How many months will pass between the end of the 90 day ban and the legal battle over it being done? Its going to be rendered moot by the TRO



I think that logically the #1 issue is that nobody could challenge it if they wanted to.
Lets say we had a legal battle over whether we could execute Adolf Hitler today. The #1 reason we can't execute him is because he's already dead as dillinger.
Now there might be some case to be made for #2 issues on the merits of whether we should if we could- thats different. The fact Obama never informed congress renders any questions of reasons it wasn't challenged moot
Its not a question of which ranks higher in some scale of arbitrary transgression points on ethical qualms, but the simple logic of being a moot point.

But like I say, if it wasn't for that action being secret, even if it was as public and infamous as Trump's EO, its still derived from the same power, theres no arbitrary distinctions in in the inadmissable aliens act that cares about how many countries or what type of visas or cause or exemptions. Its a discretionary power. And it is subject to judicial review, if they could create a legitimate case for violating equal protections, but the only section even having any chance of that is the "bogus majority/minority religious exemptions", something that would probably survive scrutiny anyway but even if struck down would keep the ban itself intact, just making it even more restrictive, so that too is kind of a moot point isn't it?
Ctrl+f "moot". hrrrngg

This post was edited by Goomshill on Feb 10 2017 03:15pm

HITLER!

everybody take a drink

I think its an insurmountable challenge, as soon as you make progress they do too and they figure out your process and adapt. its ever changing. and in that light it's unfair to suggest Trumps new vetting isnt needed, of course it is we need to change the game constantly. but he also seems to have no direction or specifics and can only speak in a WIDE general sense. when he does get specific we hear things like "close of parts of the internet" and such.

my solution: bring in all refugees as people with zero rights for the foreseeable future. All computers bugged, phones bugged, state provided cell phones, home surveillance even, checking in with someone like people do with PO's. etc.

refugees don't deserve to die in their country, but the aren't citizens. this will help remove the stigma as well, no one would envy living under the microscope like that. and it still wouldnt go over with the far left. oh well.




agreed.



this is the avenue they will go down, and i think the presence of a plaintiff here to push will make a difference. also we have to take into account the Iraqi's and other citizens that helped in the war effort given broken promises who are now targeted in their own countries, likely drawing on precedent from the Hmong case in Nam. I would have to look more into those agreements to see if there is even a paper trail, that is afterall how we got away with it for so long before.





we're going to spend millions trying to find a plan everyone can agree on, instead of spending millions on a plan no one is happy with but wont stand up to.this USSC case alone will be expensive, add in the cost of every lower court, etc. sometimes eating a bill is cheaper. but as they arent citizens i have no problem with a tax on jobs they're placed in to recoup costs.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 10 2017 03:25pm

I don't think we should spend an obscene amount of resources and manpower to monitor a group which has yet to attack the United States.

yeah you gotta make sure to treat them shitty enough to get the republicans on board

In addition to this I believe there should be a transition period where immigrants stay at a facility similar to Ellis Island. Here while they are going through the vetting process they would receive classes and instruction in integrating into American society. From there you resettle them in different areas while keeping family units intact to avoid a large population concentration.

This post was edited by tman65ky on Feb 10 2017 03:26pm

Hit the soles of their feet with bamboo?



Build these places for our millions of homeless people too.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 10 2017 03:26pm

fuck you got me

Most of the homeless population is homeless due to substance abuse and or mental illness. I agree with you though that we need to do more to help them and we could if we changed welfare laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy/

Pretty good article on how far it slides down the slippery slippery slope. Robart is at serious risk of having Scalia's body lurch from its grave, rip off his head and shit down his neck





Its akin to saying Keith Ellison's past associations with Nation of Islam can prove religious animus towards any legislation he passes that negatively impact jews. Or saying Elizabeth Warren shouldn't be allowed to pass laws that ship the white man's jobs overseas because she can trace her lineage straight back to little crow, if we make the courts the exclusive arbiters of intent and decide that any crazy alleged past bias unrelated to the law let alone the text of it can be discriminatory. Or saying that a judge can't rule fairly because he's mexican. That kind of nonsense.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Feb 10 2017 03:39pm