• 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

Here's the judge's decision. I'm through about half of it but have to crash http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/files/announcement142/CV17-50 219 doc.pdf

I need to read it with a clearer and more awake head because the logic is confounding to me. One rather substantial element is him taking great pains not to argue whether or not a guy's mother-in-law has a right to a visa, which is the real issue, but whether or not his family suffers harm from her not getting one. It's such an ass-backwards argument. By that logic, everybody is entitled to a visa if they have family in the states whose feelings could be hurt.

A lot of BS and cherry-picked quotes from what I can tell at this point. A pre-determined decision.
 
MysteryMen said:
You were fine with venue shopping when it stopped DAPA/DACA II....
Click to expand...

Venue shopping is what it is. And what I said about DACA is that it was an abuse of the intent of existing law, but quite possibly within the parameters of the law given the leeway afforded to administrations to determine priorities when it comes to enforcement or non-enforcement. What I believe the courts finally decided to hear (and I guess they're still slated to hear it but am not sure, as I haven't heard anything about it since Obama left office) was whether or not the Obama admin conferred an actual benefit that was outside of existing law when they issued employment authorization documents.
 
But I don't talk like a lawyer.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Here's the judge's decision. I'm through about half of it but have to crash http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/files/announcement142/CV17-50 219 doc.pdf

I need to read it with a clearer and more awake head because the logic is confounding to me. One rather substantial element is him taking great pains not to argue whether or not a guy's mother-in-law has a right to a visa, which is the real issue, but whether or not his family suffers harm from her not getting one. It's such an ass-backwards argument. By that logic, everybody is entitled to a visa if they have family in the states whose feelings could be hurt.

A lot of BS and cherry-picked quotes from what I can tell at this point. A pre-determined decision.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you think of this, I don't think that the court relies on any of this to establish standing. It found that Hawaii as a state has standing and you only need one party with standing.
 
MysteryMen said:
Regardless of what you think of this, I don't think that the court relies on any of this to establish standing. It found that Hawaii as a state has standing and you only need one party with standing.
Click to expand...

I will have to read it again sometime today, but I am struck by what the court did not address. It likes to focus on Muslim animus and never once addresses the giant elephant in the room. If he wants to focus on a "mathematical exercise", why not focus on what % of our soldiers since 2001 were killed by Muslims on the battlefield? Or maybe on what % of enemy casualties on the battlefield in the last 16 years have been Muslim? Even his quotes that he uses to justify his decision speak of Islamic terrorism versus Islam. They are distinctions, but they are also linked, which apparently this guy can't bring himself to address. He also doesn't address the POTUS's authority to enact these measures, seeming to rule exclusively on the issue of animus. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall him addressing the refugee element, and yet he struck it down, presumably under animus grounds as well. He also does not appear to address the oft-relied upon discrimination based on national origin, presumably because it doesn't apply in this particular case since the mother in-law is not an intending immigrant. In short, the entire ruling appears to be based on animus (as well as standing). Kudos to the judge for at least attempting to address what the 9th Circuit did not previously address, but seeing it laid out like this shows just how enormously flimsy it is. A SCOTUS will ask much tougher questions of the plaintiff than this guy ever did. 9th Circuit will uphold, of course, due to commie solidarity.
 
I think it's so cute when ELC plays lawyer. Whosa big boy lawyer? You are ELC, you are a big boy lawyer!
 
Shooshmoo said:
I think it's so cute when ELC plays lawyer. Whosa big boy lawyer? You are ELC, you are a big boy lawyer!
Click to expand...

Good for you, Shoo. You're free to chime in if you'd like. I've dealt with immigration law and immigration lawyers (who are to law what dentists are to doctors) on a daily basis for longer than a lot of people on this board have been out of training pants. As a result, I am pretty familiar with the workings of it, what constitutes policy vs. law, the leeway afforded different administration priorities, and the decisions that govern the INA.

A state's standing will inevitably butt heads with the larger question of whether or not POTUS has the authority to do what he does, and this judge has not addressed that. Preemption has already prevailed in the Arizona case a few years back. A SCOTUS will have to ask real questions. I don't see them punting and saying the Congress must codify these elements of the EO because the issue of animus would nullify any act of Congress on the same grounds. That means that they must address whether or not a POTUS or Congress has the authority to restrict the immigration system during times of conflict. Existing precedent is pretty clear. Conflicts inevitably stem from differences in ideology, and whether they are driven by religion, just the secularism (communism), or perceived threats to the national interest is not the issue. The issue is the conflict itself and whether steps can be taken within the immigration system to address them.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Good for you, Shoo. You're free to chime in if you'd like. I've dealt with immigration law and immigration lawyers (who are to law what dentists are to doctors) on a daily basis for longer than a lot of people on this board have been out of training pants. As a result, I am pretty familiar with the workings of it, what constitutes policy vs. law, the leeway afforded different administration priorities, and the decisions that govern the INA.

A state's standing will inevitably butt heads with the larger question of whether or not POTUS has the authority to do what he does, and this judge has not addressed that. Preemption has already prevailed in the Arizona case a few years back. A SCOTUS will have to ask real questions. I don't see them punting and saying the Congress must codify these elements of the EO because the issue of animus would nullify any act of Congress on the same grounds. That means that they must address whether or not a POTUS or Congress has the authority to restrict the immigration system during times of conflict. Existing precedent is pretty clear. Conflicts inevitably stem from differences in ideology, and whether they are driven by religion, just the secularism (communism), or perceived threats to the national interest is not the issue. The issue is the conflict itself and whether steps can be taken within the immigration system to address them.
Click to expand...

"During times of conflict"?!? If this is a time of conflict then we're going to perpetually be in a time of conflict.

To your other point, the can't "punt" on the Establishment Clause claim because it's being squarely raised and you can't uphold the EO without denying it. They will have to rule on it one way or another.

Also I have no idea why you keep bringing up the Arizona case and preemption because it has literally nothing to do with this litigation. That was a state law. This is a state lawsuit. They are completely different things. There is zero doctrinal connection between the two.
 
That's just what ELC has learned in his -2L classes.
 
MysteryMen said:
"During times of conflict"?!? If this is a time of conflict then we're going to perpetually be in a time of conflict.
...
Click to expand...

This is a fun conversation to have with conservatives. As long as we are perpetually at war the POTUS will always have war powers. Convenient, to say the least. Gotta love that small government philosophy.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is not ok. At all. Did you see Democratic Congressmen threatening to impeach the judge who blocked DAPA? The Republican party is a joke for how they treat the government of this country.
 
Well they hate government and they run on destroying it and people keep voting for them. So they feel empowered to destroy government.
 
MysteryMen said:
"During times of conflict"?!? If this is a time of conflict then we're going to perpetually be in a time of conflict.

To your other point, the can't "punt" on the Establishment Clause claim because it's being squarely raised and you can't uphold the EO without denying it. They will have to rule on it one way or another.

Also I have no idea why you keep bringing up the Arizona case and preemption because it has literally nothing to do with this litigation. That was a state law. This is a state lawsuit. They are completely different things. There is zero doctrinal connection between the two.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right that they can't punt in that regard. My line of thinking was if they were going to examine what falls within the authority of the POTUS, they couldn't copout and say this isn't within the POTUS's authority but it is within the authority of Congress (because it doesn't address the issue of animus).

The Arizona case is pertinent because it held the federal government's exclusive authority when it comes to enforcing the INA. It said that the state is essentially powerless to object to immigration policies if they don't agree with them. Yes, obviously different matters were taken up altogether and I hated the Arizona decision for a number of reasons, but mostly because it was spun one way (racial profiling) for political gain and argued (preemption) a completely different way. Not to mention it was lousy policy. But yes, the issue of preemption was most certainly legitimate, and it will be an issue here somewhere within the final SCOTUS decision.
 
Last edited:
EatLeadCommie said:
Yes, you're right that they can't punt in that regard. My line of thinking was if they were going to examine what falls within the authority of the POTUS, they couldn't copout and say this isn't within the POTUS's authority but it is within the authority of Congress (because it doesn't address the issue of animus).

The Arizona case is pertinent because it held the federal government's exclusive authority when it comes to enforcing the INA. It said that the state is essentially powerless to object to immigration policies if they don't agree with them. Yes, obviously different matters were taken up altogether and I hated the Arizona decision for a number of reasons, but mostly because it was spun one way (racial profiling) for political gain and argued (preemption) a completely different way. Not to mention it was lousy policy. But yes, the issue of preemption was most certainly legitimate, and it will be an issue here somewhere within the final SCOTUS decision.
Click to expand...

No dude, you are completely wrong on this. The Arizona case said that states can't pass laws that conflict with federal immigration law. It did NOT say that states can't file lawsuits alleging that the federal government is violating the Constitution in the way that it enforces immigration law. Preemption only has to do with state laws/regulations. A state lawsuit challenging a federal policy in federal court cannot be preempted.

I would bet you any amount of money that the word "preemption" does not appear in any Supreme Court opinion on this issue, just as it hasn't appeared in any of the lower court opinions. Nor is the DOJ arguing that the state lawsuit is preempted. Don't you think that if preemption was such an important issue that the government could win on that they would be making that argument?

I think you're confusing preemption with standing. They are completely different things and one does not affect the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top