"Today could be huge for the resistance to 45*" Tue Feb-07-17 09:46 AM by soulfunk
The 9th Circuit is hearing arguments on the travel ban. If this three judge panel shuts him down it's gonna be tough for him to spin, and may embolden others in government to speak out against him. This entire travel ban situation seems like him testing checks and balances and his absolute power - we'll see how it turns out.
Then you have the Betsy DeVos vote today which just needs one more GOP senator to stop her nomination...
10. "I don't why Trump picked her and repubs fought so hard for her" In response to Reply # 0 Tue Feb-07-17 01:08 PM by PimpTrickGangstaClik
Is it just a donation thing? She gave a lot of money and that is the job she wanted? Because it's not her beliefs or agenda which disqualify her. It's that she knows absolutely nothing about education. She knows so little that republicans sheltered her from being publicly questioned.
They couldn't find someone else with the same agenda/beliefs who had a few brain cells in her head.
I'm a firm believer that the president should be able to pick whoever they want for their administration. The votes for everyone else should be close to 100-0. But this one is the only one that is truly bad in my opinion
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79620 posts
Tue Feb-07-17 08:38 PM
22. "there is no upside to this shit bruh" In response to Reply # 13
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79620 posts
Thu Feb-09-17 07:02 PM
25. "Might as well get ready for the terrorist "attack"" In response to Reply # 24
that will happen so they can prove the ban is needed
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
29. "Is this really an ideology split type of case?" In response to Reply # 26
It seems like people immediately look at the composition of the court and assume the judges will vote along party lines, no matter the case before them.
It's sad that that is the expectation even though we supposedly have an independent judiciary.
35. "RE: Hillary...sit down: Tweets 3-0. Kellyanne tweets back w/ the ether" In response to Reply # 31
Kellyanne needs to worry about whether or not she's going to keep her job....Oh yeah....That chick lies so much that cable news outlets are starting to ban her from coming on....
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Thu Feb-09-17 11:38 PM
33. "From what I hear, we're all but certain to lose in the SC, though." In response to Reply # 24
There's a lot of precedent for giving the President wide latitude in decisions on immigration. And the establishment clause argument, though true if we speak honestly on his intentions, doesn't hold up under the letter of the law. There's plenty of precedent for giving preferential treatment to members of unspecified "religious minorities", and as long the rule is based around minority status, rather than explicitly religion, it doesn't count as an establishment.
I don't really know the law here. This is just what I'm hearing from even lefty legal experts on "the shows."
34. "I doubt it. " In response to Reply # 33 Fri Feb-10-17 07:08 AM by Buddy_Gilapagos
Even if it were split among party lines then you are looking at a 4-4 decision in which case the appellate decision would stand.
Also the 3-0 appellate decision sends a strong signal up about how united the judiciary is on this issue.
I could also see the Supremes wanting to signal to Trump that there are limits on what he can do.
Thing about it, you will never have a case that has such a blatant attempt to violate the establishment clause. Though the EO doesn't use the words "muslims" or "christians" it does have a provision that makes exceptions for religious minorities. Who are religious minorities in the muslim majority countries? The EO would literally require a religious test.
I would bet cash the Supremes uphold the ruling.
> >There's a lot of precedent for giving the President wide >latitude in decisions on immigration. And the establishment >clause argument, though true if we speak honestly on his >intentions, doesn't hold up under the letter of the law. >There's plenty of precedent for giving preferential treatment >to members of unspecified "religious minorities", and as long >the rule is based around minority status, rather than >explicitly religion, it doesn't count as an establishment. > >I don't really know the law here. This is just what I'm >hearing from even lefty legal experts on "the shows." > >I fear we may have picked the wrong battle here. >
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
39. "Doesn't stand a chance at the Supreme Court..." In response to Reply # 24
No way the SC upholds it based on the 9th Circuit's argument. The opinion was entirely too broad, didn't deal with substantive gaps in the suit (standing) and is from the most liberal appeals court in the nation.
The opinion actually provided a map for the Administration to use to create a travel ban that is constitutionally acceptable. I can guarantee they are already working on it.
We won a battle but the war is still being fought.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
