Muslim Ban Loses in Court

[LN124308]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

Trump is playing a high risk, high reward game. He is attempting to leverage the goodwill he does not have to reinforce his power through fear, and media manipulation. Witness his masterful management in getting the media to list every terrorist attack they have covered worldwide over the past two years, just by saying they have neglected their coverage responsibilities.

He perceives any terrorist attack on US soil as a validation of his power, even though he is at the same time delegitimizing the intelligence and security agencies that are tasked with preventing such attacks. Whenever one does happen, he isn't going to provide any additional resources to stop such attacks, he is going to grab as much additional power as he can. Reichstag, anyone?

By messing with the judicial system and intelligence/security agencies, Trump is attempting to consolidate power in his own hands. In the long run, this will not work, as Trump's modus operendi in the business world leads to chaos, money disappearing, and brand bankruptcies. The same will happen within the federal government.

I am counting on the 10% margin that, in reality, has decided all the Presidential elections since Bush/Dukakis. You may be able to cow/fool/flummox/flimflam them for a year or two, but slowly they will(hopefully) have their blinders removed. As they do, the election balance will tilt slowly to the Democrats. Warren is the first to recognize and begin deploying an effective strategy to counterbalance Trump, and she will not be the last.

+1. Very well stated.

[+48v]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

......Whenever one does happen, he isn't going to provide any additional resources to stop such attacks, he is going to grab as much additional power as he can. Reichstag, anyone?

......not be the last.

x2

This ham-fisted ban is a strategic win/win play on Donald’s part. If unchallenged or upheld it feeds his dictatorial ego and further chips away the foundation of Lady Liberty. The "yeehaaws" are deafening.

When/if another terrorist attack happens upon US soil (perp immigrant or domestic) (thwarted or not), Trump & Co. will bellow in vindication.

The clout of “I told you so” is a very powerful poison pill. Ultimately it’s a hedge bet–win. Worth to him the potential short-term injury to his ego and over reaching authority? Well, there’s no doubt this recent ruling cuts him to his core and he will throw his typical tantrum. But this ain’t his first time at the dice table and the "reward" will be HUGE.

Well played? [sigh]

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by whell

It would not be a waste of powder and its an issue that needs to be settled. The lower courts have stepped into territory that the SCOTUS has traditionally held is well within the constitutional authority of the president. The issue needs to be settled.

Robart and the Jesters at the 9th Circuit have over-stepped. In their ruling, the assumed the authority - not provided to the judiciary under the constitution - to determine that the refugees didn't pose a national security threat. Agree with them or not, they don't get to make that determination.

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. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.

The thing is , it is only a 90 day deal. So, if this drags out for months it becomes a moot point other than just confirming that the President has that authority. And, it is obvious that he does.

One good thing that will come out of this is that the ninth circuit will end up split in two.

[sheltiedave]

Check this link out... http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...80-of-the-time

If I read it correctly, the federal circuit with the lowest percentage of cases that were overturned by the Supreme Court is parked at 55%. Also, it seems the majority of the overturned cases with the Ninth Circuit were involving murder and sentencing cases. It does appear that the 80% of overruled cases, are, in fact, lying by omission of facts. Only presenting figures, without going into the types of cases, and without presenting the complete set of statistical facts, negates the fact that the Supreme Court overturns a range of between 55% and close to 85% of all federal circuit cases, every year.

This means all the Federal Circuit courts tend to be less conservative than the Supreme Court, and that more than half of all Circuit Court cases that make it to the Supreme Court are going to be overturned. Under this microscope, the Ninth does not look like the outlier that most conservatives try to cast a shadow upon...

[ZeroJunk]

Also, if it does not stand a good chance of being overturned the Supreme Court is not going to hear it anyway.

[sheltiedave]

Originally Posted by whell

It would not be a waste of powder and its an issue that needs to be settled. The lower courts have stepped into territory that the SCOTUS has traditionally held is well within the constitutional authority of the president. The issue needs to be settled.

Robart and the Jesters at the 9th Circuit have over-stepped. In their ruling, the assumed the authority - not provided to the judiciary under the constitution - to determine that the refugees didn't pose a national security threat. Agree with them or not, they don't get to make that determination.

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. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.

The government could present clear and present danger in regard to these seven countries under seal, and the judges could have seen for themselves that Trump needed to act as he did. His administration chose not to do such.

As far as it not being a Muslim ban, Somalia(99.8% Muslim), Iran(99.4%), Yemen(98.5%), Iraq(98%), Sudan(97%), Libya(97%), and Syria(92%) do seem to be predominantly Muslim.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

The government could present clear and present danger in regard to these seven countries under seal, and the judges could have seen for themselves that Trump needed to act as he did. His administration chose not to do such.
.

How would they do that? We've never had anyone from those countries attack us. Now Saudi, I could see......

[sheltiedave]

There is skullduggery from many different countries going on, at some level, all the time. I am sure there are at least a couple of the band of seven who have active and ongoing plots, along with at least a few of the fifteen to twenty other principle Muslim countries.

The largest problem I have with Trump's EO is twofold. It was written by an idiot who made no allowances for legal immigrants, citizens, and vetted aliens with paperwork to gain entry, and the order was promulgated without any consultation from the State Department, INS, CIA, DHS, and other appropriate agencies.

Trump wants to run the government as a business, and it is not a business. You do not run the country by fiat.

[icenine]

This "ban" has absolutely no impact on terrorism, except as a recruitment tool.

[whell]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

The government could present clear and present danger in regard to these seven countries under seal, and the judges could have seen for themselves that Trump needed to act as he did. His administration chose not to do such.

The didn't choose to do such because there is no requirement under existing law for the president to show cause to the judiciary for any action related to national defense. None. And for good reason. For the 9th Circuit to asset that creates a dangerous precedent if it is allowed to stand.

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

As far as it not being a Muslim ban, Somalia(99.8% Muslim), Iran(99.4%), Yemen(98.5%), Iraq(98%), Sudan(97%), Libya(97%), and Syria(92%) do seem to be predominantly Muslim.

These were the same countries identified by Obama as countries of concern. Was that identification by Obama also "anti Muslim"?

Missing from the list, and demonstrating that EO is not a Muslim ban as the left so fervently wants folks to believe:

Maldives
Mauritania
Tunisia
Afghanistan
Western Sahara
Tajikistan
Morocco
Mayotte
Azerbaijan
Comoros
Niger
Algeria
Saudi Arabia
Djibouti
Uzbekistan
Pakistan
Senegal
Kosovo
Gambia
Mali
Jordan
Turkmenistan
Egypt
Kyrgyzstan
Oman
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Guinea
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Sierra Leone
Bahrain
Kazakhstan
Brunei
Malaysia
Lebanon
Albania
Chad
Bosnia-Herzegovina

...and more, and all on the list above are majority Muslim countries. If this was a "Muslim ban", all of these countries would be on the list, dontcha think?