Appeals Court Rules Against Trump

There are two issues here. One is protecting the country. The other is preserving the president's constitutional authority. In this case they may conflict, as Trump might want to push an appeal to vindicate his authority.

I think the wiser course would be to withdraw the order and deal with each issue piecemeal. Some classes of immigrants, eg Somalis, might be barred, others maybe just singled out for higher level approval, which surprisingly may take months or longer. Wait until his Supreme Court nominee is in place, then push the constitutional issue.
 
At least you submit a more compelling argument than saying he just cannot do it, which is what the majority of leftists seem to be comfortable with. The problem is given this attitude of obstruction that any order, however well written, will be challenged in an obviously biased and politically motivated court system. You can't run a country that way which is the whole underlying motive.
We agree. The Order was botched. And it would have been possible to draw an Order that would have been well neigh impossible to challenge successfully had they done their homework and taken their time. A carefully drawn the order would limit the basis for challenge to the question of rationality. And I would think that a very difficult road to go down if the Order is well crafted to lie within the letter of the law. When you have nothing left to argue but the spirit of the law you have a more difficult case.

Intellectually, I don't believe even a legal ban on people entering from the few countries named in the original order makes much sense as an anti-terrorism measure, other than as a purely political move as part of a general fear mongering campaign. After all, well coordinated and funded terrorist attacks can originate from any country, including our own. Thoroughly vetting those who want to immigrate here makes sense. But we started doing that during the past administration. And we are still doing it.
 
There are two issues here. One is protecting the country. The other is preserving the president's constitutional authority. In this case they may conflict, as Trump might want to push an appeal to vindicate his authority.

I think the wiser course would be to withdraw the order and deal with each issue piecemeal. Some classes of immigrants, eg Somalis, might be barred, others maybe just singled out for higher level approval, which surprisingly may take months or longer. Wait until his Supreme Court nominee is in place, then push the constitutional issue.
We don't have to agree on everything, but your point of view is making some sense to me now.
 
I wrote yesterday they should cite the the testimony before Congress by our security leaders... (under obama) that we can not screen out all terrorists.

Therefore halt all immigration for 6 months or until the homeland guys state we can screen out all terrorists from that location.
Well one location is the United States, What is your recommendation for "screen[ing] out all terrorists who are from that location." I have know doubt the "homeland guys" will be much obliged if you will pass on your method.
 
I still don't know why the democrats are on the side of those who wish to let terrorists in the country.
This is a ridiculous statement. How can you expect anyone to to take your opinions seriously when you post this stuff.
 
the big govt guy who always defends democrats and who routinely tells us he is a libertarian is lecturing me about being taken seriously? That is rich.

my statement is blunt and accurate.




https://homeland.house.gov/press/nations-top-security-officials-concerns-on-refugee-vetting/


NATION’S TOP SECURITY OFFICIALS’ CONCERNS ON REFUGEE VETTING


House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul stated yesterday during a pen and pad on H.R. 4038, “It is the Administration’s own officials that were warning us about this program. It’s not me making this up. This came from testimony that came from both F.B.I. and homeland security officials in briefings and in public testimony. I would argue that [the President] can spin it politically anyway he wants to but the fact of the matter is: the threat is real. ISIS has said in their own words that they want to exploit it to infiltrate the West. Again, it is not a threat I am making up, it’s a threat their own officials have warned us about.” (11/18/15)

Here’s what others are saying:

Gen. (ret.) Jack Keane, Chairman of the Board, Institute for the Study of War: “I’m absolutely convinced that you’re doing the right thing by pausing and making certain that the Congress takes a look at the Executive Branch’s plans and makes certain that it’s reasonable what we’re doing in terms of the vetting process.” (11/18/15)

John Brennan, Director, Central Intelligence Agency: “I think it makes it even more incumbent on the security and intelligence professionals to make sure that we are able to look at individuals who are coming into this country with an eye toward what it is that we might know about individuals or ways that terrorist organizations might try to secret people into these networks, into these refugee flows…[I am determined to] see what we can do to strengthen that system that allows us to have as best insight as possible into the backgrounds of these individuals as well as what their intentions might be.” (11/18/15)

James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person…You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation.” (10/21/15)

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process… That is definitely a challenge….We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this [Syrian refugee resettlement] program…The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.” (10/21/15)

Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be…you can only review [refugees’ submitted background data] against what you have.” (10/8/15)

James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice: “There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like [Syria]… My concern there [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States] is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us.” (10/8/15)

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we’re not going to know a whole lot about.” (10/8/15)

Gen. (ret.) John Allen, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, State Department: “We should be conscious of the potential that [ISIS] may attempt to embed agents within that [Syrian refugee] population.” (9/11/15)

Gen. (ret.) James Clapper, Director, Director of National Intelligence: “As [Syrian refugees] descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background? We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees…That is a huge concern of ours.” (9/9/15)

Michael Steinbach, Assistant Director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation: “Yes, I’m concerned [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States]…We’ll have to go take a look at those lists and go through all of those intelligence holdings and be very careful to try and identify connections to foreign terrorist groups…in Iraq, we were there on the ground collecting [intelligence], so we had databases to use…You have to have information to vet, so the concern is in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in places on the ground to collect the information.” (2/12/15)

Nicholas J. Rasmussen , Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “[The Syrian refugees are] clearly a population of concern…what we want to be able to do is apply the full weight of U.S. intelligence community holdings to the vetting and screening process so that we can unearth any information that we may have in our holdings that gives us concern about particular individuals.” (2/12/15)

Francis X. Taylor, Under Secretary, Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security: “We are concerned about any group of people coming to the United States who may be coming to the United States for nefarious purposes…[officials] want to make sure that if we are asked to vet individuals from any part of the world to come to the United States, that we have applied the most rigorous screening that’s available within the U.S. government.” (2/12/15)
 
Last edited:
I can't tell whether your comment is sophistry or stupidity induced by trump derangement.

Internal security is a different matter. Just because that matter may be and issue too. Is no reason to side with those who let more terrorists in.

Well one location is the United States, What is your recommendation for "screen[ing] out all terrorists who are from that location." I have know doubt the "homeland guys" will be much obliged if you will pass on your method.
 
Last edited:
so far no one has given a compelling argument for why its so important to let terrorists in.

for instance... the state of washingtons argument was this..

The states have alleged that the executive order harms their businesses and universities, preventing some students and faculty from traveling abroad for fear of being stranded and diminishing the sales tax revenue they receive.

Faculty and students should be stranded if they don't have proper visas.
As far as money is concerned how about the state of Washington tell us their net when they figure in all the services accessed by new immigrants... come up with a net figure..

Then compare that net figure with the cost of lives?

In short... you are siding with the terrorists for no good reason.
 
Last edited:
Don't courts routinely settle the meaning of words, the legal meaning, via litigation? But that case was not about the dictionary definition of marriage, though the defendant tried to fall back on the long standing, historical definition of the word "marriage"; it was a weak argument when up against bedrock Constitutional issues, and bound to fail! Just as words change their meaning spontaneously over time, and before any dictionaries have time to respond, a new definition for Marriage arose spontaneously from litigation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. You will find the new, broadened definition already reflected in English dictionaries.

In any case, you reasoning here is somewhat flawed. You made the point that the Constitution does not say that the court is allowed to redefine words. And you are right! The Constitution is silent with regard to the Court redefining words. And, as I'm certain would have occurred to you had you only thought about it for a moment, when the Constitution does not speak directly to an issue, it neither allows nor prohibits, unless some clever lawyer can convince the Court otherwise.

The fact of the matter is, the left tried for years to push gay marriage through the vote and they failed everytime. They failed in the ultra-left state of California pal. When they kept failing they realized they needed to go to plan B. Its alright though, this kind of stunt is part of the reason Hillary lost.

If Trump does nothing but stack the courts with Constitutionalists judges it will be worth it.
 
The fact of the matter is, the left tried for years to push gay marriage through the vote and they failed everytime. They failed in the ultra-left state of California pal. When they kept failing they realized they needed to go to plan B. Its alright though, this kind of stunt is part of the reason Hillary lost.

If Trump does nothing but stack the courts with Constitutionalists judges it will be worth it.
Your history is accurate despite leaving out all detail. What made gay marriage possible in the end was a big change in public opinion. You can credit the many long years of grassroots campaigning by gay advocacy groups and a 5 judge majority that acknowledged the time had come. Much the same way as we recognized when the time had come to stop counting a black man as 2/3 of a white man. Both the counting of a black man as 2/3 of a white man and the denial of equal rights to gay people were always indefensible policies. Nevertheless, taking from you what is rightfully mine is always a hard sell if you have the vote and I don't, or if there are many more of you than there are of me.

In democracies, now and then people do the right thing despite their innate tendencies. This is more likely to occur once we realize what damn fools we have been. It usually doesn't help for someone to point this out to us. Most of us have to discovery this on our own. That's why righting built in wrongs takes so damn long.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top