Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[T.Lex]

Of course, lawyers are gonna lawyer. And I would expect the DOJ to do nothing less than pursue it. I also tend to think it was strange for the states to challenge it on behalf of their citizens. That's not great for standing. But, it also looks like others with better standing have joined, so that problem's solved.

And, I'm also not saying these are great arguments. I am saying that this ruling was within the range of reasonable decisions we expect from courts.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, in confirmation hearings, context doesn't really matter. Trump handed Dems a way to extend these news cycles.


I disagree. The government couldn't show a rational basis for the change, as the prior methods had been sufficient to deny entry to islamofascists. Its a bit of a trick bag - we want effective systems but can't predict how long the current systems will be effective - but the judge's decision, as affirmed by the court of appeals, was reasonable.

Reasonable people can disagree. Or at least used to be able to.

9th hasn't affirmed poppycock (well, not in this case, as they have affirmed, and been overruled, plenty poppycock, quite often)... just that they weren't going to overrule the stay without hearing arguments.

You'll have to wait for your poppycock.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Here's the order.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_2003_robart_tro_ruling.pdf

If you skip down to the Conclusion, it articulates the responsibilities of the co-ordinate branches of government.

IANAL, but I've read plenty of court papers and rulings. The judge basically says here is the standard the plantiffs have to meet and they meet it. Absolutely ZERO meat on HOW they are more likely to prevail, and zero on HOW they suffer irreparable harm. He doesn't even hint at the very basic, 1st year law school question of how these State AGs even have standing? (hint, they don't)

 

[T.Lex]

9th hasn't affirmed poppycock (well, not in this case, as they have affirmed, and been overruled, plenty poppycock, quite often)... just that they weren't going to overrule the stay without hearing arguments.

Which is another way of saying that the judge's order is valid on its face.

It might end up as poppycock, but it is not that, yet.

IANAL, but I've read plenty of court papers and rulings. The judge basically says here is the standard the plantiffs have to meet and they meet it. Absolutely ZERO meat on HOW they are more likely to prevail, and zero on HOW they suffer irreparable harm. He doesn't even hint at the very basic, 1st year law school question of how these State AGs even have standing? (hint, they don't)

He did. Hint: page 4-5 and the Latin contained therein.

It is cursory, but for a TRO, sometimes that's all you get. It isn't full briefing, otherwise the "temporary" part of it gets lost.

Regardless, dude's still a real, actual, nominated and confirmed, federal judge. Not a "so called" judge.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Which is another way of saying that the judge's order is valid on its face.

It might end up as poppycock, but it is not that, yet.



He did. Hint: page 4-5 and the Latin contained therein.

It is cursory, but for a TRO, sometimes that's all you get. It isn't full briefing, otherwise the "temporary" part of it gets lost.

Regardless, dude's still a real, actual, nominated and confirmed, federal judge. Not a "so called" judge.

Yes, he's gotta be the "real deal", rather the those other judges who looked at all the arguments and found that the EO was BOTH legal and constitutional, this "judge" knows the EO is both illegal and unconstitutional without even going to arguments... hence the TRO instead of calling for arguments for a preliminary injunction.

Quick draw before the facts are in... that's the way "real" judges do it.

 

[BugI02]

Whoa. Ukraine is nothing like Viet Nam. It can't be.

The Ukraine historically has a strong economy, which is what makes it valuable for resources. In Soviet times, it was considered the "breadbasket" of the USSR - kinda like the midwest in the US.

VN had rice.

The Ukraine has struggled with autonomy for a long time, but has developed robust democratic principles since the fall of the Soviet Union (and even some fistfights in parliament). Viet Nam never really had that until after we left.

The reference was to the Diem government's, shall we say, less than impressive will to fight on its own behalf rather than rely on the US to do the heavy lifting

I'm not following the Afghanistan reference vis a vis Ukraine. Those 2 countries cannot get more different. Unless we're worried about Eastern Orthodox jihad. Which might be reasonable, but their prayers take WAY longer. (Paging Mr. Foszoe, Mr. Foszoe, please pick up the red courtesy phone....)

The Afghanistan reference was actually brought in by SD4L, with the reference to high levels of zinc coffins (Russian casualties) acting as a curb on Russian behavior {"I think bloodying Putin's nose with the promise/prospect of Afghanistan level zinc coffins brings Putin to the table"} I merely mention what assuring those high levels of Russian casualties cost us later on

In terms of whether it is appropriate to commit ground troops to the defense of the Ukraine, my response is that it depends on when the "right" time is. Putin is only getting stronger. He continues to re-establish the Soviet era boundaries. Are we prepared for another Cold War?

Are you prepared for a hot war? Moreover, a hot war that would be extremely difficult to win? If we couldn't/wouldn't stop the Sovs from doing as they saw fit in this area at the height of our post WWII might, what leads you to believe we can do so now?

 

[BugI02]

I think you should do sarcasm with purple and teal on alternating characters just so we can be sure it's real sarcasm a

I fear such a well-stirred, frothy blend of sarcasm and reality might be mistaken for a lettersnumberletter post

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, he's gotta be the "real deal", rather the those other judges who looked at all the arguments and found that the EO was BOTH legal and constitutional

Cites, please? I know of some who declined to enter TROs, but no decisions that are that broad.

, this "judge" knows the EO is both illegal and unconstitutional without even going to arguments... hence the TRO instead of calling for arguments for a preliminary injunction.

Did you read the order? He didn't say the EO was "illegal and unconstitutional." That's a different decision. He decided that the TRO should be put in place based on the legal arguments that were made.

"Because national security" isn't a magic phrase that allows everything.

The reference was to the Diem government's, shall we say, less than impressive will to fight on its own behalf rather than rely on the US to do the heavy lifting

I'm sorry, still not tracking. The Ukraine, at that point (and maybe right now) is in an existential fight for independence. They have no choice but to fight or surrender.

The Afghanistan reference was actually brought in by SD4L, with the reference to high levels of zinc coffins (Russian casualties) acting as a curb on Russian behavior {"I think bloodying Putin's nose with the promise/prospect of Afghanistan level zinc coffins brings Putin to the table"} I merely mention what assuring those high levels of Russian casualties cost us later on

Are you prepared for a hot war? Moreover, a hot war that would be extremely difficult to win? If we couldn't/wouldn't stop the Sovs from doing as they saw fit in this area at the height of our post WWII might, what leads you to believe we can do so now?

I'm not advocating any specific course of action right now, but it isn't an either/or. We can place speed-bump defense troops (like our ROK contingent) and rotate them through as a dissuading factor for Putin. Maybe even work in some live-fire practice.

But, that is just one piece on the chess board right now.

After 8 years of incompetence, we are left with bad choices.

 

[KG1]

So, in confirmation hearings, context doesn't really matter. Trump handed Dems a way to extend these news cycles.


I disagree. The government couldn't show a rational basis for the change, as the prior methods had been sufficient to deny entry to islamofascists. Its a bit of a trick bag - we want effective systems but can't predict how long the current systems will be effective - but the judge's decision, as affirmed by the court of appeals, was reasonable.

Reasonable people can disagree. Or at least used to be able to.

Is it within the courts jurisdiction to pass judgement on the rationality of the basis for the change or is it's responsibility to base an order on constitutionality?

 

[T.Lex]

Is it within the courts jurisdiction to pass judgement on the rationality of the basis for the change or is it's responsibility to base an order on constitutionality?

Yes.

(Going from memory, so open to correction by the practitioners of these dark litigation arts.)

Part of the analysis for granting a TRO is which side, based on current arguments, has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Not actually deciding the case, but trying to determine if the side asking for the TRO might win. In this case, he decided that they do have a reasonable chance. Not a lock, but it doesn't need to be. Pg. 4-5 of the order.


ETA:

This is almost the exact obverse of the Chicago zoning. There, gun owners are getting an RO (and I believe it started as a TRO) because they've shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.

 

[BugI02]

I mostly hate it for two reasons:

1. It has historically been powerful enough to influence company decisions, stock market, etc... Since words/threats are oftentimes precursor to actions. I'd rather actions be actions, and tweets not have so much of an impact on behavior/economy.

2. The childish manner in which he tweets (and embarrassingly re-tweets through the official President of the United States account) really makes the US look bad. Him tweeting on his personal account is one thing... but re-routing that through the account of the most powerful and important position in the world for others to see makes me, personally, feel embarrassed. Not discounting the good or bad he will do in four years... hoping it's mostly good... but it's like your parents doing something in front of your friends that makes you cringe.



If a judge has a constitutional argument against the EO, that's what I want to see. If the judge halts it because societal pressure and "I don't like it", that's not good enough. If you have a point to make... make it using law and the constitution.

I agree with this completely. from what I've read and heard, Robart referenced almost no case law in his decision. IMO giving so much (apparent) credence to the fact no terrorist attacks have been carried out [yet] by immigrants/refugees from the seven countries is ridiculous. I would expect the decision to be based on case law, not statistics erroneously applied [past terrorist performance is no guarantee of future behavior]

Listen to John Eastman about at 21:10 here http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510053/on-point-with-tom-ashbrook

Or reference http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613988

Still, "so-called judge" is out of bounds. Trump doesn't like being challenged, and I'm hoping his advisers keep him in-line when it continues to happen.

I can countenance calling Robart a "so-called judge" because my concept of a judge is someone elected/appointed to carefully weigh the body of case law and legal precedent in order to rationally decide how the law should apply to the case before his/her/its court. If a "judge" decides a case based on personal feelings or political beliefs not rooted in the law, then he is an empty robe - a "judge' in name only

 

[T.Lex]

I can countenance calling Robart a "so-called judge" because my concept of a judge is someone elected/appointed to carefully weigh the body of case law and legal precedent in order to rationally decide how the law should apply to the case before his/her/its court. If a "judge" decides a case based on personal feelings or political beliefs not rooted in the law, then he is an empty robe - a "judge' in name only

Did you read it?

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_2003_robart_tro_ruling.pdf

His personal feelings or political beliefs were not cited. Instead, he cited appropriate cases and standards. We can disagree with the order, but let's not let confirmation bias carry the day.

And in terms of a TRO, it is all about using the past to predict the future. A party is asking the court to modify current behavior. That requires a prudent examination of current state v. future state.

 

[BugI02]

I just read your link, and it seems to turn predominantly on the plaintiffs assertion that they are suffering harm, predominantly economic, from the EO

Perhaps you could skim the Examiner article, because relative to the idea that the plaintiff must be reasonably likely to prevail in their case to get the TRO, I just can't see the logic behind Robart's conclusion [forgive me, my understanding of the legal issues involved will be that of a layman]. From what I have read, the President is clearly within the scope of his authority both constitutionally and with respect to precedent. I have read nothing that leads me to believe that the president need consider economic harm to corporate america when making decisions affecting national security

When and if you have time and should be so inclined, the whole 'On Point' discussion of this is a surprisingly good listen (even the guests who disagree with my view) considering the source

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Trump, I guess isn't speaking to Parliament (and not the Funkadelic one). That "Special Relationship" seems fairly pedestrian today.
Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker John Bercow says | The Independent

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Did you read the order? He didn't say the EO was "illegal and unconstitutional." That's a different decision. He decided that the TRO should be put in place based on the legal arguments that were made.

Yes, I did... he issued the TRO on the basis he felt, and that is all he did was "feel", that Washington AG was likely to prevail, and the AG's argument was that the EO is both illegal AND unconstitutional... and if it is neither, then the Washington AG has zero chance to prevail. So, yeah, he is saying that it is at least one of the two, and so likely so that without even hearing all of the arguments, to jump in with a TRO.

There was a clip on MSNBC where the judge questioned the DOJ attorney how many deaths have occurred in the US? She said she didn't know, she was from the Civil Division, he said he knows the answer is zero. Which, on it's own is amazing that a judge would do that (not that he would ask a question, but that he would supply the answer himself). Second, is he saying Americans have to die before our borders can be secured? Or, that whether they have or not affects either the legality or constitutionality of the EO?

 

[Woobie]

The Trump, I guess isn't speaking to Parliament (and not the Funkadelic one). That "Special Relationship" seems fairly pedestrian today.
Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker John Bercow says | The Independent

Lol, I can just hear Trump saying "whatever part of you hurts, lay it up against your radio."

 

[Libertarian01]

For the record I do not support this executive order. We have had millions of immigrants enter this country legally and there have been zero (0) attacks initiated by them. All have been home grown goobers.

That said, the President is privy to classified information that may(?) show a heightened need for additional screening.

And while I agree that the courts may hear these arguments and eventually overturn them, I do NOT agree with a single judge being able to overturn the ruling of the President. Finding against him? Absolutely yes! Single-handedly without access to the totality of information the President has? Absolutely NO!

The President has been (as I understand it) delegated much power by the congress to oversee immigration and refugee issues.

In my opinion, the best way for the judge to have ruled would be to find for the plaintiffs, issue a TRO, and then put a hold on that very TRO allowing the process of checks and balances to fully and more carefully review such an important issue. That way the judge could stand his ground but not conflict with the executive order until further review had been allowed.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

I just read your link, and it seems to turn predominantly on the plaintiffs assertion that they are suffering harm, predominantly economic, from the EO

Perhaps you could skim the Examiner article, because relative to the idea that the plaintiff must be reasonably likely to prevail in their case to get the TRO, I just can't see the logic behind Robart's conclusion [forgive me, my understanding of the legal issues involved will be that of a layman]. From what I have read, the President is clearly within the scope of his authority both constitutionally and with respect to precedent. I have read nothing that leads me to believe that the president need consider economic harm to corporate america when making decisions affecting national security

When and if you have time and should be so inclined, the whole 'On Point' discussion of this is a surprisingly good listen (even the guests who disagree with my view) considering the source

I don't mean to be rude, but listening to other lawyers (? or lay non-lawyers for that matter) discuss the merits of a case isn't something I usually want to do in my free time. Especially when I'm pretty sure I could do a better job. On either side.

Your point about the scope of executive privilege is, indeed, the crux. Presidents have considerable leeway in administering the law. But, they cannot do so unconstitutionally. That's the question. A constitutional exercise of authority can be accomplished unconstitutionally.

The president has the authority to order a drone strike. No issue.

If that drone strike targets an American citizen for death without due process. That's probably an issue. (Some day.)

Personally, I think the so called president probably does have the authority for this change in policy. I think I've even been pretty clear about that. I think it is bad policy, but he probably still has the power to step on his own trumpeter of Krakow.

Yes, I did... he issued the TRO on the basis he felt, and that is all he did was "feel", that Washington AG was likely to prevail, and the AG's argument was that the EO is both illegal AND unconstitutional... and if it is neither, then the Washington AG has zero chance to prevail. So, yeah, he is saying that it is at least one of the two, and so likely so that without even hearing all of the arguments, to jump in with a TRO.

This looks to me like you don't understand what's going on. He has to make a determination as to reasonable chance of success on the merits. It is, by nature, speculative. It is based on the arguments presented to him, which may or may not be convincing.

It is not easy being a judge. Sometimes you have to make decisions that are very specific, knowing that someone will be very upset. That's what he did. Until SCOTUS decides, we probably won't know the final answer on this one.

There was a clip on MSNBC where the judge questioned the DOJ attorney how many deaths have occurred in the US? She said she didn't know, she was from the Civil Division, he said he knows the answer is zero. Which, on it's own is amazing that a judge would do that (not that he would ask a question, but that he would supply the answer himself).

First, a lawyer who admits ignorance to an obvious question is already losing.

Second, if the court asks a question that it knows the answer to, the attorney should, too. I strongly suspect that the answer was in the briefing by the other side, who at this point appear to be better lawyers.

Third, look up "judicial notice."

Second, is he saying Americans have to die before our borders can be secured? Or, that whether they have or not affects either the legality or constitutionality of the EO?

No. The so called president changed policy. He implemented it in a way that impacted people who are entitled to constitutional protections. In doing so, there's a good chance he acted unconstitutionally. He is allowed to change the policy to remove the problem, but he's chosen not to.

This isn't a law that need congressional action to change. It is an EO. He can amend the EO to make it conform. He's choosing not to, which is also his decision.

The "secure our borders" thing is not enough. And there are ways to present evidence under seal. Heck, there's public source material that could be used. But, they didn't do it, apparently. If "secure our borders" worked no matter what, that's a bigger issue.

 

[jamil]

Few, yes, but not zero.

For the record I do not support this executive order. We have had millions of immigrants enter this country legally and there have been zero (0) attacks initiated by them. All have been home grown goobers.

That said, the President is privy to classified information that may(?) show a heightened need for additional screening.

And while I agree that the courts may hear these arguments and eventually overturn them, I do NOT agree with a single judge being able to overturn the ruling of the President. Finding against him? Absolutely yes! Single-handedly without access to the totality of information the President has? Absolutely NO!

The President has been (as I understand it) delegated much power by the congress to oversee immigration and refugee issues.

In my opinion, the best way for the judge to have ruled would be to find for the plaintiffs, issue a TRO, and then put a hold on that very TRO allowing the process of checks and balances to fully and more carefully review such an important issue. That way the judge could stand his ground but not conflict with the executive order until further review had been allowed.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

For the record I do not support this executive order. We have had millions of immigrants enter this country legally and there have been zero (0) attacks initiated by them. All have been home grown goobers.

That said, the President is privy to classified information that may(?) show a heightened need for additional screening.

And while I agree that the courts may hear these arguments and eventually overturn them, I do NOT agree with a single judge being able to overturn the ruling of the President. Finding against him? Absolutely yes! Single-handedly without access to the totality of information the President has? Absolutely NO!

The President has been (as I understand it) delegated much power by the congress to oversee immigration and refugee issues.

In my opinion, the best way for the judge to have ruled would be to find for the plaintiffs, issue a TRO, and then put a hold on that very TRO allowing the process of checks and balances to fully and more carefully review such an important issue. That way the judge could stand his ground but not conflict with the executive order until further review had been allowed.

Regards,

Doug

No there have been several. No links as I am having a brain fart but someone will post. 2 idiots in Cali last summer. Man and woman team comes to mind.
How many have been thwarted and we are unaware.