Politics The ACLU took Trump to court over his Muslim refugee and immigrant ban — and won

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Well, she'll be removed once Sessions is in. So the lady can fuck off.
 
Denny Crane said:
Public education rocks. Need green font?
Click to expand...

And there is nothing she believes in that will improve it. Actually everything she wants will only make it worse.

But lets not junk up this thread with debate of education.
 
Let's make education kick ass. I don't care about the government system.
 
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...shes-no-hero-sally-yates-should-have-resigned

Sally Yates was wrong and should have resigned
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 01/31/17 10:51 AM EST

Sally Yates is neither a hero, nor a villain. She made an honest mistake when she instructed the entire Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s wrong-headed executive order on immigration. The reasons she gave in her letter referred to matters beyond the scope of the attorney general. She criticized the order on policy grounds and said that it was not “right.”

She also referred to its possibly being unconstitutional and unlawful. Had she stuck to the latter two criteria she would have been on more solid ground, although perhaps wrong on the merits. But by interjecting issues of policy and directing the Justice Department not to defend any aspect of the order, she overstepped her bounds.
 
enjoy the next 8 years Rastabot.
 
Washington AG's Office just won their stay in Federal court and judge said they have a substantial chance of success. Immigration order is barred nationally by order. Of course, the federal government didn't comply with the other order too, so I imagine this will end up in front of the Supreme Court at some point.
 
Also it's really weird that the Judge would say that the Washington AG's office would probably win their case as I have been told multiple times in this forum that Trump's order was perfectly legal. I mean, sure I could trust what the judge said, but there are so many sharp internet lawyers in this forum, that it's hard to trust Judge Robart.
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...oston-court/bqLjtMUAV5A0Oy09ANxTmN/story.html

Judge won’t extend order halting Trump immigration ban

In a swift decision, a federal judge refused Friday to extend a restraining order that had halted the implementation of President Trump’s controversial immigration ban in Massachusetts.

US District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton said in a 21-page order issued late Friday afternoon that he was sympathetic to the American Civil Liberties Union’s claims that immigrants could suffer irreparable harm from the ban, but he found that the government’s “likelihood of success on the merits weighs most heavily in the decision.”

“Because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims, an extension of the restraining order at the present time is not warranted,” the judge said.

In his ruling, Gorton found that the lawful permanent residents who were named in the lawsuit do not need the protection of a restraining order, because the president has now said his executive order does not apply to them. The judge said he found the issue “moot.”

And while Gorton agreed that immigrants who are in the country with visas are entitled to some form of equal protection, that standard is lower for immigrants who are trying to enter the country.

“There is a distinction … between the constitutional rights enjoyed by aliens who have entered the United States and those who are outside of it,” he said.

The judge found that the president has broad authority to decide who can enter the country, a “fundamental sovereign attribute” that is “largely immune from judicial control.” That broad authority, the judge found, gives greater deference to Trump’s claim that the ban was meant to “prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists.”

Rejecting claims that the ban unfairly affects the immigrants’ rights against discrimination, the judge ruled that “there is no constitutionally protected interest in either obtaining or continuing to possess a visa.”
 
The irony in all this is that now Mexico has stopped their border checks on Central American refugees trying to get to the states...people forget that they stopped more transients on their border than we do ours and that actually most of the refugees are Honduran, Nicaraguan, Guatemalan...etc...not even Mexicans! Mexican president says he'll stop cooperating with US immigration concerning Central Americans now....let it be on our border patrol completely...not a good, well thought out strategy ...INS cases must be backed up to the moon by now...there's a job market for you..
 
The irony is I was posting the article about the judge ending the halt on the immigration ban at the same time sedatedfork wrote his.

I'm guessing US District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton is a bit more an authority about the order's legality and constitutionality.

No, it's not some internet lawyer, it's a real deal judge who actually had to rule on it.
 
Denny Crane said:
The irony is I was posting the article about the judge ending the halt on the immigration ban at the same time sedatedfork wrote his.

I'm guessing US District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton is a bit more an authority about the order's legality and constitutionality.

No, it's not some internet lawyer, it's a real deal judge who actually had to rule on it.
Click to expand...
Ok, but there have been conflicting orders by judges, so I wouldn't act like it's an open and shut case. I'm guessing you are going to file an Amicus brief?
 
I wouldn't expect it to get overturned...I think it's more posturing for solidarity to make Trump overreact...a lot of people are going to poke sticks at this administration...it won't be pretty
 
Sedatedfork said:
Ok, but there have been conflicting orders by judges, so I wouldn't act like it's an open and shut case. I'm guessing you are going to file an Amicus brief?
Click to expand...
I'm not.

You said:
I have been told multiple times in this forum that Trump's order was perfectly legal.
​
Now it's an actual judge telling you it was perfectly legal.

Unfortunately, it likely is.
 
Trudeau stated clearly that all refugees are welcome in Canada...if stranded, that's an option..
 
Ha! Trump, who Judge Robart could easily call a so-called President, has lost it. No respect for the courts.

 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
I'm not.

You said:
I have been told multiple times in this forum that Trump's order was perfectly legal.
​
Now it's an actual judge telling you it was perfectly legal.

Unfortunately, it likely is.
Click to expand...
And another actual judge had said it is illegal. Trump would be wise to let it go. By the time an appeal is heard, the ban would probably be over. It is a fight he can't win, unless he actually intends the ban to last longer than 90 days
 
Sedatedfork said:
And another actual judge had said it is illegal. Trump would be wise to let it go. By the time an appeal is heard, the ban would probably be over. It is a fight he can't win, unless he actually intends the ban to last longer than 90 days
Click to expand...

I don't favor the ban. I wish he'd never have gone for it.

He'd be wise, if he wants the ban to stick, to fight it. And I am quite sure he's going to fight it.

We saw ObamaCare deemed illegal by various judges along the way to the Supreme Court, only to have the Court decide it didn't want to overstep it's duties.

This is likely going to the Supreme Court as well. If they do what they did in ObamaCare, the ban will stand.

This is one of his promises and he's keeping it. He was elected saying he would. The Court may well decide that it's not their duty to inject themselves in a matter between the White House and Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top