-
I'd like to think the law won, but with the ridiculously political nature of the US justice system you just never know.
I stand corrected, but iirc the court rulings following the W Bush election were along party lines, I.e. the judge ruled according to which party appointed him/her.
Does Trump have the numbers in the SC?
As for Ivanka, surely Nordstroms have sales figures they can use to justify the decision? The Trump name is of course mud among a huge number of people, but I doubt they were buying her shit before Daddy wanted to become pres. At any rate, it's difficult to know how other presidents would react, because I don't believe any of them had daughters with clothing lines.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Why should these chains have to explain themselves? Labels come and go in stores, for whatever reason
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
I wonder what Trump's reaction will be if they end up with a 4-4 split...
He will make a huge deal about it and it will become a major vote winner/retainer.
It will bring the courts into disrepute in the eyes of many as the political beast that it is.The panel's decision was unanimous, the two Democrat and one Republican appointed judges were in agreement so you could argue this decision was not political
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel Why should these chains have to explain themselves? Labels come and go in stores, for whatever reason
They don't have to, but if it is because of sales then it should be easy to prove.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel True that. They are a business intent on profit, I'd imagine they wouldn't drop the label unless it wasn't profitable to them. Of course that doesn't mean that they couldn't drop her if they felt it was to protect their brand
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel True that. They are a business intent on profit, I'd imagine they wouldn't drop the label unless it wasn't profitable to them. Of course that doesn't mean that they couldn't drop her if they felt it was to protect their brand
Yeah, I totally get that. Problem is that a shit load of companies have dropped like a little bitch when faced with a vocal twitter campaign or even a tiny group of people raising hell. It has to stop. If sales are shit then fair enough. As I said, should be simple to prove.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel I guess they make an attempt at quantifying the blowback in terms of lost revenue. You would think that they would need to see a serious move on the turnover front to make the jump but it's tough to quantify
-
Not sure if this has been posted, but the full decision is here:
Aside from some legalese in places, decisions are often very readable and accessible. I've skimmed bits... looks interesting
-
@nzzp Interesting read alright.
2 things I picked up from it (and I'm on my phone so can't quote and am also not legalese so skim read only)- there was a clause in the EO for exemptions to be granted on a case by case basis for example a religious minority being persecuted.
- Considerable weight was given to trumps campaign trail anti-muslim rhetoric.
For the first point why on earth couldn't any media or anti-trumper mention that instead of just jumping on the hyperbole bandwagon making them seem full of shit.
Second point is interesting, sounds a little subjective. Is that based on media spin or from actual documented messages from Trump? Could easily be both, won't know until I do my own research as the media has shown their hand on how unreliable they really are.
-
When they go low we go.....
-
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)?
Or does the US system mean they have to either win or die in a ditch over the current one?
Or just politics?
-
@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)?
Or does the US system mean they have to either win or die in a ditch over the current one?
Or just politics?
Isn't that just it though? The lack of attention to detail is sloppy and left Trump's new administration with egg on the face unnecessarily. It all felt rushed at its conception
-
@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.
US Politics