-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
When they go low we go.....
Guess she's got plenty of time on her hands to think up tweets since she didn't make it to the oval office!
-
@Paekakboyz said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
When they go low we go.....
Guess she's got plenty of time on her hands to think up tweets since she didn't make it to the oval office!
And that leaves Donald where?
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Paekakboyz said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
When they go low we go.....
Guess she's got plenty of time on her hands to think up tweets since she didn't make it to the oval office!
And that leaves Donald where?
I dont get it. What do you mean?
-
The figures about net worth of cabinet members is pretty crazy. Obama's crowd weren't exactly slumming it though were they!
Would note (as highlight in the thread) that two cabinet members make up over 7 billion of that 8 and change. Ludicrous amount of pingas. Presume this doesn't include overly accurate info about the Don given his shyness re tax returns?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Just the inference that Hilary must have time on her hands to Tweet as she is not POTUS whereas Donald is POTUS and tweets a lot more. Just mildly amusing to me. I found the initial comment re Hilary quite funny.
-
Theres a BIG bitch slap to future political over-reach in the judgement too -
Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.
IE "if the President thinks he can violate the constitution by citing national security he is very much mistaken. Sean Spicer & the White House legal counsel had both categorically said the president is unreviewable on this.
Note they directly reference the SC too. Everyone thinking Gorsuch getting in means Donald "wins" has zero idea of Gorsuch's history. Idon't even buy this will go 4-4 without him. It could easiliy go 6-2 or worse (for Trump)
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
Am I over simplifying it - but wouldn't it be easiest just to draft a more careful EO to achieve what they want (and one that argubably would be more effective in achieving their aims - with a bit more thought)?
They can easily draft a different law that is legal. The current VISA Waiver law in place is fully legal & worked well to keep Islamic terrorists out of the US. What they can't do is ban Muslims. But every vaguely sane person knew that a year ago when Donald said he would do it...
-
@gollum why do you keep undermining your otherwise fairly well made points by continually referring to 'banning muslims'?
Whatever Trump's original simplistic motivations the EO itself does NOT ban people because they are muslim.
It does however, apply some temporary and peranent bans that affect mainly muslims and it proposes to apply a criteria for future refugee entry based on religion (religious minorities given precedence). This last one is the closest anything gets to a 'muslim ban' because it is basically saying that you can be both a muslim and a refugee if you come from a predominantly muslim country.
Those are the bits that are questionable legally and (IMO) morally. -
Because that is what Trump said he was going to do, what Guiliani said he was trying to do & what is being argued in the court (along with other things).
The blanket ban was not a Muslim ban, it was unconstitutional & it was illegal. But not a Muslim ban. It becomes a Muslim ban when Trump annouces that he will let in non-muslims. Like so much else Trump does he maybe would have got something through with more competency & if he & Guiliani had shut their mouths - not this law, but something close.
IE if you ban 7 Muslim majority countries thats not a MB by the letter. By intent & by what Trump has said it probably is - but probably struggles in law.
The second you say you will let in non-majority religions by definition it is a muslim ban.If I say "I'm banning NZers, but will let in NZers without NZ ancestry dating back more than 300 years" . That's a Maori ban.
-
As for the bit you quote from the ruling I have a slightly different interpretation.
Trump's legal team approached this case on the basis that the courts cannot over rule POTUS on Security issues. The court is pointing out that as upholders of the constitution and law they can and will step in if laws are breached or require testing.
They even offered criteria where they would weigh security needs against legal involvement eg prove to us that "THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"
from what I could tell Trump's team offered no proof in that regard. They wanted to concentrate on the right of the court to even decide.
-
Yep, agree. This was a big case for religious rights. But the DOJ made it a HUGE case re what the president can do by invoking national security. And got well & truely smacked down re that. The "loss" re the ban is not that major, the loss re Trump having to answer to the courts is the big one. And he didn't just lose a bit on that, they utterly destroyed his argument, every bit of it.
At one stage the DOJ argued Trump knows stuff the court can't know, they kicked that right in the balls too -
In addition, the Government asserts that, “[u]nlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.” But the Government may provide a court with classified information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal and maintain its confidentiality. Regulations and rules have long been in place for that. 28 C.F.R. § 17.17(c) (describing Department of Justice procedures to protect classified materials in civil cases); 28 C.F.R. § 17.46(c) (“Members of Congress, Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal and District Courts do not require a determination of their eligibility for access to classified information . . . .”); W.D. Wash. Civ. L.R. 5(g) (providing procedures governing filings under seal).
This is a pretty good call for the people worried about religion, its a massive judgement for people worried about Trump doing what he likes.
-
I see that a #ScienceMarch is being planned for April.
The organisers for this can go fuck themselves in the most uncomfortable of fashions. They reckon they will get 800,000 people marching.
IN reality it will be handful of left wing scientists, s larger bunch of climate scientists and the rest will the usual sore losers that turn up to every anti Trump moan fest.
What gives them the right to have an anti Science march and smear science with the reputation of being nothing but political bullshit.
If they want to march about climate change.. go ahead.. if they want to march for vaccinations.. go ahead.. I might even join them on that one. But dont fucking project yourself as marching for science. Fucking twats. They are marching for themselves and their political; views, nothing more. Dont sully the name of science en masse because you cannot handle losing.
Every single US president has ignored scientific advice. Every single one. Usually when it is politically or economically expedient.
Just like the womens march was not a womens march.. it actually march for women who like support abortion and hate Trump. This Science march is not a march for science.. it is a vanilla march against Trump.. and a massive exercise in virtue signalling. "ooh look at me I marched for science.. I am so much more logical and cleverer than Trump supporters". Fuck off.
These ass clowns are going to damage science more than any policy Trump could come up with. -
There's a lot of focus on this thread on Trump.
Not so much focus on how terrible the Democratic party currently is.
Can't beat Trump when your party is in this much trouble.
US Politics