|
|
Random Politics & Religion #19
 Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11337
By Garuda.Chanti 2017-02-11 14:20:02
But how is this tweet in particular that bad? So he borrowed a quote from an article. Who the frick cares? The article doesn't support his position and called his own actions incompetent?
It demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and basic reading comprehension on his part. I'm almost entirely certain he didn't read the article, so reading comprehension is probably not the issue. The fact remains that the judges didn't even challenge the statute executive order, which speaks volumes about what the basis of their decision in the first place. Which, btw, is a much more interesting topic than Trump repeating something that he probably just saw someone else saying. The judges weren't tasked to challenge the executive order (And it is an EO, not a statute) they were tasked to uphold or dismiss the stay on it.
They could have challenged the executive order were they so inclined, but it seems they weren't. And narrow rulings have a better chance of surviving appeals.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11337
By Garuda.Chanti 2017-02-11 14:21:09
 Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2017-02-11 14:27:49
But how is this tweet in particular that bad? So he borrowed a quote from an article. Who the frick cares? The article doesn't support his position and called his own actions incompetent?
It demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and basic reading comprehension on his part.
I'm almost entirely certain he didn't read the article, so reading comprehension is probably not the issue. The fact remains that the judges didn't even challenge the statute, which speaks volumes about what the basis of their decision in the first place. Which, btw, is a much more interesting topic than Trump repeating something that he probably just saw someone else saying. While the EO claims to be under that statue, the court evaluated based on other laws...which is what they are required to do.
There were multiple arguments made by both parties revolving around several issues, and the court did not rule definitely on any of them but
mainly reviewed and decided against it via due process
Quote: The Ninth Circuit confined its ruling further by choosing to answer the question only as to the due process claim.
...
Instead, it hung most of the opinion on due process, which appears to be the least politically fraught constitutional claim. And the court focused this analysis with the people who indisputably have, by the Administration’s own concessions, the strongest due process claim: the lawful permanent residents (LPRs) affected by the executive order.
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2017-02-11 14:31:02
And narrow rulings have a better chance of surviving appeals. ^ This being absolutely true
 Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2017-02-11 14:36:54
I'm quite curious to see what would happen if the EO were revised so that it did not effect lawful permanent residents. Would we see the same outcry and legal challenges?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2017-02-11 14:38:15
Bismarck.Josiahfk said: »I'm quite curious to see what would happen if the EO were revised so that it did not effect lawful permanent residents. Would we see the same outcry and legal challenges? you have this thread confused with one of those magic eight balls.
Freaking Canadians.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2017-02-11 14:42:54
I'm quite curious to see what would happen if the EO were revised so that it did not effect lawful permanent residents. Would we see the same outcry and legal challenges? The ruling is nothing but the judical branch oversteping its power through judicial activism.
Trump should double down and create some "presidential activism" in response.
His supporters would cheer!
By fonewear 2017-02-11 14:44:50
Trump should realize by now that he's the only person we're allowed to cherry-pick statements from. Yes, how dare we hold the POTUS to the same standards as people who post on this website....
Review ***before it is posted online or written in an EO.
We (us here and those who post on the Internet in general) happily make fun of people who do similar stuff on a regular basis.
As President he is held to a higher standard, not lower than something I would call out on any other poster here.
Trump should realize by now that he is POTUS, he should stop acting like an amateur, and get his white house in order.
I'm glad you internet warrior are holding our President to a high standard. Fight on hero !
[+]
By fonewear 2017-02-11 14:47:26
I'm in Yemen so I'm not allowed in the US those Muslim banning sons of *** !
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2017-02-11 14:47:46
I'm quite curious to see what would happen if the EO were revised so that it did not effect lawful permanent residents. Would we see the same outcry and legal challenges? There is a lot about the order that needs to be revised.
(You actually have to prove national security threats, a low barrier to entry in the past 16 years, but one the DoJ couldn't seem to do here)
Quote: Thanks to the government's failure to present any factual evidence to supports its argument for the national security objectives of the executive order, the court was able to do this with little more than pointed, attention-grabbing citations to major cases attesting to the judiciary’s role in checking the political branches: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), and so on.
But yes, it *probably* can be done within the President’s Executive Order power depending on what his end goal in . Three potential hurdles I see:
1. Demonstrate national security risk
2. Show it is for the above reason, not just to discriminate against people from those countries as that is illegal
3. Remove the minority religion thing on refugee application evaluation
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2017-02-11 14:50:47
I'm quite curious to see what would happen if the EO were revised so that it did not effect lawful permanent residents. Would we see the same outcry and legal challenges? The ruling is nothing but the judical branch oversteping its power through judicial activism.
Trump should double down and create some "presidential activism" in response.
His supporters would cheer! Did they not teach checks and balances in your school?
[+]
By fonewear 2017-02-11 14:50:57
1. They are from countries that harbor terrorists.
2. Muslims are still allowed in the country just under tighter scrutiny.
3. Maybe he overreached on this and could easily be revised.
4. All your base are belong to us!
By fonewear 2017-02-11 14:55:16
Also this is 2017 we don't want your "poor huddles masses" we want Americans damn it ! I don't recall any obligation to take in refugees. A lot of countries have very strict immigration laws. It is only when the USA enforces stricter laws. Everyone is outraged.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2017-02-11 14:59:10
I'm quite curious to see what would happen if the EO were revised so that it did not effect lawful permanent residents. Would we see the same outcry and legal challenges? There is a lot about the order that needs to be revised.
(You actually have to prove national security threats, a low barrier to entry in the past 16 years, but one the DoJ couldn't seem to do here)
Quote: Thanks to the government's failure to present any factual evidence to supports its argument for the national security objectives of the executive order, the court was able to do this with little more than pointed, attention-grabbing citations to major cases attesting to the judiciary’s role in checking the political branches: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), and so on.
But yes, it *probably* can be done within the President’s Executive Order power depending on what his end goal in . Three potential hurdles I see:
1. Demonstrate national security risk
2. Show it is for the above reason, not just to discriminate against people from those countries as that is illegal
3. Remove the minority religion thing on refugee application evaluation
1. It's not obvious enough?
2. Already done, they just want to extrapolate what he said in the campaign onto the current EO
3. Easily done, but there is a LOT of precedence for this already so I don't see why it would have to change now
[+]
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:00:11
How about we send all the people protesting the travel ban to Iran. Problem solved !
[+]
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:02:42
See the problem is the people that are protesting are what I like to call "useful idiots". They have very little to risk by protesting. They aren't necessarily important people. Hell they probably live boring lives. I don't know how they expect to change things after the fact. Maybe if they would be more rational and less idealistic...they could accomplish something.
[+]
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:04:49
Since we like to define things on this here website here you go:
useful idiot: In political jargon, a useful idiot is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
[+]
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2017-02-11 15:07:18
Those faithless electors are going to change their votes and overturn the election any day now.
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:08:39
Ok so we solved the travel ban anyone else have any other problems ? Marriage ? Stuck pickle jars ? We can do it all here on FFXIAH.
[+]
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:15:12
I find that when I consume a lot of caffeine my serious and sober side takes over...and it is scary. I don't like me this rational !
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2017-02-11 15:15:16
accurate representation of P & R today every day
Come on, now. Today's not THAT special.
[+]
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:16:27
I'm just trying to celebrate black history month...by forgetting it's black history month !
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:22:36
accurate representation of P & R today every day
Come on, now. Today's not THAT special.
P n R is more like this:
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2017-02-11 15:25:22
1. It's not obvious enough?
2. Already done, they just want to extrapolate what he said in the campaign onto the current EO
3. Easily done, but there is a LOT of precedence for this already so I don't see why it would have to change now
1. The government gave no credible evidence. So, no it is not obvious at all. And like I said the threshold is really freaking low when the executive branch yells national security
2. No, I am not referring to the religious aspect. It is not allowed based just on a person countries of origin. There has to be actual reasons beyond a person's birth place.
3. Name a law or ruling where we discriminate taking refugees based on religion. We take refugees if they have been persecuted based on religion, not just because they are a minority religion. Muslims are persecuted by ISIS because they do not practice the same version of Islam, but they would not be covered under this EO.
By fonewear 2017-02-11 15:34:50
Anyways Trump already said he might revise the EO. So all the if's and buts and candy and nuts...but Muslims still want to kill us. Still will go on !
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2017-02-11 15:42:44
1. It's not obvious enough?
2. Already done, they just want to extrapolate what he said in the campaign onto the current EO
3. Easily done, but there is a LOT of precedence for this already so I don't see why it would have to change now
1. The government gave no credible evidence. So, no it is not obvious at all. And like I said the threshold is really freaking low when the executive branch yells national security
2. No, I am not referring to the religious aspect. It is not allowed based just on a person countries of origin. There has to be actual reasons beyond a person's birth place.
3. Name a law or ruling where we discriminate taking refugees based on religion. We take refugees if they have been persecuted based on religion, not just because they are a minority religion. Muslims are persecuted by ISIS because they do not practice the same version of Islam, but they would not be covered under this EO.
1. Do they have to? Some of the information used in making the decisions is classified.
2. There has to be a reason according to who?
3. Religious minorities often face more discrimination in these countries. Wanting an expansion to the makes sense so that you can differentiate between sects, but I see no reason why simply having it be part of the application invalidates the EO.
|
|
