What role, if any, will Att Gen Summers play in this?
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Do I have to put smileys? Yes I'm joking.
No bro
If he says 'ISIS affiliations', he'll have to include Bangladesh, Turkey, Saudi and Indonesia (all have suffered home grown ISIS attacks).
I think its even more convoluted to rewrite.
The entire EO is bad policy. Not only is it inefficient and vaguely non-sensical, its also completely ineffective since there is already extreme vetting from said countries.
Thats why I don't see how it can simply be re-written, as some are suggesting tRump should.
No bro
It's so hard to tell these days
I'm deferring to Alan Dershowitz - one of the best legal minds alive...constitutional law expert...and ex professor of law at Harvard.
If he says, the more Trump sits on this...the more tenous his 'national security' claims become....because the judges might say...if this is so crucial, why did it sit around the courts for a month...and in that time we had how many thousand people come in from those nations??
So, best to rewrite it after taking proper legal advice.
Oh and sure she got fired...but, looks like her assessment was correct.
Regardless, hasn't she been quiet for God knows how long? Poor first post.... Correct me if I'm mistaken.
You can't blame her for stepping away from public life after the election, it's a wonder she didn't top herself.
I don't know if it's the first post (although that's what I thought when I first saw it) but yeah it's a poor first post
Doesn't even support his own #. SAD.
The argument made by the government that "all or most of the persons affected have no rights under the Due Process Clause" flabbergasted me.
That all people in the country are protected by the Constitution is high school level civics.
Were the lawyers rubbish or was the case they were representing indefensible?
If rubbish, who hired them? Surely the US Government can afford the best Lawyers?!
@Neutral
The big precedent in these cases is Employment Division v Smith, which has been interpreted to mean that a compelling govt interest (like national security) can be used to stop the free practice of religious activities (which are as protected as religion).
OTOH, there is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which basically means that a rule like Trump's (generally applicable but actually targeting one religion) isn't legal, and promises stricter scrutiny to any attempt at capping religious activities. Still the compelling govt interest part of Smith is still applicable.
The big precedent in these cases is Employment Division v Smith, which has been interpreted to mean that a compelling govt interest (like national security) can be used to stop the free practice of religious activities (which are as protected as religion).
OTOH, there is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which basically means that a rule like Trump's (generally applicable but actually targeting one religion) isn't legal, and promises stricter scrutiny to any attempt at capping religious activities. Still the compelling govt interest part of Smith is still applicable.
How about France, Germany, etc.?
I think the case was indefensible and they rushed through it and changed counsel in the middle of proceedings, so their lawyers were behind the 8 ball.
Their 2 key arguments, that the executive is unreviewable in national security and immigration issues, and that the people have no rights here are just very poor, hastily put together arguments.
@berbatrick they were saying 'standing' might be an issue. That the conservative judges on thr Supreme Court including Roberts are very narrow when it comes to standing.
I.E. Can Washington state show how it was harmed DIRECTLY by the EO...if not, they'll rule in favor of Trump.
I.E. Can Washington state show how it was harmed DIRECTLY by the EO...if not, they'll rule in favor of Trump.
Republican politicians on CNN complaining that political law is political.
Should still be better than high school standards?
So he hasn't committed genocide... Yet.
Hell, you coulda put that up next to Hitler. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. before they started going to town on people and it'd still be true.
He's going to get sitting judges killed
Should've been, but weren't.
Flentje was even forced to concede during oral arguments that the "executive cannot be reviewed" argument was self defeating.
Amazing that people who love to drape themselves in the flag and bang on about the Constitution want to get violent when it gets used to prove them wrong.
Yes, and after seeing judges pronouncing their opinions on every topic under the sun in India the contrast is stunning in the US (all courtesy of one of my favourite judgements: PUDR vs Union of India 1982.
That said, can WA say it is harmed if WA residents are harmed (as you can tell, I'm no lawyer, so this could be very wrong)? That should be easy enough...
Having regard to the peculiar socio economic conditions prevailing in the country where there is considerable poverty, illiteracy and ignorance obstructing and impeding accessibility to the judicial process, it would result in closing the doors of justice to the poor and deprived sections of the community if the traditional rule of standing evolved by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress were to be blindly adhered to and followed, and it is therefore Necessary to evolve a new strategy by relaxing this traditional rule of standing in order that justice may become easily available to the lowly and the lost. [478 A-C]
4:3. Where a person or class of persons to whom legal injury is caused or legal wrong is done is by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position not able to approach the Court for judicial redress, any member of the public acting bonafide and not out of any extraneous motivation may move the Court for judicial redress of the legal injury or wrong suffered by such person or class of persons and the judicial process may be set in motion by any public spirited individual or institution even by addressing a letter to the court. Where judicial redress is sought of a legal injury or legal wrong suffered by a person or class of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach the court and the court is moved for this purpose by a member of a public by addressing a letter drawing the attention of the court to such legal injury or legal wrong, court would cast aside all technical rules of procedure and entertain the letter as a writ Petition on the judicial side and take action upon it. [478 C-F]
Here, the workmen whose rights are said to have been violated and to whom a life of basic human dignity has been denied are poor, ignorant, illiterate humans who, by reason of their poverty and social and economic disability, are unable to approach the courts for judicial redress and hence the petitioners have, under the liberalised rule of standing, locus standi to maintain the present writ petition espousing the cause of the workmen. The petitioners are not acting mala fide or out of extraneous motives since the first petitioner is admittedly an organisation dedicated to tho protecting and enforcement of Fundamental Rights and making Directive Principles of State Policy enforceable and justiciable.There can be no doubt that it is out of a sense of public service that the present Litigation has been brought by the petitioners and it is clearly maintainable.
4:3. Where a person or class of persons to whom legal injury is caused or legal wrong is done is by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position not able to approach the Court for judicial redress, any member of the public acting bonafide and not out of any extraneous motivation may move the Court for judicial redress of the legal injury or wrong suffered by such person or class of persons and the judicial process may be set in motion by any public spirited individual or institution even by addressing a letter to the court. Where judicial redress is sought of a legal injury or legal wrong suffered by a person or class of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach the court and the court is moved for this purpose by a member of a public by addressing a letter drawing the attention of the court to such legal injury or legal wrong, court would cast aside all technical rules of procedure and entertain the letter as a writ Petition on the judicial side and take action upon it. [478 C-F]
Here, the workmen whose rights are said to have been violated and to whom a life of basic human dignity has been denied are poor, ignorant, illiterate humans who, by reason of their poverty and social and economic disability, are unable to approach the courts for judicial redress and hence the petitioners have, under the liberalised rule of standing, locus standi to maintain the present writ petition espousing the cause of the workmen. The petitioners are not acting mala fide or out of extraneous motives since the first petitioner is admittedly an organisation dedicated to tho protecting and enforcement of Fundamental Rights and making Directive Principles of State Policy enforceable and justiciable.There can be no doubt that it is out of a sense of public service that the present Litigation has been brought by the petitioners and it is clearly maintainable.
Last edited:
Bet the Donald doesn't tweet any admonishment for that
I like how we've been reduced to not beheading people and declaring caliphates being perceived as the entry barrier for being an alright guy.
The new normal is already normal?I like how we've been reduced to not beheading people and declaring caliphates being perceived as the entry barrier for being an alright guy.
Skeletor tweets back at Hillary Clinton. Tweets the states Trump won. Get in
KellyAnne thought she could go on Fox and not be asked any tough questions - Martha McCallum nails her twice - once about the Ivanka products and again asking her if she was getting suspended. She's clearly uncomfortable here, which sort of puts her jab at Hillary into more context.
Last edited:
From the Slate article. This is polite, formal judge-speak for 'we know this is targeted at Muslims, you've been talking publicly about it for months dumbass.'
Kayleigh MeEnany: What Trump can do next
The 9th Circuit proved tonight why it is often the most reversed circuit each year. Despite President Trump having clear statutory and constitutional authority to put in place a temporary halt on immigration from countries that President Obama's Department of Homeland Security found as having some affiliation with terrorism, the 9th Circuit upheld the temporary restraining order on two flawed bases: due process and the establishment clause.
As an initial matter, the Supreme Court clearly said in Landon v. Plasencia, "an alien seeking initial admission has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative." Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that there are three categories of individuals: (1) noncitizens outside the United States; (2) noncitizens inside the United States.; and (3) Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) and citizens.
While noncitizens outside the United States have no constitutional rights, noncitizens inside have a limited modicum of constitutional rights and LPRs and citizens have full constitutional rights. Because the President's order affected categories (2) and (3) -- despite clarification from the administration that it should not apply to LPRs -- the 9th Circuit struck down the entirety of the order.
President Trump can implement the vast majority of his executive order if -- as Alan Dershowitz suggested -- he reissues it in a form that makes absolutely clear it does not apply to categories (2) and (3). This would avoid the unfriendly climate he will face at the Supreme Court with four liberal justices and would protect the national security interests of the United States.
Kayleigh McEnany is a CNN commentator and a graduate of Harvard Law School. She studied politics at Oxford University.
It is about time his loose language caught up with him.
Whoever had to go through his speeches and quotes and form coherent, legible thoughts out of them deserves a raise. Probably a more challenging task than conducting a tour of Newcastle United's trophy room.
She tweeted support for women's rally. Generally been supportive of Dems, thanked voter base for the popular vote victory. If this infuriates Trump or Conway, so be it.
What sort of time frame are we looking at if the challenge goes to the Supreme Court? Before or after Gorsuch is confirmed?
- Status