KLDC10 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Trump needed a 90 day ban seven months ago to "fix" whatever they needed to fix in the vetting process. What were they doing for those seven months that still requires a ban?

See: Reply #28

Hey KL, travel ban was published 2/1, Hawaii decision on 3/15. Administration interpreted decision to mean that they needed to "put their pens down entirely." (Questionable.) you'd think if it were so damned important they'd have made progress where they could. But fine, 6 weeks.

jetero wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Trump needed a 90 day ban seven months ago to "fix" whatever they needed to fix in the vetting process. What were they doing for those seven months that still requires a ban?

See: Reply #28

Hey KL, travel ban was published 2/1, Hawaii decision on 3/15. Administration interpreted decision to mean that they needed to "put their pens down entirely." (Questionable.) you'd think if it were so damned important they'd have made progress where they could. But fine, 6 weeks.

"Where they could" is a legal gray area. From a legal perspective, it is better to stop work on anything that could be construed as being in violation of the court order while an appeal takes place. It isn't worth the risk of pursuing an action that the administration may think is in line with the injunction, but which the court views as a violation. Better to err on the side of caution.

KLDC10 wrote:

"Where they could" is a legal gray area. From a legal perspective, it is better to stop work on anything that could be construed as being in violation of the court order while an appeal takes place. It isn't worth the risk of pursuing an action that the administration may think is in line with the injunction, but which the court views as a violation. Better to err on the side of caution.

...but obstructing justice is a none-issue, Russia meddling in elections is a non-issue and doesn´t require caution. I love how flexible Republicans have become..... O´Brian would be so proud.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

"Where they could" is a legal gray area. From a legal perspective, it is better to stop work on anything that could be construed as being in violation of the court order while an appeal takes place. It isn't worth the risk of pursuing an action that the administration may think is in line with the injunction, but which the court views as a violation. Better to err on the side of caution.

...but obstructing justice is a none-issue, Russia meddling in elections is a non-issue and doesn´t require caution. I love how flexible Republicans have become..... O´Brian would be so proud.

best regards
Thomas

Let's be honest, all the Trump Administration wants is a Muslim ban to satisfy their base supporters. It is a low hanging fruit that garners them political points,regardless of merit, and those are the only points Trump wants to score. As seen with Medical care, intelligent approaches to real world problems that work for all citizens are not something the GOP can handle currently.

tommy1808 wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

"Where they could" is a legal gray area. From a legal perspective, it is better to stop work on anything that could be construed as being in violation of the court order while an appeal takes place. It isn't worth the risk of pursuing an action that the administration may think is in line with the injunction, but which the court views as a violation. Better to err on the side of caution.

...but obstructing justice is a none-issue, Russia meddling in elections is a non-issue and doesn´t require caution. I love how flexible Republicans have become..... O´Brian would be so proud.

best regards
Thomas

Yeah, Trump is the personification of caution.

jetero wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

"Where they could" is a legal gray area. From a legal perspective, it is better to stop work on anything that could be construed as being in violation of the court order while an appeal takes place. It isn't worth the risk of pursuing an action that the administration may think is in line with the injunction, but which the court views as a violation. Better to err on the side of caution.

...but obstructing justice is a none-issue, Russia meddling in elections is a non-issue and doesn´t require caution. I love how flexible Republicans have become..... O´Brian would be so proud.

best regards
Thomas

Yeah, Trump is the personification of caution.

I get the impression of being politiclly inept, appears that he is trying to run a business not a nation, and feels that the law makers are tying one hand behind his back, certainly no diplomat. Just my POV

tommy1808 wrote:

...but obstructing justice is a none-issue, Russia meddling in elections is a non-issue and doesn´t require caution. I love how flexible Republicans have become..... O´Brian would be so proud.

The allegations you are making have nothing to do with following a court order. There is no comparison to be made.

jetero wrote:

Yeah, Trump is the personification of caution.

The application of the travel ban is within the purview of DHS and the Justice Department. They're plenty cautious.

KLDC10 wrote:

The application of the travel ban is within the purview of DHS and the Justice Department. They're plenty cautious.

You mean the same Justice Department that supposedly reviewed the initial ban in the first place?

jetero wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

The application of the travel ban is within the purview of DHS and the Justice Department. They're plenty cautious.

You mean the same Justice Department that supposedly reviewed the initial ban in the first place?

The Supreme Court has allowed major portions of the ban to go into immediate effect prior to hearing arguments in the fall. So I would take that as a vindication of the Justice Department's review of both the initial and revised bans and subsequent assertion that the ban was fully inside the boundaries of executive authority. It should never have been struck down in the first place.

KLDC10 wrote:

jetero wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

The application of the travel ban is within the purview of DHS and the Justice Department. They're plenty cautious.

You mean the same Justice Department that supposedly reviewed the initial ban in the first place?

The Supreme Court has allowed major portions of the ban to go into immediate effect prior to hearing arguments in the fall. So I would take that as a vindication of the Justice Department's review of both the initial and revised bans and subsequent assertion that the ban was fully inside the boundaries of executive authority. It should never have been struck down in the first place.

Ha! If you want to believe that, fine. Major portions were struck down, including the scope of the first travel ban, i.e., applying to green card holders, people who already had visas, etc. I'm sure those together would have accounted for the vast majority of travel that occurred over that magic 90 days.

You guys can rationalize anything and everything.

330west wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Finally the president can shape the country and protect the people. Good for America!!

Protect us from what precisely? Honestly, based on my experiences with them I'm more afraid of white self-proclaimed Christians than I am of Muslims.

I do not know. Possible answers include, Muslims, Mexicans, Liberals, and any combination of those. So the biggest possible threat must be a Mexican liberal Muslim. It sounds fearful...

seahawk wrote:

330west wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Finally the president can shape the country and protect the people. Good for America!!

Protect us from what precisely? Honestly, based on my experiences with them I'm more afraid of white self-proclaimed Christians than I am of Muslims.

I do not know. Possible answers include, Muslims, Mexicans, Liberals, and any combination of those. So the biggest possible threat must be a Mexican liberal Muslim. It sounds fearful...

And I thought I was sarcastic. Apologies for misreading your posts.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction.

There are significant laws, written by Congress, about immigration. No presidential executive order can violate these laws. The Ninth circuit (the Hawaii case) said that the president violated these laws. The administration says that it did not violate these laws, and will argue that in the Supreme Court. But about no one thinks that "Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction." That would be a very unusual understanding, and not what the administration is arguing.

There is also an argument about constitutional violations (discriminates against Muslims, fifth circuit case). That's a different argument, also to be decided.

kitplane01 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction.

There are significant laws, written by Congress, about immigration. No presidential executive order can violate these laws. The Ninth circuit (the Hawaii case) said that the president violated these laws. The administration says that it did not violate these laws, and will argue that in the Supreme Court. But about no one thinks that "Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction." That would be a very unusual understanding, and not what the administration is arguing.

There is also an argument about constitutional violations (discriminates against Muslims, fifth circuit case). That's a different argument, also to be decided.

Stop talking sense! This was all about the President protecting us!!!

kitplane01 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction.

There are significant laws, written by Congress, about immigration. No presidential executive order can violate these laws. The Ninth circuit (the Hawaii case) said that the president violated these laws. The administration says that it did not violate these laws, and will argue that in the Supreme Court. But about no one thinks that "Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction." That would be a very unusual understanding, and not what the administration is arguing.

There is also an argument about constitutional violations (discriminates against Muslims, fifth circuit case). That's a different argument, also to be decided.

Nice try. Courts are supposed to "interpret" the law or in this case, EO. Sure Trump said a lot of inappropriate things during and after elections, can that be taken as "intent"?

Obama wanted single payer healthcare system, but at the end settled for Obamacare. Can courts decide Obamacare is a trojan horse for single payer system?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Nice try. Courts are supposed to "interpret" the law or in this case, EO. Sure Trump said a lot of inappropriate things during and after elections, can that be taken as "intent"?

Obama wanted single payer healthcare system, but at the end settled for Obamacare. Can courts decide Obamacare is a trojan horse for single payer system?

You are raising two very different questions, one pertaining to an order issued by a President (intent of the Chief Magistrate), and another pertaining to a law enacted by the Congress (intent of the Legislature).

In the case of the Congress there is always a formal record of hearings, debates, writings to help a court decide "intent" with respect to a law that, while perfectly "legal", may nevertheless be ambiguous, imprecise or incomplete.

Despite the opinions of the late Justice Scalia, it is perfectly logical to consider intent in such cases.

In the case of a Presidential Order, all actions, speeches, tweets, leaked memos and other data may be used to inform a court (or a special prosecutor) as to intent.

Do you not think that the administrators of agencies (and their staffs) are going to consider the boss's intent when carrying out an Executive Order?

Laws quite often have unintended consequences as well as intended ones. Should the courts be oblivious to them?

Intent is important.

dtw2hyd wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction.

There are significant laws, written by Congress, about immigration. No presidential executive order can violate these laws. The Ninth circuit (the Hawaii case) said that the president violated these laws. The administration says that it did not violate these laws, and will argue that in the Supreme Court. But about no one thinks that "Immigration is within executive branch powers and can impose any kind of restriction." That would be a very unusual understanding, and not what the administration is arguing.

There is also an argument about constitutional violations (discriminates against Muslims, fifth circuit case). That's a different argument, also to be decided.

Nice try. Courts are supposed to "interpret" the law or in this case, EO. Sure Trump said a lot of inappropriate things during and after elections, can that be taken as "intent"?

Obama wanted single payer healthcare system, but at the end settled for Obamacare. Can courts decide Obamacare is a trojan horse for single payer system?

Are you replying to the wrong post? My claim, and this is very standard law, is that
1) Executive orders cannot violate federal laws
2) There are laws on immigration (see CFR chapter 8 subchapter b, c, ...)
3) The Ninth circuit says that the executive order violates these laws (which the administration disputes)

Which part do you dispute?

BobPatterson wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Nice try. Courts are supposed to "interpret" the law or in this case, EO. Sure Trump said a lot of inappropriate things during and after elections, can that be taken as "intent"?

Obama wanted single payer healthcare system, but at the end settled for Obamacare. Can courts decide Obamacare is a trojan horse for single payer system?

You are raising two very different questions, one pertaining to an order issued by a President (intent of the Chief Magistrate), and another pertaining to a law enacted by the Congress (intent of the Legislature).

In the case of the Congress there is always a formal record of hearings, debates, writings to help a court decide "intent" with respect to a law that, while perfectly "legal", may nevertheless be ambiguous, imprecise or incomplete.

Despite the opinions of the late Justice Scalia, it is perfectly logical to consider intent in such cases.

In the case of a Presidential Order, all actions, speeches, tweets, leaked memos and other data may be used to inform a court (or a special prosecutor) as to intent.

Do you not think that the administrators of agencies (and their staffs) are going to consider the boss's intent when carrying out an Executive Order?

Laws quite often have unintended consequences as well as intended ones. Should the courts be oblivious to them?

Intent is important.

I just wanted to point out that although this is a reasonable position (and one I agree with) it is not obviously true in a legal sense. In the Ninth circuit case, Hawaii argues as you do and the administration argues the opposite. Different Supreme Court justices have said (not in this context) both that this position is right and wrong. This question is a matter of individual judge opinion, and not settled law.

KLDC10 wrote:

jetero wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

The application of the travel ban is within the purview of DHS and the Justice Department. They're plenty cautious.

You mean the same Justice Department that supposedly reviewed the initial ban in the first place?

The Supreme Court has allowed major portions of the ban to go into immediate effect prior to hearing arguments in the fall. So I would take that as a vindication of the Justice Department's review of both the initial and revised bans and subsequent assertion that the ban was fully inside the boundaries of executive authority. It should never have been struck down in the first place.

Can I offer a different interpretation?

In deciding temporary restraining order cases, the court is supposed to look at (among other things) how delay will effect the litigants. One might think (and smart people say this, not just me) that they have stay'ed the executive order as per people with a close connection to the US because they will be hurt more by a delay in coming to the US, and not stayed the ruling as to people without a significant connection to the US because it will hurt them less.

No one knows what the Supreme Court is thinking, but this is one reasonable possibility.

kitplane01 wrote:

Can I offer a different interpretation?

In deciding temporary restraining order cases, the court is supposed to look at (among other things) how delay will effect the litigants. One might think (and smart people say this, not just me) that they have stay'ed the executive order as per people with a close connection to the US because they will be hurt more by a delay in coming to the US, and not stayed the ruling as to people without a significant connection to the US because it will hurt them less.

No one knows what the Supreme Court is thinking, but this is one reasonable possibility.

That's a reasonable interpretation - though as you say, we can only know so much (through reading opinions) about what the Supreme Court is thinking.

BobPatterson wrote:

Laws quite often have unintended consequences as well as intended ones. Should the courts be oblivious to them?

Intent is important.

So intent is bad only when shown by the executive branch.
What about judicial activism by right/left leaning judges? Are you saying intent has no place?
What about intent (hidden agenda) by a Senator/Congressman. How many times we watched a Senator gives a great speech on the floor but votes in favor of a special interest group, not the public interest.

Whatever may be the intent we are following the letter, spirit or legal interpretation of laws of the land.

Trump asked for 3 months temporary travel ban, this would have been done by now.

BTW, Isn't visa waiver program discriminatory by nature? Why are only citizens of some countries allowed this privilege?

dtw2hyd wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Laws quite often have unintended consequences as well as intended ones. Should the courts be oblivious to them?

Intent is important.

So intent is bad only when shown by the executive branch.

What about judicial activism by right/left leaning judges? Are you saying intent has no place?

Whatever may be the intent we are following the letter, spirit or legal interpretation of laws of the land.

Nothing you said in your response (including portions that I omitted here, see above if interested) follows from what I wrote.

You have added a garbage basket of distracting nonsense.

I did not speak of intent as being either good or bad, nor did I limit it to executive actions. It can be a form of evidence to be judged. It has a place in judicial deliberation.

The "spirit" of a law IS its intent. Webster's offers: "Spirit: general intent or real meaning (~ of the law)."