Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Re: The Travel ban.

There is the 1964 Civil Rights act that among other things protects against discrimination based on race, religion or national origin.

Disparate impact also suggest that even if the intent of something isn't to discriminate based on a protected class under the CRA, the effect of it doing so is enough.

I will say though, in my opinion you'd be treading unknown ground trying to apply this to people who aren't, as of yet, under US jurisdiction.

[origamiscienceguy]

to me, it seems like something the supreme court needs to decide.

[Strife26]

it's not targeting a race, it's targeting citizens of a handful of countries.

That is what Trump's lawyers are trying to prove this is.

Basically if it isn't racially or religiously motivated it isn't unconstitutional. If it is, then it is unconstitutional. (along with a lot of other details. Such as whether or not it could be implemented constitutionally or whether it specifically targets muslims because it is muslims... and whether it is justified)

The Courts are trying to determine what it is. It doesn't help that the ban is based on "ultra-secret information" that the courts have no access to and that, once implemented, no court could strike down because once again "Ultra-secret information"

would this be constitutional under obama? yes.

PFT! no. You think it is just that Trump dislikes Muslims that this is seen as unconstitutional?

It is only the recent "Legalese" version where Trump's overt intention is influencing court decision because he is outright stating it is racially motivated. Before this the courts would have shut it down even if Trump said nothing.

The first draft would have never passed even if Obama somehow managed to fuse with Mother Theresa and Gandhi.

---

To sum up Trump and his Lawyers are trying to prove that this ban is based on safety on a very real risk and isn't racially or religiously motivated, AND that the way it is implemented isn't unconstitutional and will not create problems in the future.

It isn't unconstitutional to ban travel from a country that has proven to be an active risk in spite of current and future measures.

Large chunks of the Fourth's Circuit judgement went directly to other things the Trump Administration has said, as opposed to the actual content of the executive order. This isn't something that has existed in American jurisprudence in the past, and is sure as hell something that people should be worried about.
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/06/01/a-conceptual-ledge-to-the-slippery-slope-of-trumplaw/

Of particular note, straight from the mouth of the ACLU lawyer arguing the case, https://youtu.be/BcG25EgOlu4 another President could have done it legally. 

[PTTG??]

Hold on, let me put on my Republican Blogger hat:

"This is a clear sign the real problem in this country: the violent culture of middle-aged white men. They're incompatible with western society. That's why Trump needs to block all travel from the UK, France, Germany an- oh, he has hotels there? Ok, he needs to block travel from whatever European nations he doesn't own properties in."

[Frumple]

That's... odd. Pretty sure surrounding words and whatnot have been something a judge could get you for for quite a while, not starting with trump. Just didn't really see it much cause most of em could at least keep from getting caught quite so easily.

[EnigmaticHat]

it's not targeting a race, it's targeting citizens of a handful of countries.

That is what Trump's lawyers are trying to prove this is.

Basically if it isn't racially or religiously motivated it isn't unconstitutional. If it is, then it is unconstitutional. (along with a lot of other details. Such as whether or not it could be implemented constitutionally or whether it specifically targets muslims because it is muslims... and whether it is justified)

The Courts are trying to determine what it is. It doesn't help that the ban is based on "ultra-secret information" that the courts have no access to and that, once implemented, no court could strike down because once again "Ultra-secret information"

would this be constitutional under obama? yes.

PFT! no. You think it is just that Trump dislikes Muslims that this is seen as unconstitutional?

It is only the recent "Legalese" version where Trump's overt intention is influencing court decision because he is outright stating it is racially motivated. Before this the courts would have shut it down even if Trump said nothing.

The first draft would have never passed even if Obama somehow managed to fuse with Mother Theresa and Gandhi.

---

To sum up Trump and his Lawyers are trying to prove that this ban is based on safety on a very real risk and isn't racially or religiously motivated, AND that the way it is implemented isn't unconstitutional and will not create problems in the future.

It isn't unconstitutional to ban travel from a country that has proven to be an active risk in spite of current and future measures.

Large chunks of the Fourth's Circuit judgement went directly to other things the Trump Administration has said, as opposed to the actual content of the executive order. This isn't something that has existed in American jurisprudence in the past, and is sure as hell something that people should be worried about.
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/06/01/a-conceptual-ledge-to-the-slippery-slope-of-trumplaw/

Of particular note, straight from the mouth of the ACLU lawyer arguing the case, https://youtu.be/BcG25EgOlu4 another President could have done it legally.

Weird president, weird case.  Trump did absolutely nothing to explain the executive order prior to releasing it, even relevant cabinet officials weren't told until afterwards.  And he carried this order out very quickly after being elected.  So we're left with the weird case of a poorly written order, where the only explanation from the president IS in tweets and campaign slogans.  I can't think of any historical analogue to that.

Maybe presidents have special rules, but I believe that using people's words against them is common in the US legal system.  And again I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for as an example here.

[Frumple]

Oh hey, neat. Looks like some (more) flint officials are actually catching criminal charges (if possibly not convictions, check back later) for the water stuff. Probably more bus speed bump than attempt at justice, but hey, I'd imagine it's better than some folks were expecting. Some of it actually sticks, it'll be that plus a bit, ha.

E: Also, just noticed this. Purports to be a preview of what GOP talking points to use in an attempt to discredit a WaPo report on mueller's investigation into trump. Someone interested in eyeballing the news might have fun doing some cross checking.

... though will say, if it is true, the GOP complaining about the amount of time sunk into an fishing expedition is some sort of hilarious comeuppance or something along those lines. Silly GOP, y'all went and set precedent for how long investigation attempts are supposed to go on, and it's a period described not with the word "months", but "decades". Rather get it over with, myself, but complaining on those grounds is bit of a farce.

[Neonivek]

Of particular note, straight from the mouth of the ACLU lawyer arguing the case, https://youtu.be/BcG25EgOlu4 another President could have done it legally

I have no idea why a Lawyer arguing the case would say that, except maybe that the Lawyer is arguing the case.

Large chunks of the Fourth's Circuit judgement went directly to other things the Trump Administration has said, as opposed to the actual content of the executive order.

It is low hanging fruit and shows clear mal intent. A lot easier to scrutinize then pouring over a document.

[EnigmaticHat]

E: Also, just noticed this. Purports to be a preview of what GOP talking points to use in an attempt to discredit a WaPo report on mueller's investigation into trump. Someone interested in eyeballing the news might have fun doing some cross checking.

... though will say, if it is true, the GOP complaining about the amount of time sunk into an fishing expedition is some sort of hilarious comeuppance or something along those lines. Silly GOP, y'all went and set precedent for how long investigation attempts are supposed to go on, and it's a period described not with the word "months", but "decades". Rather get it over with, myself, but complaining on those grounds is bit of a farce.

They seem to be latching on to Comey's testimony about intentionally leaking his memo.  It looks like they want to imply that the source of all the many, many leaks recently has been the FBI.  In reality the FBI has been pretty watertight, its the WH that's doing its best collander impression.

[Neonivek]

E: Also, just noticed this. Purports to be a preview of what GOP talking points to use in an attempt to discredit a WaPo report on mueller's investigation into trump. Someone interested in eyeballing the news might have fun doing some cross checking.

... though will say, if it is true, the GOP complaining about the amount of time sunk into an fishing expedition is some sort of hilarious comeuppance or something along those lines. Silly GOP, y'all went and set precedent for how long investigation attempts are supposed to go on, and it's a period described not with the word "months", but "decades". Rather get it over with, myself, but complaining on those grounds is bit of a farce.

They seem to be latching on to Comey's testimony about intentionally leaking his memo.  It looks like they want to imply that the source of all the many, many leaks recently has been the FBI.  In reality the FBI has been pretty watertight, its the WH that's doing its best collander impression.

I am surprised that they latched onto it. Given that Comey specifically stated that the reason he leaked the Memo was because a proper press conference would have lead to unfortunate consequences such as them stalking him for information.

As in, he leaked something that he would have otherwise have given out in a proper press conference.

Unless, I guess, they don't buy that reasoning.

[EnigmaticHat]

E: Also, just noticed this. Purports to be a preview of what GOP talking points to use in an attempt to discredit a WaPo report on mueller's investigation into trump. Someone interested in eyeballing the news might have fun doing some cross checking.

... though will say, if it is true, the GOP complaining about the amount of time sunk into an fishing expedition is some sort of hilarious comeuppance or something along those lines. Silly GOP, y'all went and set precedent for how long investigation attempts are supposed to go on, and it's a period described not with the word "months", but "decades". Rather get it over with, myself, but complaining on those grounds is bit of a farce.

They seem to be latching on to Comey's testimony about intentionally leaking his memo.  It looks like they want to imply that the source of all the many, many leaks recently has been the FBI.  In reality the FBI has been pretty watertight, its the WH that's doing its best collander impression.

I am surprised that they latched onto it. Given that Comey specifically stated that the reason he leaked the Memo was because a proper press conference would have lead to unfortunate consequences such as them stalking him for information.

As in, he leaked something that he would have otherwise have given out in a proper press conference.

Unless, I guess, they don't buy that reasoning.

I fucking love Comey's answer there.  To paraphrase:

"Why did you think the FBI had the authority to release that information?"

"Well I'm a private citizen now..."

[Max™]

Uh, for those wondering about the status of presidential tweets and such, the 9th ruled that since they are treated as official white house releases by the president, using the content of said tweets to determine the intent of an executive order--particularly one as poorly written as the initial muslim ban was--is not just valid, it's good enough for them to cite one of his tweets in the ruling, with the hilarious additional note: emphasis in original.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Well, it seems one good thing is coming out of the Donald Trump presidency.  We're getting at least a few decisive rulings on what the limits of governmental power are in a few areas.

[origamiscienceguy]

There are several good things coming out of the Trump presidency if you happen to have a worldview that led you to vote for him in the first place.

It's the same for every president. Half the country thinks it's the end of the world, the other half is quite happy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are several good things coming out of the Trump presidency if you happen to have a worldview that led you to vote for him in the first place.

It's the same for every president. Half the country thinks it's the end of the world, the other half is quite happy.

It should be noted that Orange Slice's approval by party is actually really fuckin abnormal. Historically, you tend to get something like 70/30 for a nominally popular President. In the President's party, 70 percent approve and 30 percent disapprove. Out of the President's party, 70 percent disapprove and 30 percent approve. (Not just this data, Pew and Gallup both back me up here.)

Trump, meanwhile, is drastically more polarizing. His approval among Republicans is 10-15% higher than it should be, and his approval among Democrats is now consistently polling below 10%, which may sound right but is insane statistically and historically. Think about how dumb all the people you've met in your life are, how bad judgement a large portion of them seem to have. Virtually all of those people, wise or unwise, who are also Democrats are united on hating Trump. Under 10% means more Democrats approve of extramarital affairs, human cloning programs, and suicide in general than they do Donald Trump. Giant Meteor 2020 isn't even really satirical at this rate, Democrats literally rate human death higher than Trump.

If Trump's Democrat approval drops any further it will enter the territory of approval for re-instituting slavery, voluntary extinction programs, and a violation of the Lizardman's Constant.

There is nothing normal about Donald Trump or his Presidency. These are extreme circumstances, not just a turn of the wheel.