I forgot to commend you and LTG when you both spoke so eloquently about the first travel ban against Muslims that was instituted by the Obama administration.

When one of you has a moment, please link the topic for the rest of us.

It is patently hypocritical to ignore the violation of their rights yet complain about the rights violations committed against others. It seems as if it is perfectly OK in one instance and not OK in another.


I also have routinely seen the rights of African Americans violated by the implementation of blue light cameras for years. No one gives a shit about that either.

Hawaii has filed a lawsuit to stop the ban. What will be the ruling? Surely a guy with your incredible insight can enlighten the world (or at least this message board) as to how the ruling will go.

"The new executive order is resulting in the establishment of religion in the state of Hawaii contrary to its state constitution; it is inflicting immediate damage to Hawaii's economy, educational institutions, and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state's citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society," attorneys for the state argued in court filings.

It's the same bullshit First, Fourteenth, and Fourth arguments I debunked above. Any judge who grants a preliminary injunction based on this should be impeached. The case law on this is crystal clear.

But again, they don't call it the "9th Circus" for nothing.

And Ike, the merits of Trump's EO have yet to be ruled upon in court. The recent hub-ub has to do with a temporary restraining order granted by a US District Court Judge--a particular kind of preliminary injunction--enjoining immigration officials from enforcing Trump's EO for a short period, pursuant to a lawsuit filed in that court. The 9th District's ruling yesterday was on an emergency appeal by White House lawyers to stay the TRO (effectively nullifying it) while the matter is adjudicated.

The courts have remained mum on the merits and lawfulness of the EO itself, and just yesterday an unnamed judge in the 9th Circuit requested a vote be taken on whether to consider the order denying Trump's request of a stay of the original TRO "en banc" which is a super-duper, actual legal thing that I'm not qualified to pontificate on. Though from what little I've read, it would be a larger panel of the 9th Circuit coming together to vote on whether to overturn the decision of the smaller panel of 9th Circuit judges.

For reference, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is colloquially known as "the 9th Circus", because of a perceived tendency towards incredibly liberal, "activist" decisions.

You did think Trump would easily win in court on the first ban. Obviously, Trump's people did not share your optimism.

Huh?

Do you think the CIA doesn't use these tactics against Muslims?

As for blue light cameras it has nothing to do with this debate. Those in in public where about everyone already has zero expectations of privacy. This is about the next stage of surveillance.

"Easily"? Come on, you know I didn't say that.

Of course they chose to rewrite the order, the TRO would have likely been extended throughout the entire trial and appeals process, which at the nearest absolute would have been many months, more likely entire calendar years. The merits haven't changed.

Depends on which court gets a hold of it. I think the due process claims of visa holders is very solid, but if a court starts arguing that would-be refugees from other nations have a right to due process in this country (as the 9th began to argue in its opinion on staying the TRO), that would be judicial activism at its worst.

Other than that, I think the claims of "Muslim ban"--outside of not being an actual ban on Muslims--aren't sure to hold up in any non-zany court. Remember, on issues such as these regarding national security and foreign immigration, courts show deference to the expertise of the Executive, which might necessitate only a rational basis review of the order, rather than strict scrutiny. I think the crux of Trump's order wins out under rational basis scrutiny.

I forgot to commend you and LTG when you both spoke so eloquently about the first travel ban against Muslims that was instituted by the Obama administration.

When one of you has a moment, please link the topic for the rest of us.

Are you now admitting the original EO was flawed and would not have been easily defensible in court?

To be honest I didn't know about that. You are really out to lunch if you think I'm an Obama defender. I'm not. I have been extremely critical of him over the years. From Guantanamo to drones to his support of the overthrow of Quaddafi I criticize him. If you are looking for an Obama apologist it ain't me.

Now I will admit that I apologize for Hillary Clinton but much of that is due to what I perceive as unfairness. It is now her fault for giving us Trump. That is some of the biggest B.S. I think Ive ever heard. If only she would have lost we wouldn't have Trump. People voting for the idiot and repeatedly defending him are not accountable. Person that simply lost is responsible.


It's why I used the Hitler analogy earlier. People voted for Hitler. People voted for Trump. If people can't be accountable for who they vote for then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Hitler is extreme and Trump isn't that but Trump won because he had a base of support that never wavered.

There are millions of people that believe in what this guy is spewing. Plain and simple.

This again, really? Do you ever get tired of the same, poorly-executed, shtick?

The Hitler analogy is terrible. He was trounced in his only national election. When he was appointed chancellor it was part of a coalition government were the Nazis where around 30 percent.

And Hillary Clinton deserves no blame for basically ignoring the Midwest that cost her the election?

I brought it up because it was relevant as you are once again making the same arguments that didn't match with the reality of how the Trump administration reacted.

If you would have just admitted the original EO was poorly planned and likely to lose in court this isn't a discussion. However, you are now just using the same arguments here while not acknowledging they already failed once.

The constitutional questions about the original order were never decided. Please link me to a ruling on their constitutionality.