|
All appointed people serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Career people (who got regular hired) have various disciplinary procedures they have to go through to be fired and it's generally very tough to get rid of them. Attorney Generals are traditionally sacrosanct, even though they serve at the pleasure of the President because their independence ensures the President is on the level.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
How long before the Court hears a case on this and the executive ignores their ruling? https://twitter.com/CharESilver/status/826447357105491968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yeah well he also pledged some bullshit about the Constitution and his hand-picked acting attorney general is apparently telling the US Marshals service to ignore court order so who knows anymore. Attorneys filed some motions for relief saying the Government is ignoring the ruling as well and have been coercing people to give up their green cards. https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-VA-0004-0004.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why would ANYONE think that capitulating and letting someone like Gorsuch on the court this time makes it any harder for McConnell to nuke the filibuster on the next nominee? I can't think of a dumber political strategy. I like how democrats are treating the fillibuster like a megalixer in an RPG and saving it for the final boss. Except we'll have full fascism and they'll still be saving it for that perfect moment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Gonna be funny when the Republicans sell off that land behind them and it's oil pumps and mines as far as the eye can see.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
So Virginia finally filed a motion to show cause and contempt for the feds not following the stay. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/826989984288800770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:So Virginia finally filed a motion to show cause and contempt for the feds not following the stay. Hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/virginia-trump-contempt_us_5892bb6ae4b070cf8b80b621
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It eventually gets to the supreme court and if he still refuses its up to congress to impeach. It would be pretty funny if the court orders the US's assets frozen until it complies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
loving LOL. Giving the AG instructions via tweet. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828024835670413312
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Where's that video from? https://twitter.com/RobPulseNews/status/828032705380098050 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-060c-d96b-a7fe-1efd89b00000 Also here is the whole thing. http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Where can I read the filing that attempted to end the injunction? I really want to see the reasoning, based on news coverage- it sounds like a hoot/terrifying beyond belief. Here's the motion in opposition of the original stay: https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-WA-0029-0013.pdf And the emergency motion to continue the stay. https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-WA-0029-0015.pdf You can get all the pleadings and motions here: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15606&search=source%7Cgeneral%3BspecialCollection%7C44%3Borderby%7CfilingYear%3B
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Man it'd be pretty sick if Congress could just say "and the courts can't review this" in their legislation and have iron clad laws huh?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Quorum posted:The main thing about the religious exclusions is that they provide support for the "Muslim ban by another name" argument rooted in administration statements, but you're right that on its face religious considerations are acceptable. One big thing to consider is whether the administration takes into account persecuted minority Muslim sects (lol), which it ought to if the rationale is indeed to prioritize those facing religious persecution. I'd bet real money that Trump has never heard of "Shia", "Sunni", or "Druze"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If he hadn't hosed with existing visa holders, who if anyone would have had standing to challenge the ban? Real question, not argumentative. Potentially people in the middle of applying, employers looking to bring someone over, and family members.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I'm also curious what, if anything, is happening regarding the Nepotism laws. Like, Trump is specifically barred from appointing his daughter or son-in-law from any official or paid position and he's done just that with Jared Kushner. Is anything going to happen with that ever? I mean who has standing? That's the problem. Violating the emoluments clause and anti-nepotism laws is the sort of thing Congress is supposed to put its big boy pants on and do something about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Also he was a dumbass for waltzing into the pretty weak standing argument and not trying to slide out of it for like 15 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
I really don't know why Washington's attorney didn't argue that the lack of litigation on previous bans is not despositive to the court and shouldn't be considered, as there could be any number of reasons why litigation didn't take place that this court couldn't imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
How much money is every willing to put on the Trump admin having already destroyed the evidence of the EO having it's roots in an anti-muslim animus (e-mails, memos, etc)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
mdemone posted:lol wut Yep. The court, of course, denied the motion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd prefer a general strike of DoJ attorney s, ideally. Wouldn't a strike by a public sector employee be illegal?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/829446529089990657
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Emergency stay upheld. Enforcement of the ban still blocked. https://apnews.com/1d68613554f140a49cff4a6f987c4f7e?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP Here's the order https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
In other news... https://twitter.com/countable/status/829821297496571908 https://www.countable.us/articles/237-preliminary-impeachment-inquiry-filed-president-trump https://t.co/5ygwB0IbSi
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/joe_palazzolo/status/830188347918266368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Could this mean either a judge wants to give it to trump or rule on merits? Either they all feel REALLY strongly about the ruling and want to do it en banc to make it apparent, or at least one of them strongly disagrees with the holding. Probably the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sounds like Trump is going to try what I was talking about : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/trump-travel-ban-new-policy-japan-shinzo-abe?CMP=fb_gu I think the anti Muslim animus argument will apply to any ban unless they can point to specific risks or harms.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:"We can't tell the court secret things" was discussed in the 9th Circuit decision, and I don't believe something where you can show actual prejudice gets rational basis review. Thinking of Romer v. Evans? There are certainly similarities, but a local ordinance and immigration are pretty distinctive fact patterns, especially given the deference courts have generally given immigration matters to the executive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
It's a real proposal. AP posted it with the story: Origional story: https://apnews.com/5508111d59554a33be8001bdac4ef830?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP Draft Memo: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3467508-Trump-National-Guard-Draft-Memo.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
ulmont posted:ICE and CBP are convinced that there are no constitutional rights within 100 miles of the border. Lol if you include airports as border zones that is almost the entire US.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
It was obviously the founder's intention that unreasonable searches happen all around the country.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
This is why you ALWAYS offer every argument you can at the lower court level and don't save poo poo for the SCOTUS. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/06/justice-thomas-sharply-criticizes-civil-forfeiture-laws/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It just needs to shift the burden from proving the money was not involved in illegal activity to proving the money was involved. The burden should be on the state if they want to keep the money, not on the individual to get their money back Yeah, I'd like to see the government have to bring an in rem action against the money/assets with the burden on them to establish that. I think that would solve like 99% of the issues.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
All Trump needs to do to have his ban upheld is cite specific verifiable dangers which the current vetting process is not catching from those countries. But he's either too stupid or can't find them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:so we have 7 minutes of establishing the facts of the case, before misapplying the plain meaning statute. Yeah. Franken was misapplying the plain meaning exception.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Discendo Vox, what do you think about this piece laying out why the author thinks Originalism is bunk? Honestly, Goresuch is probably the absolute best candidate you could expect from this adminstration. If he gets Borked somehow I full expect Trump to nominate his daughter or some dumb poo poo like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 16:08
|
|