• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peltz

Member
tearsintherain said:
He's not going to ignore it for now. But what happens if we get another Orlando or San Bernadino terrorist attack? He would get the full backing of Congress and a majority of American people to halt Muslim immigrants and even deport recent ones. They would beg him to write the laws, and they will willingly amend the constitution if the judicial branch tries to reverse it.

You are way too trusting if you don't think people will go along with the xenophobes immediately after an attack.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I've been studying the constitution and US history for most of my life. Amending the constitution to destroy the life appointments of Federal judges is completely outside the realm of possibility.

Our country has been attacked by terrorists before and will likely be attacked again. Have some faith in the structure of our government. Have some faith in the 5th and 14th Amendments as well.

We have come a far way from the mistakes of Dred Scott and Korematsu.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
ginger ninja said:
The final electroal college count. We wouldn't even be in this shit show if she hadn't fucked up so bad in the election.

Sorry gaf, my election wounds are still too sore to get back on the hillary bandwagon.
Click to expand...

There's no bandwagon to get on.

Your pretty much asserting that no one who has ever lost a battle should ever be able to relish in someone else's defeat.
 
J

jellies_two

Member
Zefah said:
What happens? The same scenario we've been plummeting towards for a while now. Trump tries to set himself up as a dictator and, if he succeeds, we find ourselves in a period of outright chaos and violence.
Click to expand...
If it is a big enough attack he will suspend habeus corpus and seize control and suspend normal checks and balances and that will be a that. And don't think he won't take the opportunity if there is even half s chance of success and don't think someone deeply steeped in fourth turning bullshit can't decide to engineer one by the time anyone figured out it wasn't kosher all powers to investigate it would be cancelled.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
ginger ninja said:
I mean...304-227.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be playing with stones.
Click to expand...

This is a very silly post.

The Trump administration seems to think that because they won the election, no Democrats can criticize them because they won and that's that. That's not how this works.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Tovarisc said:
nVepRzp.png

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457
Click to expand...

You're out of your element donny


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0OaeMYTbs4


Shut the fuck up donny

Loxley said:
Judges basically said:

UuGwdRK.gif
Click to expand...
Exactly ^
 
P

Piggus

Member
tearsintherain said:
He's not going to ignore it for now. But what happens if we get another Orlando or San Bernadino terrorist attack? He would get the full backing of Congress and a majority of American people to halt Muslim immigrants and even deport recent ones. They would beg him to write the laws, and they will willingly amend the constitution if the judicial branch tries to reverse it.

You are way too trusting if you don't think people will go along with the xenophobes immediately after an attack.
Click to expand...

I think you're overreacting a bit. The government does not have that legal right under any circumstance. One of the most fundamental parts of the constitution is not going to be amended.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Balphon said:
Maybe on the due process, but I think the Government is basically screwed on the Establishment Clause argument thanks to Trump & co's rhetoric. I don't think the EO stands up to a facial challenge on either grounds.

I don't know enough to speak on the statutory arguments.
Click to expand...

The statutory arguments are the weakest, IMO, but the Establishment Clause arguments by the WA AG are very solid. I also think he did a good job arguing standing.
 
S

seanoff

Member
In Australia the High Court (our highest judiciary) have to agree to even hear the case and they decide that on whether one side or other has some hope of winning.

If its like that in the USA there's every possibility that the Supreme Court may look at that judgement. Go, we got nothing, and leave it stand.


Then what does Trump do? Even if he passes legislation in the Congress it will just be struck down instantly.
 
B

Back-In-Black

Banned
whyamihere said:
The statutory arguments are the weakest, IMO, but the Establishment Clause arguments by the WA AG are very solid. I also think he did a good job arguing standing.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that public statements can be used primarily to discern intent when a plain text reading of a statute is facially neutral. As I said before, it will be VERY interesting if this case is ever heard on the merits at the Supreme Court.

seanoff said:
In Australia the High Court (our highest judiciary) have to agree to even hear the case and they decide that on whether one side or other has some hope of winning.

If its like that in the USA there's every possibility that the Supreme Court may look at that judgement. Go, we got nothing, and leave it stand.

Then what does Trump do? Even if he passes legislation in the Congress it will just be struck down instantly.
Click to expand...

Wait until the decision is made on the merits of the case. We are only dealing with the preliminary TRO at the moment not the wholesale legality of the ban.
 
C

CrispyBoar

Banned
Effect said:
I hope Trump loses his fucking mind over this. Fuck him. This likely going to be the battle plan going forward. Trump does something completely stupid, it gets challenged in court, and hopefully stopped. We need to keep pushing to get other things challenged in court that normally wouldn't be and funding all the lawyers, groups, etc putting in time and effort to do this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, such as this.
 
G

GK86

Homeland Security Fail
Taken from Buzzfeed:

both are equally bad @caseyjohnston

“oh no, not court” —judges

Chase Mitchell @ChaseMit

"SEE YOU IN COURT"
"Ok cool, that is where we work, so it is very convenient for us"

Britt Sabo @BrittSabo
"SEE YOU IN COURT" I scream after the Chipotle employee doesn't put enough rice on my burrito.
 
SerTapTap

SerTapTap

Member
tearsintherain said:
He's not going to ignore it for now. But what happens if we get another Orlando or San Bernadino terrorist attack? He would get the full backing of Congress and a majority of American people to halt Muslim immigrants and even deport recent ones. They would beg him to write the laws, and they will willingly amend the constitution if the judicial branch tries to reverse it.

You are way too trusting if you don't think people will go along with the xenophobes immediately after an attack.
Click to expand...

There is no chance in hell pissy donny is getting a 2/3rds majority to amend the constitution in both house and senate.
 
D

DangerMouse

Member
And they said we can't use the word deplorable to describe many of Trump's disgusting supporters...
Trump with his twitter makes them believe most of the shit they do is fine and further incites it even as a fucking president.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Back-In-Black said:
That's assuming that public statements can be used primarily to discern intent when a plain text reading of a statute is facially neutral. As I said before, it will be VERY interesting if this case is ever heard on the merits at the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I mean, I think they can and should.
 
M

minor effort

Banned
ginger ninja said:
I mean...304-227.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be playing with stones.
Click to expand...

Lights and Waves said:
She beat him by 3 MILLION votes. Sorry buddy. You sound uninformed.
Click to expand...

Kalamari said:
Lol, presidents aren't elected by popular vote.

You guys crack me up
Click to expand...

None of you guys are making good points here, given the thread. Hillary had a bit of a zinger, that wasn't meant to be an opportunity for a rehashing of the 2016 election and the debate over the electoral college.
 
B

btrboyev

Member
So why doesn't Trump accelerate his plans after the 90 day ban is over?? Oh yeah that's right, he has no plan. He was going to try and make this shit permanent.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Oh man is my "deplorable" mother pissed.

Haven't spoken to her since inauguration, but just had to text her today that "the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is Making America Great Again"

Lets just say the dam has burst.

Now we're even.
 
D

DangerMouse

Member
JonnyDBrit said:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQT28r_Did-/

Is the actual, official instagram of the whitehouse posting a fucking tweet graphic?
Click to expand...

This. It's a fucking embarrassment that this is going to be part of our history and POTUS that this man and his goons are in the White House.

CHC said:
I also love how he has to put "President of the United States" under his name, (a) because he's so insecure; or perhaps (b) because it's so easy to forget that this is reality.
Click to expand...

And this too.
 
V

Voyr

Banned
The magic of this whole ordeal is that ego is keeping Trump from "keeping America safe", as he likes to claim. Nothing is stopping him from rescinding this EO and drafting a better, more focused order. But he won't... That would require admitting a mistake that's worthy of a return to the drawing board.

So ego... more important that our lives (if you believe that bs rhetoric he's puking).
 
B

Back-In-Black

Banned
Tovarisc said:
Kellyanne Conway responds to 9th Circuit (27sec): https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/829856043438075905

Edit: Conway says "this was not argued on the merits."
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/829856947469946880
Click to expand...

Well, she is right.

whyamihere said:
I mean, I think they can and should.
Click to expand...

There are some good arguments as to why things like public statements and legislative history should be ignored when interpreting the intent of a law. Scalia believed they shouldn't be considered at all. The rest of the Court believe they play a role but have never really articulated any specifics about what that role is or how significant they should be treated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Supreme Court rules in favor for Trump in 'Muslim' travel ban
2
83
5K
ic3cait replied
Federal judge blocks Trump’s third travel ban
29
6K
Dev1lXYZ replied
  • Locked
Federal appeals court upholds nationwide block on Trump's travel ban
3
1K
Madness replied
  • Poll
Trump turns to Supreme Court to move forward on travel ban
0
1K
EYEL1NER replied
U.S. judge orders Trump administration to allow abortion for undocumented teen (WaPo)
9
2K
MrToughPants replied
Top Bottom