• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

MysteryMen said:
I don't see how this defeats the legal concerns. The claim made in the first round of challenges was that the EO was enacted with discriminatory intent. The Seattle judge, at least, seemed to largely accept this argument, and the Ninth Circuit indicated that it was open to it too, even though it didn't rule on that point. This is a ban by the same President, who said the same things about Muslims before the election, that does largely the same thing as the first ban. While they tried to take the obviously discriminatory things out (the religious provision), nobody has forgotten what the first EO said. It's hard for me to see how anyone can say that there isn't the same intent behind this one as there was behind the first one
Click to expand...

The 9th circuit was the only one to address it specifically, and it did so with minimal specificity. In any case, you can't pick and choose what you choose to believe when determining animus and ignore something expressly stated in the EO. Besides, the current EO correctly points out that the plain language doesn't distinguish between religions or sectarian violence (Sunni/Shia) within Islam.

This guts the 9th circuit decision by rendering moot the TRO on the major points that it did address with actual legal backing-- namely the LPR and visa issues. It may still contend that there is religious animus, but only because they're morons.
 
avalon said:
An Afghan Family, With Visas in Hand, Is Detained in Los Angeles
Click to expand...

Afghan family released after detention in Los Angeles

Nice use of tax dollars keeping this family of five locked up for almost a week.

According to defense lawyers, the family members were granted so-called Special Immigrant Visas and the right to live in the United States in return for the father's work for a decade at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.

Blume said the man worked at the base as an interpreter and heavy machine operator, where he was "physically assaulted, shot at and verbally assaulted" by members of the Taliban.

Workers on the base were routinely photographed by the Taliban, putting their lives at risk, Blume added.
Click to expand...

The mother was held in downtown Los Angeles with her children, while the father was in a maximum-security detention facility in Orange County.

The family's lawyers said the government intended to transfer the mother and children to Texas, but they persuaded a U.S. district court judge on Saturday night to intervene and stop the move.
Click to expand...
 
C6U9M-zWcAQh-Uo.jpg
 
I'm guessing that's the point.

Has Trump or anybody explained what is wrong with the current process and what they want to fix?
 
PhDeac said:
I'm guessing that's the point.

Has Trump or anybody explained what is wrong with the current process and what they want to fix?
Click to expand...

It is not extreme enough. Needs more Mountain Dew based water-boarding.
 
 
EatLeadCommie said:
The 9th circuit was the only one to address it specifically, and it did so with minimal specificity. In any case, you can't pick and choose what you choose to believe when determining animus and ignore something expressly stated in the EO. Besides, the current EO correctly points out that the plain language doesn't distinguish between religions or sectarian violence (Sunni/Shia) within Islam.

This guts the 9th circuit decision by rendering moot the TRO on the major points that it did address with actual legal backing-- namely the LPR and visa issues. It may still contend that there is religious animus, but only because they're morons.
Click to expand...

Yes you can dude. That's the whole concept of discriminatory intent: That something that is facially neutral might have nefarious origins.

You keep acting like you can't look past the text of the document under any circumstances, and that's just not how the law works. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to get around anti-discrimination laws/the Constitution.
 
MysteryMen said:
Yes you can dude. That's the whole concept of discriminatory intent: That something that is facially neutral might have nefarious origins.

You keep acting like you can't look past the text of the document under any circumstances, and that's just not how the law works. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to get around anti-discrimination laws/the Constitution.
Click to expand...
A competent Republican Presidential candidate would have known better than to call his muslim-ban shot before the election. This is one of the rare times where Trump's incompetence is good for America.
 
Calling his shot got him elected.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
A competent Republican Presidential candidate would have known better than to call his muslim-ban shot before the election. This is one of the rare times where Trump's incompetence is good for America.
Click to expand...

Counterpoint: If he didn't campaign on banning Muslims he might not be President in the first place
 
Tired of all of the winning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What do you know? ELC didn't have the law right. Who would have thought?
 
MysteryMen said:
What do you know? ELC didn't have the law right. Who would have thought?
Click to expand...

Some commie judge in Hawaii ruled against him. Not hard to venue shop. The EO is grounded soundly in both law and precedent. I'll read the 43 page decision when I need a good snooze. And really, Hawaii is going to make a legitimate claim to harm through the lack of students from those countries? Like they couldn't milk tuition from 3 Japanese students instead instead of the 3 students from the countries in question.
 
ELC isn't a lawyer, right? He just acts like one.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Some commie judge in Hawaii ruled against him. Not hard to venue shop. The EO is grounded soundly in both law and precedent. I'll read the 43 page decision when I need a good snooze. And really, Hawaii is going to make a legitimate claim to harm through the lack of students from those countries? Like they couldn't milk tuition from 3 Japanese students instead instead of the 3 students from the countries in question.
Click to expand...

You were fine with venue shopping when it stopped DAPA/DACA II....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top