Will the Ninth Circuit Court rescind the temporary restraining order?

[McRat]

The actual decision:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

And this what makes it an Activist Court, it's inability to determine whether an EO can involve matters of immigration.

"The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States."

The court makes the woefully naive argument that terrorist organizations give a nation an itinerary for their coming attacks, and each country on earth has it's own unique nations who sends them terrorists, that in fact, terrorist organization are forbidden to operate on multiple fronts. Naive is perhaps an understatement.

If the POTUS was notified 1 year in advance of 9/11 that planes would be flown into buildings by foreign nationals, the 9th would argue no steps can be taken to enhance visa screening because no crime has occurred in the US yet.

The reference to the Japanese Internment Camps is perhaps the most insulting of all their arguments. That was an EO that was literally a crime by statute against US citizens and legal residents that involved false imprisonment. A bit of stretch from 90 days of visa review? Ya think?

The 9th also says that you must consider what Donald Trump said as a private citizen, in a country that still retains some free speech, as more significant than any written legal document put before their court. O'rly?

And the punchline? Even though the printed document says 90 and 120 days, the 9th argues "what is to stop them from going further?" This can be said for any law of any kind. What is to stop a speed limit from being moved to 1 mph? What is to stop a 30 day jail sentence from being changed to death?

That's why they are called the Nutty 9th.

 

[James Anders]

This bogus ruling will be overturned. It's just delay tactics and politics.

 

[Chopr147]

This decision only serves to assist those wishing to do America harm. I do not know the judges leanings (should not matter), i'm not an attorney but I am in law enforcement and, I cannot understand the ignoring of a statute that is written so clearly even I can understand it.
The president has the right , as past presidents have also done. Maybe the administration did not make a strong enough argument. Religion is not the sole reason for this. (We all know it is part of it) I fully expect that eventually this will be enacted.

"The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States."
Ahhh, so lets not be proactive and instead ban all from Iraq AFTER a nuclear suitcase goes off in NYC. This ruling is another loss for the USA. One of countless judicial activism decisions.

 

[3Victoria]

The US already has extremely robust vetting. So review it ... why does that require shutting down travel, even to those with green cards? (BTW, the change to allow green card holders was made by the WH attourney, who doesn't have authority to make that change.)

This case is going to take months. If the perceived threat is so great, then US safety can't wait for it. The POTUS should withdraw the EO and redraft it in a considered manner - ie use the resources of the congress, AG, etc.

The fact that the POTUS is going to fight for his flawed EO shows that this was not about safety but rather impressing his base.

 

[McRat]

The US already has extremely robust vetting. So review it ... why does that require shutting down travel, even to those with green cards? (BTW, the change to allow green card holders was made by the WH attourney, who doesn't have authority to make that change.)

This case is going to take months. If the perceived threat is so great, then US safety can't wait for it. The POTUS should withdraw the EO and redraft it in a considered manner - ie use the resources of the congress, AG, etc.

The fact that the POTUS is going to fight for his flawed EO shows that this was not about safety but rather impressing his base.

Congress now wants to draft a bill to cut all immigration in 1/2 in response.

 

[McRat]

If the perceived threat is so great, then US safety can't wait for it. The POTUS should withdraw the EO and redraft it in a considered manner - ie use the resources of the congress, AG, etc.

,,.

Go to the State Dept site. Check out the Warning List.

Apparently the last President thought the situation was severe.

One of the first things that happened after Jan 20, was a ground assault in Yemen. These things take months to prepare for.

Either we have been electing only psychos to the White House, or an ill wind is blowing.

 

[Chopr147]

Ill wind: One look at Europe is a good enough reason to cut immigration from certain countries.
Funny, I have a Pakistani Muslim "friend" runs the local Quick-Stop. Really good guy, extremely friendly, likes to talk. His take: "Oh, those are some dangerous hombre's we don';t want them here in this country. You should make sure they don't"
He must be an Islamaphobe

 

[Lloyd]

Seems more than a bit misleading. The President that signed the civil rights act, Johnson, was a Democrat. .

You forget, as did our past president, it is congress that makes the laws. The president (Johnson) signed them into action with the right to veto, but congress had the votes to override so his signature was only a formality.

 

[SageBrush]

Waiting for the trump jackal to be impeached and his troupe of fanatics to disappear into the woodwork.

 

[McRat]

Waiting for the trump jackal to be impeached and his troupe of fanatics to disappear into the woodwork.

I'm waiting for them to burn down bookstores and smash Starbucks outlets. Then they will be accepted as mainstream responsible citizens.

 

[RiverBrick]

You forget, as did our past president, it is congress that makes the laws. The president (Johnson) signed them into action with the right to veto, but congress had the votes to override so his signature was only a formality.

Taking statistics out of the hat like "Republicans were more likely to support Civil Rights" is often misleading. A competent statistician controls for variables. In this case, let's do that for geography:

Union state Democrats were more likely to support the bill than Union Republicans and Confederate Democrats were less likely to oppose than Confederate Republicans. It is just that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the South.

Plus, many of the then Southern Democrats ended up switching parties. Take Strom Thurmond, for example. He switched parties shortly after the 1964 vote. Clearly, his overall views were more closely aligned with Republican idealogy. Was his racism a part of it?

(Vote broken down by Union/Confederacy from Sean Enten)

 

[Jeff N]

You forget, as did our past president, it is congress that makes the laws. The president (Johnson) signed them into action with the right to veto, but congress had the votes to override so his signature was only a formality.

Actually, Johnson was heavily involved in pushing the bill through congress both as VP and later as president.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographic support of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[37] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election".[38] Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s.[39]

The assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."[13]

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate.....

 

[RiverBrick]

I'm waiting for them to burn down bookstores and smash Starbucks outlets. Then they will be accepted as mainstream responsible citizens.

Trump tweets frequently about terrorism. Two weeks ago there was a horrible terrorist attack about 140 miles from the U.S. border. Any particular reason why this time Trump has been silent on it?

Could it be because the perpetrator is an ardent Trump supporter? Should we make snide comments about Trump supporters murdering innocent people?

 

[McRat]

Trump tweets frequently about terrorism. Two weeks ago there was a horrible terrorist attack about 140 miles from the U.S. border. Any particular reason why this time Trump has been silent on it?

Could it be because the perpetrator is an ardent Trump supporter? Should we make snide comments about Trump supporters murdering innocent people?

If you are interested in the effect of terrorism is in modern times, visit this site that lists about 150,000 separate attacks:

Global Terrorism Database

It is a study by the University of Maryland, not exactly a Rush Limbaugh satellite campus.

 

[McRat]

Something a lot of folk seem to forget is when Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, we pretty much ignored it. The legal blame laid at the feet of the Port Authority, and the preventative action was to improve the evacuation plan. However, a better evacuation plan would have had no effect if the attack was a success, as it did have the potential for leveling both towers. Poor understanding of engineering, or misplacement of the bomb was the culprit.

Later on, a second attack was successful. We were very surprised that anybody, especially people from the Middle East would attack the Twin Towers, even though they had attacked it in the past and had threatened to attack it again.

Nobody figured it out until the second jet hit the other tower. At first said it was a small private plane.

 

[Canuck]

We were very surprised that anybody, especially people from the Middle East would attack the Twin Towers, even though they had in the past and had threatened to do it again.

You might have been surprised but a lot of us were not. Radical Islamic terror is a cancer. There is no cure, we can only hope to reduce its carnage. That's what we must focus on. Moderate Muslims are our biggest allies in that fight. The ban punishes them and breeds more fundamentalists, in my opinion. It makes us less, not more, safe, again in my opinion.

Let's also remember that 9/11 happened on the Republican's watch. People from the Middle East were taking flight training courses and were not interested in taking off or landing. There were a lot of warnings. They were ignored.

You seem to think that closing the borders to 7 countries (and not the one with the most 9/11 terrorists) is the answer. Some of us think that a strong vetting program, and winning the war of ideas, will make the world safer for our children. Bush and Cheney created more terrorists with a war against a secularist Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator but he didn't attack America and he wasn't a religious fundamentalist. I'm certain you were for the war in Iraq. I argued with my conservative friends and family at that time that Canada was right for refusing to be a part of that war. Afghanistan made sense. Iraq made no sense at all. Now they reluctant agree I called it right. Obama and Sanders were also right. Hillary was wrong as were many democrats. Sure, they were fed us lies but I don't given them a pass since we didn't need the lies to know it was the biggest mistake of our lifetime. You can cheer the ban all you want, like you probably did the war in Iraq, but Obama called it right and he kept you safe from foreign terror attacks for 8 years. Those are facts. Trump is making us less safe. That's my opinion. I've called it right before. Have you?

As for Trump not being for the war in Iraq -- he said otherwise very clearly on Howard Stern. At least Hillary admits when she was wrong. Trump simply lies. I don't think he has the moral fiber in him to admit he has ever been wrong and that's very concerning to me.

 

[Jeff N]

I'm waiting for them to burn down bookstores and smash Starbucks outlets. Then they will be accepted as mainstream responsible citizens.

The people doing that are generally members of anarchist groups who show up at the rallies of unrelated groups to smash things as part of their own media strategy.

 

[SageBrush]

Trump simply lies. I don't think he has the moral fiber in him to admit he has ever been wrong and that's very concerning to me.

Yes, his facile pivots from one alternative fact to the next is distinctive. But far from unique, since his supporters operate the same.

 

[bhzmark]

More Trivia: Republicans fought for Women to have the right to vote. Dems, mostly from the south opposed. Also the same was true for slavery, and the civil rights act of 1964 where in the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote.

And the descendants of those southern democrat racists are now confederate flag waving tea party republicans.

Parties change.

Watch the republican party change before our eyes. It used to be a pro free trade, hawkish anti-Russian, pro-business for liberalizing immigration (as recently as George W). Now, the opposite.

"We offer not only a new agenda, but also a new approach — a vision of a welcoming society in which all have a place. To all Americans, particularly immigrants and minorities, we send a clear message: this is the party of freedom and progress, and it is your home."

Because free trade is the most powerful force for the kind of development that creates a middle class and offers opportunity at home, the long-term solution for illegal immigration is economic growth in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean."
​

That wasn't from a Clinton or Obama speech, it was a (now flipped) Republican party platform Republican Party Platforms: 2000 Republican Party Platform

 

[AudubonB]

Did you mean to write "George W" or "George HW"? I would argue the sea change occurred at the time of Bush père, not fils.