Jump to content

Interesting question for lawyers about Trump's revised travel ban...


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, capologist said:

And now it's dead.  What you are trying to do is like  teacher grading a paper based on the first draft instead of what gets turned in for a grade.  

Are you losing your mind? You don't sign executive orders if your intent is for them to NOT be enacted. That's not how laws work. 

You're saying they signed an executive order enacting something that they didn't want. That's how nonsensical you're willing to be over this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

12 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

That's not how evidence works in the legal system though. 

ZERO accountability is the new libertarian mantra, apparently.

'We wrote and signed this executive order because we don't want it's contents to be enacted'. So incredibly dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Also, I don't think the White House intended the original EO to be a "first draft".  They certainly didn't act like it when they were attacking so-called judges that blocked the law.

Or signing it, or defending it in court, or Tweeting about it. Insanity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

Are you losing your mind? You don't sign executive orders if your intent is for them to NOT be enacted. That's not how laws work. 

You're saying they signed an executive order enacting something that they didn't want. That's how nonsensical you're willing to be over this.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying they signed one that hit barriers and replaced it that was different and didn't contain the barriers.  Not sure why you are flipping out over that to be honest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Also, I don't think the White House intended the original EO to be a "first draft".  They certainly didn't act like it when they were attacking so-called judges that blocked the law.

No, they didn't but that's essentially what it became...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, capologist said:

And now it's dead.  What you are trying to do is like  teacher grading a paper based on the first draft instead of what gets turned in for a grade.  

Actually, it's like when you actually turn something into the professor for a grade and she gives you an F because it's ******* terrible, but then, taking pity on you, she gives you a chance to rework it for half credit and you turn in a sloppily edited "new" version that still seems to be making the same fundamentally flawed argument as your original, only with less plagiarism and wikipedia citations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, capologist said:

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying they signed one that hit barriers and replaced it that was different and didn't contain the barriers.  Not sure why you are flipping out over that to be honest.  

I'm not flipping out.

So, when assessing intent, it's your suggestion that they did not intend the original EO to be enacted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Except, as Mdrake pointed out, that's not have evidence works in the legal system.  

I don't see how it could be used as "evidence" if provisions of it no longer exist. I mean, I'm sure someone will put it right back in the courts, wasting resources and time.  I don't understand the staunch stance against it but hey, whatever floats the boat I suppose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

Actually, it's like when you actually turn something into the professor for a grade and she gives you an F because it's ******* terrible, but then, taking pity on you, she gives you a chance to rework it for half credit and you turn in a sloppily edited "new" version that still seems to be making the same fundamentally flawed argument as your original, only with less plagiarism and wikipedia citations.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.  I don't have a problem with the temporary ban to make sure we can properly vet refugees, etc. before letting them access the country.  It's 90 days and exceptions can be made on case by case basis according to the EO.  Making a mountain out of a mole hill IMO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

I'm not flipping out.

So, when assessing intent, it's your suggestion that they did not intend the original EO to be enacted? 

Nope, that's not my suggestion.  They fully intended to for the EO to be enacted.  Because it's tied up in courts they issued a second order that removed some of the controversial language/parts so that it shouldn't face any opposition since these countries were identified by the previous administration.  I don't have a problem with it.  It's 90 days, not permanent...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, capologist said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.  I don't have a problem with the temporary ban to make sure we can properly vet refugees, etc. before letting them access the country.  It's 90 days and exceptions can be made on case by case basis according to the EO.  Making a mountain out of a mole hill IMO...

I agree with you except eatcorn had a valid point....it has already been 60 days since the first EO. Shouldn't we have an update on the progress of the vetting system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that the delay of confirmation of cabinet appointees certainly didn't help WRT the first order. One could argue (and I would argue) that waiting was the better choice, so you can have your people look it over and be sure it's good to go before you roll it out.  But when it comes to intent, I think the Trump administration could make a credible argument that the first draft did things they didn't intend to do (like holding up resident aliens, etc., at airports).  

I prefer the "measure twice, cut once" model, but Trump seems pretty intent on showing that he intends to keep his promises, so I can see why he wanted to roll it out fast, even though I think it was unwise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, capologist said:

Nope, that's not my suggestion.  They fully intended to for the EO to be enacted.  Because it's tied up in courts they issued a second order that removed some of the controversial language/parts so that it shouldn't face any opposition since these countries were identified by the previous administration.  I don't have a problem with it.  It's 90 days, not permanent...

Because the prior administration had concerns about the 6 countries, then we shouldn't have any concerns about banning immigration from those countries? That's ridiculous. I have serious concerns about banning immigration from anywhere.

They've already had 45 days to address their concerns. How long are you willing to give them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

Because the prior administration had concerns about the 6 countries, then we shouldn't have any concerns about banning immigration from those countries? That's ridiculous. I have serious concerns about banning immigration from anywhere.

They've already had 45 days to address their concerns. How long are you willing to give them?

I've already answered that question.  90 days from the execution of the most recent EO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capologist said:

I've already answered that question.  90 days from the execution of the most recent EO...

So they can only address their concerns about the admission process while under the veil of the current EO? More gibberish. If it's a concern, then look at it, and make your changes. This isn't a sandbox. Do the work.

The whole idea that they couldn't do this from the get-go hints that the motivation is not to fix the process in 90 days. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. What will you say when the 90 days is up if they've not even addressed the vetting process? The same thing so many people are saying about 3-5 million illegal votes? The same thing they've said about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower? I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JDaveG said:

It should be noted that the delay of confirmation of cabinet appointees certainly didn't help WRT the first order. One could argue (and I would argue) that waiting was the better choice, so you can have your people look it over and be sure it's good to go before you roll it out.  But when it comes to intent, I think the Trump administration could make a credible argument that the first draft did things they didn't intend to do (like holding up resident aliens, etc., at airports).  

I prefer the "measure twice, cut once" model, but Trump seems pretty intent on showing that he intends to keep his promises, so I can see why he wanted to roll it out fast, even though I think it was unwise.  

A lot of handyman tips from JDave today.  See what accomplishing something with your hands (successful garage door installation) does to a man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, eatcorn said:

So they can only address their concerns about the admission process while under the veil of the current EO? More gibberish. If it's a concern, then look at it, and make your changes. This isn't a sandbox. Do the work.

The whole idea that they couldn't do this from the get-go hints that the motivation is not to fix the process in 90 days. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. What will you say when the 90 days is up if they've not even addressed the vetting process? The same thing so many people are saying about 3-5 million illegal votes? The same thing they've said about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower? I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. 

 

You asked how long I was willing to give, that was my answer.

I have no idea what I'd say, depends on the circumstances and what's going on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JDaveG said:

It should be noted that the delay of confirmation of cabinet appointees certainly didn't help WRT the first order. One could argue (and I would argue) that waiting was the better choice, so you can have your people look it over and be sure it's good to go before you roll it out.  But when it comes to intent, I think the Trump administration could make a credible argument that the first draft did things they didn't intend to do (like holding up resident aliens, etc., at airports).  

I prefer the "measure twice, cut once" model, but Trump seems pretty intent on showing that he intends to keep his promises, so I can see why he wanted to roll it out fast, even though I think it was unwise.  

At this point, this doesnt seem to be the Trump Administration's approach to anything, really. 

They're looking to push things through in conjunction with a favorable Congress but even aside from that, there isnt much to suggest that Trump or his closest associates on policy are all that deliberate or measured. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

At this point, this doesnt seem to be the Trump Administration's approach to anything, really. 

They're looking to push things through in conjunction with a favorable Congress but even aside from that, there isnt much to suggest that Trump or his closest associates on policy are all that deliberate or measured. 

Agree.  I suppose my point is that before one can make a reasoned argument that the Trump administration is reckless and haphazard with policy, one probably ought to not be in favor of the folks who are stopping them from putting a full administration in place.

My mock trial professor in undergrad once watched me object to something opposing counsel said in an argument he was losing badly (the judge/professor was ripping him pretty good).  She told me "when your opponent is in the middle of destroying himself, don't get in his way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...