Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]
Jun 2, 2017, 1:22 am
#421
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The US Admin is now aggressively moving to get the US Supreme Court to stay the lower court orders halting the ban and to consider overturning the lower courts' actions against the ban.
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...tml#pt0-177269
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...tml#pt0-177269
Last edited by GUWonder; Jun 2, 2017 at 1:32 am
Jun 2, 2017, 11:37 am
#422
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...tml#pt0-177269[/QUOTE]It took them this long to ask for that? Plus - it's been far more than 90 days so I w
nder where we are with the development of the "extreme vetting" policy. After over 120 days for the refugee policy they should be done and ready to implement. Surely they should have those all ready to roll out by now. But my guess is that was all a canard and they haven't even started on that work.
nder where we are with the development of the "extreme vetting" policy. After over 120 days for the refugee policy they should be done and ready to implement. Surely they should have those all ready to roll out by now. But my guess is that was all a canard and they haven't even started on that work.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:27 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
Jun 3, 2017, 5:23 pm
#423
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Canard indeed.
POTUS Twitter message is using the London Bridge incident tonight as an excuse to call for the courts to allow for this ban to be resuscitated. I have no doubt that we would see an indefinite ban if the courts don't continue to stop this sort of EO.
POTUS Twitter message is using the London Bridge incident tonight as an excuse to call for the courts to allow for this ban to be resuscitated. I have no doubt that we would see an indefinite ban if the courts don't continue to stop this sort of EO.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:27 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
Jun 4, 2017, 5:27 am
#424
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Another POTUS twitter message just a couple of minutes ago, one indicating a POTUS call for the courts to enable "incorrect" discrimination. I can't imagine he is doing his EO any favors with the courts in general by doing this kind of communication, but perhaps there are some Justices on the SCOTUS willing to take a gamble with their historical reputation and join the line up of judges like those who stood by slavery, "separate but equal" and things like that.
It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS is willing to get involved; and if it gets involved, it will be interesting to see how the opinions and votes of the SCOTUS turn out on this matter.
It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS is willing to get involved; and if it gets involved, it will be interesting to see how the opinions and votes of the SCOTUS turn out on this matter.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 6, 2017 at 10:30 am Reason: quoting oneself is not necessary
Jun 5, 2017, 2:52 am
#426
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Here is something that may put that into question:
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...%2F#pt0-951147
Conflicting decisions at the appellate level aren't necessarily a requirement for the SCOTUS to get involved now.
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...%2F#pt0-951147
Conflicting decisions at the appellate level aren't necessarily a requirement for the SCOTUS to get involved now.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:27 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote
Jun 5, 2017, 9:58 am
#428
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Interesting take on what the latest POTUS tweets on this may mean for EO 2.0 at the SCOTUS:
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...tml#pt0-761941
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...tml#pt0-761941
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 6, 2017 at 10:30 am Reason: unnecessary quote of oneself
Jun 5, 2017, 10:03 am
#429
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
I am reasonably certain (given the public perception of momentum on this issue), that this is on the way to an appearance with SCOTUS. According to legal pundits on both sides (primarily on the side most in line with the current administration), have called for a higher level of decision, to give some semblance of finality to this issue - primarily as a precedent (I would surmise) to beat up one side or the other.
Jun 5, 2017, 10:52 am
#431
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The constitutional question is rather distinct from the binary of whether or not a POTUS has sole and unregulated authority to do as wished (by POTUS) when it comes to US border crossings.
For example, POTUS doesn't have sole and unregulated authority to determine which US citizens born abroad are natural-born US citizens or not. Even as that too is an authority to regulate cross-border movements. And if the Administrative exercise of making the determination of such citizenship status was done with the purpose of religious discrimination, it would still be a constitutional question beyond just the question about the authority of a President to execute in the realm of foreign affairs.
For example, POTUS doesn't have sole and unregulated authority to determine which US citizens born abroad are natural-born US citizens or not. Even as that too is an authority to regulate cross-border movements. And if the Administrative exercise of making the determination of such citizenship status was done with the purpose of religious discrimination, it would still be a constitutional question beyond just the question about the authority of a President to execute in the realm of foreign affairs.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 6, 2017 at 10:30 am Reason: unnecessary quote
Jun 5, 2017, 11:55 am
#432
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Except that, within the defined corridor of welfare of the country/national defense or security, he actually does - with regard to allowing people to come in. The regulations have been on the books for quite some time, and they are pretty clear - the challenge is going to be what the courts see. I think based upon history and the actual legal writings/decisions, the order falls within this defined corridor. However, my opinion and about $4 will get you a cup of coffee nowadays.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 6, 2017 at 10:31 am Reason: unnecessary quote
Jun 5, 2017, 12:14 pm
#433
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,120
The constitutional question is rather distinct from the binary of whether or not a POTUS has sole and unregulated authority to do as wished (by POTUS) when it comes to US border crossings.
For example, POTUS doesn't have sole and unregulated authority to determine which US citizens born abroad are natural-born US citizens or not. Even as that too is an authority to regulate cross-border movements. And if the Administrative exercise of making the determination of such citizenship status was done with the purpose of religious discrimination, it would still be a constitutional question beyond just the question about the authority of a President to execute in the realm of foreign affairs.
For example, POTUS doesn't have sole and unregulated authority to determine which US citizens born abroad are natural-born US citizens or not. Even as that too is an authority to regulate cross-border movements. And if the Administrative exercise of making the determination of such citizenship status was done with the purpose of religious discrimination, it would still be a constitutional question beyond just the question about the authority of a President to execute in the realm of foreign affairs.
I think the USSC will take up this case.
Jun 5, 2017, 12:23 pm
#434
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Same difference, as the authority is not without its own legal constraints when it comes to the exercise of an authority under the law.
I have already mentioned days ago that the Admin had moved very aggressively to try to get this into the Supreme Court. It will get its days there, but that isn't the same thing as getting its way with rulings from there.
No, he doesn't have sole and unregulated authority when it comes to citizenship, passports and other immigration-related matters. The SCOTUS has shown that before, repeatedly at that.
To which regulations are you referring when you say "the regulations have been on the books for quite some time"?
I have already mentioned days ago that the Admin had moved very aggressively to try to get this into the Supreme Court. It will get its days there, but that isn't the same thing as getting its way with rulings from there.
Except that, within the defined corridor of welfare of the country/national defense or security, he actually does - with regard to allowing people to come in. The regulations have been on the books for quite some time, and they are pretty clear - the challenge is going to be what the courts see. I think based upon history and the actual legal writings/decisions, the order falls within this defined corridor. However, my opinion and about $4 will get you a cup of coffee nowadays.
To which regulations are you referring when you say "the regulations have been on the books for quite some time"?
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 6, 2017 at 10:31 am Reason: unnecessary quote
Jun 5, 2017, 12:36 pm
#435
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,120
No, it is not the same difference.
There is a Clear and Present Danger presented by some factions of practitioners of Islam. Some are already in the United States and others are surely attempting to immigrate. I have no issue using a vetting process that helps determine in which camp an applicant for immigration falls in.
There is a Clear and Present Danger presented by some factions of practitioners of Islam. Some are already in the United States and others are surely attempting to immigrate. I have no issue using a vetting process that helps determine in which camp an applicant for immigration falls in.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 15, 2017 at 1:28 pm Reason: unnecessary wholesale quote