|
Post by Amadan on Mar 23, 2017 13:47:39 GMT -5
I hope all goes as well as it can for your patient, but honestly, you always pull this "I am much too busy with much more important things to argue with you" move when asked to back up the things you say with actual facts.
I am not insulting you personally, because I like you (really), but I find your style of "debate" extremely aggravating. No, I do not appreciate the talking points you copy and paste from your favorite conservative blog, which is why I keep probing you to get something more substantive. I frankly do not think you know the answer to my T/F questions.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 23, 2017 16:18:08 GMT -5
It is not I who needs to prove the TRO is unlawful, it's Judge Watson who needs to prove the EO is unlawful. And I don't think he did that. He is reaching reaching reaching for Establishment Clause reasons. And the monetary injuries to the Univ of Hawaii and tourism, from a temporary ban of 3-4 months with loopholes for some, in comparison to the possible losses in a terror attack on US soil, are laughable. I have no idea why I'm playing your game, but regarding your first "pop quiz" question: www.scribd.com/document/342018648/Travel-Ban-Decision#fullscreen&from_embedThese are just a few examples, but it looks to me like of course Watson is saying the EO is unconstitutional. As far as your second "pop quiz" question, Watson doesn't appear to be saying it outright. But he's clearly saying the Elshikh family (whose mother-in-law cannot visit Hawaii from a temporarily banned country) is being injured by the EO in ways that infringe upon their Constitutional rights. And if the only remedy to that is to put a TRO on the EO, then it is, in effect, saying the relative has a right to visit, is it not? In a roundabout and sneaky way, of course. Now I will ask you one more time to stop making incorrect accusations about what I read, how much I read, that I copy and paste my talking points (for fuck's sake!) or how long it takes me to Google. I can be brief, or I can not participate at all. Those are MY only choices. If that's not good enough for you, *shrugs*. If Robo or Cass tell me it's not good enough, then I will stop participating. Until then, I will post occasional brief posts as I am able. ***Obviously, I'm being sarcastic with the right to immigrate "pop quiz" question, but you get my point, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 23, 2017 16:45:06 GMT -5
It's all good.
And anyway, I agree with you: the Judge is either a hack or he's gone loopy, imo.
I mean seriously, he allows this as a legitimate point:
So if the University of Hawaii cannot recruit from these six countries, it's going to have empty offices among the faculty and empty seats in the classrooms? Really? And the order not only has exceptions--that the first one didn't have--but also allows waivers for students and for people with families already living here.
But seriously, the idea that this temporary travel ban necessarily harms universities because it limits their ability to recruit leads to an inescapable conclusion: any travel ban, no matter the reason behind it, would do the same, no matter the nation(s) involved. So this judge is basically saying that the power granted the President--by Congress--in the Immigration and Nationality Act can't actually be used. Ever. And really, the judge--and the State of Hawaii, for that matter--seems unable to grasp the concept of temporary (a limit that is clearly in the Act and in the EO).
You know, I get the anti-Trump stuff, and as I already said, I get the general dislike many have for this EO and the one which came before it. But JHCOAPS, accept the reality of the moment. Not every bad thing can be fixed by the courts. And this kind of decision only damages the judiciary in the long run. It really is horrible, imo. I didn't get into it int he other thread because honestly, I don't think there's much worth arguing about in it, it's just so bad, so transparently political. Watson should be stripped of his judgeship ASAP, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 16:51:41 GMT -5
To note:
As a mod, I will never require anyone to read anything in particular in order to participate here, nor will I dictate the content of their posts (outside of enforcing this forum's rules, of course). Nor will I ever tell anyone they can't challenge an opponent's positions. As a mod, I'm here only to enforce the rules and put out dumpster fires.
It's up to each of you to support and defend your views or not as you see fit and to challenge each other's opinions as you see fit, as long as you follow the rules.
As a member, I will be the same pain in the ass I have always been.
ETA:
I'll give my own thoughts on the decision when I have enough time to do so thoughtfully. I don't like to post on the fly on a legal issue as important as this one. 'Tis the lawyer in me.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 24, 2017 8:51:01 GMT -5
It is not I who needs to prove the TRO is unlawful, it's Judge Watson who needs to prove the EO is unlawful. Umm. No. This was my point - you don't even understand what is being adjudicated here. I am sure Cassandra can explain this in much more (and more accurate) detail, but the judge was not "proving" anything. That is not his role. This ruling did not determine the Constitutionality of the EO. It only ruled that the plaintiffs' arguments had sufficient merit to justify their case going forward, where a higher court would actually rule on whether or not the EO is unconstitutional. Hence the temporary restraining order. It's the equivalent of a Grand Jury hearing - the Grand Jury doesn't determine a defendant's guilt or innocence, it only determines whether there is enough evidence to bother with a trial. Now, you may disagree with the judge's ruling. You may think his reasoning was partisan and specious. And his ruling does imply some of the opinions you have attributed to him, though it's not clear he's found a "right to immigrate." However, his issuing a TRO is not unlawful, as you claimed. That is what judges do. They issue orders from the bench based on their legal reading of the arguments. You can believe a judge is an "activist," an idiot, a hack, or whatever. Certainly many judges are those things. But that's why we have a system of courts and appeals, so that one judge can't single-handedly overrule the President. You can call his ruling stupid, but you're claiming that he exceeded his legal authority based on a poor understanding of what actually happened in this case. That's why I keep challenging your assertions - you are making statements not grounded in fact or comprehension of the issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 9:53:46 GMT -5
That's actually not a bad start, Amadan. I'll dive in to discuss it a bit later tonight or over the weekend, promise.
But yes, that's really why I asked "did you read the case itself?" There is a lot of misunderstanding out there about what this TRO does, what a TRO is, and what a judge's role is. And since there is a lot of strong partisan feelings about this issue, the media is full of statements and opinions and out-of-context quotes.
I don't think the judge did anything unlawful. (He also didn't do anything permanent, btw -- hence the "temporary" in TRO.) That doesn't mean one can't criticize or disagree with the decision or aspects of it, of course.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 24, 2017 10:24:15 GMT -5
Semantics, Amadan.
So Judge Watson could have issued the TRO without spending 43 pages showing why the plaintiffs have standing regarding Constitutional issues? Or the injury to the state of Hawaii? I never said the judge was unlawful, simply that he was being political rather than interpreting the law correctly.
In the same way Judge Watson is reaching for reasons to implement his TRO, you are reaching for reasons to say I'm wrong. I did say it was poor reasoning and purely political. And he was making claims that are not based in law but his own fantasy world of conjecture and hyperbole. And I do think it's stupid. And political.
You're using semantics about what a TRO is, when the result, temporarily, is to stop the implementation of the EO. By showing how the EO could be considered unlawful enough to give the plaintiffs standing in a case. This was a purely political and partisan anti-Trump move. With poor reasoning. That's what I'm arguing. You're assuming I'm stupid enough to not know the definition of the words temporary restraining order. But this time YOU are beside my point here. Nothing you said above negates what I was arguing.
Semantics.
EDITED TO ADD: I will play semantics here, too - this is what I said regarding constitutionality:
Notice, I didn't use the word "determine". You did. Semantics.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 24, 2017 11:30:37 GMT -5
Well, one can certainly argue that Watson ignored the law in issuing the TRO. That doesn't make his order illegal, of course. Indeed, by definition his order is legal.
But ultimately, so what? I think, as a matter of fact, that Watson did exceed his authority, insofar as he ignored the actual laws in order to manufacture a justification for this TRO out of whole cloth, nothing else. Judges at his level should be better than that, imo. The fact that there isn't more disgust at his order--solely because of who it's restraining--is pretty fucking sad.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 24, 2017 11:32:28 GMT -5
Semantics, Amadan. So Judge Watson could have issued the TRO without spending 43 pages showing why the plaintiffs have standing regarding Constitutional issues? Or the injury to the state of Hawaii? I never said the judge was unlawful, simply that he was being political rather than interpreting the law correctly. What do you mean by "semantics"? Legalities are all about semantics. There is a big difference between "The judge ruled that an EO was unconstitutional" and "The judge ruled that a plaintiff's claim that an EO violated his Constitutional rights had enough merit for his argument to be heard." And you certainly did claim the judge was unlawful: Or did your use of the words "rather than lawful decisions" somehow not mean "unlawful" because something something semantics? No. You're wrong because the facts are contrary to what you are stating.
That's an opinion, and that's fine. But a judge making a poorly-reasoning political decision doesn't make it unlawful, nor is it a "yuuuuuge" problem with amok court systems.... .... yes, that is what a TRO means. Temporary Restraining Order means an order to temporarily restrain something. No, I'm assuming you do not understand the difference between ruling on the argument "This EO is unconstitutional" and ruling "The argument that this EO is unconstitutional has enough legal merit to be heard." That may seem like a "semantic" difference to you, but it is a very big difference. Like the difference between being indicted and convicted. I'm also not sure you actually understand what a "semantic" argument is.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 24, 2017 11:39:36 GMT -5
Well, one can certainly argue that Watson ignored the law in issuing the TRO. That doesn't make his order illegal, of course. Indeed, by definition his order is legal. But ultimately, so what? I think, as a matter of fact, that Watson did exceed his authority, insofar as he ignored the actual laws in order to manufacture a justification for this TRO out of whole cloth, nothing else. Judges at his level should be better than that, imo. The fact that there isn't more disgust at his order--solely because of who it's restraining--is pretty fucking sad. Incidentally... I agree that this decision was wrong and bad. (Given my non-lawyerly read of it.) But that's not what I'm taking issue with. A judge making a bad decision != "Activist judge exceeding his legal authority."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 24, 2017 12:02:19 GMT -5
Look, I don't disagree. But I guess I'm channeling a little of what's been going on in the "resistance," where many don't seem to think misrepresentations (or outright lies) should be noted as such because the target is Trump. (not talking about anyone here, to be clear)
|
|