Why wasn't Tesla part of the 100 Tech Companies Signing against the Travel Ban?

[jeffro01]

Sometimes you read this decisions and look between the lines it appears they are looking for a reason, any reason to overturn or push thru. That was my opinion on the Obamacare tax Supreme Court ruling. I was unhappy about this one but decided to read the document before killing it.

Nope! Millions more feel this way but are quiet about it or worse,detached. Ignorance is bliss
I do not like the past statements as a citizen, reaction law rather than proactive and agree with you about the Japanese internment camps. That is more paranoid, Trump is Hitler Bullsh&^T. Despite what Dems think, you DO NOT have a RIGHT to enter this country.

It must be hard living in so much fear of something that's so statistically unlikely to ever harm you...

Jeff

 

[ModelX]

Sounds like they are going back and revising the EO now; this time with more help from the DOJ.

 

[McRat]

I don't think you're in a position to call a federal appeals court "too stupid to understand"... This is what grinds my gears about the right, when a court rules in your favor you react as if you've suddenly been handed a key to the moral high ground, but when you lose, the judge/court was making a political statement. Yet you have the audacity to call the left "snowflakes"...

Why can't you just admit that the EO was unlawful, and unconstitutional? Is it because it damages your idol or is it because you really are that bigoted and fearful? It was obvious to the court, to the people filing the lawsuit against it, and really to anyone anywhere who can read, that the entire purpose of this EO was to block Muslims from entering the country. It was in fact, at it's core, a Muslim ban. If you honestly think banning an entire religion of people from entering this country is constitutional then you're either delusional, or have a serious lacking in reading comprehension.

Jeff

I've not added any new meanings for the word snowflake. Wrong person.

And I don't think Donald Trump was the best choice for the POTUS.

I object to many of the 9th decisions historically, and this is just another. If the decision stands, every word you've said in your life supersedes any action you take in the eyes of the court. This applies to the rest of your life.

I object to comparing visa restrictions to false imprisonment of US citizens on US soil.

I object to claiming that all laws are invalid that have metrics associated with them.

I object to the concept that the US must only act upon successful attacks from foreign nationals on US soil. That a pattern of violence globally is not enough to designate somebody as dangerous.

These are educated people acting in an uneducated manner. Perhaps stupid is harse, but their inability to realize what their words mean to future decisions is the best possible reason. Lack of knowledge is far better than political reasons, or outside financial interests. Washington and SF both have wealthy companies that desire more H1b visas.

 

[bonnie]

I've not added any new meanings for the word snowflake. Wrong person.

And I don't think Donald Trump was the best choice for the POTUS.

I object to many of the 9th decisions historically, and this is just another. If the decision stands, every word you've said in your life supersedes any action you take in the eyes of the court. This applies to the rest of your life.

I object to comparing visa restrictions to false imprisonment of US citizens on US soil.

I object to claiming that all laws are invalid that have metrics associated with them.

I object to the concept that the US must only act upon successful attacks from foreign nationals on US soil. That a pattern of violence globally is not enough to designate somebody as dangerous.

These are educated people acting in an uneducated manner. Perhaps stupid is harse, but their inability to realize what their words mean to future decisions is the best possible reason. Lack of knowledge is far better than political reasons, or outside financial interests. Washington and SF both have wealthy companies that desire more H1b visas.

Just for the record, I appreciate this kind of thoughtful post from you. Even though I don't agree with everything, still giving you a 'like' because this is the kind of thing that contributes to a good discussion.

 

[Red Sage]

Sounds like they are going back and revising the EO now; this time with more help from the DOJ.

Heh. To actually make it legal, they'll do best to prepare a draft of a new Executive Order that does not require the signature of Barack Hussein Obama, but otherwise reads the same as the one that did, apart from the date, of course.

 

[sitter_k]

People have a right to enter the country... Legally.

The POTUS has the right to bar entry to this country... Legally.

If someone tries to enter or immigrate illegally they should surely be stopped. That can be filed under 'DUH.' for future reference.

But it remains illegal, and rightly so, to pass laws, enter proclamations, or enforce policy that is meant to discriminate on a basis of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. Yes. Illegal. Despite the fact that millions feel it should be otherwise.

Those factors can be legitimately and legally sidestepped when there is a time of war or when there is an eminent threat. And even then such actions upon review tend to be revealed as having been mistakes that must be apologized for.

Thank God their bigoted viewpoints remain largely silenced, detached, and marginalized. Because if they had their way things would be far worse for a lot more people worldwide.

There are a couple of movies that are rarely shown on television anymore since 9/11. They are 'Nighthawks' (1981) and 'The Siege' (1998). One shows an unpopular 'face' of terrorism, the other shows the dangers of bigotry and panic, both were filmed on location in New York City, and may have been re-edited to minimize scenes that have the World Trade Center in the background. Check them out, if you can.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.

The siege, just got a lot closer to real life. Treating Muslims with suspicion in that movie was based on multiple attacks which lead to extreme measures, bigotry and panic. In real life bigotry and panic leading to extreme measures, and hopefully not a terrorist attack.

 

[sitter_k]

Or, they actually want to destroy the rule of Law in the US in the name of politics. Perhaps. I'd hate to think it was bribery.

Yup bribery for sure, judges are on the take, check if any of them are of Mexican heritage btw.

 

[McRat]

Yup bribery for sure, judges are on the take, check if any of them are of Mexican heritage btw.

While it is highly unlikely, bribery and judges have a long history together, globally. Until they make it a Capital Offense, some of it will always exist.

Example you might know of:

Immigration judge found guilty in sex bribery case

 

[Tam]

What are Trump's 4 options?

1. Supreme Court:

Most likely will result in 4-4 which will refer back to lower court ruling.

2. En Banc:

An "en banc" appeal, in front of 11 judges, not just the last limited numbers of 3 judges.

A majority vote from 29 active judges is needed to approve an "en banc".

Both teams to get their briefs in by Thursday, 2/16/2017.

3. Go back to Washington court:

Go back to judge Robart who issued a TRO against Trump's executive order.

Both sides have until Friday, 2/17/2017 to file their motions.

4. New executive order

 

[msnow]

What are Trump's 4 options?

1. Supreme Court:

Most likely will result in 4-4 which will refer back to lower court ruling.

2. En Banc:

An "en banc" appeal, in front of 11 judges, not just the last limited numbers of 3 judges.

A majority vote from 29 active judges is needed to approve an "en banc".

Both teams to get their briefs in by Thursday, 2/16/2017.

3. Go back to Washington court:

Go back to judge Robart who issued a TRO against Trump's executive order.

Both sides have until Friday, 2/17/2017 to file their motions.

4. New executive order

Looks like he's decided to do a combination of the above. Create a new EO while continuing to fight it in court.

 

[McRat]

What are Trump's 4 options?

1. Supreme Court:

Most likely will result in 4-4 which will refer back to lower court ruling.

2. En Banc:

An "en banc" appeal, in front of 11 judges, not just the last limited numbers of 3 judges.

A majority vote from 29 active judges is needed to approve an "en banc".

Both teams to get their briefs in by Thursday, 2/16/2017.

3. Go back to Washington court:

Go back to judge Robart who issued a TRO against Trump's executive order.

Both sides have until Friday, 2/17/2017 to file their motions.

4. New executive order

5. Abandon the policy is another option. Presidents seldom keep campaign promises historically, nor do they deal with external threats until after a major event no matter how much warning they have. This is the path most Presidents in the last 100 years have taken when rebuked.

6. Take a lesson from the Democrat Party. When halted for exceeding Executive Branch constitutional limitations, FDR tried to dissolve the existing Supreme Court who voted against him by salting it with filler judges. Just the threat was enough to make the SCOTUS reverse their decision. But he also threw Americans who were perceived as a national threat due to their heritage in "prison". Something that was unique in US history and what the 9th now considers to be identical to immigration control of foreign nationals.

7. By letting the 9th decision stand, it can be used to attack enemy of the RNC. By using quotes from DNC members to invalid any of their legislation or authority based on ill-intent from conversations. It also allows them to invalidate any DNC policies that involve a date.

 

[Chopr147]

1. Supreme Court:

Most likely will result in 4-4 which will refer back to lower court ruling.

And this is the problem right there! On many case we can take an educated guess on which way the court will rule. After they pretend to closely examine a case they will then vote the way we knew from the beginning

 

[msnow]

And this is the problem right there! On many case we can take an educated guess on which way the court will rule. After they pretend to closely examine a case they will then vote the way we knew from the beginning

Just not true. How come you guys always blame the judges and not the bad law they may be reviewing. Even the most conservative district courts get overturned nearly 70% of the time. This is a time to be proud of our judicial system not slam it.

 

[McRat]

Just not true. How come you guys always blame the judges and not the bad law they may be reviewing. Even the most conservative district courts get overturned nearly 70% of the time. This is a time to be proud of our judicial system not slam it.

Do you not find absoluteness suspicious in anything dealing with opinions and humans?

Every point the State of Washington put forth was unanimously accepted, every point the USA put up was unanimously rejected. Even to the level of absurdity. Explain how imprisoning American citizens for an indefinite term with no due process based solely on where their parents were born is like visa delays involving foreign national for a specific duration. Not "implied" either, explicit in ink, in the Four Corners.

Please explain to me how the two issues relate. I can't see it as anything but ignorant or malicious. I hope it's just ignorance.

It should have made every judge in the USA cringe and hide their faces that a High Court would behave like such amateurs.

 

[McRat]

To achieve parity, the POTUS would have to write an EO that said:

"Every American or legal resident, who can trace any of their ancestry to Syria, will be imprisoned until we determine this order will end. They will have no legal recourse to question this ruling, even if they do not actually have Syrian ancestors. The opinion of the Government as to their heritage is final and binding."

 

[Tam]

...threw Americans who were perceived as a national threat due to their heritage in "prison". Something that was unique in US history and what the 9th now considers to be identical to immigration control of foreign nationals...

Citing Japanese Internment seems to be an advantage for Trump's defense.

The Supreme Court upheld that Japanese Internment is constitutional regardless of citizenship even when it targets specific nationality/race/ethnic origins due to national security.

It seems that the Supreme Court says it is totally legal to practice racism, discrimination, bigotry... as long as the court can agree that it's about national security.

The problem with Trump right now is how he can recruit sympathetic judges for the court hearings who would agree that his order is "unreviewable" because it's all about national security.

Can Trump order the boss of those judges to fire all those unsympathetic judges just like the way he easily could with Acting General Attorney Yates?

 

[Red Sage]

There was a congressionally approved war against Japan during that interment, which took place around two decades before the Equal Rights Amendment was passed. Racial bias is no longer allowed as a convenient excuse. The Supreme Court must rule on the current state of Constitutional Law, not archaic versions.

The U.S. is not currently at war with any of the seven nations in question. If we are (or should be), then the POTUS should make a plea to Capitol Hill to make such a formal declaration on those nations he deems an imminent threat detrimental to our nation. That is to say, if President Trump wants to truly demonstrate that a 'War on Terrorism' requires a 'War on Muslim Nations', he should say so to the American public and an open session of both Houses of Congress.

The fun thing, of course, is that for much of the last fifty years or so every 'War on...' something or other has been fought in precisely the manner needed to perpetuate it, instead of ending them. Think about it. Cold War on Communism (Russia failed fifteen or twenty years ahead of schedule, and President George Herbert Walker Bush had to swiftly come up with some convenient excuse for continued military buildup -- because they didn't povide us with the planned war that had been expected for decades -- those bastards). War on Poverty. War on Illiteracy. War on Crime. War on Drugs. War on Hunger. War on Racism. War on Terrorism. Not one won yet, or ever. Hmmm... Maybe the U.S. should stop declaring wars on stuff, and see what happens?

 

[msnow]

Do you not find absoluteness suspicious in anything dealing with opinions and humans?

Every point the State of Washington put forth was unanimously accepted, every point the USA put up was unanimously rejected. Even to the level of absurdity. Explain how imprisoning American citizens for an indefinite term with no due process based solely on where their parents were born is like visa delays involving foreign national for a specific duration. Not "implied" either, explicit in ink, in the Four Corners.

Please explain to me how the two issues relate. I can't see it as anything but ignorant or malicious. I hope it's just ignorance.

It should have made every judge in the USA cringe and hide their faces that a High Court would behave like such amateurs.

Not true. During the oral arguments all three challenged the Washington attorney
about standing, who and how were citizens harmed by the order and the legal theory to refute the Presidents authority to issue the Order. The Republican judge was particularly sceptical of the Washington arguments. In the end I'm sure they thought it would be better to keep things status quo until the evidence could be developed by the original Federal judge.
Also, I don't think the governments advocate was all that good.

 

[msnow]

Citing Japanese Internment seems to be an advantage for Trump's defense.

The Supreme Court upheld that Japanese Internment is constitutional regardless of citizenship even when it targets specific nationality/race/ethnic origins due to national security.

It seems that the Supreme Court says it is totally legal to practice racism, discrimination, bigotry... as long as the court can agree that it's about national security.

The problem with Trump right now is how he can recruit sympathetic judges for the court hearings who would agree that his order is "unreviewable" because it's all about national security.

Can Trump order the boss of those judges to fire all those unsympathetic judges just like the way he easily could with Acting General Attorney Yates?

No, they are appointed for life.

 

[McRat]

Citing Japanese Internment seems to be an advantage for Trump's defense.

...

One EO specifically says to discriminate against Americans and existing legal residents based on heritage by imprisonment for an undetermined amount of time.

Another says specifically to restrict visas from 7 countries based on the country. One country for an undetermined amount of time, the others for a defined amount of time. No imprisonment and no heritage, religious, or racial guidelines whatsoever.

In any case, it would be sweet if the American Left would simply be brave enough to believe in their rhetoric and use the 2nd Amendment to resolve these intense grievances they have against America. I have a pretty good idea how that would end, and how quickly.