US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[aradisc]

I would need to review the decision better to have an opinion about its partisanship.

Have at it: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Highlights:

• Order issued Per Curiam (unanimous, doesn't have an individual judge's name attached to it)
• While temporary restraining order is normally not reviewable, the pace of the case in district court is likely to extend beyond 14 days so they can review it as a kind of preliminary injunction
• Court finds plantiffs have standing because the state universities have students and faculty from the 7 countries who are prohibited/restricted from travel.
• Court rejects the Government's contention that an EO like this is not reviewable by the judiciary because the executive branch has much leeway in issues surrounding national security and immigration. The court says constitutionality of an act or law is always reviewable by the judiciary.
• Court does not give a final conclusion that there is a violation of the 5th amendment, but finds that there is a viable claim by the plaintiffs on behalf of permanent residents (green card holders), because the EO denies their due process rights to fight for their entry. Also, those already here cannot leave on a trip because they are afraid of being banned from returning. The court highlights that the 5th amendment applies to all persons in the United States (even illegal immigrants), not just citizens.
• Court finds that the follow up guidance excluding permanent residents from the EO might not have a legal basis, and the EO has to be evaluated based on its actual text.
• Court mentions possible 1st amendment issues regarding religious discrimination ("Muslim ban"), but does not opine on them for now.
• So the result is the emergency motion to stay the temporary restraining order is denied. The next step would be for a hearing on a full injunction and presentation of evidence in the district court, but first this denial of the emergency stay will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court

[skyguy918]

And those calling this decision justice would have called an opposite one partisan. Ho hum

I'm talking about where every decision for you is justice and against you is partisan. Of course that'll exist on both sides on the aisle. But there's no one screaming that justice was done on this thread, so I'm not addressing that issue.

[aygart]

Have at it: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Highlights:

• Order issued Per Curiam (unanimous, doesn't have an individual judge's name attached to it)
• While temporary restraining order is normally not reviewable, the pace of the case in district court is likely to extend beyond 14 days so they can review it as a kind of preliminary injunction
• Court finds plantiffs have standing because the state universities have students and faculty from the 7 countries who are prohibited/restricted from travel.
• Court rejects the Government's contention that an EO like this is not reviewable by the judiciary because the executive branch has much leeway in issues surrounding national security and immigration. The court says constitutionality of an act or law is always reviewable by the judiciary.
• Court does not give a final conclusion that there is a violation of the 5th amendment, but finds that there is a viable claim by the plaintiffs on behalf of permanent residents (green card holders), because the EO denies their due process rights to fight for their entry. Also, those already here cannot leave on a trip because they are afraid of being banned from returning. The court highlights that the 5th amendment applies to all persons in the United States (even illegal immigrants), not just citizens.
• Court finds that the follow up guidance excluding permanent residents from the EO might not have a legal basis, and the EO has to be evaluated based on its actual text.
• Court mentions possible 1st amendment issues regarding religious discrimination ("Muslim ban"), but does not opine on them for now.
• So the result is the emergency motion to stay the temporary restraining order is denied. The next step would be for a hearing on a full injunction and presentation of evidence in the district court, but first this denial of the emergency stay will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court

From the highlights it does not look partisan at all. Every aspect of it is exactly how I would expect a non partisan judge to rule.

[aradisc]

From the highlights it does not look partisan at all. Every aspect of it is exactly how I would expect a non partisan judge to rule.

Well I'm clearly partisan and that may have affected my summary, so why don't you read it for yourself and form your own opinions. 

[aygart]

I'm talking about where every decision for you is justice and against you is partisan. Of course that'll exist on both sides on the aisle. But there's no one screaming that justice was done on this thread, so I'm not addressing that issue.

I'll bite. Based upon the highlights posted here and how it is a narrow judgement I would say that justice was served.

[good sam]

I'll bite. Based upon the highlights posted here and how it is a narrow judgement I would say that justice was served.

Narrow? They found against the government at every turn.

They also said illegals have due process rights, even though completely unnecessary in this opinion.

The 9th circuit is left of liberal. The most overturned circuit. To address Skyguy's argument, of course we wouldn't say it was partisan if it went the other way, because it would be a total shock. This ruling is both partisan and expected.

[good sam]

[aygart]

Narrow? They found against the government at every turn.

They also said illegals have due process rights, even though completely unnecessary in this opinion.

The 9th circuit is left of liberal. The most overturned circuit. To address Skyguy's argument, of course we wouldn't say it was partisan if it went the other way, because it would be a total shock. This ruling is both partisan and expected.

This that illegals have due process rights is long standing precedent.

[JTZ]

Narrow? They found against the government at every turn.

Which point/s do you disagree with?

[JTZ]

1 - alternative facts
2 - massacre
3 - ethics
KAC 0 - Facts 3

[good sam]

This that illegals have due process rights is long standing precedent.

Judicial opinions are most often very persuasive, but if you want to counter that persuasion, read the briefs of the losing party. You'll get a very different perspective.

[aygart]

Judicial opinions are most often very persuasive, but if you want to counter that persuasion, read the briefs of the losing party. You'll get a very different perspective.

All you need to do is open your eyes to see that illegals are considered to be entitled to due process

[good sam]

"You decide... "

https://mobile.twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/830046040644526081

Notice he didn't say that Trump quoted him out of context, but he implied it so people will think he said it. And they probably won't read the article, so they'll just assume Trump's a liar.

The truth is, Trump did not at all quote him out of context. Let me know if you disagree.

[JTZ]

Maybe this is a turning point as he got part of it right. 

"Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie), now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?" In a lunch with senators later, Trump said of Gorsuch: "His comments were misrepresented."

[springles]

1 - alternative facts
2 - massacre
3 - ethics
KAC 0 - Facts 3

The alternative facts and massacre controversies were so stupid and overblown. This ethics violation is not.

[JTZ]

The alternative facts and massacre controversies were so stupid and overblown. This ethics violation is not.

It now turns out on two other occasions she called it the BGM so her claiming she misspoke does not seem to be the case. I will agree they blow everything out of proportion on both sides but this is a troubling pattern she has shown lately. She wasn't this way during the campaign.

[aygart]

"You decide... "

https://mobile.twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/830046040644526081

Notice he didn't say that Trump quoted him out of context, but he implied it so people will think he said it. And they probably won't read the article, so they'll just assume Trump's a liar.

The truth is, Trump did not at all quote him out of context. Let me know if you disagree.

I woulod say that it was very much in context. The article is quite clear that his opinion on the merits of the case itself are not what makes him feel that the injuction is correct.

[skyguy918]

Maybe this is a turning point as he got part of it right. 

"Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie), now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?" In a lunch with senators later, Trump said of Gorsuch: "His comments were misrepresented."

Why is he not going after Sasse? I feel like it's more important for him to keep his R's in line than to fight with impotent D's.

[aygart]

Why is he not going after Sasse? I feel like it's more important for him to keep his R's in line than to fight with impotent D's.

One is an easier target and he gains with lowering Blumenthal's credibility as well.

[aygart]