• 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

Shorty said:
I'll admit, when you post comments like this one, I genuinely don't know whether you are just trolling or you actually believe what you posted.
Click to expand...

Which part do you disagree with?
 
Look, we can talk about standing and procedure all we want, but does any rational person not think that Trump did the EO because he wants to reduce the number of Muslims coming to the U.S.? That's the bottom line question.
 
MysteryMen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing the two. My reasoning is that when they toss out the animus claim, they will have to look at authority issues which are based on statute and precedent Specifically, can the POTUS institute this EO without Congressional authority? Does he have to get Congress's blessing? And yes, how much power do the states have to challenge an EO that deals with an issue under the exclusive purview of the federal government? Maybe the word preemption won't appear, but the issue will be touched upon. Are you of the belief that the issue won't come up because the states haven't brought it up? There were something like 8 points that the Hawaii plaintiffs argued. Granted, only the issue of animus was ever really discussed in the judge's decision and the points were progressively ridiculous, as would be expected in a brief. But absent the issue of animus, the other issues will have to be addressed and knocked down.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I'm not confusing the two. My reasoning is that when they toss out the animus claim, they will have to look at authority issues which are based on statute and precedent Specifically, can the POTUS institute this EO without Congressional authority? Does he have to get Congress's blessing? And yes, how much power do the states have to challenge an EO that deals with an issue under the exclusive purview of the federal government? Maybe the word preemption won't appear, but the issue will be touched upon. Are you of the belief that the issue won't come up because the states haven't brought it up? There were something like 8 points that the Hawaii plaintiffs argued. Granted, only the issue of animus was ever really discussed in the judge's decision and the points were progressively ridiculous, as would be expected in a brief. But absent the issue of animus, the other issues will have to be addressed and knocked down.
Click to expand...

We're going around in circles, but you just have to trust me, as someone who has at least a partial legal education, that preemption is not the right doctrine for the issue you're talking about. Doesn't mean that it won't be an issue whether the states can bring this lawsuit. Just means that it won't be analyzed under preemption.

Also this is really important for the point you're making: the states here aren't suing as states. They're suing just like they are private parties. Which they can do if they've suffered an injury that gives them standing. The question here is whether they have actually suffered an injury. Every judge who wrote an opinion in the Ninth Circuit, even Judge Bea who wrote a dissent yesterday, agrees that they have. For the establishment clause claim, that's enough to give them the ability to sue. The due process claim is trickier and I could see a court saying that the states don't have the ability to bring that one, largely for the reasons in Judge Baa's dissent.
 
I almost went there once but decided against it. The place seemed to cool for itself. They sell bacon by the piece and wine by the ounce. Sounds good but ends up being a ripoff.

They filled in the last huge space downtown with a mixture of hipster places, a hotel and an insane apartment building (one BR opened at over $3000/month). What pissed me off more about the places is how insulting the new management was about people who liked the rest of downtown HB. You know, those who laid the groundwork so that these schmucks could sell $15 "designer drinks".

Before they built that space there were already over 12,000,000 people visiting HB from around the world. It must not have sucked that bad.

The next two winters will be interesting. This year they got a ton of free press for opening up. If they keep alienating people who live here and go out all the time, I wouldn't be surprised if some or many of those places tank.
 
Now they're banning electronics in carry on bags in flights originating from a handful of airports in the Middle East.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...an-605a:homepage/story&utm_term=.5d200299e4c9

Under the restrictions, travelers to the United States from 10 mostly Middle Eastern airports will be required to put all personal electronic devices larger than a cellphone or smartphone in their checked baggage. U.S. airlines are not affected by the ban because none offer direct U.S.-bound flights from the affected airports.

Ten airports in eight countries, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are affected. Officials said the airports were selected based on the “current threat picture.”
Click to expand...

Note that U.S. airlines are exempt from this, but I don't think they fly from most of those airports if any. There's a lot of consternation between the big 3 U.S. airlines (American, Delta, United) and the so-called Middle East 3 (Qatar, Emirates, Etihad) over subsidies and competition, and the heads of the U.S. airlines did recently meet with Trump, so is this something they pushed for to make the ME3 flights less desirable?
 
There are already different scenarios based on the airline and airport you are coming from simply because of standing airport security. Some US carriers simply can't fly to certain airports because they don't meet security requirements set by the US. This will get wrapped up in the Muslim ban but at any other time would be a pretty big meh.
 
WakeForestRanger said:

Yeah except bizarrely the countries that we're implementing this for and the countries that the UK is implementing this for don't match up.
 
At JFK last week they made me unpack my entire suitcase to look at a bunch of books i had in there. And that was with TSA precheck too. Made me unwrap them and flip through will the pages. It was pretty weird.
 
wakephan09 said:
At JFK last week they made me unpack my entire suitcase to look at a bunch of books i had in there. And that was with TSA precheck too. Made me unwrap them and flip through will the pages. It was pretty weird.
Click to expand...

Your daily reminder that in 15 years of operation the TSA has never caught a terrorist. And TSA agents fare incredibly poorly in tests of their ability to detect contraband. But yet we're still subjected to this BS. It's all just security theater.
 
Ugh. Going on my first flight in several months. Not looking forward to the BS.
 
wakephan09 said:
At JFK last week they made me unpack my entire suitcase to look at a bunch of books i had in there. And that was with TSA precheck too. Made me unwrap them and flip through will the pages. It was pretty weird.
Click to expand...

dirty communist books, no doubt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top