Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Talent: That is basically my position.

Charters in MI have gravitated toward the urban centers, as one might expect. There are many rural government schools that do not do so well on testing but provide a good education when you consider their clientele.

And I agree with your comment about being in a good school, as long as you don't go a step further and believe that anyone who wants to reside in a "good school" district merely has to move.

As you might guess, I've done some research on "good schools" v. "poor schools". A vacant lot in a good school district in GR brings about 3 times as much as one in a bad district. One of my dreams (that I'll never be able to reach) was to develop a residential development with a Charter School as a limited common element within the subdivision. That would be a way to really lever an excellent school. Again, charter schools sort parents, not kids.

[UMStan White]

Geezer I thank the Lord every day that NONE of your dreams are fulfilled.

[iam416]

I didn't know you were a religious chap, Stan. I always assumed you were a stark raving mad atheist. I guess I was wrong. About the atheism.

[UMStan White]

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yemen forbids the US from conducting any more special operations after a Seal raid that killed over a dozen civilians, got a Seal killed, lost a helicopter, and killed an 8-year-old US citizen

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/yemen-special-operations-missions.html?_r=0

[hack]

You know something's up when Yemen is the grown-up in the room.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Minor note from the oral arguments, from the accounts I've read, it doesn't seem like the 9th Circuit will reject the states' case on standing alone. The 3 judges (or 2 out of 3 anyways) seemed to accept that the states had a right to bring the suit.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Anyways, a summary of the oral arguments

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-hearing-appeal.html

[Dr. Strangelove]

Aides struggle to keep Trump on topic as phone calls with foreign leaders turn into bizarre, rambling rants against all grievances

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-foreign-leaders-phone-calls-234770

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm not sure if I should want this story to be true or not

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-leaks_us_589a45f1e4b04061313a1fbb

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump was confused about the dollar: Was it a strong one that’s good for the economy? Or a weak one?

So he made a call ― except not to any of the business leaders Trump brought into his administration or even to an old friend from his days in real estate. Instead, he called his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, according to two sources familiar with Flynn’s accounts of the incident.

Flynn has a long record in counterintelligence but not in macroeconomics. And he told Trump he didn’t know, that it wasn’t his area of expertise, that, perhaps, Trump should ask an economist instead.

Trump was not thrilled with that response ― but that may have been a function of the time of day. Trump had placed the call at 3 a.m., according to one of Flynn’s retellings ― although neither the White House nor Flynn’s office responded to requests for confirmation about that detail.

[hack]

It just can't be. There's no way.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Anyways, a summary of the oral arguments

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/u...ng-appeal.html

The kind of inaccurate reporting about this Appellate hearing in the 9th Circuit Court bothers me. There's too much editorializing and not enough discussion on the legal aspects of the case. Not here, in this forum, but in general.

The three circuit court judges hearing oral arguments from the two sides are deciding whether or not the EO is reviewable by the lower court that issued the TRO. It is NOT deciding whether or not the EO is within the President's authority to issue or whether or not it is fair, yada, yada.

If it is reviewable, then the parties will have an opportunity to develop a factual record at the District Court Level where the judge there initially issued the TRO. If it isn't the TRO will expire ...... and this says nothing about other legal challenges and amicus, or friend of the court briefs, to the EO that are pending.

As DSL notes, it looks like the Circuit court will rule the case has standing and send it back to the District Court where the parties will then argue, in a fuller hearing, their positions for (the two states) or against (DOJ) the TRO.

From what I'm reading, it looks like this is going to happen this week or the early part of next week. I'm not a lawyer ...... talent, do I have this account of things right?

[iam416]

Basically, JB.

The problem with a TRO is that there is limited evidence submitted in support. The 9th Circuit has several options:

(1) Rule that the State does not have standing and end it. If they do rule, my guess is they'd say standing is shown. I'm not sure the Supreme Court will agree with them, but I do think that's what the 9th C will do, so I doubt this is the outcome.

(2) Rule that the State does have standing, keep the stay in place and remand back to the District Court for a hearing where further evidence can be adduced. It's quite clear that the Circuit doesn't want to rule on an incomplete record. They want a full evidentiary record before they issue a substantive ruling. Further, they were probing, a bit, to so see if there's some sort of imminent harm to the Government if they left the stay in place. I think this is, by far and away, the most likely outcome.

(3) Rule on standing and substantive issues. If they go this far they will likely rule for the State, but I see no reason for them to do so at this point.

So, IMO, there's zero establishment clause issues here. I can't imagine the Supreme Court even going 4-4 on it. What the State of Washington is arguing is that, more or less, you can't consider religion in immigration decisions. Or, put in a historical context, the US could not have granted preferences to Jews in the 1930s and 1940s.

What I find most concerning is the reliance by both Washington and the panel on statements made by Trump and the Administration as to intent. Those statements, IMO, ought to have zero probative value. The EO, IMO, has to be assessed within its four corners. The EO, on its face, is within in the broad powers of the Executive and, most importantly, non-discriminatory. The 7 countries were not chosen based on religion, but rather based on threat (a determination the President can make with wide latitude) that is actually codified in either the code or regulations. The State and the 9th Circuit are arguing that it's discriminatory based on an intent evinced from statements made to the press by various folks.

I think that approach is horribly wrong. I think the Supreme Court would actually come down that way, too.

As I've said, I'm not a fan of the EO. But I think it, at a minimum, "not good" to have a district court judge more or less substituting his own policy judgment for that of the President in an area where the President has considerable discretion.

[UMStan White]

"What I find most concerning is the reliance by both Washington and the panel on statements made by Trump and the Administration as to intent. Those statements, IMO, ought to have zero probative value. The EO, IMO, has to be assessed within its four corners. The EO, on its face, is within in the broad powers of the Executive and, most importantly, non-discriminatory. The 7 countries were not chosen based on religion, but rather based on threat (a determination the President can make with wide latitude) that is actually codified in either the code or regulations. The State and the 9th Circuit are arguing that it's discriminatory based on an intent evinced from statements made to the press by various folks."

I share the same concerns

[Dr. Strangelove]

Just so I'm clear, how is any court to judge 'intent' if nothing outside of the body of the order itself should be examined? Or are you saying intent is more or less irrelevant when it comes to executive orders?

With an Act of Congress you can reviews notes, records of debate, etc. None of that is (presumably) kept in the drafting of EO's as far as I know.