oh it's a total farce. In my opinion judges have way too much power. We need to have congress vote to change it. Or hold them accountable when they rules based on personal beliefs. Like keagan and the other two women
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The President Trump Immigration Thread
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
i think something like 23% of the population is in this district. Seems a bit skewed if we have at least 9 of them
The judges in the present Ninth get Hawaii, AK and Nevada. And make it a true circuit. They get to travel from State to State every month to hear cases.
Form a new Circuit from the remainder with new appointees.
Form a new Circuit from the remainder with new appointees.
I know. WTF
There was vetting before the EO; that vetting remains in place.
There was vetting before the EO; that vetting remains in place. If someone gets through that system, it is that systems fault.
What is different about this "extreme" vetting that we're not already doing?
That's what I keep coming back to - this could easily be one big Trump distraction. He can change the vetting without an EO, specifically targeting those countries that are more likely to produce both terrorists and refugees.
He's making this harder than it needs to be. Why?
The problem is, objectively, there's no indication these judges are acting subjectively. Sure, there's tons of confirmation bias, but so far the TRO has been held to be right. Even if SCOTUS removes it, there's still a good faith argument that it is unconstitutional. That's what will be litigated after the TRO.
"The law is reason, free from emotion." - Aristotle
This remains a singularly bad idea, and more representative of groupthink than a republic. We want an independent judiciary.
Does Heller ring any bells for people?
This employment angle is just one part of the litigation, but it there's another dimension to it that is a bit further removed. The argument that the tech companies join in includes these points: if one of their employees is not allowed to enter when they have the right to do so, it deprives the employer the value of the work, which causes them harm; and, (this one is even more tenuous) the EO makes it more difficult to recruit the best employees for some positions, which causes them harm in the marketplace.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that these positions are "right" in any sense other than that they are legally available. There is a basis in the law for these arguments; they are not just "made up." They appear to contribute to a compelling case for a TRO in the 9th circuit.
This is a bit nuanced, but the question is whether the EO was implemented in a constitutional way. As the courts have even commented, there is a way to do the EO that achieves most of what he wants, but he's not doing it that way. Instead, he's picking a fight.
He might win the fight - one way or another - but its not a fight that's really necessary, in a legal sense. In a personal sense, he may think it is very necessary.
There was vetting before the EO; that vetting remains in place. If someone gets through that system, it is that systems fault.
What is different about this "extreme" vetting that we're not already doing?
That's what I keep coming back to - this could easily be one big Trump distraction. He can change the vetting without an EO, specifically targeting those countries that are more likely to produce both terrorists and refugees.
He's making this harder than it needs to be. Why?
The problem is, objectively, there's no indication these judges are acting subjectively. Sure, there's tons of confirmation bias, but so far the TRO has been held to be right. Even if SCOTUS removes it, there's still a good faith argument that it is unconstitutional. That's what will be litigated after the TRO.
"The law is reason, free from emotion." - Aristotle
This remains a singularly bad idea, and more representative of groupthink than a republic. We want an independent judiciary.
Does Heller ring any bells for people?
This employment angle is just one part of the litigation, but it there's another dimension to it that is a bit further removed. The argument that the tech companies join in includes these points: if one of their employees is not allowed to enter when they have the right to do so, it deprives the employer the value of the work, which causes them harm; and, (this one is even more tenuous) the EO makes it more difficult to recruit the best employees for some positions, which causes them harm in the marketplace.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that these positions are "right" in any sense other than that they are legally available. There is a basis in the law for these arguments; they are not just "made up." They appear to contribute to a compelling case for a TRO in the 9th circuit.
That isn't really the issue before the courts, because the consensus is that he does have the authority for the EO generally.
This is a bit nuanced, but the question is whether the EO was implemented in a constitutional way. As the courts have even commented, there is a way to do the EO that achieves most of what he wants, but he's not doing it that way. Instead, he's picking a fight.
He might win the fight - one way or another - but its not a fight that's really necessary, in a legal sense. In a personal sense, he may think it is very necessary.
Here is a good, relatively readable, breakdown of the EO litigation by a basically objective site.
9th Circuit keeps Trump?s immigration order on hold - SCOTUSblog
Sure, objectivity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, but SCOTUSblog has a variety of audiences. Mostly technophile appellate geeks.
ETA:
This is an interesting point that I'd overlooked.
It is fine for the attorneys to say "the EO has been interpreted internally in a way that will be constitutional." But, the evidence they present should actually show that to be true. Sounds like they skipped a logical step in the chain of command.
9th Circuit keeps Trump?s immigration order on hold - SCOTUSblog
Sure, objectivity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, but SCOTUSblog has a variety of audiences. Mostly technophile appellate geeks.
ETA:
This is an interesting point that I'd overlooked.
It is fine for the attorneys to say "the EO has been interpreted internally in a way that will be constitutional." But, the evidence they present should actually show that to be true. Sounds like they skipped a logical step in the chain of command.
The vetting system for kids born in Chicago could certainly be better, but the pre-Trump vetting was not in place when he was allowed to be born.
If you're talking about the wife, she entered on a fiance visa from Pakistan. I'm not sure, but I don't think Pakistan is on the list.
So, Trump's EO would not have changed that at all.
Vetting should be as hard as it needs to be.
(TWSS)
Fair point, but you'd think given the inherent flaws with Trump's EO, he would have corrected the problem once it was pointed out. He has, like T.Lex said, has had the opportunity to clear this fiasco up, from the very beginning. His ego seems to be playing heavily in this.... As always. Guess who is going to pay a nice chunk of change for this suit to go forward, because the president is unwilling to amend an EO?
In reference to dumping the direct 90 day ban.
New "better" vetting needs to happen.
Lets say Trump comes up with a 10 point system where you have to get all 10 vetting requirements met or you don't get in. Done.
Do you really think the people protesting about a 90 day hold are NOT going to call that horrifically burdensome?
Why do you say this?
Do you know what the current vetting is? Has Trump explained what will be better about "neo maxi uber zoom vetting"?
No. He hasn't.
It appears to me that people believe there are problems with vetting because it was Obama's system and Trump's system will automagically be better.
That is more likely to be constitutional than the EO - either as written or as interpreted. Assuming the 10 vetting requirements are legitimate.
I'm pretty sure I've said - repeatedly - that there is a way to do this that would pass muster.
Don't know; don't care. I think the judges reviewing the matter would be less likely to consider it unconstitutional.
That works until you get a judge basing a ruling on personal feelings, again, then this is all back out the window.
Ok, but that when did that happen? Robart, apparently, at least has a legally defensible position in his ruling.
Of note, the gov't hasn't established that permanent residents are excluded from the EO. That's probably the most significant hurdle IMHO.
