Rippounet Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: He's going to take this all the way to the top... Of course he is. What I'm wondering is: can he wait for Gorsuch to be confirmed before asking the Supreme Court to review the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Btw, CNN reports security for judges has been ramped up. It seems Trump's tweets against judges may have impacted the number of death threats judges are getting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Ahem, there's no need to take this to SCOTUS right now... Remember that the ban was not ruled unconstitutional or unlawful. It's has just been temporarily blocked until the decision about it's legality is made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The Washington Post thinks an appeal to the SCOTUS is already possible: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-appeals-court-maintains-suspension-of-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/09/e8526e70-ed47-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_trumpban-625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.8d093c945c1a Quote The Justice Department could now ask the Supreme Court — which often defers to the president on matters of immigration and national security — to intervene. The Supreme Court, though, remains one justice short, and many see it as ideologically split 4-4. A tie would keep in place whatever the appeals court decides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, Rippounet said: Of course he is. What I'm wondering is: can he wait for Gorsuch to be confirmed before asking the Supreme Court to review the case? Supreme Court? He's going straight to The People's Court! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Maithanet said: 90% is a really conservative estimate. I work in the climate change field, and I've never met an out and out climate change denier who approached the issue with any kind of scientific rigor. There are a few people who disagree on the margins, for example "the evidence that climate change leads to increased severity of hurricanes is mixed!" I'm sure that someone with an agenda could put that person in the "climate change skeptic" camp, but that isn't what they are saying. I'm sure there are a few people out there who are looking at climate data and think it is not anthropogenic, but in my experience they are as rare as unicorns. And it's not like DT or Republicans in Congress are questioning the climate change with science based evidence. Instead they just repeat discredited arguments over and over again and hope the issue goes away. I have an aquaintance at church who is a Ph.d level oceanographer at our local University. His take is not that climate change isn't happening. It is that it is too complex to say with certainty how much impact human civilization has on climate change. This is not "denialism". This is a recognition of what we don't know. Climate is hugely complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 33 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: Mmn... but if POTUS pushes it all the way to the SCOTUS and he gets denied again, Trump the ill-Advised and his Administration will be responsible for a curtailing of the Presidents' authority on these particular matters. A net positive, to be sure, and likely the best possible outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I have an aquaintance at church who is a Ph.d level oceanographer at our local University. His take is not that climate change isn't happening. It is that it is too complex to say with certainty how much impact human civilization has on climate change. This is not "denialism". This is a recognition of what we don't know. Climate is hugely complicated. Sure, it's hard to know the exact extent of our influence (although the heat capacity of CO2 vs. O2 or N2 is really high; we know CO2 levels are rising; we know they are because of human consumption of fossile hydrocarbons (because the amount of C-14 relative to other carbon isotopes in the athmosphere has been dropping) and there's clear correlation of climate change and the start of industrialization). But the only sane response to this has to be to do two things: research further to come closer to conclusions, and take precautionary measures already because the risk is too great to just do nothing. That would be a small-c conservative approach. Of course, Trump and his fellow Republicans have been actively opposed to such a course of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 36 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: Mmn... but if POTUS pushes it all the way to the SCOTUS and he gets denied again, Trump the ill-Advised and his Administration will be responsible for a curtailing of the Presidents' authority on these particular matters. No he won't. Again, this order just temporarily blocks ban until it is reviewed by district judge. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: This is not "denialism". I beg to differ. The complexity of the climate only means it's harder to predict the consequences of climate change, not that human civilization won't be responsible. Saying anything else is a form of denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said: No he won't. Again, this order just temporarily blocks ban until it is reviewed by district judge. Nothing more. You sure? It can go up or back, is my understanding. But say they kick it back, which District Judge might be presiding? Washington State gave notice today that they'll be filing 15 more entries as evidence, so either way, they bought more time to prepare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Just because one judge ruled that the ban should be reviewed, doesn't matter he will also rule that it's unconstitutional. In fact it is highly unlikely, because foreigners have no constitutional rights. The same about appeals court. For example that Boston judge blocked it temporarily too, before declaring it is OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Just now, sToNED_CAT said: Just because one judge ruled that the ban should be reviewed, doesn't matter he will also rule that it's unconstitutional. In fact it is highly unlikely, because foreigners have no constitutional rights. The same about appeals court. No, but citizens of the US who have relatives from those countries can exert their constitutional rights, or so asserts the other side on this-- and they're not entirely wrong from my understanding. Doesn't sound like you listened to the Appeal or read a transcript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Rip, I didn't say, and he doesn't say climate change has no human element. What we say is that measureing and quantifying that element is very difficult. This is also not to say human impacts should be ignored and shouldn't be mitigated. See, not denialism. I wonder if Trump will fight to get his nominee confirmed quickly to see if he will affect the SCOTUS ruling on his immigration EO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I wonder if Trump will fight to get his nominee confirmed quickly to see if he will affect the SCOTUS ruling on his immigration EO? If wisdom prevails, as that would increase the probability of a win though not surety. He's shown so much contempt for the Judicial since taking office however, it might not even be a matter of law at this point, but more a matter of who respects it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Just now, JEORDHl said: No, but citizens of the US who have relatives from those countries can exert their constitutional rights, or so asserts the other side on this-- and they're not entirely wrong from my understanding. Doesn't sound like you listened to the Appeal or read a transcript. That's completely absurd. How does being just relative of American citizen confers US constitutional rights to you? Those are individual rights not "family unit" rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I wonder if Trump will fight to get his nominee confirmed quickly to see if he will affect the SCOTUS ruling on his immigration EO? I hope the Dems slow roll the fuck out of that confirmation. He will lose his shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 @sToNED: US citizens with relatives from those countries can exert their OWN rights, to be clear. As in, to guest their relatives, friends, etc. Also, Universities, Corporations et al, these are entities that could be argued should enjoy the same rights under the Constitution, for visiting scholars, etc. It's all pretty sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 23 minutes ago, Swordfish said: A net positive, to be sure, and likely the best possible outcome. Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Rip, I didn't say, and he doesn't say climate change has no human element. What we say is that measureing and quantifying that element is very difficult. This is also not to say human impacts should be ignored and shouldn't be mitigated. See, not denialism. I wonder if Trump will fight to get his nominee confirmed quickly to see if he will affect the SCOTUS ruling on his immigration EO? I want to see if Trump ramps up his attacks on judges. That will leave his nominee potentially squirming in the wind. I can imagine some of the questions that will be put to him. And, as I said, CNN has reported that security for judges has been ramped up, because it seems Trump's tweets are firing up his base, and judges are receiving more threats. 12 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said: Just because one judge ruled that the ban should be reviewed, doesn't matter he will also rule that it's unconstitutional. In fact it is highly unlikely, because foreigners have no constitutional rights. The same about appeals court. For example that Boston judge blocked it temporarily too, before declaring it is OK. It's far more nuanced that that. Foreigners who have never set foot in the US have no constitutional rights, but foreigners in the US do and foreigners with green cards and visas who were outside of the US when the ban was issued also arguably have some rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.