Odds on Trump's Impeachment

Huh? Originally Posted by grean

Yeah.

Then tell me what was unlawful about the order? Not what the court said because the 9th is full of whack jobs...but what specifically in that order violated the statute quoted? And it can't be that it targeted muslims since clearly only 7 nations were targeted and 40 some odd other muslim nations were not. Originally Posted by texassapper

You don't dictate the terms, hun. It's not just what's in the order that matters. These rulings are based on a variety of factors that include statements of by Trump and others over the course of this whole ordeal that establish intent. The “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” is just one. Giuliani's interview on Fox, “So when first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally,’”, is another. And more. The 9th court ruling is relevant. Your assessment of their mental capacity is not.

You have access to the same information the rest of us do. You either know all of this and don't care, or don't know and don't care.

For those who do.....

http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf

You don't dictate the terms, hun. .....The 9th court ruling is relevant. Your assessment of their mental capacity is not.... Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

I also understand how the system works, the 9th is only relevant where it doesn't get overturned. If SCOTUS grants cert regarding the Trump EA (almost a certainty) then there is an 80% chance that the 9th will be overturned. Their historic reversal rate (although technically it's 50/50 per case)

In fact, if Trump were clever, he'd simply create another circuit claiming that the 9th is overburdened and then stack it with Conservative judges thanks to Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster. That would break the fruits, nuts, and flakes hold the 9th has on a large swath of the Western US.

The 4th rulefloor against it too.

The relevant statute:


So we know the 9th is liberal leaning... but it didn't even bother to discuss the statute in it's finding. When this hits SCOTUS, the above is the only thing that that's going to matter. Originally Posted by texassapper

You quote a relevant statute, not the relevant statute. Try this one on for size:



(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

8 U.S. Code § 1152

What do you do when two statutes have a facial conflict? Have you read the cases interpreting the two statutes? Can either statute be Unconstitutional, either "as written" or "as applied?" Which of thesevstatutes was passed first? Does that matter? Can you take into account discriminatory purpose as shown by repeated statements of various actors?

Again, you're reading second and third hand shit from people who have never stood up in a courtroom and argued a case to an appellate court, etc. I stand by my comment.

Fuck lot you know about me then. The world doesn't owe me shit and I've never taken anything I haven't earned. Just because you never got over your patchouli smokin glory days of the 60's doesn't mean you have to continue on being a libtard. Originally Posted by texassapper

Then why are all these bleating uneducated people who are stuck in deadened jobs like coal bitching? The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby's. They aparently thinks the government owes them something.

TushHog, what do you think?

Since the order does recognize religious minorites doesn't that inherently recognize there is a majority?

Had he omitted the religious minor part completely, snd just said the secretary of state can use his discretion on a case by case basis (knowing full well the SS would not allow any Muslims), wouldn't the first order have been gold had he just kept quiet in the campaign? Originally Posted by grean

Assume for a moment that you believe all the xenophobic, racist, misogynistic and morally repugnant shit believes and support his twisted and unAmerican agenda. You should be mad as hell because Trump is so fucking incompetent at getting it done. Any slight chance his Muslim ban had at being affirmed evaporated once he started running his mouth. He's an idiot. At least his Tepublican predecessors have largely tried to remain facially neutral so their hateful policies have a chance of being enacted.

Frankly, I wouldn't be sirpraised to see the Supreme Court turn down review of the case precisely because Trump's misbehavior makes it so hard to reverse the two lower courts of appeal. The five Republicans would naturally like to give more power to the executive at the expense of the Congrees, I suspect, but Trumps abominable comments make it very tough on the judges.

You quote a relevant statute, not the relevant statute. Try this one on for size:



(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

8 U.S. Code § 1152

What do you do when two statutes have a facial conflict? Have you read the cases interpreting the two statutes? Can either statute be Unconstitutional, either "as written" or "as applied?" Which of these statutes was passed first? Does that matter? Can you take into account discriminatory purpose as shown by repeated statements of various actors?

Again, you're reading second and third hand shit from people who have never stood up in a courtroom and argued a case to an appellate court, etc. I stand by my comment. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I bolded the relevant part of your statute. Notice there appears to be a missing element? Religious affiliation... As I wrote earlier, nothing prohibits exclusion based on religious or political affiliation.

I don't have to have argued before any court to read.

I would say it has more to do with the fact Hillery's husband was impeached over lying and obstruction of justice. "The House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice"

A trend that Hillary seemed to continue based on the FBI investigation and Coney's comments

https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc

https://youtu.be/A09yHufpVlM

On another note the special election referendum on Trump by the Democrats is not going well.
0 for 4 Originally Posted by goodolboy

Democrats ran well ahead of the Partisan Performance Index in all four races. If that trend continues in 2018, we have the hose by 20 seats. Every one of these districts should have been 10-15 point Republican victories.

Then why are all these bleating uneducated people who are stuck in deadened jobs like coal bitching? The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby's. They aparently thinks the government owes them something. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You suddenly think I'm a coal miner in West Virginia?

Democrats ran well ahead of the Partisan Performance Index in all four races. If that trend continues in 2018, we have the hose by 20 seats. Every one of these districts should have been 10-15 point Republican victories. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

How'd those polls work out for you the last time?

I bolded the relevant part of your statute. Notice there appears to be a missing element? Religious affiliation... As I wrote earlier, nothing prohibits exclusion based on religious or political affiliation.

I don't have to have argued before any court to read. Originally Posted by texassapper

Actually, I may have made a mistake. A pig probably does know more about Sunday school than you know about law. So you're now abandoning the position the Trump DoJ has taken and are admitting that this is targeted at a particularlar religeon, and it's not based on country of origin??!!! That's shooting fish in a barrel. You e made it a slam dunk religious discrimination case. The reason the DoJ had to lie and say it wasn't a religious ban is that would obviously be u constitutional.

I bolded the relevant part of your statute. Notice there appears to be a missing element? Religious affiliation... As I wrote earlier, nothing prohibits exclusion based on religious or political affiliation.

I don't have to have argued before any court to read. Originally Posted by texassapper

Yeah.....pretty sure there is.

You e made it a slam dunk religious discrimination case. The reason the DoJ had to lie and say it wasn't a religious ban is that would obviously be u constitutional. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I did not say that was what the administration will argue only that the statute omits religious affiliation. And since Congress has granted the Executive branch the ability to run immigration, then that doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional. What text prevents the govt. from restricting a particular religion visa's?


SCOTUS will defer to the executive branch, as it usually does since it's not in the habit of telling the other branches of government how to conduct their affairs.

You can read the dissent that's going to largely end up being the reasoning of SCOTUS here.

I did not say that was what the administration will argue only that the statute omits religious affiliation. And since Congress has granted the Executive branch the ability to run immigration, then that doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional. What text prevents the govt. from restricting a particular religion visa's? Originally Posted by texassapper

I'll give you a hint. You quoted the very text previously in this thread.

And Gentlemen,
Agree or disagree with her views, we should all thank Vivienne for participating in the discussion so it's not a complete sausage fest. It's always nice when the ladies come out to play.