Travel ban upheld

[Wakeforest22890]

You lost me here.

As opposed to the basis being security/nationality which is permissible. As the majority lays out (and is objectively correct on) the administration went through procedures to gather data and gain information on the security threats from these countries. Whether they cared about this information or not is unknown, but that they went through the process is not in dispute.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Is there some sort of caveat for use of unconstitutional animus if it's only for an indefinite allegedly "temporary" nature when compared with something permanent? I'm not familiar with one.

Following up on this, could a state pre-Obergefell have passed a constitutional amendment preventing protected status based on homosexuality on a temporary basis until the state could figure out what was going on? I missed that part of the Romer decision if it's there.

 

[RChildress107]

Well it's pointless to re-litigate it now, but Trump's verbal diarrhea often spews many sharticles, often contradictory, within the same turd. You can see that from the transcript above. "Hey, look what we did to the Japs during WW2, but I'm not proposing that!" The expectation that every candidate could or should speak through the filter of a lawyer is unrealistic, but SCOTUS is not going to address that issue. What is patently absurd about not judging the order on its face is that Trump could be impeached and removed tomorrow and Pence, who expressed no such supposed animus on the campaign trail, could then issue the same order and not be subjected to the same legal challenge. The challenge would then come down to the 1152/1182 issue. And even then, there would be the sticking point about how much of that applies to his authority to govern nonimmigrant visas, which are not restricted like immigrant visas.

Yeah that’s not how it works. Intentional de facto discrimination is harder to prove but it’s still unconstitutional (or at least it was before today). You aren’t going to get a much more clear cut case of intentional de facto discrimination so I guess it’s the law of the land for now.

If you can figure out a way to discriminate against a protected class using facially neutral language feel free to do so and openly brag about it. Enjoy it while you can ELC.

 

[RChildress107]

As opposed to the basis being security/nationality which is permissible. As the majority lays out (and is objectively correct on) the administration went through procedures to gather data and gain information on the security threats from these countries. Whether they cared about this information or not is unknown, but that they went through the process is not in dispute.

Saying “I hate Muslims, let’s ban them, but let’s try and do it in a way that makes it look constitutional” isn’t any more constitutional than saying “I hate Muslims, let’s ban them” if the theory of unconstitutionality is animus based on religion.

It might be harder to prove in some cases, but not one where the administration has been this transparent.

 

[tiltdeac]

Yep, which actually reinforces the temporary nature of his policy and undermines her case.

If this was actually his reasoning -- a temporary ban to "fix the vetting*" -- how long does he need? Surely it could have been done by now and he wouldn't need to re-institute the ban , right? It's been a year and a half.


*Putting aside the argument that there was no actual need to fix the vetting in the first place.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

If this was actually his reasoning -- a temporary ban to "fix the vetting*" -- how long does he need? Surely it could have been done by now and he wouldn't need to re-institute the ban , right? It's been a year and a half.


*Putting aside the argument that there was no actual need to fix the vetting in the first place.

fucking logic: how does that work?

 

[WakeandBake]

I look forward to seeing children separated from their parents who try to enter against this ban, and to doctors unable to perform necessary surgeries on children and woman and shit cause they can't get in. This outta be good TV!

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Saying “I hate Muslims, let’s ban them, but let’s try and do it in a way that makes it look constitutional” isn’t any more constitutional than saying “I hate Muslims, let’s ban them” if the theory of unconstitutionality is animus based on religion.

It might be harder to prove in some cases, but not one where the administration has been this transparent.

The animus analysis, as originally articulated, includes that the legislation/act/etc. is so "discontinuous with the reasons offered" that the only rationale for it was animus towards the class that it affects. Here, while I think it's clear that Donald articulated an animus towards Muslim, there is at least some relationship between security and the nationality of people coming to the United States and the countries that were selected. This, coupled with the deferential treatment the executive receives in the immigration forum, was apparently enough for the majority.

 

[SwissChaletDeac]

LOL at anyone who is dumb enough to think that the Democrats have a chance in hell of gaining control of the Senate in November. The Democrats are going to have a net loss of seats in November. Could be as few as 1 or 2....or as many as 4 or 5. That would put the post-election GOP majority somewhere between 52-48 and 56-44.

GOP seats in play (3): Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee

DEM seats in play (6): Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Montana (And Ohio might even be a 7th one)

To regain control, the Democrats would have to go 9-1 in those races.....and Trump won 9 of those 10 states two years ago. Most by whopping margins: Indiana 19%, Missouri 19%, Montana 20%, Tennessee 26%, North Dakota 35%, West Virginia 42%.

 

[Highland Deac]

I look forward to seeing children separated from their parents who try to enter against this ban, and to doctors unable to perform necessary surgeries on children and woman and shit cause they can't get in. This outta be good TV!

Yeah, given how much these recent immigration issues have fired up the Democratic base and even many independents, to the point that Trump actually had to walk back his orders last week, I'm not so sure that this issue isn't going to backfire against the GOP in the long run. They continue to alienate pretty much every minority group in the country, and their numbers are only going to continue to increase. If we start having scenarios like the one above - and such stories will most certainly be discovered and publicized - then it's going to put Republican candidates in a difficult spot this fall and especially for later election cycles.

Nearly every other US President, once they took office, tried to govern in a way that expanded their base and made it easier for them to win re-election. Reagan is a classic example, as he went from roughly 52% in 1980 to 59% in 1984. Trump, however, is virtually unique among modern presidents in that he has only governed to his base, and has actually gone out of his way to alienate and anger everyone else. He and the GOP seem convinced that such a governing strategy will still lead to big victories at the polls, and that by firing up their base to vote each election cycle they can hang on to their majorities and the WH, and that they don't need to win over anyone else. Maybe so, maybe not. This November will be the first test of that theory. If they do lose their majorities, their positions on immigration may, ironically, be one of the reasons they do so. Locking kids in cages simply doesn't play well to the general populace, no matter how much your base enjoys it (or tries to ignore it).

 

[Wakeforest22890]

LOL at anyone who is dumb enough to think that the Democrats have a chance in hell of gaining control of the Senate in November. The Democrats are going to have a net loss of seats in November. Could be as few as 1 or 2....or as many as 4 or 5. That would put the post-election GOP majority somewhere between 52-48 and 56-44.

GOP seats in play (3): Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee

DEM seats in play (6): Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Montana (And Ohio might even be a 7th one)

To regain control, the Democrats would have to go 9-1 in those races.....and Trump won 9 of those 10 states two years ago. Most by whopping margins: Indiana 19%, Missouri 19%, Montana 20%, Tennessee 26%, North Dakota 35%, West Virginia 42%.

This is a thread about the SCOTUS decision upholding the travel ban.

However, the Democrats certainly have a "chance in hell" of gaining control of the Senate (I'd say it's probably between 30 and 35%). They have a better shot of taking back the House (above 50% - probably closer to 60%).

If you truly believe the Democrats have no shot to win, you stand to make a substantial amount of money by betting a lot on the GOP. You'll like the odds compared to no "chance in hell"

 

[Highland Deac]

LOL at anyone who is dumb enough to think that the Democrats have a chance in hell of gaining control of the Senate in November. The Democrats are going to have a net loss of seats in November. Could be as few as 1 or 2....or as many as 4 or 5. That would put the post-election GOP majority somewhere between 52-48 and 56-44.

GOP seats in play (3): Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee

DEM seats in play (6): Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Montana (And Ohio might even be a 7th one)

To regain control, the Democrats would have to go 9-1 in those races.....and Trump won 9 of those 10 states two years ago. Most by whopping margins: Indiana 19%, Missouri 19%, Montana 20%, Tennessee 26%, North Dakota 35%, West Virginia 42%.

We know, bob. This is the third or fourth time you've posted this since your "return". But, I'm sure you will continue to repeat this ad nauseam right up until the election. If your prediction is correct, I also have no doubts that you will be here to insult, trash talk, and gloat - in spite of your claim last night that you don't do such things here. If you're wrong, I'm sure that you will vanish and hide for several days or weeks, as you've done before. It's what you do. Having said that, we get it, bob, you don't think the Democrats have a shot at winning the Senate, the House, or pretty much anything this fall, because they're all fucking Millennial idiots who didn't really have to work for a living. Oh, and they support the gheys and transgender freaks and brownish immigrants speaking funny languages. We get it, we really do.

 

[RChildress107]

The animus analysis, as originally articulated, includes that the legislation/act/etc. is so "discontinuous with the reasons offered" that the only rationale for it was animus towards the class that it affects. Here, while I think it's clear that Donald articulated an animus towards Muslim, there is at least some relationship between security and the nationality of people coming to the United States and the countries that were selected. This, coupled with the deferential treatment the executive receives in the immigration forum, was apparently enough for the majority.

That’s the correct analysis when animus is present but animus as the sole motivation isn’t clear. I don’t agree with the standard but I get the courts reluctance to try and guess at legislators’ motivations. When you don’t have to guess whether animus was the motivating factor then the analysis you cited is unnecessary.

 

[THE DEUCE]

What is the point of voting? NOTHING is being done about cyber attacks from Russia AKA Trump's country...it is rigged and nobody gives 2 shits

 

[Wakeforest22890]

The Cook Political Report has 99 total seats which are not safely Democrat or Republican (the breakdown of safe seats is 180-156 Democrats). Of the 99 total seats which aren't safe, 15 are currently held by Democrats and 84 are currently held by Republicans.

 

[SwissChaletDeac]

This is a thread about the SCOTUS decision upholding the travel ban.

However, the Democrats certainly have a "chance in hell" of gaining control of the Senate (I'd say it's probably between 30 and 35%). They have a better shot of taking back the House (above 50% - probably closer to 60%).

If you truly believe the Democrats have no shot to win, you stand to make a substantial amount of money by betting a lot on the GOP. You'll like the odds compared to no "chance in hell"

Your relative percentages are way off on Dems' chances in the two chambers.....and I don't need any more money. :thumbsup:

 

[Wakeforest22890]

That’s the correct analysis when animus is present but animus as the sole motivation isn’t clear. I don’t agree with the standard but I get the courts reluctance to try and guess at legislators’ motivations. When you don’t have to guess whether animus was the motivating factor then the analysis you cited is unnecessary.

I understand where you're coming from but the analysis isn't whether animus was the "motivating factor" it's whether the animus was the only reasonable explanation. The Colorado amendment in Romer which prohibited any ordinances protecting homosexuality as a class had no such explanation at all beyond bare animus.

I think we can both agree that this case is different since the administration was not only able to rely on the security/nationality rationale but also point to actual concrete steps they took in furtherance of this rationale. There was no such similar rationale in Romer.

The issue remains that any animus analysis is inherently nebulous though as one man's animus is another man's reasonable support.

 

[DeaconSig]

LOL at anyone who is dumb enough to think that the Democrats have a chance in hell of gaining control of the Senate in November. The Democrats are going to have a net loss of seats in November. Could be as few as 1 or 2....or as many as 4 or 5. That would put the post-election GOP majority somewhere between 52-48 and 56-44.

GOP seats in play (3): Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee

DEM seats in play (6): Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Montana (And Ohio might even be a 7th one)

To regain control, the Democrats would have to go 9-1 in those races.....and Trump won 9 of those 10 states two years ago. Most by whopping margins: Indiana 19%, Missouri 19%, Montana 20%, Tennessee 26%, North Dakota 35%, West Virginia 42%.

Wanna bet, pussy?

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Your relative percentages are way off on Dems' chances in the two chambers.....and I don't need any more money. :thumbsup:

What percentages do you think? I took the average of several respected political sites and a couple of odds from bookies.

 

[marquee moon]

Yep

Obama picked a centrist (I think)—Republicans in Congress blocked him with some pretty horrid behavior.

“Centrist”

:rofl: