Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 10 2017 01:58pm)

What would have stopped the same judicial obstruction? He acted within his explicit authority, cited the act that was being used. When Obama did the same thing in 2011, he actually did it in secret and didn't even inform congress. Lets keep in mind that Santara and fellow libertarians spent the last 8 years decrying how Obama wasn't just acting within the executive authorities, but expanding those edges more rapidly than any president. Trump acted within the safe zone of explicit powers and didn't even tap his ambiguous grey areas or ignore basic checks on his power to shield it like hushing it up.

Partisan judges on the other hand get to throw a wrench in it by inventing a test of religious animus based on media criticism, a precedent they could use to apply arbitrary judicial review to any law for any reason. Perhaps black people feel explicitly neutral and nonracial welfare cuts were motivated by racial animus because republicans hate black people because CNN told them so. Where does that slippery slope end? And unlike a dispassionate and neutral objective application of law leading to a legitimate question of equal protections violations, the lower courts only accomplish this challenge by ludicrously selectively ignoring their own law precedents in a buffet style pick and choose when it suits them- the lower court needed "irreparable harm" to issue an injunction, and completely failed to satisfy the four pronged test, on an act that by definition is reversible and hence cannot be irreparable. So they simply handwave it and ignore that necessity. But when the challenge reaches the higher court, the burden is on the government to provide the balance of harms in their favor and argue irreparable harm from the hold, to which the 9th circuit pounces on them and declares they can't prove real examples of such harm under the strict definitions. Its a mockery of the rule of law.

Quote (Landmine @ Feb 10 2017 02:05pm)

Did you read the law? I'm guessing not, because you couldn't even understand the reading of the law.

Homeland security stated the EO was reviewed. Don't let the msm hit you on your way out.

Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 10 2017 02:09pm)

OK. we both know there are parts of this EO which are problematic, nonspecific, and were going to be challenged. And we both know that challenge would have been better handled by Trump had he properly vetted this EO. its right there in his own words, they didn't want bad hombres in so they rushed it in secret to law. But if he would have come out with an actual explanation that made sense instead of doing it in hindsight days into the controversy that would have been better, it might not have even made it through the courts. and as it stands this thing is going to the USSC, it will have parts stricken and will go into effect.

but i fail to see the direct line between Obama and Trump. Obama in actuality restricted, not barred, restricted immigration from Iraq.

Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 10 2017 02:23pm)

The inadmissable aliens act gives presidents the ability to restrict or suspend immigration, it doesn't matter which ability they exercise, because theres no limit to their power to restrict, as its arbitrary, the 'suspend' is redundant.
Obama 'restricted' iraqi entry to the point that the numbers support that during those 6 months, the state department probably only let in <10 people per month, just so they could claim it wasn't a total ban for optics. (18251 in 2010, 6339 in 2011, 16369 in 2012, they don't release data for 6 month intervals so it looks like a next to total shutdown during that time)
Would it have been better if Trump said "We'll stop immigration for 99.99% of people from these 7 nations, but I'll handpick one man and one woman from each country each month to get on our Ark"? Thats effectively what Obama did. And if you think rushing it to be secret until its announced is bad, Obama never informed congress about the 2011 freeze at all, it was done by the state department in silence with no opportunity for checks and balances.

Quote (BiGBraD @ Feb 10 2017 01:32pm)

Donald J. Trump <3

Quote (Surfpunk @ Feb 10 2017 09:52pm)

How's that little Cheeto dick taste?

Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 10 2017 02:34pm)

The figures i saw showed a 162 person low month in 2011. 162. low. month. from one country, not 7.

one of us is VERY wrong. but i did see a graph showing monthly immigration from iraq from 2011 that showed a 162 low.

Quote

but there's also the whole obama was acting on a credible threat portion, and the fact that Obama's ban resulted in increased vetting procedures which are still being used and have likely been expanded on. and to my knowledge Obama didn't actually stop any green card holders from returning or legal residents, which gave his situation no plaintiff.

Quote

i understand what you're saying about the precedent of EO's, that's valid in terms of the procedure. but there's a reason that Obama's wasn't challenged, and a reason Trump's was. a big part of that is Trump, no doubt, but there are still specific differences and futhermore specific reason Obama didn't put in a lot of what Trump did put in. anything is legal until its challenged, this didn't even make it to law for a week before it was challenged.

Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 10 2017 02:56pm)

Could be higher, could be lower. Clearly it cut out at least half the refugees for that year, I was never arsed to look up the monthly numbers.
If you want to delve through a database, its here:
http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/Interactive-Reporting/EnumType/Report?ItemPath=/rpt_WebArrivalsReports/MX%20-%20Arrivals%20by%20Nationality%20and%20Religion



None of that has any bearing on his constitutional powers that courts can review. Since when do courts get to make determinations about national security that have been explicitly granted to the executive? Theres nothing in the inadmissable aliens act which requires a credible specific threat, or increased vetting procedures, and gives a wide discretion for which subgroups of aliens may be restricted- so long as they're aliens, it would be different if it affected citizens. Besides, Trump's EO was, quite similarly, a temporary hold during which new vetting procedures would be developed, its right there in section 4 of his EO.

Quote

The #1 reason Obama's wasn't challenged is because it couldn't be challenged, because nobody knew it occurred because he did it silently.
Obama was very keen on protecting executive powers by cloaking it against judicial review by never letting anyone have standing because they can't prove standing if they can't prove that, lets say, a surveillance program spies on them.

Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 10 2017 04:03pm)

I guess the question is simple, because i largely agree. do you think trump's EO will come out of the courts with no required changes? small, large, whatever. or will it come out tweaked. if it's tweaked then IMO it deserved to be there in the first place. my guess is this will get a few slight changes then go into effect, which i'm fine with.

but ya i forgot about the entirely non-specific "extreme vetting" that is proposed to fill holes that no one can quite identify in the process already. maybe a bacon test, that'll get em.



if this isn't hyperbole i find it to be wrong. the #1 reason was because it was only a restriction on admitting new applications, and only in 1 country, and only because of a verified issue with vetting, and only in response to a specific event, without any bogus majority/minority religion exemptions. if you honestly think those above reasons rank higher than "he did it swift and quiet" i just plain disagree. all the way.