Appeals Court up holds the stay preventing the Trump Immigration ban

[seer]

Well, that is your opinion seer, I don't feel as though I am knowledgeable enough to come to that conclusion on my own, so I'll wait for those who are to explain why it is or isn't legal. The problem now is that Trump said that it was a matter of immediate concern to national security, so he should either redraft the EO, or admit that it isn't of immediate concern to national security and wait for it to be adjudicated, in which case he would be admitting that it is nothing but a political stunt with no regard to its consequences.

[JimL]

Regardless of your opinion, Trumps reasoning for its implementation was that it was of immediate concern of national security. If that were true, then he needs to rewrite and enact it immediately or his claimed reason for the EO and the need for its immediate implementation was a lie.

[Roy]

Not being dishonest at all. Cool the jets, champ. I made two claims:

1) you can't hold somebody accountable for intent to break the law if they never actually broke the law.
2) you can't exonerate someone who broke the law by claiming lack of intent.

You replied, "Uh, what? Of course you can. That's why all the legal principles concerning diminished responsibility, insanity, involuntary intoxication, sleepwalking, etc exist."

I took the "Of course you can" to apply to both statements. I'm not being dishonest.

Bovine faeces. You didn't ask about both statements - only about the one that wasn't relevant to my reply.

Depends on what you mean by "off the hook". Reduced charges, yes, but full exoneration? Unlikely. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a well known legal principle. Here's what one legal website has to say: "It must be noted that lack of intent is not always a complete defence. People are often charged on the basis that their actions were reckless, and fault is attributed on that basis." But you're claiming otherwise, so the burden is yours to prove it.

You chose dishonesty and ridicule rather than supporting your own claim. I'm not interested in discussing this further.

[seer]

Regardless of your opinion, Trumps reasoning for its implementation was that it was of immediate concern of national security. If that were true, then he needs to rewrite and enact it immediately or his claimed reason for the EO and the need for its immediate implementation was a lie.

Jim, that is my point. The President can do this for almost any reason, and the fact that the 9th Court did not even look at the law or reference it. BTW - I think the President had more info about what is or is not a threat.

[Mountain Man]

Bovine faeces. You didn't ask about both statements - only about the one that wasn't relevant to my reply.

"You didn't say what you said! You said what I say you said!"

Seriously, how was I supposed to know you only intended to address one of my points when you quoted both of them in your response?

You chose dishonesty and ridicule rather than supporting your own claim. I'm not interested in discussing this further.

Talk about dishonesty... I did support my claim. I even quoted a legal website.

But, sure, I suppose flouncing away in a huff all because I asked you to prove your claim is one way to end a discussion.

[JimL]

Jim, that is my point. The President can do this for almost any reason, and the fact that the 9th Court did not even look at the law or reference it. BTW - I think the President had more info about what is or is not a threat.

C'mon seer, you don't have any idea what the judges did or did not look at concerning the case. If they came to the conclusion they did without considering the merits of the law, then obviously the merits of the law are not the sole factors involved. The law is probably more complicated than you think, and I think that the conclusion, agreed upon by 3 seperate judges, legal scholars in their own right, that know a little more about it than you or I do, is something to take into consideration. That doesn't mean that the case is closed, but a win for Trump is much more problematic, and regardless of that, he says that it is of immediate concern to national security, so, he has little choice but to redraft the order and impliment it now, otherwise he is admitting that his claim of immediate concern is bogus. Had his EO been restricted to citizens from those countries without green cards, who have no connection to the U.S., then he would have had no problem.

[Tassman]

Jim, that is my point. The President can do this for almost any reason, and the fact that the 9th Court did not even look at the law or reference it. BTW - I think the President had more info about what is or is not a threat.

There is ample precedent for the president, if he believes there's a serious threat, to inform the court in secret to enable it to understand the need for such an executive order and rule accordingly. The fact that Trump didn't do this indicates that the "threat", like so much else in Trumpland, is all in his mind and that his order was reckless, irresponsible and designed solely to appeal to his base.

[seer]

There is ample precedent for the president, if he believes there's a serious threat, to inform the court in secret to enable it to understand the need for such an executive order and rule accordingly. The fact that Trump didn't do this indicates that the "threat", like so much else in Trumpland, is all in his mind and that his order was reckless, irresponsible and designed solely to appeal to his base.

Are you guys missing the point? The 1952 law does not say that it has to be a serious threat, and according to the law it is the President alone who decides what a threat is or isn't, not the court. But I suspect they will issue a new EO focusing on extreme vetting - it will have the same effect.

[shunyadragon]

Are you guys missing the point? The 1952 law does not say that it has to be a serious threat, and according to the law it is the President alone who decides what a threat is or isn't, not the court. But I suspect they will issue a new EO focusing on extreme vetting - it will have the same effect.

This is a ban, not any sort of vetting.

[Tassman]

Are you guys missing the point? The 1952 law does not say that it has to be a serious threat, and according to the law it is the President alone who decides what a threat is or isn't, not the court. But I suspect they will issue a new EO focusing on extreme vetting - it will have the same effect.

It's the courts that decide whether or not the president's actions are constitutional or not and banning based upon religion is not constitutional.

[Starlight]

Are you guys missing the point? The 1952 law

I don't know if you understand basic legal concepts, but it just so happens that later laws override earlier laws. So the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which banned immigration discrimination on the basis of nationality, overrides the 1952 law because it came later. Also there's this pesky thing call the constitution which also overrides the 1952 law, and has a few things to say that relate to the subject, as do other laws. One thing that the constitution and those other laws tend to favor is religious freedom, and US judges are likely to think the government isn't legally allowed to institute policies that discriminate based on religion and are likely to take a dim view of any policy called a "Muslim ban". If you say it's not a Muslim ban and is based on country of origin then you fall afoul of the 1965 law that bans that precise thing...

But sure, there was a 1952 law that said stuff. Why don't you repeat that some more in the vain hope it will become relevant?

[seer]

It's the courts that decide whether or not the president's actions are constitutional or not and banning based upon religion is not constitutional.

Nonsense, he did not ban anyone based on religion, and these are non-citizens in foreign countries, they do not get Constitutional protections.

[seer]

I don't know if you understand basic legal concepts, but it just so happens that later laws override earlier laws. So the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which banned immigration discrimination on the basis of nationality, overrides the 1952 law because it came later. Also there's this pesky thing call the constitution which also overrides the 1952 law, and has a few things to say that relate to the subject, as do other laws. One thing that the constitution and those other laws tend to favor is religious freedom, and US judges are likely to think the government isn't legally allowed to institute policies that discriminate based on religion and are likely to take a dim view of any policy called a "Muslim ban". If you say it's not a Muslim ban and is based on country of origin then you fall afoul of the 1965 law that bans that precise thing...

But sure, there was a 1952 law that said stuff. Why don't you repeat that some more in the vain hope it will become relevant?

Again, the 1965 act does not override the 1952 act. If so how did Carter and Obama stop immigration from specific countries (your nationality argument)? And the Constitution does not override anything here since these foreign non-citizens living in other countries do not have Constitutional protections. And this is not a religious ban.

[seer]

This is a ban, not any sort of vetting.

Of course it is vetting. It is only a ban if they can not pass the vetting process - and we don't want those people to come in, do we?

[seer]

A question for Tass and Star: Over the last 20 years or so how many Muslims immigrants have your countries taken in, let's see the numbers. And I would remind you both that the US takes in more immigrants than any other country in the world, we have the highest immigrant population, you both have some of the lowest, New Zealand is horrible:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ant_population

So we don't need to be lectured by people whose countries are doing next to nothing.