Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Talent:

Do Minnesota and Washington have standing to sue over the Trump travel ban? How are the governments of those two states directly affected by not having access to foreign nationals coming into the US? Presumably, for the TRO to be granted, there had to be at least the possibility of irreparable damage. How or what? If those with a visa or a green card are excepted, as are citizens, what individual is there that could have standing? I don't have any answer, but would appreciate an opinion.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Talent:

Do Minnesota and Washington have standing to sue over the Trump travel ban? How are the governments of those two states directly affected by not having access to foreign nationals coming into the US? Presumably, for the TRO to be granted, there had to be at least the possibility of irreparable damage. How or what? If those with a visa or a green card are excepted, as are citizens, what individual is there that could have standing? I don't have any answer, but would appreciate an opinion.

Pretty sure at least part of the argument was harm to each state's tax base.

[AlabamAlum]

The President has pretty decent power with regard to whom we let in. I hate the order, but I think it's probably within Trump's authority.

[iam416]

Geezer:

I think the standing issue is tenuous. Washington probably put forth enough of an argument that the District Court could buy it.

At the end of the day I have a hard time seeing the core substance of his order being Unconstitutional. Now, I do believe there is a federal statute that prevents the US from making immigration determinations solely on the basis of nationality. If that's the case -- and I honestly don't know enough about it -- then the order is done. In the hierarchy of controlling authorities, enacted congressional laws > executive order.

So, I think it may be that the Constitution is not an issue provided the EO isn't hitting on any validly admitted aliens -- i.e., green card holders. Citizens of Yemen enjoy exactly zero Constitutional protections whilst they are in Yemen. However, previous legislation may be the issue -- and in that regard, Congress can repeal that act and clear the way for the EO if they wish.

[iam416]

Geezer:

This is the DOJ brief they filed with the 9th Circuit asking them to intervene (lololol at 9th Circuit): http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5%20motion.pdf

It's a little structurally awkward b/c you're dealing w/ a TRO, but the DOJ's core points are on pp 9-20. I agree with them entirely. The 9th Circuit will not. As to your standing question, the principle justification for standing has been rejected by the Supreme Court (in 1923) and, apparently, remains controlling precedent.

[Da Geezer]

Thanks, Talent, and thanks particularly for the link.

I wish you were a federal judge since you seem to be able to summarize matters in 100 words or less.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Geezer:

I think the standing issue is tenuous. Washington probably put forth enough of an argument that the District Court could buy it.

At the end of the day I have a hard time seeing the core substance of his order being Unconstitutional. Now, I do believe there is a federal statute that prevents the US from making immigration determinations solely on the basis of nationality. If that's the case -- and I honestly don't know enough about it -- then the order is done. In the hierarchy of controlling authorities, enacted congressional laws > executive order.

So, I think it may be that the Constitution is not an issue provided the EO isn't hitting on any validly admitted aliens -- i.e., green card holders. Citizens of Yemen enjoy exactly zero Constitutional protections whilst they are in Yemen. However, previous legislation may be the issue -- and in that regard, Congress can repeal that act and clear the way for the EO if they wish.

One of the guests from USA Today on Special Report mentioned the 1965 Immigration Law and said it prevents discrimination on the basis of nationality. If that's so I'm not sure why it's not being brought up more. An Executive Order cannot overrule Congressional legislation, can it?

[froot loops]

I think the crux of the argument is the 1965 Immigration Law forbids discrimination based on race or nationality for immigrants but they are trying to use something like a loophole. The executive branch has the power to revoke legal status of immigrants(green card holders), but that has generally been reserved for individual cases. So it sounds like the case is whether the government has the right to revoke visa status of whole swaths of people based on nationality. At least that's the way I read it, the lawyers in here might know more. The refugee ban and travel ban seem like it's on better legal grounds.

[Da Geezer]

I only suggest you read (2.) on page 16 of the government's brief Talent posted.

[froot loops]

I've read the brief.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/cathleendecker/status/828763524809707520[/ame]

[Dr. Strangelove]

Major Garrett throwing some major shade

[ame]https://twitter.com/MajorCBS/status/828794162757693440[/ame]

[WingsFan]

Kremlin Asks Fox News to Apologize to Putin

Russia sought an apology from Fox News on Monday after the host Bill O’Reilly described President Vladimir V. Putin as “a killer” during an interview with President Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/world/europe/oreilly-putin-trump-killer.html?_r=0

[SeattleLionsFan]

Wow. I wonder if Trump is enough of a Russian buttboy to actually ask Fox to apologize.

[WingsFan]

I highly doubt that SLF.

Bill O'reilly responded tonight saying "he's working on it" "check back with me in 2023". Krauthammer later told O'reilly that he is now on Vladimir Putin "hit list" - O'reilly laughed that off with "is an assassin going to follow me home?"