Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

To clarify:

Maybe there is much more documenting the creation of EO's than I realize. If so then I'd agree that public statements aren't a good source.

But on the presumption that there's far less evidence towards intent in drafting the EO's, I'm trying to understand the argument that public statements should still not be considered. Unless intent is in fact irrelevant for EO's.

[UMStan White]

The issue is not what is the "intent". The two issues are what is the effect (i.e. discrimination based upon religion) and what is the authority granted to the President to address immigration issues through his inherent power to impose an EO

[iam416]

DSL:

I think the easiest way to think of it is this: Would the same order be permissible if, e.g., President had said, "I love muslims, the US is welcoming to muslims, I don't want anyone to think of this as a ban on muslims. We are simply addressing a known threat from seven specific countries."

I can't imagine the same EO being constitutional or unconstitutional based on the statements of the President or his representatives.

But, if you think that's the case, then wouldn't that establish a protocol whereby every President makes glossy statements about every EO to paper over whatever is or isn't wrong with it?

As to the legislative history point, it's now very much disfavored. Scalia won the day on that issue. Courts look the the text of the statute and almost nothing else. They recognized that legislative history is often self-serving nonsense (for example, legislators would make statements about what a provision made after one of their amendments was voted down or not even brought to the floor). I mean, a recent opinion had Kagan and Roberts (I think) scuffling over grammar minutia in a statute that bored me to fucking tears. But, that's where we are - and appropriately so. *Sidenote -- Scalia's originalism is distinct and much more contested and very far from being adopted as the singular approach.

So, man -- this is another ends/means and process matters/doesn't matter sort of thing for me. I find the EO almost entirely symbolic. The notion that terrorists are slipping in to the US directly from Yemen is silly -- if they're coming to the US they're going to paper themselves up through Europe! However, the notion that this will have any sort of serious impact on people immigrating from those countries is also, I think, minimal.

On the policy, I think the EO is symbolic garbage. On the law, I believe it should be upheld.

[iam416]

The two issues are what is the effect (i.e. discrimination based upon religion) and what is the authority granted to the President to address immigration issues through his inherent power to impose an EO

Yeah, so there's almost no question as to the second question. Or at least it seems that way to me.

The first question is interesting in that if their is actual discrimination then the folks being discriminated against have no Constitutional rights. I think that's why they're also hitting the Establishment Clause issue hard, but I find that to be bad, too.

IMO, there is absolutely a remedy for legal green card/visa holders that are potentially subject to the ban. On this, Trump has said it doesn't apply to these folks, but the face of the EO is ambiguous so a Court would be well within its discretion to issue an order regarding those folks. I have a very hard time getting to a redressable harm for Yemeni citizens in US Courts.

[Da Geezer]

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.

I think Walter Mondale's brother-in-law is the swing vote on the 3-member panel. You can't make this stuff up.

Further, I don't think any "damage" is in any way irreparable. Within the first 48 hours, procedures were changed to accommodate green card holders and persons with visas. 109 persons were impacted, and none have claimed damage. This is all political theater, as Talent points out on the Trump side, but also on the D's side. It is a stretch to claim that the State of WA is damaged, or that those damages could be irreparable. The "tax base" and "reputation" canards have already been tried at the SC level and found wanting.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yeah, so there's almost no question as to the second question. Or at least it seems that way to me.

The first question is interesting in that if their is actual discrimination then the folks being discriminated against have no Constitutional rights. I think that's why they're also hitting the Establishment Clause issue hard, but I find that to be bad, too.

IMO, there is absolutely a remedy for legal green card/visa holders that are potentially subject to the ban. On this, Trump has said it doesn't apply to these folks, but the face of the EO is ambiguous so a Court would be well within its discretion to issue an order regarding those folks. I have a very hard time getting to a redressable harm for Yemeni citizens in US Courts.

The first story here (if accurate). Surely there's redress for these folks.

[ame]https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/829350646780424192[/ame]

[Dr. Strangelove]

And I know you all hate it when I post Trump's tweets but sometimes it's impossible to resist.

[ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829356871848951809[/ame]

[Dr. Strangelove]

BTW, he had a national security briefing scheduled for 10:30 today. So either he had those cut down quite a bit cuz they're booooooring, or he tweeted the Nordstrom's thing out during it.

[froot loops]

Da Geezer is still clinging to the 109 figure. It's almost like he doesn't read anything. The DOJ admitted 60K of visas were revoked.

[The Oracle]

And I know you all hate it when I post Trump's tweets but sometimes it's impossible to resist.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...56871848951809

Who's "you all"?

[The Oracle]

Da Geezer is still clinging to the 109 figure. It's almost like he doesn't read anything. The DOJ admitted 60K of visas were revoked.

DOJ?!?? Bunch of schleppers. Listen to Kelly Ann.

[Da Geezer]

I'm talking about damages, froot. I'm talking about folks who might have suffered irreparable damage. This stay of an EO is an extreme action and requires proof of both standing and irreparable damage.

here is the operative law, which happens to be largely irrelevant to the current question before the current 3-judge panel.

Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

My understanding is like Jeff's. If the 9th Circuit sends this back to the District Court for trial, it seems to me that will take more time to try than it will to have Gorsuch confirmed. That would mean that the appeal of Washington's probable victory would be overturned 5-4. All this talk of " ....the 9th Circuit will affirm the District Judge and it will go to the SC, which will tie 4-4, leaving the EO blocked....." doesn't seem to me to be realistic.

BUT, I'm not nearly as sanguine as Talent that the 9th Circuit or the SC will follow the established law.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Who's "you all"?

If that's a request for more, I got 'em...Easy D!

[ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829384587482656768[/ame]

[CGVT]

You can't make this shit up.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Failing, so-called department store Nordstrom using millions of illegal immigrants with NO VETTING! Courts letting them do it! Just terrible!