Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban  (Read 910 times)

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 857
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2018, 04:46:33 PM »

Helping Jeff keep up with Trump-related news. Looks like he missed this one. You are welcome, Jeff.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/979970/donald-trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-muslim-ban

This is only incidentally a "Trump" decision. 

In reality it's an affirmation of the right of the executive - any executive - to exercise ridiculously wide latitude in the name of "national security."   I think the dangers of that approach have been clearly illustrated in each of the last 3 administrations, and it'll be a great day for America when fear stops driving the allowance of unrestrained executive power.  It's understood, I think, that the nation needs *someone* to be "in charge," but that's why you grant short-term decision making power, but then require the executive to conform to legal norms in the execution of ongoing actions.

Allowing things like this to stand gives you fun stuff like secret FISA courts with no real oversight, continuous droning of foreign civilians because OMG TERRORISM, and the use of state sanctioned torture.   
Logged

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
    • Photographs
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2018, 05:05:54 PM »

It would be infinitely higher than no pay.

Infinitely? Well no, though Scrooge Trump might say “...anything is better than nothing.” Unfortunately there are no ghosts to haunts us nowadays.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3079
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2018, 07:28:11 PM »

What break even point? What is state investing? Hypothetical tax revenue?
Why do you persist in asking me stupid questions when I've already posted links for you to read.  Do I now have to start ignoring you just as I do Russ, because of inane comments?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11101
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2018, 07:53:07 PM »

It would be infinitely higher than no pay.

Exactly! But there are those who won't be able to understand that simple fact.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11101
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2018, 07:54:10 PM »

Why do you persist in asking me stupid questions when I've already posted links for you to read.  Do I now have to start ignoring you just as I do Russ, because of inane comments?

You'd better read those links, Slobodan, or you're liable to be reported.

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2018, 08:19:28 PM »

This is only incidentally a "Trump" decision. 

In reality it's an affirmation of the right of the executive - any executive - to exercise ridiculously wide latitude in the name of "national security."

Actually, no.  The decision turned on the proper interpretation of an explicit and exceptionally broad statutory grant of authority to the president by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act:

Quote
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

[8 U.S.C. §1182(f).]

The only real substantive issue was whether Trump's campaign statements about proclaiming a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and other comments that similarly suggested the executive order under challenge in this litigation had an unconstitutional purpose of discriminating against one religion.

The Court concluded that Trump's executive order was "neutral on its face" (i.e., in the literal language of the order) and that it had been implemented after a rational fact-finding process to determine which nationals of specific countries would be affected.  The minority argued that Trump's executive order was motivated "by religious animus."

If the issue had been national security, it's not clear that there would even have been a dissent:

Quote
If,  however, its sole ratio decidendi was one of national security, then it would be unlikely to violate either the statute or the Constitution.

[Breyer and Kagan, dissenting.]

I'm personally not pleased with the Court's decision, but to claim it was based on a "ridiculously wide latitude in the name of 'national security'" is, I think, a stretch.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2591
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2018, 08:47:29 PM »

What break even point? What is state investing? Hypothetical tax revenue?

Separate from the tax breaks, local, state and federal payments of around $700 million for improvements to roads, access, utilities, etc will be paid to support the new plant.  I don't know whether the arrangement is beneficial to Wisconsin.  But it is beneficial to Foxconn.  There's a lot of competition among the various states to attract business.  And business is taking advantage of the competition.  I hope Wisconsin benefits as it will be helpful to my fellow Americans.  Good luck to them.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/28/technology/foxconn-wisconsin-plant/index.html

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2591
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2018, 09:03:22 PM »

This is only incidentally a "Trump" decision. 

In reality it's an affirmation of the right of the executive - any executive - to exercise ridiculously wide latitude in the name of "national security."   I think the dangers of that approach have been clearly illustrated in each of the last 3 administrations, and it'll be a great day for America when fear stops driving the allowance of unrestrained executive power.  It's understood, I think, that the nation needs *someone* to be "in charge," but that's why you grant short-term decision making power, but then require the executive to conform to legal norms in the execution of ongoing actions.

Allowing things like this to stand gives you fun stuff like secret FISA courts with no real oversight, continuous droning of foreign civilians because OMG TERRORISM, and the use of state sanctioned torture.   

Interestingly, Trump has had a rather liberal outlook on our involvement on the world stage.  Generally, he opposed the Iraq War for example.  When he said NATO's purpose is over or at least diminished, all the heretofore liberals who opposed American involvement against Communists for the most part for decades and other wars, suddenly became hawks rattling their rusty swords towards Russia.  They never noticed Russia when they were the Soviet Union.   

I happen to agree with you that presidents have too much power.  The founders were opposed to it.    But Congress has over the years transferred the power given to them to the president because they're chickens.  They rather let someone else make the hard decisions while they argue over less consequential things.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2591
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2018, 09:13:11 PM »

Getting back to the OP, if I was president and thought that gee wiz, we need oil;  I announced I intend to open both coasts to American drilling out to 500 miles and screw all other countries.  And then someone told me that I couldn't do that because I'd be violating the constitution because we have signed laws of the sea that restrict us to 200 miles.  So I then discussed it with experts who help me draft a presidential order that open up all shores to drilling to 200 miles.  Someone sues me in supreme court and says my intent was to violate the constitution, and declare my order illegal.   Well, as long as the order was legal and constitution, the order would stand.  That's basically what happen with the travel ban.

A lot of things are said and discussed before something becomes law.  Some of it is said through ignorance.  Some through political hyperbole.  As long as the law itself is written and carried out constitutionally, that's what counts.


And I'll punch anyone who disagrees with me.  :)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11906
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2018, 09:36:59 PM »

Why do you persist in asking me stupid questions when I've already posted links for you to read.  Do I now have to start ignoring you just as I do Russ, because of inane comments?

They say there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, as you just exemplified.

Shall I remind you that it was your inane practice of posting links that led to a new forum rule,  which I will graciously quote here for your convenience (bold mine):

Quote
This is a discussion forum; in case anyone is in any doubt about what that means, the forum exists for members to hold discussions to which those who choose to post can make their own contributions.

That does not preclude including links to external web pages if they are relevant to the topic under discussion. However, any post which includes such a link must also include text which

- summarises the information contained in the linked page;
- indicates, if it is not obvious, why that information is of interest;
- if the linked page is long, indicates where in that page the relevant information is to be found.

Link for the above: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0

So, no, I am not going to follow your links until you provide the above, which in essence would answer my simple question.

Once again, in your attention-diverting post you posted a stupid claim that tax incentives amount to payments to investors. I took issue with that and proved it wrong. You did not mention there and then other state investments that might (or not) amount to payments. You just made a claim without providing a support for it. Hence my question. A link is not a support in itself, without following the above, fairly customary rules of a civilized discussion.

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 857
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2018, 09:39:26 PM »

Actually, no.  The decision turned on the proper interpretation of an explicit and exceptionally broad statutory grant of authority to the president by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act:

The only real substantive issue was whether Trump's campaign statements about proclaiming a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and other comments that similarly suggested the executive order under challenge in this litigation had an unconstitutional purpose of discriminating against one religion.

The Court concluded that Trump's executive order was "neutral on its face" (i.e., in the literal language of the order) and that it had been implemented after a rational fact-finding process to determine which nationals of specific countries would be affected.  The minority argued that Trump's executive order was motivated "by religious animus."

If the issue had been national security, it's not clear that there would even have been a dissent:

I'm personally not pleased with the Court's decision, but to claim it was based on a "ridiculously wide latitude in the name of 'national security'" is, I think, a stretch.

Fair enough, but do you have any concern that the various factions of the court seem increasingly likely to attempt to find statutory or other justification for ideological predetermined positions? 
Logged

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2018, 10:05:24 PM »

do you have any concern that the various factions of the court seem increasingly likely to attempt to find statutory or other justification for ideological predetermined positions?

Honestly, I don't know with any confidence what motivates the individual justices.  I covered the Supreme Court as a news reporter for 12 years (1972-1983), and one of the few generalizations I tentatively was comfortable making was that judicial philosophy rather than political ideology was the prime factor in determining the approach that would be taken by the members of the Court in the minority of cases where there was significant difference of opinion.

Judicial philosophy and ideology may superficially seem to coincide at times: for example, Justice Gorsuch's somewhat nontraditional reliance on statutory literalism and constitutional original intent may lead to results the public and press consider to be "conservative."  But, actually, I would argue that this is a fairly radical approach to judicial interpretation—despite Gorsuch's expressed aversion to judicial activism—precisely because it runs counter to the mainstream approach of the majority of federal judges, including most of his colleagues on the Supreme Court.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1004
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Trump wins MAJOR immigration victory as SCOTUS UPHOLDS travel ban
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2018, 10:47:19 PM »

Exactly! But there are those who won't be able to understand that simple fact.

Maybe people could work for food and shelter, like sharecroppers.

Shouldn't conservatives be dead against corporate subsidies? Doesn't it make more difficult for a local phone assembly company to compete?

But I predicted this kind of turn-around a while ago (to my friends anyway). The real point of globalization was to pound down wages all over the globe. Sooner or later, regions in western countries, like Wisconsin or Ohio, would become low wage areas, like Shanghai and Hong Kong used to be. Then at that point, it makes sense to outsource to those places. Detroit might be next.
Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up