The Travel Ban

The roll-out was poor and premature. But Trump was still correct on the law. It's going to work out.

This is typical of the sort of early errors they have been making -- maybe they are not as precise with numbers as they should be, but they are still right on the underlying substance of whatever the matter is.

 

There is a lot of logic to what you say and one would think that's how it would work. But it doesn't.

Under the closely related doctrines of issue preclusion ("collateral,estoppel") and claim preclusion ("res judicata"), the preclusive effect generally applies only against the losing party. Thus, if person A sues Donald Trump and loses, person A cannot sue Donald Trump again for the same claim. However, that does not preclude person B from suing Donald Trump. If the judge in A vs. Donald Trump publishes an opinion, that opinion is precedent that the judge in B vs Donald Trump can and should consider, but the opinion is not binding.

 

Trump's position "on the law" is that he has unbridled authority over immigration and foreign affairs, and has no obligation to justify his actions to a court. On that position, I think he is dead wrong, and would lose that argument at SCOTUS by a near-unanimous margin.

On the broader question, I think it would be possible for Trump to make a sufficient record to justify most if not all of his EO. The question is, why hasn't he tried? Is it a macho showdown over authority? Does he want to have a scapegoat when the inevitable terrorist act occurs? Only time will tell.

 

He was pretty specific that he was relying upon federal statute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

I have no idea why the 9th Cir thought it could rule of this matter while ignoring the law

 

That is unpossible
In any event, this case is not going to the SCOTUS with this record.
No way

 

The question is whether President Trump's EO is constitutional. No statute can make unconstitutional conduct constitutional. You do know that, right?

I agree that the panel should have mentioned the statute, but only to dismiss it as irrelevant.

 

I agree that the case probably won't go to SCOTUS on this record... because President Trump's advisors will tell him he'd lose. I haven't seen the record, but based on the District and Circuit opinions, it sounds like it was very sparse.

If they made an effort to submit a better record, which would be quick and easy to accomplish, he'd probably win. Pushing this forward without such a record would be stupid.

For what it's worth, making a record to justify an EO should come before the EO is promulgated. He had to know this would get challenged.

 

You are making a mistake arguing constitutionality first
This is not how it works

 

Washington relied upon newspaper articles
This is the record from their briefs that the 9C relied upon

 

I think this relevant to the discussion. In my work, I deal with lots of immigrants. None feel they came to the United States without thorough vetting.

I've had bosses who came into their jobs with plans to "solve" problems they didn't understand. After a lot of wasted effort, we pretty much went back to doing what we did before and the bosses took credit for cleaning up the disaster for which they were the sole cause. When Trump talked about immigration vetting on the campaign trail it sounded to me like he was either speaking from ignorance or playing to ignorance. Of course, most politicians seem to be doing the same during most of their speeches.

 

Croc
You do understand the problem with vetting the people from the 7 named countries? right?
for instance You know that according to State there are NO databases in Syria or Yemen from which to extract reliable information?
How many of the immigrants you are referring are from the 7 countries on the halt?

 

Constitutionality is the only argument. Hence, it gets argued both first and last.

 

that is incorrect

 

Pot meet kettle. You're calling another's words ignorant while speaking with astounding ignorance of the topic you are discussing.

It's clear as day why DT is so committed to strengthening our vetting process from these specific countries filled with radicals who want to kill Americans. Multiple times he cited the lack of confidence in the vetting process by our own intelligence officials.

Anyone uninformed on what our top intelligence leaders have stated about this topic, here's an article full of quotes from Obama's guys.

How confident do they sound in the ability to vet Syrian refugees? Some of those quotes should scare the sh*t out of all Americans as these people still pour in by the 1,000's.

Only an incompetent, apathetic President would hear those statements and continue with "hope for the best because we are a generous people" immigration policies.

 

It's true that of all the things we fear, some come to pass. I favor intelligent assessment of risk and appropriate response. We can disagree where we draw the line. You speak to some people who have earned green cards and see if you are still fearful. If so, you and I assess the risk differently.

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got a green card in 2007.
Are you Croc satisfied with his vetting?
Tashfeen Malik received her green card in the summer on 2015
think she was properly vetted and "intelligently assessed"?
How many between them did they kill and injure?
What is your threshold for green card holders who kill and injure Americans?

 

It is now being reported that the Trump Administration will take their case to the full 9th CC. I guess they think there are 6 rational people on that court.

 

More information about the 72 "terrorists" on the list. Some were certainly "bad hombres" but as usual the administration (and right-leaning Center for Immigration Studies) goes a bit far.

 

Even the WAPO (aka Jeff Bezos' blog) has been forced to admit that at least 33 terrorists came from 7 countries on the Obama/Trump list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news..._term=.bf22a7c84dd5&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

---------------------
But then the WAPO's purported fact-check was fact-checked (they failed)

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/13/w...w-terrorists-into-the-country-is-no-big-deal/

"A Washington Post “fact check” of a Trump administration statement turned into a bizarre defense of foreign-born terrorists Monday.

The White House is using a list of 72 immigrants arrested on terror-related charges in the U.S. since 9/11 to defend Trump’s immigration ban. All 72 are from the seven countries covered by the ban, and 33 of them were convicted of serious terror crimes. Hoping to downplay and discredit these findings, WaPo fact checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee ends up defending the convicts, and making the dubious assertion that letting a few terrorists into the country just isn’t a big deal.

She defends an Iranian immigrant convicted of trafficking heroin into the country on behalf of Hezbollah, noting he did not actually plan a terror attack on U.S. soil, as though anything short of detonating a bomb constitutes a star resident.

“In one 2013 case, Siavosh Henareh, was sentenced to prison for conspiring to import heroin into the United States,” she wrote. “Henareh was one of three defendants charged in connection to trafficking of drugs and weapons on behalf of Hezbollah.”

 

The Daily Caller article deserves one of these.

The point of the WaPost was whether all 72 should be defined as "terrorists".

The title of the Daily Caller article is this:
WaPo Fact Check: Letting A Few Terrorists Into The Country Is No Big Deal

Clearly they missed the entire premise of the WaPost fact checker by starting with the assumption that they are all "terrorists".

 

You are kidding yourself if you think this is about Donald Trump. There would be a leak if Romney or McCain was President. The current left has zero integrity and don't play be the same rules as the past politicians.

How can a fact check be done if it hasn't happened yet? Because the peaceful religion known as Islam are always peaceful until they are not?

 

What? Trump Admin leaks are the fault of the "left"? I'm not sure how to respond to that amazing statement.

 

Yes, I'm guessing the percentages are much much higher that the left are leaking to the media since they have such a great relationship with them. You know, like the time CNN gave the questions to a debate through a democratic congresswoman. It's just another repeat until proven otherwise.

 

It's worse than I suspected. The Trump Administration is apparently filled with "lefties".

 

Actually yes. He had to fire acting Attorney General Sally Yates. There are still more out there that needs to go.

 

Sally Yates has been vindicated on multiple fronts.

 

I'm guessing she was the leak as well.

 

Of course she's an option. The intelligence community appears to have it out for Flynn too. Lot's of people apparently knew this.

 

Alas the vetting process doesn't prevent radicalization once here. Wonder how percentages of criminal activities for green card holders, mexican american illegal immigrants and other the Trump campaign caused us to fear stands up against native born rapist, muderers and other bad hombres.