Fascinating 
did anyone else listen to that? will be transcribed soon prob. read that instead of opinions on tv of it....better yet listen to it. was really interesting.
[Edited on 2/8/2017 by LeglizHemp]
I caught some of it...
Thought the portrait photos of the old judge appointed by Carter, Canby I think his name was, I couldn't help it...he looks like a South Park character!
Sorry, had to do it. I don't know what channel I had on, CNN or MSNBC, I couldn't find the same photo online, one of those channels showed him looking even older, with eyes that looked black and a mouth that went all the way across his face.
No offense to him, I'm sure he is a fine fellow and all.
LOL HILARIOUS
The 9th Circuit Court is the most liberal in the country and the most overturned. The 9th also has a history of trying to make law which is not their right.
This hearing comes down to one issue. Does a President have the authority to temporarily suspend immigration? That authority is clearly specified in the 1952 law.
During the hearing, the two liberal Justices went way outside of their prevue in asking questions that were taken from newspaper articles and political rhetoric. One of the arguments against allowing the President’s Executive Order to go forward was that the order had done irreparable harm to The State of Washington.
The one moderate Justice asked the attorney who made the claim exactly what irreparable harm was done the attorney could not answer.
One of the liberal Justices asked the Justice Department attorney if they had evidence that people coming from the seven nations could do any egregious acts against the U.S., the U.S. attorney said yes but could not offer any at this hearing. The liberal Justice was clearly trying to force national security secrets into open court. The U.S. Attorney did not take the bait.
The matter at hand will end up in at The Supreme Court. The timing of that is paramount but manageable. If the Democrats try to block Justice Gorsuch the Senate Majority Leader can invoke the Harry rule and go to a simple majority to approve. The Supreme Court can stay the Washington State Judges ruling and The Chief Justice can also simply delay putting the matter on the active docket.
at some point it will end up in SCOTUS but it sounded more likely to be thrown back to the lower court to me.
i will say, i think the President has the right to do this. I will say, it was very poorly thought out. I will say, green card holders and those with visas should not be part of the ban.
and
I will say, in the end, the Executive Order will stand.
I don't think it is good for our country but i think it fits with Presidents Trumps overall goals, no matter how demented i think they secretly are.
i will say, i think the President has the right to do this. I will say, it was very poorly thought out. I will say, green card holders and those with visas should not be part of the ban.
and
I will say, in the end, the Executive Order will stand.
I don't think it is good for our country but i think it fits with Presidents Trumps overall goals, no matter how demented i think they secretly are.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
There is a serious problem with the visas.
The State Department, for the last eight years, has failed to account for all the visas issued and Hillary Clinton was famous for handing out visas in exchange for "favors".
The State Department also has not enforced the visa expiration dates.
If someone came in on a visa for a specific time period they can just stay.
No one can account for all the visa holders now.
Far better to stop now and get a handle on them before continuing the privilege.
well visas can be re-evaluated and revoked. but it must be done in a constitutional way and on a case by case basis i believe.
well visas can be re-evaluated and revoked. but it must be done in a constitutional way and on a case by case basis i believe.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The government has to get a grip on the system first.
Once a visa holder is on U.S. soil it is all over. They can stay as long as the please and do whatever they please.
It will take years to fix a very broken problem.
Gee, the 9/11 Commission recommended fixing the broken system and President Bush repeatedly asked Congress to solve the problem because laws must be repaired first.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi refused to act.
The Republican House later passed 3 bills to address the issue and sent them to The Senate.
Harry Ried refused to even let the matter be discussed.
This is going to be a mess.
i don't disagree it is a difficult problem to solve but i do think the problem is overblown.
Trump loses ruling.....too early for more info.
Full text: 9th Circuit rules against reinstating travel ban
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-full-text/index.html
I think Trump need to start over....dragging this out in court makes us less safe....which Trump keeps saying himself.
Trump lost on the likelihood of the merits of the case, but he already tweeted in all caps with another of his typical rants of the day. Expect him to go after the judges personally. Remember - if he knows more than the generals then he must know more than judges based upon "all his years of practicing law". The King just can't handle defeat in any aspect of his life. He doesn't see things about what is best for America; he sees everything and everybody as competition. He must always win, or his ego is crushed, and then he exhibits tantrum time.
[Edited on 2/10/2017 by MartinD28]
we'll see
spell check really does nothing to having an intelligent conversation
and in times like these......intelligent thinking is important
[Edited on 2/10/2017 by LeglizHemp]
the two liberal Justices went way outside of their prevue
The word is purview, junior.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
On to SCOTUS it goes.
Reading posts carefully is intelligent critical thinking.
If it was spellcheck it is just more proof the guy doesn't read his own posts, or the articles he posts links to. And I suppose South Park references get a pass on the intelligent contribution angle? That struck me less as humor than as passive-aggressive softcore conservative deflection downplay of a pivotal issue that is having a tremendous impact on real peoples' lives.
Nevermind I'll just go to the other thread and fill out a butthurt form.
You really don't have to go anywhere, rightists just want you and anyone else who even slightly disagrees to shut up, right before they pontificate to you about free speech and all that.
sorry BrerRabbit
[Edited on 2/10/2017 by LeglizHemp]
The 9th Circuit Court did not rule on the Constitutionality of President Trump’s Exec. Order making it easy now for The Supreme Court to make the left’s effort to curtail National Security null and void.
Reading posts carefully is intelligent critical thinking.
If it was spellcheck it is just more proof the guy doesn't read his own posts, or the articles he posts links to. And I suppose South Park references get a pass on the intelligent contribution angle? That struck me less as humor than as passive-aggressive softcore conservative deflection downplay of a pivotal issue that is having a tremendous impact on real peoples' lives.
Nevermind I'll just go to the other thread and fill out a butthurt form.
[Edited on 2/10/2017 by BrerRabbit]
Sorry you don't share my enthusiasm for South Park. And I always think it is interesting when people think they know what others mean by a comment or in this case, comparing somebody's looks to that of a cartoon character. I'm surprised because you often have a good sense of humor in these forums, maybe you just didn't think that was funny, ok.
Legal scholars are laughing at the nutty 9th.
The 9th Circuit Court has been overturned 94% of the time their rulings have gone to the Supreme Court (both conservative and liberal versions) and, in this ruling, they ignored the prevailing statute which reads in part:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
The liberal activist 9th will be overturned yet again.
FEB 10 2017, 12:21 PM ET
White House Rewriting Trump’s Controversial Travel Ban Order: Sources
by PETER ALEXANDER and CORKY SIEMASZKO
Still regrouping from a federal appeals court's refusal to reinstate President Trump's controversial ban of nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries, White House lawyers are working on a rewrite of his executive order that could pass legal muster, NBC News has learned.
The work began several days before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shot down the White House's bid to lift a temporary restraining order on Trump's plan to bar nationals from Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, a senior administration official told NBC.
Trump's legal team still believes it will be eventually proven correct on the merits of the current executive order, the official said. And they are looking into several options, including continuing the court battle as well as signing a new immigration EO "very soon."
Several sources close to President Trump told MSNBC's Joe Scarborough that White House lawyers and working on language for the executive order that would be able to find favor with the federal courts.
This is another case I think, of the administration wanting to do something and not knowing how to execute and implement it.
I'm in favor of the ban/restrictions in general, but I think just about everyone (except Trump) that the implementation was a disaster. This type of thing needs careful and broad communication to the people who are in the field to deal with big changes like this.
Alot of talk about, why these countries. By now we know these were the countries previously identified by the President and by Congress who would not be eligible for visa waivers as they were "countries of concern" related to terrorism. Some have wondered why these countries and not others with a history of committing acts of terrorism in this country (like the 9/11 attackers). I see it as looking towards the next potential threat or likelihood of what countries the next potential attacker(s) might come from.
In light of some saying "no terrorists have come to the US from these 7 countries" I submit this:
Fact check: No arrests from 7 nations in travel ban? Judge in Seattle was wrong
Originally published February 6, 2017 at 11:15 am Updated February 6, 2017 at 11:41 amBy ERIC TUCKER
The Associated PressWASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump’s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.
The judge, James Robart, was correct in his larger point that the deadliest and most high-profile terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 — like the Boston Marathon bombings and the shootings in Orlando, Florida, and San Bernardino, California — were committed either by U.S. citizens or by people from countries other than the seven majority-Muslim nations named in Trump’s order.
But he went a step too far at a hearing in Seattle on Friday.
More on immigration orderHe asked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. When the lawyer said she didn’t know, Robart answered his own question: “Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell. You’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there’s no support for that.”
Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research shows no Americans have been killed in the U.S. at the hands of people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — since Sept. 11. But it’s not quite right to say no one from those nations has been arrested or accused in an extremist-related plot while living in the U.S.
In addition to the cases from last fall, for instance, two men from Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2011 and convicted on charges that they plotted to send money and weapons to al-Qaida.
They were never accused, though, of plotting attacks on the U.S. Last week, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway wrongly cited their case as a “Bowling Green massacre,” which never happened.
All told, Kurzman said, 23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.
I don't know how credible this Charles Kurzman at UNC is, but if that is correct that nearly quarter of all people here involved in plots, not attacks, just plots have family backgrounds to those 7 countries in question, that is a concern. These 7 countries are among the most dangerous and either ravaged by terrorism or are state sponsors of terrorism.
Alot of talk about, why these countries. By now we know these were the countries previously identified by the President and by Congress who would not be eligible for visa waivers as they were "countries of concern" related to terrorism. Some have wondered why these countries and not others with a history of committing acts of terrorism in this country (like the 9/11 attackers). I see it as looking towards the next potential threat or likelihood of what countries the next potential attacker(s) might come from.
You are trying to find some coherence in a strategy that a majority in the US feel is idiotic and misguided. Everyone wants to feel safe. My family is Jewish and since the election there have been a large number of attacks on synagogues and community centers. I am sure you can find a large number of examples of anti-semitism in all the countries on the list. The problem is that the people engaged in these attacks probably all support Trump. It does not seem they are of much interest to Trump or Sessions. The impression is that right wing home grown terrorism is okay. I don't think that Trump has even mentioned the attack on the mosque in Quebec that killed 5 people.
This article compares right wing extremist and radical Islamic terrorist attacks after 9-11.
I see it as looking towards the next potential threat or likelihood of what countries the next potential attacker(s) might come from.
This is a very foolhardy way to approach either right wing or radical Islamic terrorism. I don't know if the Somali was a refugee but he did have a travel history that was troubling. He had spent time in Pakistan. The wife in the San Bernadino shooting was Pakistani and she may have met her husband in Saudi Arabia. The Orlando shooter also visited Saudi Arabia. From this it seems that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be on that list.
Almost all the recent terrorist attacks in Europe involved terrorists born in Europe and many people in this category can just get on a plane and come to the US without a visa. It is true that one or two terrorists snuck in with the refugees and there may be more who arrived in Europe this way. But the majority of refugees don't have passports or the money to fly to the US.
Refugees though are not the biggest threat. They are just the easiest group to target.
In reply to pops 42
Saudi arabia is the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world, but its not on trumps list?.
According to the US government they are not an official state sponsor of terrorism. The 3 countries that are can be found on the travel ban (Iran, Sudan and Syria).
https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm
Saudi Arabia has always been a very difficult country for me to get my arms around. They are fighting extremists in Yemen and we have common enemies with Iran. There are indications that the Saudi government and Israel may have some common ground. But we all know about the radical and extreme views that are present in that country. To me, I was most surprised that Afghanistan was not on the travel ban list. All of the 7 countries on the travel ban are either 1) state sponsors of terrorism or 2) are failed states with huge presence of militant Islamic fighters and military conflict. I mean nobody is going on vacation in Yemen, or Libya or Somalia. Very very dangerous countries.
In reply to Swifty
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alot of talk about, why these countries. By now we know these were the countries previously identified by the President and by Congress who would not be eligible for visa waivers as they were "countries of concern" related to terrorism. Some have wondered why these countries and not others with a history of committing acts of terrorism in this country (like the 9/11 attackers). I see it as looking towards the next potential threat or likelihood of what countries the next potential attacker(s) might come from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You are trying to find some coherence in a strategy that a majority in the US feel is idiotic and misguided. Everyone wants to feel safe. My family is Jewish and since the election there have been a large number of attacks on synagogues and community centers. I am sure you can find a large number of examples of anti-semitism in all the countries on the list. The problem is that the people engaged in these attacks probably all support Trump. It does not seem they are of much interest to Trump or Sessions. The impression is that right wing home grown terrorism is okay. I don't think that Trump has even mentioned the attack on the mosque in Quebec that killed 5 people.
This article compares right wing extremist and radical Islamic terrorist attacks after 9-11.
http://ijr.com/2016/01/518045-a-study-showed-right-wing-extremism-kills-mor e-than-islamic-terrorism-then-a-real-researcher-looked-into-it/
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see it as looking towards the next potential threat or likelihood of what countries the next potential attacker(s) might come from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is a very foolhardy way to approach either right wing or radical Islamic terrorism. I don't know if the Somali was a refugee but he did have a travel history that was troubling. He had spent time in Pakistan. The wife in the San Bernadino shooting was Pakistani and she may have met her husband in Saudi Arabia. The Orlando shooter also visited Saudi Arabia. From this it seems that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be on that list.
Almost all the recent terrorist attacks in Europe involved terrorists born in Europe and many people in this category can just get on a plane and come to the US without a visa. It is true that one or two terrorists snuck in with the refugees and there may be more who arrived in Europe this way. But the majority of refugees don't have passports or the money to fly to the US.
Refugees though are not the biggest threat. They are just the easiest group to target.
I do not agree it is fool-hearted to look towards the next attack instead of being so fucosed on the attacks that have taken place 15 years ago here. I mean, it all should be weighed and considered, but who here is going to argue that the countries in the 7 country ban aren’t dangerous and sanctuaries or breading grounds for terrorist groups?
There are other countries not on the list that of course also have dangerous people wishing us harm. I think a difference is a relationship we have with some of those other countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc) that leads one to feel we can get back grounds or properly vet those people. In failed states, countries torn by war and countries we have military engagement with, those places are much more difficult to get backgrounds on the people wanting to come here.
Somebody, I don’t remember who, here said “it is time for us to realize we have a homegrown terror problem” – and that person is right. However I think their background, their family origins should be considered. As should the background of people who not only have successfully committed terror attacks in the US, but also those that we have been fortunate to have stopped. The standard shouldn't just be "US deaths responsible for by terrorists", it should also be "US plots thwarted by would-be terrorits" with a constant eye down the road to see what future threats exist.
I really can not understand the resistance to people from Yemen or Sudan or Somalia or Libya, etc from receiving the strictest and toughest investigations possible before they are allowed to come here. These countries are at war among themselves and those fighters wish to be at war with us.
I get the compassionate argument with respect to Syrian refugees, but again I must ask...people from some of the most dangerous countries on earth, what is wrong with wanting to pause people from those countries from coming here?
I agree and you are correct that the situation in Europe, and to a degree in Canada, are a concern, but what I hope is that the governments in those countries and our government are able to investigate and validate the people wanting to come here to a much stronger extent than those on the travel ban list. In some of these other countries, can we believe what Iran or Libya or whoever is telling us on any individual and what depth can our own investigations tell us on unknown people from these countries?
Please forgive me, I am not as knowledgeable about the presence and increase antisemitism. I have heard what some major news sources have reported. Since your post I have read much deeper and see your point, since the election, but even considerably before the election I see the problem has been growing. I was very surprised to see how it is such a big problem on college campuses. For whatever it is worth, or whatever you might think of me, I don’t want to look the other way on this and I would join anyone to not only condemn these attacks, but the people responsible should find no comfort in our country or any country. I support the strongest penalties possible for people who engage in descrimination against Jews or any religious group. Peaceful and lawful people of all walks of life should not have their lifestyle or religious beliefs attacked. That includes peaceful Muslims. I will join anyone in attempts to shine a light on this under reported injustice. And if you want to find fault in the Trump administration or the Sessions Justice Dept for not doing enough in this area, should that be the case, I will certainly be by your side.
I do not agree it is fool-hearted to look towards the next attack instead of being so fucosed on the attacks that have taken place 15 years ago here. I mean, it all should be weighed and considered, but who here is going to argue that the countries in the 7 country ban aren’t dangerous and sanctuaries or breading grounds for terrorist groups?
There are other countries not on the list that of course also have dangerous people wishing us harm. I think a difference is a relationship we have with some of those other countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc) that leads one to feel we can get back grounds or properly vet those people. In failed states, countries torn by war and countries we have military engagement with, those places are much more difficult to get backgrounds on the people wanting to come here.
I wrote a longer post this afternoon and the power went out. Never a good sign. 
All this speculation on identifying what has yet to occur is a good way to ignore what is going on. Much of Trump's power rests on his ability to shock and scare people and many of his claims are even starting to become suspect for Republicans.
Still, there seems to be a hands off policy on Saudi or Pakistani involvement and this did not start with Trump. To many the ban is unseemly and out of character for the US. Most experts believe it will alienate Muslims. Few think it will be successful.
I wrote a longer post this afternoon and the power went out. Never a good sign. All this speculation on identifying what has yet to occur is a good way to ignore what is going on. Much of Trump's power rests on his ability to shock and scare people and many of his claims are even starting to become suspect for Republicans.
Still, there seems to be a hands off policy on Saudi or Pakistani involvement and this did not start with Trump. To many the ban is unseemly and out of character for the US. Most experts believe it will alienate Muslims. Few think it will be successful.
I've done something before to mess up or delete a time consuming post and it just takes the wind out of your sails.
I copy and pasted some articles in the Steven Miller thread that I thought about putting here, but I put it there instead. If you have time, I would appreciate any feedback or comments you might have with specifics dealt in them.
