Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Muslim travel ban 2.0 struck down

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Of course it does, we should be able to decide who or who does not enter this country no matter what criterion we use.
    We did decide. A federal judge decided.
    Blog: Atheism and the City

    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      I was reading about this on Reddit, and, of course, you have to flip to "controversial" in order to get discussion that's more neutral, and isn't far-left leaning, and I found this interesting post by a guy called patroclus2stronk who claimed to be a lawyer. I don't know if any of what he said is accurate, or that he is who he claims he is, but I thought he had some interesting insights into the subject.

      I'm an attorney and I believe it to be constitutional. I would be willing to place a large bet that when SCOTUS grants certoriari it's going to be held constitutional. I could go on a long explanation as to why, but I don't think it would serve a purpose since you already stated that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.


      After a bunch of downvotes, name calling, and lots of immaturity, someone asked, "I'd like to hear your explanation as to why it is legal."

      It's interesting while simultaneously baffling that its legality can be proven by the improper court ruling itself.
      The court found the order to be unconstitutional because of the President's words spoken prior to the order itself; in other words collateral evidence. Using collateral evidence isn't necessarily problematic in itself, but the reason the court erred in this case is due to it conceding that but for Trump's discriminatory statements towards Islam, this order would be constitutional. In the thousands of SCOTUS opinions I have read, not once have I seen a such strange reasoning by the court.

      To elaborate, the court essentially said that this is Constitutional on its face, but because Trump is doing this to discriminate against Muslims, it's actually unconstitutional. That's not how Constitutionality of an executive order works. That reasoning is actually used (properly) by the court in Title IX cases; and it's called pretext. This means an employer (in at title IX case) has made a policy that is facially non-discriminatory, but because it has a disparate impact on a particular group of people; coupled with other evidence of intent to discriminate, the policy is impermissible. A prime example is a case where an employer banned 'dreadlocks' from the workplace, and a black employee challenged this as a title IX violation under the disparate impact rule. The plaintiff lost because, although it had a disparate impact on African Americans, any person of any race/ethnicity could have dreadlocks--the mere fact that black people have it more often is not enough to constitute discrimination under the 'pretext' doctrine.

      Coming back to this order: the court is establishing new precedent by applying the pretext doctrine (they do not mention this phrase but it is what they are applying) to an executive order on immigration.
      The simplest way I can explain that the order is Constitutional is because the Court itself concedes that it is. In other words, the court has, in effect, made a ruling that a president can issue this exact order if they don't, prior to the ruling, make statements that show a discriminatory intent in creating the immigration ban. So, if in 2020, Joe Smith wins the presidency, and never makes a statement that could be considered discriminatory in a later court proceeding, then this order would be permissible...That is beyond insane and unprecedented.


      Someone replies, "First, thanks for the civil response. I don't quite agree with your point of view, but your response strengthened my belief in that the EOs are illegal. Intent is a very important thing to the law. We know what his real intention was with this ban because he told us what it was while he was campaigning. How do you expect the court not to establish precedent?"

      Patroclus2stronk replies,

      There is no issue with establishing precedent, it has a vital purpose. Additionally intent matters in many areas of law, but not in this particular scenario because, as I stated above, the order itself is constitutional, as conceded by the court, but not when Trump makes it because of what he said. That is irrational. The Court is saying that this order is Constitutional if a president doesn't reveal discriminatory intent ahead of time...Moreover, they don't address or show contemplation of what would happen if 'Joe Smith' in 2020 writes this order; they find it Constitutional, and thereafter Joe Smith says "keep all them Muslims out of my country!" ... If this happens, the Court is [bleeped] because it has no jurisdiction or power to retry the case...In other words look at the sequence i'm proposing versus the one that happened here:
      1. Real Life a. "Damn you Muslims, ban em' all" (i'm exaggerating a bit to lighten the mood). b. Writes executive order. c. Court finds that the order would be permissible, but for the statements against Muslims.
      2. My example a. President Joe Smith says nothing, literally is a mute and doesn't write anything down either (prior to the executive order). b. Executive order is issued (same as Trump's) c. Court finds it Constitutional (since he didn't say anything showing discriminatory intent) d. Smith magically no longer suffers from the mute spell, and subsequently shouts everyday in public "[Bleep] yes, all them Muslims can't come here now, HAHA!"


      Guess what, both Trump and Smith have been [bleep bleeps], but, in the second scenario, the Court, nor anyone else, cannot do jack [bleep]. What's been found Constitutional is Constitutional. The principal of Res Judicata would bar SCOTUS from retrying the case because of Smith's statements.


      *bleeped out offensive language
      that's kind of what I said, but a lot more detailed and I never thought about the example of Joe Smith. That is a good point.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
        We did decide. A federal judge decided.
        Yes, and he is wrong. See Adrift's post. The judge's reasoning is insane.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
          We did decide. A federal judge decided.
          Yes, a federal judge decided you can't ban people from entering the country over a dumb, manufactured, insane reason. IOW, a federal judge stripped the US of sovereignity. Like I said.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            Yes, a federal judge decided you can't ban people from entering the country over a dumb, manufactured, insane reason. IOW, a federal judge stripped the US of sovereignity. Like I said.
            The judge is American. A loss of sovereignty would be if an Iraqi decided our law from Iraq. You obviously don't know what sovereignty means.
            Blog: Atheism and the City

            If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yes, and he is wrong. See Adrift's post. The judge's reasoning is insane.
              There's no loss of sovereignty. That was the point. And Trump's reasoning isn't sane. No one from those countries has ever killed anyone in the US in a terror attack. But Saudi Arabia supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers, and yet they're not banned. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Trump's business ties to the country. Nothing at all.
              Blog: Atheism and the City

              If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                I was reading about this on Reddit, and, of course, you have to flip to "controversial" in order to get discussion that's more neutral, and isn't far-left leaning, and I found this interesting post by a guy called patroclus2stronk who claimed to be a lawyer. I don't know if any of what he said is accurate, or that he is who he claims he is, but I thought he had some interesting insights into the subject.

                I'm an attorney and I believe it to be constitutional. I would be willing to place a large bet that when SCOTUS grants certoriari it's going to be held constitutional. I could go on a long explanation as to why, but I don't think it would serve a purpose since you already stated that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.


                After a bunch of downvotes, name calling, and lots of immaturity, someone asked, "I'd like to hear your explanation as to why it is legal."

                It's interesting while simultaneously baffling that its legality can be proven by the improper court ruling itself.
                The court found the order to be unconstitutional because of the President's words spoken prior to the order itself; in other words collateral evidence. Using collateral evidence isn't necessarily problematic in itself, but the reason the court erred in this case is due to it conceding that but for Trump's discriminatory statements towards Islam, this order would be constitutional. In the thousands of SCOTUS opinions I have read, not once have I seen a such strange reasoning by the court.

                To elaborate, the court essentially said that this is Constitutional on its face, but because Trump is doing this to discriminate against Muslims, it's actually unconstitutional. That's not how Constitutionality of an executive order works. That reasoning is actually used (properly) by the court in Title IX cases; and it's called pretext. This means an employer (in at title IX case) has made a policy that is facially non-discriminatory, but because it has a disparate impact on a particular group of people; coupled with other evidence of intent to discriminate, the policy is impermissible. A prime example is a case where an employer banned 'dreadlocks' from the workplace, and a black employee challenged this as a title IX violation under the disparate impact rule. The plaintiff lost because, although it had a disparate impact on African Americans, any person of any race/ethnicity could have dreadlocks--the mere fact that black people have it more often is not enough to constitute discrimination under the 'pretext' doctrine.

                Coming back to this order: the court is establishing new precedent by applying the pretext doctrine (they do not mention this phrase but it is what they are applying) to an executive order on immigration.
                The simplest way I can explain that the order is Constitutional is because the Court itself concedes that it is. In other words, the court has, in effect, made a ruling that a president can issue this exact order if they don't, prior to the ruling, make statements that show a discriminatory intent in creating the immigration ban. So, if in 2020, Joe Smith wins the presidency, and never makes a statement that could be considered discriminatory in a later court proceeding, then this order would be permissible...That is beyond insane and unprecedented.


                Someone replies, "First, thanks for the civil response. I don't quite agree with your point of view, but your response strengthened my belief in that the EOs are illegal. Intent is a very important thing to the law. We know what his real intention was with this ban because he told us what it was while he was campaigning. How do you expect the court not to establish precedent?"

                Patroclus2stronk replies,

                There is no issue with establishing precedent, it has a vital purpose. Additionally intent matters in many areas of law, but not in this particular scenario because, as I stated above, the order itself is constitutional, as conceded by the court, but not when Trump makes it because of what he said. That is irrational. The Court is saying that this order is Constitutional if a president doesn't reveal discriminatory intent ahead of time...Moreover, they don't address or show contemplation of what would happen if 'Joe Smith' in 2020 writes this order; they find it Constitutional, and thereafter Joe Smith says "keep all them Muslims out of my country!" ... If this happens, the Court is [bleeped] because it has no jurisdiction or power to retry the case...In other words look at the sequence i'm proposing versus the one that happened here:
                1. Real Life a. "Damn you Muslims, ban em' all" (i'm exaggerating a bit to lighten the mood). b. Writes executive order. c. Court finds that the order would be permissible, but for the statements against Muslims.
                2. My example a. President Joe Smith says nothing, literally is a mute and doesn't write anything down either (prior to the executive order). b. Executive order is issued (same as Trump's) c. Court finds it Constitutional (since he didn't say anything showing discriminatory intent) d. Smith magically no longer suffers from the mute spell, and subsequently shouts everyday in public "[Bleep] yes, all them Muslims can't come here now, HAHA!"


                Guess what, both Trump and Smith have been [bleep bleeps], but, in the second scenario, the Court, nor anyone else, cannot do jack [bleep]. What's been found Constitutional is Constitutional. The principal of Res Judicata would bar SCOTUS from retrying the case because of Smith's statements.


                *bleeped out offensive language
                Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz (a noted liberal who unsurprisingly disagrees with Trump on the travel restrictions) has said that they are constitutional and thinks that the Supreme Court will agree if it ever gets to them (it may not "because the order is a temporary ban that may expire before it reaches the High Court, thereby making the case moot"): Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                  There's no loss of sovereignty. That was the point. And Trump's reasoning isn't sane. No one from those countries has ever killed anyone in the US in a terror attack. But Saudi Arabia supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers, and yet they're not banned. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Trump's business ties to the country. Nothing at all.
                  It actually doesn't matter, since no one has the right to come into this country. A sovereign nation has the right to let in or not let in whom we choose, no matter the criterion we decide to use. Foreign citizens, not in this country, have no Constitutional rights. And no one, not even this last judge, have made a Constitutional argument against the ban.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    It actually doesn't matter, since no one has the right to come into this country. A sovereign nation has the right to let in or not let in whom we choose, no matter the criterion we decide to use. Foreign citizens, not in this country, have no Constitutional rights. And no one, not even this last judge, have made a Constitutional argument against the ban.
                    We still have sovereignty, because no one from the outside is dictating our laws. We are determining our laws. Just because you disagree with the judge's decision, that doesn't mean we've lost sovereignty. This is right-wing snowflake behavior:

                    News: Judge halts executive order
                    Conservative reaction: "Oh my God, we have no sovereignty anymore! What happened to America! This is sharia law!!!!"

                    Grow up snowflakes.
                    Blog: Atheism and the City

                    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                      We still have sovereignty, because no one from the outside is dictating our laws. We are determining our laws. Just because you disagree with the judge's decision, that doesn't mean we've lost sovereignty. This is right-wing snowflake behavior:

                      News: Judge halts executive order
                      Conservative reaction: "Oh my God, we have no sovereignty anymore! What happened to America! This is sharia law!!!!"

                      Grow up snowflakes.
                      If someone from inside strips you of sovereignity then you have no sovereignity, even if it's done by someone on the inside. This should be obvious. In this particular case it's not even done by an elected representative, but by a judge illegally usurping power. Thankfully, the ruling is so absurd that odds are it'll be overturned further down the line, but congress really should take precautionary steps against normalizing this kind of thing and impeach the judge.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                        There's no loss of sovereignty. That was the point. And Trump's reasoning isn't sane. No one from those countries has ever killed anyone in the US in a terror attack. But Saudi Arabia supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers, and yet they're not banned. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Trump's business ties to the country. Nothing at all.
                        How can it have anything to do with Trump's business ties when the list wasn't even drafted by Trump, but Obama? In fact if Trump had banned Saudi Arabia himself the judge would have an even better excuse for blocking it because he could accuse him directly of handpicking muslim countries to ban.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                          There's no loss of sovereignty. That was the point. And Trump's reasoning isn't sane. No one from those countries has ever killed anyone in the US in a terror attack. But Saudi Arabia supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers, and yet they're not banned. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Trump's business ties to the country. Nothing at all.
                          Nationals from seven countries listed on a travel ban issued by President Trump have participated in ongoing terrorist plots against the U.S., according to congressional and law enforcement reports that challenge the widely circulated media criticism that no one from those nations has ever staged an attack on American soil.

                          A Senate Judiciary Committee report last year found that of the 390 foreign nationals arrested on terrorist-related charges since the Sept. 11 attacks, 67 come from the countries listed in the travel ban.

                          Joseph Humire, executive director of the Center for a Secure Free Society and an analyst on Islamic terrorism, said the Cato Institute study cited repeatedly in the mainstream media is an “oversimplistic and inadequate” assessment of the terrorist threat. Jihadis driven from their strongholds in other countries are using the banned countries as refuges and jumping-off points for their next missions, he said.

                          The Homeland Security Department “is seeking to project where [the Islamic State] will go as they lose territory in Syria and Iraq. Countries in chaos or which lack any security relationship with the U.S. are the likeliest destinations,” Mr. Humire said.

                          Terrorist groups based in Yemen and Somalia have plotted to attack and infiltrate the U.S. for years. Iran’s intelligence service has also tried to mount high-level assassinations, military-type assaults and cyberattacks.

                          One of the most noted cases involved a 2011 plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador by bombing a fashionable restaurant in Washington where he often had lunch.
                          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-targeted-b/



                          Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, bolstering the administration's immigration ban.

                          According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.
                          http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/re...rticle/2614582





                          besides, how can it be a muslim ban if Trump isn't, as you say, banning anyone from Saudi Arabia or any other muslim countries?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                            We still have sovereignty, because no one from the outside is dictating our laws. We are determining our laws. Just because you disagree with the judge's decision, that doesn't mean we've lost sovereignty. This is right-wing snowflake behavior:

                            News: Judge halts executive order
                            Conservative reaction: "Oh my God, we have no sovereignty anymore! What happened to America! This is sharia law!!!!"

                            Grow up snowflakes.
                            So expecting judges to follow the Constitution is now being a snowflake...
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                              I knew the previous version would be struck down, because it made exceptions for minority religions. It was a ban on everybody except non-Muslims from seven countries, which effectively made it a ban on Muslims from those countries. The new order doesn't include the exceptions, and also makes it clear that people with green cards and pre-existing visas can still enter, so I think it has a much better chance of getting a pass from the Supreme Court.
                              It's got a better chance of being passed for the reasons you give except that it's obvious from what Trump and his henchmen have said in the past, that the intention is to ban Muslims. E.g. Giuliani revealed that Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban 'legally'. And "intentions" matter in law.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                It's got a better chance of being passed for the reasons you give except that it's obvious from what Trump and his henchmen have said in the past, that the intention is to ban Muslims. E.g. Giuliani revealed that Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban 'legally'. And "intentions" matter in law.
                                True, but Trump's paranoid intentions aside, the order seems capable of standing on its own, and the Supreme Court may conclude that the original intentions don't matter in this case; especially since the original intention (ban all Muslims from entering the country) isn't close to being covered by the order.
                                Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                184 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                269 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X