December 4, 2017

"The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries."

"The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September," AP reports.

The dissenters were Sotomayor and Ginsburg.

The cases are still at the circuit court level, and these courts must hear oral argument and reach decisions.

108 comments:

eric said...

7-2, eh? I gotta feelin.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

The President and the Executive branch control the borders, following the law passed by Congress.

Courts must also follow law and respect separation of powers.

I know. Crazy talk.

Gahrie said...

There is a long history of the United States banning travel and immigration from certain countries. For example in 1920 we banned immigration from Japan, and severely limited immigration from Europe.

n.n said...

Increased scrutiny of immigration reform in nations where people have principled alignment with terrorist factions is positive progress.

MadisonMan said...

Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

I'm kinda curious how many people have entered the USA from these 6 countries in the past year. I see that travel.trade.gov has that information, but sells it. I'm not so curious as to want to spend money!

WisRich said...

Hawaii Judge reaction to ruling: "The hell with SCOTUS. I'm the law!"

Inga said...

Add Saudi Arabia to the list. Where did the 9/11 terrorists come from?

AJ Lynch said...

Sanity at last.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

"The dissenters were Sotomayor and Ginsburg."

Really? There's a surprise. LOL. La SeƱora and I both assumed they would be the dissenters. Who would not assume that?

Christopher said...

The federal judge in Hawaii has done more damage to the rule of law in this nation than anything Trump has proposed; nobody believes those rulings are based upon anything but a hatred for the president.

The only thing they've achieved is putting the lie to the belief in an apolitical judiciary.

campy said...

How dare the court normalize the orange-haired usurper like that!

Owen said...

How long did this take? How much money and lawyer-hours did it take?

Value added?

Can we bill the lower courts for their genius brave thumb-in-the-Donald's-eye gestures here?

Ray said...

The Saudis are our friends! They say so all the time.

And questioning that sounds like Islamophobic behavior, and that is wrong think per CAIR.

>Add Saudi Arabia to the list. Where did the 9/11 terrorists come from?

Francisco D said...

Kagan and Breyer are the only two liberal justices to have ever read the US Constitution. Once in a while they try to follow it. This was their once in a while moment.

Inga must be depressed. Legal reasoning intrudes on her fantasy world.

dbp said...

A plain reading of the relevant law made it obvious that Trump had this power. I am somewhat surprised at the judges who would risk professional ridicule in finding against the Trump admin on this.

Rick said...

I am somewhat surprised at the judges who would risk professional ridicule in finding against the Trump admin on this.

What chance? Even the other lawyers who realize they are wrong understand why. Most will grade them up, the few who don't will never control any meaningful institution which might matter to the judge.

Big Mike said...

Not a wise decision by the self-identified wise Latina.

Drago said...

Inga: "Add Saudi Arabia to the list. Where did the 9/11 terrorists come from?"

Can't. It would cause all the lefties, just like you, as well as your LLR allies to scream "Muslim Ban"!!1!!11!eleventy!

Or is that now ANOTHER thing you don't remember all your lefty pals saying/doing?

After all, your pals did that more than 15 minutes ago so its possible your History Reset Algorithm was triggered again.

Darrell said...

Where did the 9/11 terrorists come from?

The last I heard, three years ago or so, we don't know who they really were or where they came from. When the FBI collected DNA from family members of they names we had, none matched the recovered DNA of the terrorists. When jihadis arrive in a war zone, leaders collect passports so that the "recruits" can't take off on their own. Terrorist leaders have quite a collection going back to the Afghan/Russia war, through the Bosnian conflict, the First Iraq/Kuwait war and the second Gulf war. And that's not counting the passports that were run off by the Iraqis in Kuwait and by Saddam himself. And pure counterfeits. Someday, the right DNA may wind up in the system and we'll know who they were. But not today.

Ralph L said...

The whole point of the ban was to stop terrorists from slipping into this country before better (i.e., not Obama's) vetting of visitors could be put in place. That was lost by the first idiot judge at the behest of Democratic fools/traitors, who would rather Americans be murdered than Trump succeed.

Chuck said...

WisRich said...
Hawaii Judge reaction to ruling: "The hell with SCOTUS. I'm the law!"

Actually, that's what Roy Moore did from an Alabama state court bench. He did it twice, and was professionally disciplined (and universally condemned in the legal community, from liberals and conservatives alike) for doing that.

Sebastian said...

Hey, if they keep going like this, they might even decide at some point that there can be no obstruction of justice when there is no justice to be obstructed.

Sebastian said...

"was professionally disciplined" Unlike the prog judges. Which is how you get more Moore.

n.n said...

Legal reasoning intrudes on her fantasy world.

The twilight fringe, where morality, laws, and virtually everything is processed under the Pro-Choice doctrine (i.e. selective, unprincipled, and opportunistic).

Gk1 said...

Liberals are bench slapped again. Gee, I wonder if this will have a sobering effect on the lower courts reviewing the travel ban challenge? Since its the wicky-wacky 9th "Circus" I'm thinking not.

Bay Area Guy said...

Legally, such an easy decision. Congress passed the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1952, which gave the President nearly unlimited authority to restriction immigration.

Politically, of course, the folks who believe in open borders didn't like the President's Executive Order. I didn't like some of President Obama's Executive Orders. So what?

Dislike doesn't make something unconstitutional.

The Left conflates the two - often. Then, they sue.

Chuck said...

Does TrumpWorld somehow regard this as a personal victory for Trump?

This order -- which is version 3.1 of the Trump Administration's various attempts at immigration orders, right? -- is a million miles away from Trump's original bluster about "a ban on all Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on..."

Trump's critics assailed him for that statement, and declared that no such order could ever pass muster in a federal court. Trump's critics were right. Only after competent mainstream Republican lawyers grabbed the Trump Team by the scruff of the neck and forced a much more modest, reasonable tailored order, was language crafted that would survive a court review. If, that is, this order ultimately survives review.

And in the process, which is still ongoing, Trump himself just made it all the more difficult for his lawyers to uphold a principle with which I strongly agree, which is that the Executive has near-plenary power to order specific immigration enforcement methods under existing law. Trump made their work more difficult with his incessant stream of idiotic Tweets and dumb statements.

Drago said...

Good old LLR Chuck. Keeping that 100% alignment with Lefty talking points and deflection humming along.

Obvious conclusions may be drawn.

n.n said...

Ginsburg is a conservative under the progressive constitution of South Africa, which was the first constitution to establish institutional diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) and redistributive change (because the Jews have too much), as the highest law in the land. This following the left's opening of an abortion field that targeted the native population and blacks who competed with the Mandela faction.

Sotomayor is party to Hispanic diversity, which seeks to segregate this nation along color and language lines, and is the second most diverse (i.e. racist) class in this nation after progressive liberals (who deny individual dignity and intrinsic value of human life).

Chuck said...

Sebastian said...
"was professionally disciplined" Unlike the prog judges. Which is how you get more Moore.

Wait; which "progressive" judge acted in defiance of a higher court? Which "progressive" judge effectively said that she or he would not follow an appellate order because it was in defiance of God's law?

In other words, name a "progressive" judge who did what Moore did. And don't even think of starting with the US District judges in Hawaii and Washington and Detroit and DC and San Francisco (and others, right?) who ruled against the early Trump immigration orders, because none of them ever took the position that they would defy superior court orders. They were trial courts, presented with cases of first impression, and they ruled. Then it went up on appeal. That's it.

Drago said...

If you thought Chuckie was going to allow criticism of insanely politicized lefty judges to go unchallenged, he quickly disabused you of that notion!

Ynexpectedly!

narciso said...

Yes it was not a complete ban, but you know the freekout they had over this modest pause.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck defending the lefty politicized judges.

Did. Not. See. That. Coming.

Lol

Birches said...

Only two dissents. Of course it was Sotomayor and Ginsberg. Of course.

Drago said...

The best part of the Supremes ruling is how they told Chucks beloved lefty activist judges to go on a "time out" with these lower court "rulings".

And the fact that Chucks beloveds have been smacked down is sweet music to the ears of those tiring of these little lefty power grabs.

Not to worry though, our "Bowe Bergdahl republican" will figure out some new way to defend these lefty activists on the bench.

I cant wait to see what Chuckie pulls out of his "Laurence Tribe"-like hat next!

Chuck said...

Althouse, I am copying this so that President-Mom-Jeans can't remove it while I make the following complaint:

President-Mom-Jeans said...
I'll be pleased when Ginsberg croaks. Also when Lifelong Cucks who always seem to be taking the side of lefties and democrats accidentally while pretending to be lawyers and Republicans shake loose the moral coil.

Some people say its not nice to celebrate the death of people, even if they are horrible. Some people are pussies.


So I came onto this page, and directly addressed the topic being blogged. I didn't mention any of your commenters. I criticized Trump. Criticism squarely within the subject at hand. The nature of the immigration orders and the litigation of them.

Then, as if on cue, some of your Trump-loving commenters attack me personally. Violating your long-stated and rarely-enforced rules for commenting. This one claims, however obliquely, that I have lied about being a practicing lawyer and then wishes death upon me. Charming.

What a cesspit your comment pages have become, in the era of Trump.

Jim at said...

Does TrumpWorld somehow regard this as a personal victory for Trump?

If SCOTUS ruled the opposite, would you regard this as a personal defeat for Trump?
Of course you would.

Stop being so dishonest. You're not fooling anybody.

Bay Area Guy said...

There is a political battle between two groups: Group A wants to expand immigration, while
Group B wants to restrict immigration.

We had an election. A member of Group B won. And he tried to restrict immigration, duh.

So, what does Group A do? They forum shop to find stupid, unelected, leftwing District Court judges to impose Group A's policy preference on us. Well, screw that.

Most important policy and political decisions are NOT made by judges. They are made by Legislatures and enforced by the Prez. Restricting immigration from countries that harbor Islamic terrorists is a no-brainer idea and policy decision.


Drago said...

I dont blame Chuck for being a bit testy.

He was so fired up by Brian Ross' ("layers of fact checkers) false reporting and Joy Behars reaction that he got his hopes way up there again. Like golden showers "up there".

Alas.

And now the supremes smack down lefty judges and the Senate passed the tax bill on which is on its way to conference.

On top of that, Trump has rolled back regulations and is governing in a more conservative manner than anyone since Reagan.

All of that inevitably leads to Chuckie distress.

Chuck, you'll always have Inga.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "Then, as if on cue, ..."

Its almost as if Chucks continuous siding with the far left causes people to notice he is siding with the far left.

Inexplicable!

Drago said...

Who can forget that part of Anns post that called out Judge Moore.....oh right.

But Chuck did. While providing cover to lawless leftist activists on the bench.

Unexpectedly.

Dave Begley said...

RBG will never retire. She will die at her desk. What a partisan.

brylun said...

Wow, I'm totally amazed that Breyer and Kagan were able to abandon the lefty posture and vote for what should absolutely be a clear rule of law. But not Ginsburg and Sotomayor, they are true lefties and have no respect at all for the rule of law.

Pookie Number 2 said...

And don't even think of starting with the US District judges in Hawaii and Washington and Detroit and DC and San Francisco (and others, right?) who ruled against the early Trump immigration orders, because none of them ever took the position that they would defy superior court orders.

You're right, Chuck. They didn't do exactly what Moore did.

On the other hand, they did sacrifice their integrity to their Trump-hatred (we call that "pulling a Chuck"), and they ruled in explicit bad faith.

Amadeus 48 said...

So much winning!

Am I tired of so much winning? As Hillary would say in a deeply offensive accent, "Ah don't feel noways tahred!

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"The dissenters were Sotomayor and Ginsburg."

Nuffin says ya has ta understand the law as written in order ta be in the SCOTUS.

Ralph L said...

Big Mike said...
Not a wise decision by the self-identified wise Latina.
Traditional guy hardest hit.

Chuck said...

Pookie Number 2 said...
...
You're right, Chuck. They didn't do exactly what Moore did.

On the other hand, they did sacrifice their integrity to their Trump-hatred (we call that "pulling a Chuck"), and they ruled in explicit bad faith.

If the District Courts that took on the various claims opposing the first iterations of the Trump immigration orders were so wildly out of line and without basis in the law, and ruled "in explicit bad faith," then they'd have been quickly and easily appealed up through the Circuits to SCOTUS. And reversed on appeal. And in the process, if there had been any bad faith in any of those trial court rulings, the Circuit Courts could have done what they do in such cases which is to remand with an order for reassignment in the District. That never happened.

But mostly, the Circuits agreed with the trial courts in some of the cases. Moreover, and most important, the Trump Administration kept going back and (wisely) kept rewriting their orders. Doesn't that say more than anything about the legality of the early attempts?

MaxedOutMama said...

Chuck - well, you are trolling with the "Trumpworld" thang, aren't you? Take a look in the mirror. Anyway, assuming that was a serious question ...

Of course this is not a Muslim ban. It never was a Muslim ban. The first EO wasn't a Muslim ban. I don't know any Trump voters who ever EXPECTED a Muslim ban, and although I can't even imagine an actual Muslim ban being proposed, much less ordered, I definitely wouldn't support one.

But yes, this is a victory for Trump, because the SC could not have voted as it did if this WERE a Muslim ban. The victory for Trump is that individuals who are solely motivated by animus for Trump to make that claim will now either have to stop claiming that it was Muslim ban, or start persistently enlisting insistent people to resist the SC, which would be a lot of fun to watch. A WHOLE lot of fun.

For the country, which is what matters to me, it's a victory on two levels - we are slightly more secure, and perhaps we are a step nearer to debating actual issues instead of false ones. So far, despite my personal personality conflict with Trump, which is profound, I am very happy indeed with his administration and with what seems to be a more constitutional federal government, a much more feasible economic policy, and a much more realistic foreign policy. In short, I'm glad I voted as I did. I am still rather irked at both the Republican and Democratic insiders, who forced me and many other Americans to make this choice.

You are not spreading balm on my sores with regard to the DC insiders. Persist, and I may vote for Joe the Plumber next. You and your ilk are rapidly convincing me that almost any random individual could do a better political job than 90% of our elected federal officials and their accumulated bureaucratic barnacle population. I now want them all gone or nullified.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, if you're going to be that bad a prick, please start self-identifying as a Democrat.

Mac McConnell said...

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates,
"At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful...I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. For as long as I am the acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of th[is] executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so."

POTUS Trump's reply, YOU'RE FIRED!


Bad day for the Resistance.






Pookie Number 2 said...

Doesn't that say more than anything about the legality of the early attempts?

No. And if you had literally any shred of legal integrity at all, you'd acknowledge that. But you don't, and you won't.

That's why your comments earn only derision, even from people like me that don't particularly care for Trump. His accomplishments vastly outshine yours, while his enormous personal foibles pale compared to your relentless mendacity.

brylun said...

And in the process, if there had been any bad faith in any of those trial court rulings, the Circuit Courts could have done what they do in such cases which is to remand with an order for reassignment in the District.

Chuck, would you like to discuss this statement with respect to the 9th Circuit?

Francisco D said...

There is so much I want to say to Chuckles, but what is the purpose?

He gets way too much attention, which is exactly what he is looking for. I suspect that he hasn't had a truly intimate relationship in a while and he hopes to find something here.



brylun said...

I didn't think so.

brylun said...

Would you like to discuss your statement with respect to any Circuit Court other than the 9th Circuit?

Unknown said...

Quote from Chuck, earlier today:

Blogger Chuck said...
You nasty ignorant fuck heads; Trump isn't "supporting" Hatch in an ordinary re-election bid......

12/4/17, 11:58 AM

Quote from Chuck up above:

Blogger Chuck said...
Althouse, I am copying this so that President-Mom-Jeans can't remove it while I make the following complaint:

...
So I came onto this page, and directly addressed the topic being blogged. I didn't mention any of your commenters. I criticized Trump. Criticism squarely within the subject at hand. The nature of the immigration orders and the litigation of them.

Then, as if on cue, some of your Trump-loving commenters attack me personally. Violating your long-stated and rarely-enforced rules for commenting....
What a cesspit your comment pages have become, in the era of Trump.

12/4/17, 5:46 PM

Which position are we to assume is bad, Chuck? Is personally attacking other commentators right or wrong? I know the most vile attacks I have ever seen here, the most "Cesspool" language ever, is from you. No contest, hands down, it's from you. You'd better hope Ann doesn't start enforcing that rule, because you are the first one to go.

As for this topic, it's about time the Supremes smacked down a leftist judge.

--Vance

Gahrie said...

What a cesspit your comment pages have become, in the era of Trump.

You're right Chuckles...we don't deserve you!

So long and good luck...don't write.

Fabi said...

Leave Brittney alone! Leave her alone! Er, Chuck.

brylun said...

Earlier today when I looked up a list of Republicans who opposed Trump for President, I was a little amazed and startled that all the Bushies (except young George P. Bush) were opposed. It's almost as if on cue of W., H.W. and Jeb, the opposition to Trump crystallized among Bush patrons.

Thinking about this a little more, the Bush Dynasty continues to oppose Trump. By eliminating Trump they can again rise to their proper place and all the sycophants follow along in hopes of the spoils. Trump's success means an end to the Bush Dynasty and disfavor and banishment for their sycophants.

I think this explains Chuck.

mockturtle said...

Amadeus 48 writes: So much winning!

Am I tired of so much winning? As Hillary would say in a deeply offensive accent, "Ah don't feel noways tahred!


Beat me to it! I'm not sure I'll ever get tired of winning! :-)

Howard said...

Nice to see SCOTUS recognizing clear seperation of powers. I don't agree with the way the ban was done, eg it should apply to all ME countries, however, this type of action is obviously the prerogative of the CIC. The net effect is to lower the already low respect for the judiciary.

Drago said...

Howard, now is not the time for reasoned, rational and over the horizon thinking!

Chuck said...

Trump, calling for a "total and complete ban on Muslims entering the United States":

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4566084/donald-trummp-ban-muslim

He said it was common sense. That it had to be done.

But it was such a ridiculous proposal, it was never put into writing the way that Trump described it. After three tries, with progressively more moderating and careful terminology, so that it was no longer any sort of "ban on Muslims entering the United States," it survives this challenge so that it can be enforced while further litigation proceeds.

Most of the criticism of Trump when he made his original statement was proven true and valid. Trump never got close, to any sort of order that fulfilled his reckless original statement.

Drago said...

Chuckie doing his part to deflect from the lawless actions of his far left operational allies in the bench.

Wont work of course. Just like all the other lefty deflection tactics he employs, but there is something to be said for consistency.

Chuck and his lefty allies will simply have to go lefty judge shopping in another circuit.

Piece of cake!

Birkel said...

Chuck, so called fopdoodle, was wrong and now has two Supreme Court rulings to prove as much. Also, Chuck is a ****phobic name called whose opinions are consistent with Leftist Collectivists, but only 100% of the time.

The so called judges were partisans. They were not wrong, per se, as they never pretended rightness or legality was a concern.

Everybody who disagreed with Chuck was correct.

Fair summary?

MikeR said...

No, wait. I thought President Trump's lawlessness in trying to enforce this order was one of those impeachable offenses they're always talking about. Are you saying he might be right, and 7 out of 9 Justices thought so?

Birkel said...

No, MikeR. 9 out of 9 judges think a president has the power to do what Trump is doing.

Two of them think Trump does not have that power.

Math is required.

FIDO said...

How old is Ginsberg again? She is going to go down in history as either a lefty icon, but any objective lawyer is going to excoriate her attitude of using other foreign legal systems to cherry pick her desired outcome and at violating black letter law, not to mention actually campaigning with HRC.

Her and Hawaii Slim may be what breaks the social norm of respect for the judiciary.

And if that happens, well, 40% of the country will only follow the rulings of Judge Moore.

Is this somehow a better goal, Lefties?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Trump never got close, to any sort of order that fulfilled his reckless original statement.

A smarter man than Chuck (which probably includes the raccoon currently ransacking my trash cans) would recognize the political value in Trump's flaunting the rules of political correctness, and the eventual realization of better immigration controls than any other candidate could have achieved.

But Chuck remains very impressed with his unique discovery of Trump's non-literal manner of speaking, and can't quite figure out why people aren't impressed with his impenetrable self-regard.

MikeR said...

@Birkel +1

Birkel said...

Sotomayor and Ginsburg agree completely with Chuck, that Trump - of all presidents - lacks the ability to do that which is clearly within the power of the president based on the Constitution and statutory language.

Fabi said...

I wonder if Chuckie has ever negotiated a damned thing in his lonely life? When I start a negotiation, I ask for everything I want and a lot more -- just like Trump. Chuck starts by asking his lefty allies what they'd be willing to give him and then settles for less.

Birkel said...

Professional journalism has beclowned itself and lost a majority of the institutional value it had. This is true on both the Left (e.g. NYT, WaPo, Economist) and Right (e.g. National Review, Weekly Standard) and it is a valuable thing, this self-destruction.

The Congress has sacrificed its own institutional value to the presidency and the bureaucracy.

The courts, and in particular the Supreme Court, risk exactly the same diminution of their institutional authority. Sotomayor and Ginsberg do not care about the institutions. They would happily see a corrupt, partisan court.

The winners, sadly, is the permanent self-aware bureaucracy. The Leviathan Deep State understands that they are the last redoubt of unchallenged power. And Trump must be stopped. If the corruptions of the Deep State beast are revealed, and power returned to the much smaller states whereby people can extract themselves from the worst of the petty tyrannies...

People like Chuck will have to get real jobs and quit taking the skim off the federal teat. We must protect the phoney-baloney jobs.

mockturtle said...

Well said, Birkel.

pacwest said...

"Trump made their work more difficult with his incessant stream of idiotic Tweets and dumb statements."

I guess you could look at it that way, but let's try this one out:

Trump made their work !possible! with his incessant stream of idiotic tweets and dumb statements.

No tweets, no dumb statements, no progress towards the goal. I understand you dislike his crudeness, but recent history shows nothing gets done in cases like this. Without somebody breaking some eggs. You want the end result done in a civil manner. I have seen no indication you will get it doing it the GOPe way.

Kevin said...

Does TrumpWorld somehow regard this as a personal victory for Trump?

Chuckism: The haunting fear that a Trump supporter, somewhere, may be happy.

Birkel said...

pacwest:

Then the conclusion we must draw is that the eGOP does not in fact want their professed goals accomplished. It is either that, or they are incompetent or irrational.

Most likely, they have accomplished what they wish: their own enrichment.

Drago said...

Kevin: "Chuckism: The haunting fear that a Trump supporter, somewhere, may be happy."

Alternatively, Chuckism: The haunting fear that a lefty or democrat supporter, somewhere, is in politucal trouble and may be unhappy.

CWJ said...

"Kagan and Breyer are the only two liberal justices to have ever read the US Constitution. Once in a while they try to follow it. This was their once in a while moment."

Bravo!

Tommy Duncan said...

As of this post there are 52 references to "Chuck" in this thread. Yet another thread about Chuck that has deteriorated into name calling. But we have been assured by the fully self-aware Chuck that the contents of the cesspit have nothing to do with Chuck.

Let me go off topic and ask if we know how Sotomayor and Ginsburg defended their votes? Has anyone seen their opinions?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Supreme Court Agrees The Executive Branch Exists & Has The Power To Make Decisions Within The Executive Branch's Constitutional Responsibility.

Well gee, thanks. How damn insane are we that this is some controversial thing?
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NOR THAT IT SHOULD BE!

CWJ said...

"I wonder if Chuckie has ever negotiated a damned thing in his lonely life? When I start a negotiation, I ask for everything I want and a lot more -- just like Trump."

LOL! I've negotiated dozens of deals over the years, both personal and professional, and I've never failed to take advantage of the party who "overasks." It takes a bit longer to get past the posing, and frankly that's somewhat irritating, but in the end when you get down to the real points, the party who overasked is more desperate to close the deal. Don't know exactly why that is, but in my experience it's a fact.

Paul said...

So all Trump has to do now is stonewall in the 9th and drag it out as long as he wants. Do all kinds of motions and hearings and adjournments to stretch it out for as long as he wants.


What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Fabi said...

That's an unusual viewpoint, CWJ. For the record -- I've never been desperate to close any deal, even those which appear quite favorable. To be desperate is to lose, as that mindset involves emotion. Your mileage may vary.

Fabi said...

@CWJ -- I do private equity deals. I have the requisite cash for their endeavors to remain solvent. They don't. I'm told this situation is often referred to as "leverage".

CWJ said...

"To be desperate is to lose, as that mindset involves emotion. Your mileage may vary."

What did I say that contradicts this?

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Lord Acton ? Power corrupts etc.
There has to be a prior premise ...

Desire for power is desire to corrupt and get away with it.

Could that be the proper meaning of temptation!?

Mr. Majestyk said...

The fact that Trump revised the first EO does not necessarily mean it was invalid. It could signify that he thought a modified EO stood a better chance of passing muster in the (politicized) courts where challenges were being brought.

grackle said...

Add Saudi Arabia to the list. Where did the 9/11 terrorists come from?

The comment brings up an interesting point. Readers, it was indeed no coincidence that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Osama picked mostly Saudis for the job. The others were from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon – nations that were also friendly with the US. No operatives were selected from hostile Muslim nations – another “coincidence.”

Here’s some quotes from a 2002 Boston Globe article:

… US and Saudi officials say, bin Laden and Al Qaeda saw a way to drive a wedge through the fragile US-Saudi relationship - and steer home the point that the Sept. 11 strikes were as much an attack on the House of Saud and its alliance with the United States as they were an attack on America itself.

and

… Milton Bearden, who headed the CIA's covert operations in Afghanistan during the 1980s when bin Laden was leading Arab volunteers to fight ''jihad'' there, noted that bin Laden's original and still preeminent goal is to rid the US military presence from Saudi Arabia.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Pookie Number 2 said...
...
You're right, Chuck. They didn't do exactly what Moore did.

On the other hand, they did sacrifice their integrity to their Trump-hatred (we call that "pulling a Chuck"), and they ruled in explicit bad faith.

If the District Courts that took on the various claims opposing the first iterations of the Trump immigration orders were so wildly out of line and without basis in the law, and ruled "in explicit bad faith," then they'd have been quickly and easily appealed up through the Circuits to SCOTUS.


Am I the only one who notices the problem here?

We are talking about a court that ruled against Trump and has now pretty much been overturned by the Supreme Court. Hence, the "Bad faith". Then Chuck wants to talk about the first iteration.

It's as if he's talking about one thing while the rest of us are discussing something else entirely.

Either they behaved in bad faith, as was argued, or the SCOTUS is wrong here by 7 to 2.

Seven to 2!

That's some pretty bad faith right there on the part of the court that held this back.

But by all means, let's go back to other iterations and pretend like that's what we're all talking about.

Yancey Ward said...

How long before the judge in Hawaii overturns the SCOTUS ruling?

You think I am joking, right?

Bruce Hayden said...

As for adding Saudi Arabia to the list - it isn't going to happen. The countries on the list either don't have diplomatic relations with us, or are failed states. The criteria essentially is whether or not we can validate identities with their countries of origin. Maybe Trump would have liked more countries on the list, but by the time of this third go around, the criteria had been revised down to complete functionality in order to pass judicial review. Each country on the list can be justified for this reason - that we can't check identities. Saudi Arabia isn't in this category.

As for sponsoring terrorism - for a long time now, Gulf oil money has been going into supporting terrorism, and into mosques and schools to radicalize Muslims around the world. OBL, of course, came from a wealthy family there, and some other family members were maybe helping him out financially. And maybe al Quada after his death by lead poisoning. Esp embarrassing were the Saudi princes involved. Maybe no longer. The Saudi Crown Prince is apparently executing a cleansing, a purge,nthe internal revolution that we have long believed was necessary. Apparently the Ritz Carlton is being used as a gilt edged prison right now for extremely rich, even billionaire, Saudi princes who have apparently been involved in sponsoring terrorism. Even torturing them a bit. The Saudi Royal family seems to be moving away from their fundamentalist Wahabbi strand of Islam, moderating a bit. There are also suggestions that the country may be moderating its position on Israel, willing to consider working with them against, esp, Shi'a terrorism originating in Iran. Maybe alternatively, or just coincidentally, the country is apparently moving to privatize the state oil company, in maybe the biggest deal of the sort ever seen. Probably not coincidentally, our relations with the country seem much improved with the Trump Presidency. Obama and his Administration seemed to prefer Shi'a Iran over Sunni Saudi Arabia in this inter-Muslim contest for influence. No more. Maybe relatedly, Israel hit Iranian bases close to them last week in Syria with little international comment. Much of our improved relations with the Saudis can possibly be attributed to Trump's pick of oil man Rex Tillerson as Sec of State.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"It's as if he's talking about one thing while the rest of us are discussing something else entirely."

He sees the world through a different lens. Which isn't really a lens, it's a picture on the wall that he thinks is a window.

Annie C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Annie C said...

Blogger Annie C said...
Chuck said...


"What a cesspit your comment pages have become, in the era of Trump."

I'm still not a nasty, ignorant fuckwad.

Rusty said...

CWJ said...
"I wonder if Chuckie has ever negotiated a damned thing in his lonely life? When I start a negotiation, I ask for everything I want and a lot more -- just like Trump."

"LOL! I've negotiated dozens of deals over the years, both personal and professional, and I've never failed to take advantage of the party who "overasks." It takes a bit longer to get past the posing, and frankly that's somewhat irritating, but in the end when you get down to the real points, the party who overasked is more desperate to close the deal. Don't know exactly why that is, but in my experience it's a fact."

That's my mindset when I walk into a car dealership. They NEED to sell cars. I don't necessarily need to buy one.

Chuck said...

Blogger Yancey Ward said...
How long before the judge in Hawaii overturns the SCOTUS ruling?

You think I am joking, right?

I don't think you're joking. Because you're not being the slightest bit funny or clever. "Funny" and "clever" are prerequisites for a joke.

So you aren't joking; you are bullshitting. District Courts don't "overturn" the Supreme Court. Not in law, not in theory, and basically never in practice. And since this latest ruling wasn't on the merits of the pending case, it will come back to SCOTUS, if at all, before it goes back to the Districts.

I say again; I am totally comfortable with rulings upholding the revised Executive Orders. Since those orders have almost all of the "Trump" taken out of them. There's a good WSJ editorial today about the slap down of the anti-Trump lower courts.

But what really offends me is Trump and all of his fans' ignorance about the law and the applicable procedure. Rubes. Bumpkins. Yokels. With so little awareness that they are supporting Roy Moore (who really did defy the Supreme Court and federal court orders) out of one side of their mouths while criticizing the Hawai'i US Dustrict Judge out of the other.

Chuck said...

Eric; "bad faith" has specific legal meaning that you and others seem to not understand.

It is not "bad faith" whenever a lower court decision is reversed. Especially not when the Dustrict Court rules, and other Districts rule similarly, and Circuit Courts of Appeal affirm those rulings.

You are right about one thing, Eric; we do seem to be having two separate conversations. Your conversation reads a lot like a Rush Limbaugh transcript. My conversation reads like court transcript.

Curious George said...

"Annie C said...
Blogger Annie C said...
Chuck said...


"What a cesspit your comment pages have become, in the era of Trump."

I'm still not a nasty, ignorant fuckwad."

Careful, you'll get a titty twisted.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Because Chuck is a fundamentally dishonest person, he pretends that it's okay for courts to pervert their rulings as long as they can hide behind legalistic definitions of bad faith.

Not every overturned decision is malicious, but these were, and it's fundamentally and obviously dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.

Yancey Ward said...

So, tell us, Chuck, did Hatch decide to retire or not? You never replied on the other thread when I pointed out that you either lied or were an ignorant fuckhead.

Yancey Ward said...

Crickets from fuckhead Chuck again.

Drago said...

"Bowe Bergdahl Republican" Chuck: "You are right about one thing, Eric; we do seem to be having two separate conversations. Your conversation reads a lot like a Rush Limbaugh transcript. My conversation reads like court transcript."

Yeah Eric! You are totally like that deplorable Limbaugh and nothing, nothing like that consummate professional John Harwood, brilliant Rachel Maddow or magnificent obama!

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward I tried to respond to you but the site is so buggy.

Anyway, short version is that I do think Hatch announced to his inner circle that he plans to retire. And the reports are true. And that he in fact will not run again. But my post should have been more circumspect since it isn't confirmed yet.

Still, the more salient point is the one I continue to emphasize; Trump isn't "supporting" Hatch. Hatch doesn't need it. Trump is lobbying Hatch, to keep Romney out of the Senate.

Whatever; I am enjoying all the Bannonites with their newfound love for Orrin Hatch -- one of the most "inside" high priests of The GOP Establishment. Welcome aboard!

Birkel said...

When will Chuck have an opinion that doesn't align with Democrat talking points?

Yancey Ward said...

So, you were just an ignorant fuckhead.