Temp Halt gets overturned?

[piezoe]

The argument it makes us less safe is absurd on its face, but in any event we elected a President to make these kinds of decisions. Not a district court judge in Washington state. The President only has to show he has statutory authority to issue the order, which is abundantly clear. This is not even a case where he has to demonstrate a rational basis for his action, as is the case with most agency rules and orders.

It may be an interesting hearing. It will be streamed live. Of course the issue of constitutionality must be dealt with. Then there is the issue of standing for the plaintiffs , the AGs representing the States in this case, and that is wrapped up in the issue of "harm". Although this case is being brought by Attorneys General representing States, the Court opened the issue of harm wide open when it ruled, in effect, that corporations have certain constitutional rights. Thus, presumably Corporations could sue on certain specific constitutional grounds. I understand that a number of major Corporations have filed briefs in the present case. There have been follow on similar rulings in lower courts in other cases where certain rights we think of as normally attaching to individuals were also deemed to belong to Corporations. The current Supreme Court nominee was involved in one such case.

The most interesting issue of all however is whether a rationality test may be applied to application of the law. I don't know if there is any precedent for this. Would a disinterested person -- a Judge for example (Judges are theoretically disinterested), or an ordinary person, neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant, nor anyone connected with the case -- consider application of a written law to be rational? Robart seems to have opened the door to a rationality test. I don't know if there is a precedent for this. It would be nice to hear from our ET attorneys, regarding this question. I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on ET.

Obviously one can quickly and easily cite endless examples of seemingly irrational application of written law, but all the easily thought of examples I can think of are trivial examples where it would be difficult if not impossible to show substantial harm. This case may be different. We shall see. It seems quite likely to be headed for the Supreme Court.

 

[piezoe]

The Seattle judge who temporarily banned the White House’s refugee reform plan acted after mistakenly claiming the federal government has not arrested jihadi migrants from the seven Muslim countries covered by the reform.
But the federal government has arrested and jailed at least 76 people since 2001 from the seven countries covered in the first stage of the president’s reform, which was announced late January.

I Think this is one of the "alternative facts" that is being disputed, viz., do these arrests constitute the arrest of a non-home grown terrorist from one of the subject countries, or an arrest for other reasons, e.g., driving without a valid drivers license! This seems an extremely low arrest rate for a decade and a half considering the thousands meeting the criteria. This also goes to your point made in your earlier post, viz., "...its [sic] also lefty illogical to make any risk assessment based on it not happening yet." By dispensing with the ideological qualifier you would have an excellent point, though somewhat obvious.

 

[gwb-trading]

I Think this is one of the alternative facts that is being disputed, viz., do these arrests constitute the arrest of a terrorist from one of the subject countries, or an arrest for other reasons.

From my understanding (based on news reports - which is a problem in itself these days) about half of the arrests are related to terrorism, and the other half related to basic crimes (including visa fraud / welfare fraud / etc.).

I don't really know what the real breakout is at this point. However it is clear that at least a dozen of the arrests are terrorism related because of media coverage including their names and countries of origin (including the Bowling Green characters).

 

[fhl]

SHOCK POLL: 55% of Europeans want to end immigration from Muslim countries
2/7/2017, 10:55:41 AM · by GonzoII · 17 replies
Westmonster ^ | February 7, 2017 | by Westmonster
In a series of polls conducted for Chatham House that will send shockwaves through Europe, an average of 55% of citizens across 10 different European nations have backed a total end to migration from predominantly Islamic countries. The figures included 71% of those in Poland, 53% in Germany, 51% in Italy and 47% of Brits.

 

[piezoe]

From my understanding (based on news reports - which is a problem in itself these days) about half of the arrests are related to terrorism, and the other half related to basic crimes (including visa fraud / welfare fraud / etc.).

I don't really know what the real breakout is at this point. However it is clear that at least a dozen of the arrests are terrorism related because of media coverage including their names and countries of origin (including the Bowling Green characters).

Thank you for that clarification. I suspected as much.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The point here is that the courts do not have the right to substitute their judgment for the president's. If a line of eminent experts stretching from one end of the country to the other say he is crazy, it doesn't matter. He clearly has the statutory authority to bar immigrants or classes of immigrants. The claim, eg by stu, that a would-be immigrant outside the US can raise constitutional claims to the president's decision is without any support in statute or precedent. If they don't have a constitutional right not to be killed in a drone strike, they certainly have no right to object to a visa denial.

The plaintiffs have tried to bootstrap an argument that they or other interested parties such as companies or universities have protected interests. Such claims have not been upheld in the past for obvious reasons. It makes about as much sense as allowing the state of Massachusetts to sue the NFL over the Brady suspension.

 

[piezoe]

So basically if we are not nice to them they may kill us? That is your argument?

If I may answer for Here4Money, that isn't his argument at all. I am puzzled by how you could construe it as such.

 

[piezoe]

The point here is that the courts do not have the right to substitute their judgment for the president's. If a line of eminent experts stretching from one end of the country to the other say he is crazy, it doesn't matter. He clearly has the statutory authority to bar immigrants or classes of immigrants. The claim, eg by stu, that a would-be immigrant outside the US can raise constitutional claims to the president's decision is without any support in statute or precedent. If they don't have a constitutional right not to be killed in a drone strike, they certainly have no right to object to a visa denial.

The plaintiffs have tried to bootstrap an argument that they or other interested parties such as companies or universities have protected interests. Such claims have not been upheld in the past for obvious reasons. It makes about as much sense as allowing the state of Massachusetts to sue the NFL over the Brady suspension.

If you have a chance listen to the hearing today. I think this will likely clear up some obvious misunderstandings.

 

[vanzandt]

On the matter of trading...
I can see nothing good coming out of tonight's decision.
If they uphold Trump's ban which is a very real possibilty.... the world will go ham, the tech companies will go snowflake, and I gotta think the markets will sell-off.

If they uphold the lower court in Seattle, then Trump has lost, and the markets will question his credibility on the political stage going forward. That coupled with a certain appeal to an 8 member Supreme Court will create more uncertainty. IE... sell off.

Bottom line.... I think tomorrow will be red.
PS...I would have posted this above under trading or something but I know it would have got modded for being political.
I shorted DPZ today and bought puts on IWM near the high today which I am killing it on as I type. DPZ not so much.

 

[jem]

since we have agreement... consider it dispensed.
now if we could get everyone to acknowledge that somewhat obvious point.

When it comes to national security we should not be seeing pc argument backed by irrelevant stats. We should be blocking terrorist and wmd entry. So you consider historical patterns but you also have to focus on current and future possibilities.
the calculus should not soley be based on the past and what happened.... but on what could happen.

Here is how it should be happed. A law algo if you will. based on IRAC


Issue
Terrorists and harm to Americans and others

Rule

We are going to tort law for the famous analysis from Judge Learned Hand...

Hand stated:

[T]he owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions.

Application to Terror

The country needs to consider the probability of the act against its citizens and others, the gravity of the act vs the burden of adequate precautions.

Probability is low but rising
Gravity is not based on the past... but on suitcase nukes and dirty bombs
The burden is what we must do to prevent grave harm.


Conclusion

Very limited heavily vetted and very low amounts of immigration. Combiend with illegals and others out plus continuing what we have been doing in country.

I Think this is one of the "alternative facts" that is being disputed, viz., do these arrests constitute the arrest of a non-home grown terrorist from one of the subject countries, or an arrest for other reasons, e.g., driving without a valid drivers license! This seems an extremely low arrest rate for a decade and a half considering the thousands meeting the criteria. This also goes to your point made in your earlier post, viz., "...its [sic] also lefty illogical to make any risk assessment based on it not happening yet." By dispensing with the ideological qualifier you would have an excellent point, though somewhat obvious.