OT Travel Ban Ruling

On 2/10/2017 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Nuts on a Bench.

Nuts on a Bench was Korematsu and Dred Scott.

The panel faults the EO for being over-broad and refuses to re-write it. The court didn't do what I thought it might -- strike down part of the TRO and uphold the rest, e.g. allow the part of the EO that deals with immigrants with no ties to the US.

The Donald could always fix the EO, tighten it up and re-issue it. He doesn't even need an EO. He can be like Carter and just issue a proclamation or directive to DHS/Attorney General. He has an Attorney General now, so why not use him. Instead of tweeting, he could just pick up the phone and actually do what presidents do: formulate policy with his cabinet. He should skip the flourishes and get down to work. But he would never skip a fight because, as we know, he won in a yuge landslide victory, etc., etc., etc. His people want him to fight! Go Donald, Go!

-- Jay Beattie.

It's more complicated than that, Jay. Here's an analysis by a thoughtful lawyer who has been following this closely, David French, who calls it "a dangerous ruling":
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ling-dangerous
But you don't need Mr French's explanation to grasp that under these bench-made rules, which French lists, the President will not be able to perform one of his functions, national security. Mr Trump will have to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or bypass it effectively as you suggest.

The one thing Mr Trump cannot do is let it pass.

Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...did-much-worse

Andre Jute
The judges were always on my side. But the politicians who wanted to kill me were tiresome.

You should broaden your horizons beyond the National Review. Amazingly, though, French and I mostly agree:

"So, what should the administration do? It should think long and hard — especially given its own considerable mistakes — before galloping to the Supreme Court. Victory is far from assured, and a tie in the eight-member Court would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s dreadful decision. Rather than risk making terrible law, perhaps the administration should redraft its order, lay the proper foundation, and fight from higher ground. This fight goes beyond the politics of the moment and could impact national security for years to come. If it continues in confusion and haste, the administration may well lose more than a news cycle. If the administration slows down, it increases the chance of victory and of preserving important presidential prerogatives."

Re-draft the F'n order. Pretty simple. Back and fill, create a record to support the order. Done.

It's like Trump has one tool -- a screw driver -- and keeps trying to use it as a hammer, wrench and drill. There are other tools that will get the job done. He needs to learn what's in his tool kit. This is what happens when you elect some guy who has never even been on a school board.

-- Jay Beattie.




Well done, Jay, +1.

Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

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

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:59:18 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Nuts on a Bench.

Nuts on a Bench was Korematsu and Dred Scott.

The panel faults the EO for being over-broad and refuses to re-write it. The court didn't do what I thought it might -- strike down part of the TRO and uphold the rest, e.g. allow the part of the EO that deals with immigrants with no ties to the US.

The Donald could always fix the EO, tighten it up and re-issue it. He doesn't even need an EO. He can be like Carter and just issue a proclamation or directive to DHS/Attorney General. He has an Attorney General now, so why not use him. Instead of tweeting, he could just pick up the phone and actually do what presidents do: formulate policy with his cabinet. He should skip the flourishes and get down to work. But he would never skip a fight because, as we know, he won in a yuge landslide victory, etc., etc., etc. His people want him to fight! Go Donald, Go!

-- Jay Beattie.

It's more complicated than that, Jay. Here's an analysis by a thoughtful lawyer who has been following this closely, David French, who calls it "a dangerous ruling":
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ling-dangerous
But you don't need Mr French's explanation to grasp that under these bench-made rules, which French lists, the President will not be able to perform one of his functions, national security. Mr Trump will have to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or bypass it effectively as you suggest..

The one thing Mr Trump cannot do is let it pass.

Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...did-much-worse

Andre Jute
The judges were always on my side. But the politicians who wanted to kill me were tiresome.

You should broaden your horizons beyond the National Review. Amazingly, though, French and I mostly agree:

"So, what should the administration do? It should think long and hard — especially given its own considerable mistakes — before galloping to the Supreme Court. Victory is far from assured, and a tie in the eight-member Court would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s dreadful decision. Rather than risk making terrible law, perhaps the administration should redraft its order, lay the proper foundation, and fight from higher ground. This fight goes beyond the politics of the moment and could impact national security for years to come. If it continues in confusion and haste, the administration may well lose more than a news cycle. If the administration slows down, it increases the chance of victory and of preserving important presidential prerogatives."

Re-draft the F'n order. Pretty simple. Back and fill, create a record to support the order. Done.

It's like Trump has one tool -- a screw driver -- and keeps trying to use it as a hammer, wrench and drill. There are other tools that will get the job done. He needs to learn what's in his tool kit. This is what happens when you elect some guy who has never even been on a school board.

-- Jay Beattie.

Well done, Jay. You should watch out, or they'll elect you to the school board.

I started reading National Review, which previously I dismissed as a Catholic-conservative sheet (I knew Bill Buckley in a distant sort of way, back in the day when he was the establishment and I was a rebel (1) in Savile Row pinstripes operating out Madison Avenue), because it is the only journal with any respect for the facts, and discovered that most of its contributors not only have sensible opinions but are good writers as well.

Andre Jute
Georges Clemenceau predicted it

(1) Nation Review, for which I wrote back in the 1970s, shouldn't be confused with Buckley's National Review. Nation Review was well to the left of centre, and its tone was satirical and iconoclastic; you can't get further from Buckley's gravitas than Nation Review and still be on this planet.

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:28:16 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2017 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Nuts on a Bench.

Nuts on a Bench was Korematsu and Dred Scott.

The panel faults the EO for being over-broad and refuses to re-write it. The court didn't do what I thought it might -- strike down part of the TRO and uphold the rest, e.g. allow the part of the EO that deals with immigrants with no ties to the US.

The Donald could always fix the EO, tighten it up and re-issue it. He doesn't even need an EO. He can be like Carter and just issue a proclamation or directive to DHS/Attorney General. He has an Attorney General now, so why not use him. Instead of tweeting, he could just pick up the phone and actually do what presidents do: formulate policy with his cabinet. He should skip the flourishes and get down to work. But he would never skip a fight because, as we know, he won in a yuge landslide victory, etc., etc., etc. His people want him to fight! Go Donald, Go!

-- Jay Beattie.

It's more complicated than that, Jay. Here's an analysis by a thoughtful lawyer who has been following this closely, David French, who calls it "a dangerous ruling":
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ling-dangerous
But you don't need Mr French's explanation to grasp that under these bench-made rules, which French lists, the President will not be able to perform one of his functions, national security. Mr Trump will have to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or bypass it effectively as you suggest.

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
SNipped
Well done, Jay, +1.

Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

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

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.

Cheers

conservative politicians groups and professional problem solving analysis are


DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED


we sold 279 TAKE THE PEDESTRIAN T's today

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:28:17 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/10/2017 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Nuts on a Bench.

Nuts on a Bench was Korematsu and Dred Scott.

The panel faults the EO for being over-broad and refuses to re-write it. The court didn't do what I thought it might -- strike down part of the TRO and uphold the rest, e.g. allow the part of the EO that deals with immigrants with no ties to the US.

The Donald could always fix the EO, tighten it up and re-issue it. He doesn't even need an EO. He can be like Carter and just issue a proclamation or directive to DHS/Attorney General. He has an Attorney General now, so why not use him. Instead of tweeting, he could just pick up the phone and actually do what presidents do: formulate policy with his cabinet. He should skip the flourishes and get down to work. But he would never skip a fight because, as we know, he won in a yuge landslide victory, etc., etc., etc. His people want him to fight! Go Donald, Go!

-- Jay Beattie.

It's more complicated than that, Jay. Here's an analysis by a thoughtful lawyer who has been following this closely, David French, who calls it "a dangerous ruling":
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ling-dangerous
But you don't need Mr French's explanation to grasp that under these bench-made rules, which French lists, the President will not be able to perform one of his functions, national security. Mr Trump will have to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or bypass it effectively as you suggest.

The one thing Mr Trump cannot do is let it pass.

Andrew Jackson knew how to deal with obstreperous judges:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...did-much-worse

Andre Jute
The judges were always on my side. But the politicians who wanted to kill me were tiresome.

You should broaden your horizons beyond the National Review. Amazingly, though, French and I mostly agree:

"So, what should the administration do? It should think long and hard — especially given its own considerable mistakes — before galloping to the Supreme Court. Victory is far from assured, and a tie in the eight-member Court would uphold the Ninth Circuit’s dreadful decision. Rather than risk making terrible law, perhaps the administration should redraft its order, lay the proper foundation, and fight from higher ground. This fight goes beyond the politics of the moment and could impact national security for years to come. If it continues in confusion and haste, the administration may well lose more than a news cycle. If the administration slows down, it increases the chance of victory and of preserving important presidential prerogatives."

Re-draft the F'n order. Pretty simple. Back and fill, create a record to support the order. Done.

It's like Trump has one tool -- a screw driver -- and keeps trying to use it as a hammer, wrench and drill. There are other tools that will get the job done. He needs to learn what's in his tool kit. This is what happens when you elect some guy who has never even been on a school board.

-- Jay Beattie.




Well done, Jay, +1.

Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

Well, why shouldn't he be elected. after all he is going to raise your
salary to $15.00 and hour; he is going to create jobs so your no-good
brother-in-law can get a job and he is going to get rid of the Wogs,
Gooks and Beaners so the U.S. can enjoy 100% employment and he is
going to "get" them Chinks over there across the sea.

What more could one ask of a president?

(Winston Churchill once said that "the greatest argument against
democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/10/2017 5:16 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
SNipped
Well done, Jay, +1.

Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

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

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.

Cheers


All last year I listened to people across every imaginable
spectrum and their disappointment/frustration/disgust with
HRC, both major parties, the civil service and nearly every
institution of our culture. DJT is literally 'none of the
above', hence the election results.

Lately I'm hearing a lot of anti-Republican complaints
especially as regards the House having done exactly nothing
so far. Paul Ryan being relatively local, these
conversations are full of invective. One might say, as Jay
did above, that Mr Ryan's job is like herding cats but that
didn't stop Nancy Pelosi from subjecting the nation to
something she had to pass to see what the law required (! I
paraphrase but she really said that). Even then, it took
several contortions of rules and laws to get it through both
chambers and even then ACA had to be rewritten from the
bench. And _still_ it is not repealed -oy! This is but one
issue, there are hundreds and each citizen has a litany now.
The anger is palpable and poorly concealed.

It's not only national. In this afternoon's news, the
Illinois House, having not passed a constitutionally
mandated budget for two years, found time to get behind HR30
making October Zombie Preparedness Month. The State is
broke, their bonds are worthless, there's not enough money
on earth for the on- and off-book pension obligations, homes
for disabled and elderly don't get paid and yet zombies.
When I mentioned that this frustration goes straight down to
school boards I was not exaggerating.

Mr Trump was not my first or second or 3d choice but I
completely understood his broad appeal. That said, I was
amazed on the morning of 10 November.

As regards Canada, you're on your own there. I can't explain it.

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

Andy

we won by 3.5 million votes

from illegal Bolivian marmot herders living outside Cincinnati

Canada is above Rt 8 Canada isnot a country.

who told you Canada is a country ?

I spoke with rump voters. They are filled with hate n mostly retarded

HRC is an administrative team drawn from Oville. This is way too complex for the above. However they can add 2+2 n arrive at 4 so there's some distrust in the hinterlands.

we saved your economy if not for us you'd starve this winter.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
SNipped
Well done, Jay, +1.

Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

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

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.



Not all. Not even most.

--
duane

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:04:38 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/10/2017 5:16 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
SNipped
Well done, Jay, +1.

Sadly, most USAians have a passing familiarity with school
boards, hence the election of Donald J Trump.

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

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.

Cheers


All last year I listened to people across every imaginable
spectrum and their disappointment/frustration/disgust with
HRC, both major parties, the civil service and nearly every
institution of our culture. DJT is literally 'none of the
above', hence the election results.

Lately I'm hearing a lot of anti-Republican complaints
especially as regards the House having done exactly nothing
so far. Paul Ryan being relatively local, these
conversations are full of invective. One might say, as Jay
did above, that Mr Ryan's job is like herding cats but that
didn't stop Nancy Pelosi from subjecting the nation to
something she had to pass to see what the law required (! I
paraphrase but she really said that). Even then, it took
several contortions of rules and laws to get it through both
chambers and even then ACA had to be rewritten from the
bench. And _still_ it is not repealed -oy! This is but one
issue, there are hundreds and each citizen has a litany now.
The anger is palpable and poorly concealed.

It's not only national. In this afternoon's news, the
Illinois House, having not passed a constitutionally
mandated budget for two years, found time to get behind HR30
making October Zombie Preparedness Month. The State is
broke, their bonds are worthless, there's not enough money
on earth for the on- and off-book pension obligations, homes
for disabled and elderly don't get paid and yet zombies.
When I mentioned that this frustration goes straight down to
school boards I was not exaggerating.

Does any state do a good job (not a rhetorical question)? Is there a model of behavior states could follow? Utah seems to have it together, mostly. https://www.alec.org/article/state-of-the-state-utah/. And its not an entirely cruel place. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.700d6318b802

Maybe we should all be Mormen and Morwomen. Really, though, I'd consider SLC but for the incredible smog during winter. Spend more time on my skis.

Slovenia is also supposed to be nice, and they have fairy castles.

By the way, the bit about Nancy Pelosi not understanding ACA -- I can believe that. Unless she were on the sub-committee that actually worked on the bill, I wouldn't expert her to know much more than the Reader's Digest version -- particularly since it would have no effect on her personally. A few wonks outside the committees probably analyzed it more depth, but the vast majority reduced it to sound-bites. Try giving most legislators a pop quiz on any complicated statute -- the alternative minimum tax or tariffs on inner-tubes. "Quick, someone hand me a baby to kiss!"

-- Jay Beattie.



-- Jay Beattie.