OT Travel Ban Ruling

On 2/13/17 1:46 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
In the present tense atmosphere with the Democrats intent not on governing but on obstruction, an impeachment would surely be a circus.

Sort of like a Star Trek episode. Same plot; only the names have changed.

--
Wes Groleau

On 2/13/17 6:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
Trump is breaking a lot of eggs, but it is yet to be seen whether he'll make an omlet -- or even knows how to make an omlet. We may just end up with a bunch of broken eggs on the counter.

We should be thankful they're not on the floor—or on our face.

--
Wes Groleau

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 11:10:50 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2017 12:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2017 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/14/2017 11:56 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:30:16 +0700, John B
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:54:28 -0600, AMuzi
wrote:

On 2/12/2017 2:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:16:02 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

I thoght that USAians were fed up with the Democrats
and were VERY
fearful of H.R. Clinton and there even though many
didn't care for
Trump they voted for him as being a lesser evil than
H.R. Clinton.
= much like many here in Canada voted for Trudeau
Junior ONLY
because they wanted Harper out no matter what.

We're fed up with everyone in office, no matter who
they are, what
party they belong to and no matter what they do. What
we don't get
is that it's our own damn fault for electing idiots.
Seriously,
there are people in legislative, judicial and
executive offices who
are overtly psychotic, sociopaths and/or both. And a
lot of them.

I think there was little to no fear of HRC; I think
there was a lot
of hatred. The election of Donald Trump was a sign of
the deep
disrespect that nearly half of Americans have for our
government-
even the notion of government itself.


+1 Hey, Tim, I fully agree with you. (in fact I replied
similarly)


But I don't believe that this is simply a modern
phenomena. Read a bit
of U.S. history. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Aaron
Burr, all were
hated. Even George Washington was viewed with some
suspicion for a
time.

Yes, or at least not exclusively modern nor exclusively
American. These
trends in the public sentiment ebb and flow.

Sometimes principled and rational people (on either side
of the aisle)
are in charge and sometimes the nuts (on either side of
the aisle) are
in charge.


Trouble is, you never really know.

And the "truth" is so often in the eye of the beholder.



Fifty years later maybe.
In real time I think one just never knows.

One does know in real-time whether a candidate has the basic skills necessary to do the job. We have never before elected a president who has not been in the military or government. Goldwater, whatever you might have thought about his politics, was qualified. So was Johnson and so was Nelson Rockefeller. In 1964, you could have picked any flavor of candidate and know that he could do the job. Goldwater was also articulate, lucid, consistent -- obviously not to the taste of the US public since he lost in a crushing landslide, but he was qualified. He could find the light switches and pull the levers of government. With his approach to USSR, I'm sure he knew where the nuke buttons were located.

And to something Andre said, business skills are not transferable to government -- at least not entirely. Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit. If Russia decides to deploy missiles, and you don't like it, you can't just buy your way out of it. The deal might involve blowing-up a continent and not just walking away from a profit, paying more or declaring bankruptcy. In some respects, a businessman is the last person you want for diplomatic tasks. You would be better off with a psychologist, anthropologist or an ethnologist -- or even a political science professor.

-- Jay Beattie

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:34:24 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/13/2017 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2017 9:07 AM, Duane wrote:
On 13/02/2017 8:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2017 5:14 AM, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-8, Andre
Jute wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 9:46:09 PM UTC,

wrote:
Tim and Andrew, your arguments are "result-oriented";
i.e., you like
the fact that the Supreme Court has arrogated the
authority to
decide the
constitutionality of acts by the other two branches of
government, so
you therefore approve of that usurpation of power. But
that is a
totally different inquiry than the question of whether
or not the
framers of the Constitution intended the USSC to have
that power. What
if the USSC does something unconstitutional; what is
the remedy? Why
is there only a remedy if the executive or the
legislative branch acts
unconstitutionally, but not the judiciary? That
really tilts the
playing field in favor of judicial power. Remember,
when the USSC
invents or vindicates certain rights that you think
are important,
they
are restricting someone else's rights, and if you give
the USSC more
power than it is entitled to, someday it will be your
rights that
are restricted.

Andrew Muzi is big enough to speak for himself, but I
don't think he'll
agree you've rendered his position accurately.

About controlling the judges, in theory at least,
Congress can impeach
any Federal judge and rescind his appointment. But in
practice that has
happened probably less than a couple of handful of
times, and always
for
reasons of corruption or patent incompetence
(drunkenness? -- I'm
giving
you all this from memory because I need to be on my
treadmill, so the
net's copout IIRC applies) rather than for the betrayal
of the
Constitution, which in our time is so common as hardly
to attract
comment. You'd better look it up, to be sure, but,
again from memory,
the procedure is that one of the houses of Congress
impeaches the
judge,
there is a trial with the well of the house of Congress
turned into a
bar (not that kind!), and the executive, meaning the
President, must
sign off on the recommendation to dismiss the judge,
something like
that. Jay will probably know offhand.

In the present tense atmosphere with the Democrats
intent not on
governing but on obstruction, an impeachment would
surely be a circus.

The Ninth Circuit either had second thoughts in its
more sensible
levels, or foolishly decided to support the three
foolish judges who so
hugely extended their own area of (in)competence, with
a call to review
the most recent judgement en banc, which I haven't seen
noted in this
thread yet. If that happens and backtracks on the
recent unfortunate
and
disgraceful judicial shenanigans, all this talk of
impeachments will
become moot. That may be the motive behind the en banc
call.

I haven't looked up the procedure, but yes, Congress can
impeach SC
justices. However, we usually just kill them off
secretly, like with
Scali
.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...scalias-death/




Someone has to be the referee, and it's not going to be
the players. If
the SC declares a statute unconstitutional, Congress can
simply pass
another. If the SC issues an opinion requiring federal
or state action,
the federal or state governments can simply not act.
The SC doesn't
have
an enforcement arm. Really, you need to be wary of any
government where
the final arbiter of what is or is not legal has
soldiers, tanks and
oodles of war materiel. Again, as a nation, we have
agreed among
ourselves that the relatively toothless judicial branch
lead by a dozen
egg-heads should make the call as to what is or is not
legal.

Cases can go en bank only to produce the same result but
with a dissent
or two. It can also mean reversal in part. I don't
think the judges are
dopes or foolish or any of those epithets. I don't
think they're that
political, either. The order has problems, but I think
the full court
might allow some portion of it to go ahead -- but not
all of it.
Keep in
mind that three courts have held the order to be
unconstitutional in
some
respect. It wasn't just the USDC WD Washington. That
was just the
first
ruling to make it to a Circuit Court of Appeals.

-- Jay Beattie.



I don't think they would have upheld the stay so readily
if Trump hadn't
have been running his mouth constantly about banning
Muslims. Yes I know
it's not a ban. Excuse me for quoting him. Giuliani's
quotes didn't
help
either with respect to intent. Nor his lawyers claiming
this was beyond
the court's oversight. Maybe Donald can fire them all.

Anyway the 3 judges didn't rule on anything except that
the temporary ban
on the ban would stay.


Continuing the theme. 'a pox on both their houses', the
order was poorly
drafted, the US solicitor was embarrassingly unprepared,
the Washington
judge was no better, the Ninth decision brought in quite
fanciful
arguments without once citing the enabling statute. DJT
running his
mouth and the loony left lighting their own hair on fire
isn't helpful
to calm deliberation of a serious issue[1].

And you wonder why your average citizen thinks 'none of
the above' is a
reasonable choice.

[1] I am not a genius,. There's probably a workable answer
between 7
billion new immigrants arriving to claim relief while
waging jihad here
and a closed garrison state, neither of which is going to
happen. I have
no idea what that answer might be.


Neither do I but I can see what the answer can't be and it
can't be that people that don't know what they're doing have
full control without respect to the balances of power.

So, except for the administrative State, our various elected putzes and
the senile emotional judiciary we're otherwise OK?

Nope. There's still the vast crowd that thinks anyone with an ethnicity
different from theirs must be excluded or battled as a potential
terrorist. And of course, there's the paranoid fringe.

One guy I knew passed away leaving a sort of strategic problem. He was
so convinced that "they" (Blacks? Muslims? Limp-wristed liberals? Black
helicopters?) were going to attack en masse that he accumulated a huge
(huge!) collection of heavy-duty arms, ammunition and who-knows-what-else.

Now his widow is fretting about how to safely sell off the stuff. She
and the cops are fearful that if the word gets out about the size of the
arsenal, that _real_ bad guys are going to break in and haul the stuff
off. The result would be some serious cop-killing firepower out on the
streets. Supposedly it's enough to supply an unregulated militia.

He's gone, and I trust this specific problem case will be solved. But
he was far from alone in his paranoia and obsession.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Haha nor was she. Sarah Winchester

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:15:16 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:

Minor detail: the mot widely accepted acronym for the Supreme Court of
the United States is SCOTUS. Many of your readers will be puzzled by
USSC, which sounds like you are talking about college football.

United States Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/

On 2/15/2017 2:27 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:15:16 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:

Minor detail: the mot widely accepted acronym for the Supreme Court of
the United States is SCOTUS. Many of your readers will be puzzled by
USSC, which sounds like you are talking about college football.

United States Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/


They're also not so affectionately known as The Supremes.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 7:34:45 PM UTC, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 2/10/17 5:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:

Right. Ignore the judge and kill thousands of Cherokees.

--
Wes Groleau

Careful, Wes. Liz Warren claims to be a Cherokee. It is probably a Federal offense to wish a senator ill. -- AJ

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:24:12 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2017 2:27 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:15:16 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:

Minor detail: the mot widely accepted acronym for the Supreme Court of
the United States is SCOTUS. Many of your readers will be puzzled by
USSC, which sounds like you are talking about college football.

United States Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/


They're also not so affectionately known as The Supremes.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

They weren't even good enough to be a backing group. Mind you, they were a lot more musical than today's rappers. -- AJ

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 3:17:57 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 11:10:50 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2017 12:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2017 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/14/2017 11:56 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:30:16 +0700, John B
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:54:28 -0600, AMuzi
wrote:

On 2/12/2017 2:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:16:02 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

I thoght that USAians were fed up with the Democrats
and were VERY
fearful of H.R. Clinton and there even though many
didn't care for
Trump they voted for him as being a lesser evil than
H.R. Clinton.
= much like many here in Canada voted for Trudeau
Junior ONLY
because they wanted Harper out no matter what.

We're fed up with everyone in office, no matter who
they are, what
party they belong to and no matter what they do. What
we don't get
is that it's our own damn fault for electing idiots.
Seriously,
there are people in legislative, judicial and
executive offices who
are overtly psychotic, sociopaths and/or both. And a
lot of them.

I think there was little to no fear of HRC; I think
there was a lot
of hatred. The election of Donald Trump was a sign of
the deep
disrespect that nearly half of Americans have for our
government-
even the notion of government itself.


+1 Hey, Tim, I fully agree with you. (in fact I replied
similarly)


But I don't believe that this is simply a modern
phenomena. Read a bit
of U.S. history. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Aaron
Burr, all were
hated. Even George Washington was viewed with some
suspicion for a
time.

Yes, or at least not exclusively modern nor exclusively
American. These
trends in the public sentiment ebb and flow.

Sometimes principled and rational people (on either side
of the aisle)
are in charge and sometimes the nuts (on either side of
the aisle) are
in charge.


Trouble is, you never really know.

And the "truth" is so often in the eye of the beholder.



Fifty years later maybe.
In real time I think one just never knows.

One does know in real-time whether a candidate has the basic skills necessary to do the job. We have never before elected a president who has not been in the military or government. Goldwater, whatever you might have thought about his politics, was qualified. So was Johnson and so was Nelson Rockefeller. In 1964, you could have picked any flavor of candidate and know that he could do the job. Goldwater was also articulate, lucid, consistent -- obviously not to the taste of the US public since he lost in a crushing landslide, but he was qualified. He could find the light switches and pull the levers of government. With his approach to USSR, I'm sure he knew where the nuke buttons were located.

And to something Andre said, business skills are not transferable to government -- at least not entirely. Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit. If Russia decides to deploy missiles, and you don't like it, you can't just buy your way out of it. The deal might involve blowing-up a continent and not just walking away from a profit, paying more or declaring bankruptcy. In some respects, a businessman is the last person you want for diplomatic tasks. You would be better off with a psychologist, anthropologist or an ethnologist -- or even a political science professor.

-- Jay Beattie

no question. slum lord

goo.gl/PpfNzT

great map

1964 AZ was not on TV. Now AZ is not on the beach.

BG could say 'rain tomorrow' and an easterner would hear ?

interesting as the day has passed, we look back to BG n see how the west was won. and not by slum lords as McCain may agree

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 8:17:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

And to something Andre said, business skills are not transferable to government -- at least not entirely. Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit. If Russia decides to deploy missiles, and you don't like it, you can't just buy your way out of it. The deal might involve blowing-up a continent and not just walking away from a profit, paying more or declaring bankruptcy. In some respects, a businessman is the last person you want for diplomatic tasks. You would be better off with a psychologist, anthropologist or an ethnologist -- or even a political science professor.

-- Jay Beattie

I'm one of those psychologists you mention, and an economist, and I practised both skills at the cutting edge of business, in a business that is probably the only more Darwinian rat****ery than property development, and I must tell you that the leaders of their nations that I've advised on four of the five continents were probably interchangeable with the business leaders I've advised, except that the businessmen were smarter. Hal Geneen, said almost universally to be one of the great businessmen of the previous century (and a benefactor to me), was once told by someone from his hotels group as the car passed the monument, "That's the Colosseum, Mr Geneen." He looked up, mistook the remark for a suggestion that it should be turned into a hotel, glanced around the back of the car at our faces for support for the notion, found none, ruled, "It'll cost too much to restore," and dropped his eyes again to the spreadsheet on his lap, moving my finger, which had slid as I looked up, to the exact point where he was interrupted in his perusal of the numbers. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Geneen could have walked into the Oval Office and taken over the management of the nation in an instant and proven more competent than any President since World War II, with the obvious exceptions of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Geneen wasn't the only one. Chuck Bluhdorn, Robert Holmes a Court, Rupert Murdoch, many more would do a brilliant job. In every single case it would be the easiest job they ever held, because there is so much help: two houses of Congress, the judiciary, established bureaucracies, lots of experienced executives vying for appointments running these bureaucracies, platoons of high-quality advisors.

Government and diplomacy are not rational markets motivated by profit.

I laughed aloud when I read that. Whenever I've taught, I always open by stating the principles of economics (a presumption of rationality in everyone involved in everyday life) even to doctoral aspirants and postdocs, adding, "That's just the normative case [what should be, if everything were to be rational, as opposed to what is]. In reality, the madhouse is all around us, and the greatest virtue in the Darwinian competition of life is unpredictability." Your premise simply doesn't conform to real life experience, Jay..

I don't know what Mr Trump studied at college, but that was surely the last time he was involved in a rational market, however notional. The vicious irrationality of dealing with the building trades and their unions is a far better preparation for Mr Trump to govern, especially internationally, than any military service would be, or any government bureaucratic service. What made Reagan the victor of the Cold War wasn't his fine administrative experience in the actors' unions or in Sacramento, or his diplomatic charm, but his gambler's instinct frightening the **** out of the Kremlin.

Andre Jute
It's not recklessness that will get us all killed, it is wishful thinking