would hear this case quickly, if it chooses to hear it at all.

I wouldn't be 100% certain that Gorsuch would side with the administration on this one. He seems to have a history of reining in executive power, specifically wrt immigration practices. In one such case, he specifically called out the dangers of concentrating too much power in the executive branch , a practice hard to square with the founders' original intent and the way the constitution is set up. He's also ruled that Congress can't give too much of its power over to the executive.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Let's step back for a moment and get things into perspective: All this shit is small potatoes.

Close your eyes, imagine Hillary Clinton as our president, and count to ten.

{Barf inducer removed}

Things ain't really so bad, are they?

Thanks a lot. I almost puked before I got to two.

Thank gosh that, "Ding Dong the witch is dead."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: slosig,

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
I'd think the SCOTUS would hear this case quickly, if it chooses to hear it at all.

I wouldn't be 100% certain that Gorsuch would side with the administration on this one. He seems to have a history of reining in executive power, specifically wrt immigration practices. In one such case, he specifically called out the dangers of concentrating too much power in the executive branch , a practice hard to square with the founders' original intent and the way the constitution is set up. He's also ruled that Congress can't give too much of its power over to the executive.

That may be but when national security is in issue and things are actively afoot, someone needs to make a nimble decision. Congress is not nimble. The judiciary is not nimble. And, the judiciary is not briefed into the situations that may be underway.

The overall clash of civilizations where jihadist non-Americans wish to destroy or subvert our country is not easily seen by a judiciary ill-equipped to make national security priorities, political distinctions and political decisions. Once courts foray too far into deciding what is the best political policy, they are no longer interpreting the law but making policy choices. Such would be more dangerous to separation of powers than a mere pause to get better screening in place.

Immigration policy is ALWAYS about discrimination. Immigration policy ALWAYS impacts different religious groups unequally. Immigration policy has ALWAYS had a persecuted persons primacy. An immigration policy that prioritizes helping those escaping genocide has ALWAYS been around. Immigration policy has ALWAYS impacted states in their perceived interests in making money and having its systems function in what they may see as better ways. And, immigration policy has ALWAYS had some version of screening, circumstances of entry and resulting time frames not set by courts.

The list goes on of why immigration policy should not and have not been set by courts but by the executive. I would think a strict constructionist would be able to make such assessments. Courts are not super legislatures or super executives. Separation of powers is a basic, founding father-era rule as well.

I have no doubt that given enough time, the judiciary could interpret itself into being responsible for everything. That power creep is why the other branches must push the judiciary back into its limited role and why the judiciary must rein itself in as well.

FDR, for instance, teamed up with Congress to threaten expanding the Supreme Court to, if memory serves, 15 justices to reprove what they thought was a rogue court.

The decisions in the TRO cases are small issues in the overall scheme of things. The President has many options and extreme vetting is not affected as a concept. But, the judiciary insinuating itself into national security policy choices is large in implication.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
I'd think the SCOTUS would hear this case quickly, if it chooses to hear it at all.

I wouldn't be 100% certain that Gorsuch would side with the administration on this one.

The law is clear. Gorsuch isn't an activist. His job is not to remake law, and he knows it.

I agree with rescinding this EO and starting over. I just don't trust the current eight member SC to do the right thing.

Sessions is there and I think he would make sure that we had our top dogs making the argument. I say this simply because of all the negative talk I heard this week about the lack of preparedness of the guy who was originally sent to make the arguments. I'm not a lawyer so what do I know? But that was what I heard.

So what's to stop Trump from reducing the amount of refugees for the next fiscal year to say... 500 per year?

Tony.

quote:

Originally posted by Bassamatic:
I agree with rescinding this EO and starting over. I just don't trust the current eight member SC to do the right thing.

Sessions is there and I think he would make sure that we had our top dogs making the argument. I say this simply because of all the negative talk I heard this week about the lack of preparedness of the guy who was originally sent to make the arguments. I'm not a lawyer so what do I know? But that was what I heard.

It is not that simple to me. the Ninth Circuit has published an opinion that says that any District Court may issue a TRO against the President in the area of national security and immigration whenever it appears to the court that a better policy may be in order.

Should the President let that concept and language stand? Remember, the Ninth specifically stated that the President would not likely win on the merits and could have only done so by invading the province of the executive branch under the clear language of the statute.

The Ninth's approach effectively invalidates a statute in existence and use for over sixty years.

Practically speaking, what EO could the President write or for that matter, what new law could Congress write that would escape the Ninth's massive invasion of the other two branches? The same goes for the District Court that made the initial order.

Judicial review was ignored by the legislative and executive branches when first stated by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs Madison (1803). This situation shows partly why.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by Bassamatic:
I agree with rescinding this EO and starting over. I just don't trust the current eight member SC to do the right thing.

Sessions is there and I think he would make sure that we had our top dogs making the argument. I say this simply because of all the negative talk I heard this week about the lack of preparedness of the guy who was originally sent to make the arguments. I'm not a lawyer so what do I know? But that was what I heard.

It is not that simple to me. the Ninth Circuit has published an opinion that says that any District Court may issue a TRO against the President in the area of national security and immigration whenever it appears to the court that a better policy may be in order.

Should the President let that concept and language stand? Remember, the Ninth specifically stated that the President would not likely win on the merits and could have only done so by invading the province of the executive branch under the clear language of the statute.

The Ninth's approach effectively invalidates a statute in existence and use for over sixty years.

Practically speaking, what EO could the President write or for that matter, what new law could Congress write that would escape the Ninth's massive invasion of the other two branches? The same goes for the District Court that made the initial order.

Judicial review was ignored by the legislative and executive branches when first stated by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs Madison (1803). This situation shows partly why.

That is a mischaracterization of the ruling. Have you read it? It is much more nuanced than that. While the statute may be clear (if anything is these days), other principles limit the application abd execution of it.

Moreover, this isn't on the merits, and seems quite narrow. I'm going to reread it later today.

All it says, really, is that if an alien has gotten into the pipeline to the point of having a visa, he has some rights that may be entitled to due process.

Guys, really. Who does this exchange benefit? You two lawyers? If you want to argue legal minutiae. please take it to email. You're bogging down this thread.

Trump Credited For Surge in Congress' Approval Rating

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/l...oval-rating-n2284097


Congressional Job Approval

For Republicans:
January 2017 (20%) to February (50%) 30% increase

For Independents:
January 2017 (17%) to February (25%) 8% increase

For Democrats:
January 2017 (19%) to February (11%) 8% decrease

this is the largest month-to-month increase since the rise between January 2009 and February 2009, when Obama first took office.

President Trump!! Keep on rolling!!

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Trump Credited For Surge in Congress' Approval Rating

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/l...oval-rating-n2284097


Congressional Job Approval

For Republicans:
January 2017 (20%) to February (50%) 30% increase

For Independents:
January 2017 (17%) to February (25%) 8% increase

For Democrats:
January 2017 (19%) to February (11%) 8% decrease

this is the largest month-to-month increase since the rise between January 2009 and February 2009, when Obama first took office.

^^^ This seems to reinforce the thought that the Dems are committing Hari Kari with their obstruction and childish actions...... keep it up Dems, you won't be able to get elected as dog catcher soon !

quote:

Originally posted by HighZonie:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
For Democrats:
January 2017 (19%) to February (11%) 8% decrease

^^^ This seems to reinforce the thought that the Dems are committing Hari Kari with their obstruction and childish actions...... keep it up Dems, you won't be able to get elected as dog catcher soon !

Understand, though, that the decrease in the Democratic approval just might be that some people think the Democrats aren't being Leftist/Liberal enough. Hence the "ALT-Left" disapproves of the job the Demonrats "aren't" doing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq49eJDW-II

President Trump's weekly address.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxjL9gTQdO8

President Trump & Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will be spending the weekend in Florida. Getter a done deal.

..........................
WASHINGTON — As much as he criticized countries like Mexico and China during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump also had some harsh words for Japan — the starting points for Friday's visit to the White House by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Abe plans to address Trump's concerns about Japanese trade policies and defense spending during a summit scheduled to stretch out over two days. After Friday meetings at the White House, the Japanese leader is expected to join Trump on Air Force One for a trip to the president's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. The Saturday agenda includes a round of golf.

"The amount of time that the president is going to spend with Prime Minister Abe is considerable," said Michael Green, senior vice president for Asia and Japan at the Washington-based Center for Strategic & International Studies. "Abe clearly wants to start a relationship with the current administration."

For his part, Trump is expected to reaffirm the nation's commitment to the U.S-Japan friendship, including the security alliance.

Abe, who also met with Trump in New York City during the post-election transition, told reporters before leaving Tokyo that "I want to hold a summit that can send a message saying the Japan-U.S. alliance will strengthen further with President Trump."

One thing Abe likely won't do: ask Trump to revive the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, the seemingly defunct 12-nation trade deal in which Japan would have been a key player. Trump notified allies last month he would not ask Congress to ratify the proposed agreement that he said would have sent U.S. jobs overseas.

Instead, Abe is expected to begin talks about a revising bilateral trade agreements between the United States and Japan, and to commit to Japanese investments in the U.S. economy. "We will develop the two countries' economies even more based on free and fair rules," Abe told reporters.

According to Japanese media reports, Abe will push the "Japan-US Growth and Employment Initiative," including investments in U.S. infrastructure projects that could help to create up to 700,000 jobs.

Trump's complaints about Japanese trade practices, including what he calls currency manipulation, stretch back to his days as a businessman in the 1980s, a time when Japan's economy was growing rapidly.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...-abe-japan/97685968/

................................
All aboard Air Force One: Melania AND Ivanka give Japanese prime minister and his wife VIP reception as they head for gold weekend at Mar-a-Lago

President Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have departed for Mar-a-Lago for a weekend of golf and meetings
The president was reunited with First Lady Melania Trump, who sported large sunglasses as she boarded Air Force One for the trip
Daughter Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner also hopped aboard the plane for the trip
Abe was accompanied by his wife, having lunched with Trump at the White House amid new talk of bilateral trade and infrastructure plans. Lots of pictures:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...M-trip-Mar-Lago.html

......................................

Japanese prime minister’s stay at Mar-a-Lago will be a gift from President Trump



By Anita Kumar

WASHINGTON

President Donald Trump is personally paying the tab for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the Trump-owned Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

“That is a gift that the president is extending to the prime minister,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in response to questions about the ethical dilemma of having a world leader stay at one of the Trump hotels.

“President Trump should not be giving personal gifts of significant financial value to foreign leaders, and President Trump should be avoiding even the appearance that he is using public office to promote his personal financial interests,” said John Wonderlich, executive editor of the Sunlight Foundation, which pushes for government openness. “By giving Prime Minister Abe a free stay at Mar-a-Lago, he is promoting his commercial brand, and flouting the ethics standards he was elected, in part, to uphold.”

Only Abe – no other member of the Japanese delegation – will be staying at Mar-a-Lago, Spicer said. “They will stay out in town with the rest of the staff,” he said.

The arrangement differs from what Trump had announced before he was sworn in as president, when he said he would donate profits from foreign government spending at his hotels to the U.S. Treasury.

The change was made after some raised concerns about the emoluments clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says “officials may not accept gifts, titles of nobility or emoluments from foreign governments with respect to their office, and that no benefit should be derived by holding in office.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.c...rticle131831484.html


41