Boggie Dog

Can government take any steps that has a goal of protecting citizens?

GUWonder

Can or should? Governments can violate laws, but that doesn't mean a capability should go unchecked and unpunished when it does engage in an unlawful activity -- regardless of the excuse being deployed to try to justify the unlawful activity.

There are steps that can and should be taken; and there are steps that can be taken but shouldn't be taken nor allowed by law.

notquiteaff

Done

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ump-ban-240122

Boggie Dog

Seems like the only court that can define the ruling would be the court that made the ruling.

GUWonder

State has been told to not cancel scheduled visa appointments, for those with passports from the blacklisted countries, that were made prior to yesterday evening.

For over two hundred years of our judicial system's history, it hasn't seemed so.

The Admin got creative with defining what constitutes a bona fide relationship and thus ends up stirring the pot again. Hit a hornet's nest? Then expect the possibility of getting stung.

Boggie Dog

Surely the court acted with the knowledge that the order would be defined to some degree and elected to not narrowly limit their decision.

I would guess that no limitations would be the only acceptable definition in some quarters.

GUWonder

The Admin knows it has played a game with the definition of what constitutes a bona fide US family relationship. And playing games is what it has been doing. Note that today the order was given that US persons' fiancé(e)s are now to be included, only after the Admin realized what the game playing on fiancé(e)s would mean. It already included mother-in-laws in order to not run afoul of one case involving a mother-in-law of a US person.

The definition would come from courts, even those that are not SCOTUS. The SCOTUS didn't preclude lower courts from being brought into the picture when the Admin plays games about definitions of what constitutes a bona fide connection with a US person under the partial relief given to the Admin.

Not here. Words have meanings and consequences.

Limiting the definition of having a bona fide family relationship to a US person by excluding grandmothers of US persons, as the Admin has done so far? Ridiculous. I would welcome the courts biting the Admin over this game-playing of definitions too.

Boggie Dog

I don't see where there is any evidence of game playing. It is just how some see the interpretation which simply doesn't agree that vision.

GUWonder

There is plenty of evidence of game playing by the Admin in this area. Even EO 2.0 is a game to try to get around the issues that EO 1.0 gave the Admin. And it would have given the Admin more issues if not rendered moot in a way by the Admin's game playing that allowed the Admin to still claim that the POTUS is moving ahead on instituting the "Muslim/Muslim travel/travel ban". Now the Admin is sort of game playing with the definition of bona fide family relationships in response to the limited relief granted to the Admin by the SCOTUS. It's a game of "try it and see if we can make it stick". At least then the Admin can claim that "we tried but ____ are to blame for not letting us do ___".

Boggie Dog

Just one view.

GUWonder

It's more than just one view. It's even the view of some who are fans of the ban, even as it's not the view of all those of the same bias.

catocony

Bona fide is non-specific. Thus, it has to be interpreted by a lot of different people a lot of different ways. That is sure to spin off more legal issues.

GUWonder

Sure. Considering all mother-in-law figures as a bona fide family member while categorically rejecting grandfather or grandchild as a bona fide family member seems to be ripe for a challenge.

leungy18

GUWonder's opinion is hardly on the political fringe.

It's clear that the Trump admin has tried to skirt around the courts and tried to ban as many people as they can -- no matter what you think about their intentions, their arguments, their ideology. A competent admin wouldn't even need to write a 2nd ban.

Classic example of "give an inch, take a mile". How are grandparents/grandchildren not considered bona fide relationships?

leungy18

Just a brief update:

Federal district court judge Derrick Watson shot down the State of Hawaii's lawsuit to expand the scope of the exceptions defined in the SCOTUS per curiam decision.