|
Javid posted:So what kind of a stick does a district court have to beat the president with over contempt? If it goes far enough? State police arresting and indefinitely holding CBP agents for contempt when they don't comply with the injunction. Edit: I find it unlikely that it will happen, not because I think the administration is sane enough to avoid it, but because I doubt that the people doing the CBP grunt work will choose "definitely go to jail indefinitely" over "cooperate and maybe get fired later". Roadie fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Feb 3, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It would be pretty funny if the court orders the US's assets frozen until it complies. Trump hasn't divested himself of his businesses. Seize those assets and freeze his wealth, even if the courts wouldn't use it to pay restitution to those he's harmed it'd be wonderful to watch him completely lose his poo poo over a court seizing his ill-gotten family fortune. Seems more likely than the US Marshals actually being willing to go after the CBP since they'd be doing it alone and in a severely weakened position since the GOP would utterly devastate the USMS's ability to function almost immediately, while sending other FLEOs to help the CBP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Roadie posted:If it goes far enough? State police arresting and indefinitely holding CBP agents for contempt when they don't comply with the injunction. What makes you think state police are any more likely to comply with a new court order than the last one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Opening Arguments podcast has an episode today on Gorsuch. They make some good points about Gorsuch wanting to not just be a conservative, but a conservative activist judge. They also echo a lot of what's been said in the D&D / CSPAM threads about how they can't figure out why the Democrats can't put together a simple, organized and coherent argument against Gorsuch. Makes me feel 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Opening Arguments podcast has an episode today on Gorsuch. They make some good points about Gorsuch wanting to not just be a conservative, but a conservative activist judge. They also echo a lot of what's been said in the D&D / CSPAM threads about how they can't figure out why the Democrats can't put together a simple, organized and coherent argument against Gorsuch. It's probably like trying to nail jelly to a wall. The lack of a clearly defined set of judicial principles means you always have an exception to point out when someone boxes you in on your record. Take Scalia, whose views on privacy could be defined by Lawrence, but perhaps also by any number of 4A police search cases (King for example, DNA cheek swabs), but then again there's the strip searches issue in Florence. If he went into a hearing and got questioned on being "soft on crime" he can point to Florence, whereas if questioned on 4A unreasonable search/seizure he can point to a handful of police search cases where he backed up the plaintiff. So when I see someone who wants to be a crusader or an activist and wants to do so in Scalia's image, I imagine someone who draws their opinion from an initial gut check against political ideology and then writes the opinion by working out from there and using lots of inflammatory language to distract from the fact that it's not jurisprudence but ideological rigor in the face of contradictory facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning. Is this now moot given the apparent settlement in Aziz? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3442376/18917784172.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's probably like trying to nail jelly to a wall. The lack of a clearly defined set of judicial principles means you always have an exception to point out when someone boxes you in on your record. That's a fair point. On the podcast, they were talking more about non-judicial activities such as writing this sarcastic little piece against liberals for the National Review, and broader concepts like the fact that he basically endorses judicial activism in his opinions, not necessarily about his specific readings of the law. It's a good listen, and as someone who doesn't easily understand law stuff, they make it easily digestible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is this now moot given the apparent settlement in Aziz? Virginia is still pushing for the case to continue: https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-VA-0004-0020.pdf The Feds seem to be trying to moot the cases where suit was actually filed, but there's good caselaw to allow cases to continue where even if the instant case's facts moot the cause of action, if it looks like there is a pretty good likelyhood of the injury happening again it can continue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Pacific_Terminal_Co._v._ICC Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Virginia is still pushing for the case to continue: Well, is the hearing taking place or not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:What makes you think state police are any more likely to comply with a new court order than the last one? The answer to this is "the question is incorrect". Orders so far have applied to CBP, not to local law enforcement, and nothing authorizing or requiring arrest for contempt has been put out there yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, is the hearing taking place or not? I don't personally have access to PACER to see the case status. I've been using this to see as stuff gets filed: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15595&search=source%7Cgeneral%3BspecialCollection%7C44%3Borderby%7CfilingYear%3B We'll have to wait for some reporting, or another attorney on here who's willing to spend the money on PACER to look it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
So, what exactly happens if the executive branch under Trump just decides to ignore what the judicial branch has to say? Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of person who has any respect for the law in the first place so why would he bother to obey anything they say?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Guess they are doing a hearing of some sortquote:Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...m=.8232d23592b9
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong thread: How does CBP keep track of visas revoked?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Edit: Wrong thread: Probably with a rahowa thermometer or a fence that gets longer as they revoke more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:So, what exactly happens if the executive branch under Trump just decides to ignore what the judicial branch has to say? Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of person who has any respect for the law in the first place so why would he bother to obey anything they say? The President ignoring the courts is a classic example of a non-justiciable issue where Congress is supposed to put its big boy pants on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:06
|
|
Antti posted:The President ignoring the courts is a classic example of a non-justiciable issue where Congress is supposed to put its big boy pants on. Oh, so nothing will be done, great.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:So, what exactly happens if the executive branch under Trump just decides to ignore what the judicial branch has to say? Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of person who has any respect for the law in the first place so why would he bother to obey anything they say? Either Congress impeaches, or we storm the Bastille, or we live in a dictatorship. I'm having a hard time thinking of any other options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Antti posted:The President ignoring the courts is a classic example of a non-justiciable issue where Congress is supposed to put its big boy pants on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Dictatorship or storm the Bastille it is, then. Given how extensive the right wing militia and white supremacist movement is ingrained in to law enforcement, LEOs would be more than happy to start murdering dirty liberals and minorities in the streets by the hundreds or thousands to protect ARE COUNTRY.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Theoretically couldn't the state martials enforce the Federal order since the airport is on state land? Edit: https://twitter.com/jjouvenal/status/827550243969445888 This is important because it allows the case to go forward even though the original facts might have made the case moot. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
A scary article about how hard it is figure out responsibility for acts by the CBP contrary to the orders already issued.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Barely a couple weeks in to his presidency and Trump is already basically nullifying one of the branches of government. Even if he somehow gets bad enough for the GOP to impeach him, or remove him via the 25th, it'd still mean an extremely right wing government would be running the country and you'd have a lot of low information people who'd see it as a sane and normal thing after Trump's actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
It legit wouldn't surprise me if the GOP is just waiting for him to piss off their base good and hard to impeach him and install President Pence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Pence with a Republican Congress is still vastly better than an executive who rules by fiat. At least we can fix it with elections in 2/4 years. e: Oops I was confused about which thread this is. Leaving it. KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Javid posted:It legit wouldn't surprise me if the GOP is just waiting for him to piss off their base good and hard to impeach him and install President Pence. I don't see how they do this without immediately losing the next election to their base being pissed as gently caress the Orange One is out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Pence with a Republican Congress is still vastly better than an executive who rules by fiat. At least we can fix it with elections in 2/4 years. We can? How? The house is gerrymandered to the point that it will be difficult at best to flip. The only republican senate seats up for grabs are from safe republican states. Unless somehow we can get a democratic turnout that dwarfs the general from last year, nothing is changing in 2018. EDIT: I don't say this to be all doom and gloom, but rather to splash a dose of reality on anyone that thinks any different. Massive turnout is needed to flip anything in 2018. This means everyone needs to be working towards that goal starting yesterday or it isn't going to happen. There are going to be major hurdles and obstacles. Now is the time you need to be volunteering and starting GOTV work. It's gonna be hard to build up enough energy and maintain it. This is not an easy path, but it's the only one we have. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Pence with a Republican Congress is still vastly better than an executive who rules by fiat. At least we can fix it with elections in 2/4 years. The 2020 elections and probably the 2018 elections are going to see some heavily depressed Dem turnout because the kind of poo poo that happened in Wisconsin and North Carolina is going to be applied nationwide to suppress the 'wrong types' from voting all while the GOP crows about stopping voter fraud. And like we've already seen, there is a 5 person SCOTUS majority who're more than ok to kill voting rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The 2020 elections and probably the 2018 elections are going to see some heavily depressed Dem turnout because the kind of poo poo that happened in Wisconsin and North Carolina is going to be applied nationwide to suppress the 'wrong types' from voting all while the GOP crows about stopping voter fraud. And like we've already seen, there is a 5 person SCOTUS majority who're more than ok to kill voting rights. Has there been any academic analysis about the effect of the SC killing the VRA? I've seen news reports but nothing more legit. How much of the downturn in democratic vote was fuckery and Joe much was it Obama not being on the ballot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Has there been any academic analysis about the effect of the SC killing the VRA? I've seen news reports but nothing more legit. How much of the downturn in democratic vote was fuckery and Joe much was it Obama not being on the ballot? Michigan and Wisconsis and Pennsylvania weren't on the list of states that needed preclearance anyway, so I don't think the VRA changes made any difference. Still might have been fuckery. Someone more knowledgeable can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The 2020 elections and probably the 2018 elections are going to see some heavily depressed Dem turnout because the kind of poo poo that happened in Wisconsin and North Carolina is going to be applied nationwide to suppress the 'wrong types' from voting all while the GOP crows about stopping voter fraud. And like we've already seen, there is a 5 person SCOTUS majority who're more than ok to kill voting rights. I said "can fix it" not "will fix it." The details of who's likely to prevail given the current state of U.S. electoral politics is a discussion I'd welcome over one about a President who is holding people in custody after a federal court ordered them released in response to a habeas petition and talking about building private security and intelligence service that doesn't rely on Congress for oversight of funding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
loving LOL. Giving the AG instructions via tweet. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828024835670413312
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
So the muslim ban's gonna work its way up to the supreme court? That'll be a real interesting ruling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Chelb posted:So the muslim ban's gonna work its way up to the supreme court? That'll be a real interesting ruling. Looks like the Government is arguing that a "Facially Legitmate" standard of review is appropritate https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/828032009561862144/pu/vid/640x360/7kmBItMJi9C5Wg5G.mp4 quote:...the test established by Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Din as the standard in this case. This facially legitimate and bona fide reason test requires that the consular officer must both: I think they are using that standard incorrectly, since it seems to be intended for analyzing particular instances of consular misconduct in the granting of visa's, not an analysis of whether an order or law is invalid because of constitutional issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Sometimes you gotta go out there and just argue something
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Helping out the people who already have green cards and/or visas approved is one thing, but my jaw will hit the loving floor if anything gets done past that. The precedent has been set repeatedly for decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 04:02
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
I wonder if Scalia would rule against Trump if he was still alive. Though in the past he came down against things like rights for Gitmo detainees so he'd probably say this ban's perfectly ok too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I wonder if Scalia would rule against Trump if he was still alive. Though in the past he came down against things like rights for Gitmo detainees so he'd probably say this ban's perfectly ok too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I wonder if Scalia would rule against Trump if he was still alive. Though in the past he came down against things like rights for Gitmo detainees so he'd probably say this ban's perfectly ok too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean this was a guy who thought that a death penalty was still valid even after DNA exoneration because the 'case was decided correctly at the time'. Hopefully he's burning in hell. i thought that quote was fake but lots of people thought it was actually him
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 07:04
|
|
