'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby toucana on February 4th, 2017, 2:05 pm 

Donald Trump has lashed out on Twitter at a Judge in Seattle Washington for ruling in favour of a temporary suspension of his EO ban on refugees and immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries entering the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-judge-suspended-reacts-big-trouble-tweet-immigration-bob-ferguson-a7562671.html

Trump called the ruling by James Robart "ridiculous" and referred to to him as a "so called judge" whose opinion "takes law-enforcement away from our country" and vowed to overturn the ruling.

Judge Robart ruled yesterday to immediately stop the ban nationwide after he found "no support" for government lawyers' claims the ban protects the US.

Within hours, government officials had told airlines to begin allowing previously barred passengers to fly, although confusion still reigned among many authorities, embassies and airlines.

The Justice Department said it would ask for an emergency stay to honour the President's executive order, initially describing the ruling as "outrageous" before omitting the word from a later statement.

Former President George W Bush appointed Judge Robart in 2004 and he was confirmed to the Senate with 99 votes to none.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 3:36 pm 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017 ... sh-sot.cnn I think he is supposed to be a Republican, but he looks like a liberal to me with the goatee/beard, and bow tie thing going on, and he also probably drives a Volvo or Prius off camera.

Unfortunately, we can't fire this guy right? Federal judges are appointed for life unless they do something criminal?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Dave_C on February 4th, 2017, 4:23 pm 

Agreed... Liberal media. Liberal judge. All lies. They're such bad people.

Best thing to do is get your tweet gun out. Best thing a president can ever do. Get the tweet gun. It's so deadly. Ridiculous so-called judge.

Gotta love the donald. He's our boy.

https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 4:35 pm 

Say what you want Dave, but Trump using 'Twitter' to have his say and then very effectively bypass a very hostile and very biased press against him(and other conservatives) is nothing short of brilliant.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby toucana on February 5th, 2017, 6:00 am 

Well, the US federal court of appeals just threw out the government's petition to reinstate the travel ban, so that's another 179 judges that Donald Trump will have to sit down and write nasty tweets about.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-travel-ban-denied-reinstate-us-appeals-court-a7563431.html

The government's appeal was heard and struck down in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The appellate court asked both the state of Washington and the Trump administration to file more arguments at the start of next week.

Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco forcefully argued in the government's brief that presidential authority is "largely immune from judicial control" when it comes to deciding who can enter or stay in the United States.

The second highest court in the land thinks otherwise it seems.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby RoccoR on February 5th, 2017, 8:54 am 

et al,

I think the Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco is wrong. I do not think that there is any such thing as executive branch decisions being immune from judicial oversight.

It is either Constitutional or Unconstitutional. We have yet to determine which it is.

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Braininvat on February 5th, 2017, 10:47 am 

Agree, Rocco. The U.S. system was constructed with each branch of government meant to be in balance, providing a check on the excesses of any other branch. The "alternative fact" notion that a president is immune from judicial rulings is a frightening one. The hearings on Gorsuch will also be focused on his integrity in such matters, i.e. willingness to stand up to the POTUS on Constitutional matters.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Braininvat on February 5th, 2017, 10:50 am 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/us/james-robart-judge-trump-ban-seattle.html

Robart is a mainstream Republican, I notice. The crack in the GOP might be starting to lengthen.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Lomax on February 5th, 2017, 1:03 pm 

ronjanec » February 4th, 2017, 8:36 pm wrote:Unfortunately, we can't fire this guy right? Federal judges are appointed for life unless they do something criminal?

You ought to be more upbeat - the independence of the judiciary is the only reason your nation was able to impeach Bill Clinton. It's also the main thing making sure that leaders, once in power, give that power back when their elected time with it is up.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby toucana on February 5th, 2017, 4:51 pm 

by ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 4:35 pm

Say what you want Dave, but Trump using 'Twitter' to have his say and then very effectively bypass a very hostile and very biased press against him(and other conservatives) is nothing short of brilliant.

It may not be quite as brilliant as you imagine, because the content of those tweets is about to be used against him as evidence in court.

https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/prof-can-you-sue-the-president-based-on-his-tweets-were-about-to-find-out/

The ACLU have just filed a new lawsuit (Al-Mowafak et al v. Trump et al) on behalf of a number of California students affected by the order.

What makes the ACLU proposed class action lawsuit remarkable is its creative use of President Donald Trump's tweets against him. The lawsuit points to specific instances in which the president described the executive order as a "ban" on Muslims.

According to David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford University, it's traditionally very difficult for plaintiffs to show specific animus against a particular protected group—so Trump's Twitter account is fair game.

"It's quite extraordinary to have the president of the United States saying publicly, repeatedly, that what we are going to try to do is to single out a constitutionally-protected group," he told Ars. "It's quite strong evidence, and it would be remarkable if the plaintiffs didn't rely on it."

Similarly, Justin Cox, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, who is representing plaintiffs in a similar ongoing case in New York (Darweesh v. Trump), told Ars that such lawsuits are usually based on public statements made by more local public officials—like city council members or state legislators.

"Because those are the folks that are usually saying those sorts of things that are on the public record," he said. "The president doesn’t typically say racist things out loud where everyone can see it.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby ronjanec on February 5th, 2017, 5:07 pm 

Toucana,

We are again in agreement about something, and you are right that he should be careful about what he says in those public "tweets", because they can and will be used against him in our courts over here if he makes a mistake.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Dave_C on February 5th, 2017, 5:45 pm 

The ban from certain countries is intended to stop terrorists. But why do we spend so much time, effort and money on that?. Money that's spent to protect us from terrorists.

Wouldn't that money be more effective at stopping heart disease? Cancer? Car wrecks? We'll spend billions of dollars on TSA and law enforcement to stop 100 people from being killed by terrorists every year. I want a government that recognizes the problems and spends money on the REAL issues:
Heart disease
Cancer
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... th_by_rate
http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby someguy1 on February 5th, 2017, 6:35 pm 

Dave_C » February 5th, 2017, 3:45 pm wrote:Wouldn't that money be more effective at stopping heart disease? Cancer? Car wrecks? We'll spend billions of dollars on TSA and law enforcement to stop 100 people from being killed by terrorists every year. I want a government that recognizes the problems and spends money on the REAL issues:


I am in powerful agreement with that point. 100 people a day die in car wrecks in the US. Two Orlandos every single day. A 9/11 every single month. If you piled up all the bodies and wreckage in a big warehouse and brought in all the grieving friends, relatives, and loved ones, along with the merely injured and not dead, and you brought in the media, and FOX News pimped the story every day, people would want something done. 30 days in jail for drunk drivers, no excuses, no picking up trash on the freeway. 30 days hard time. Second offense a year. You'd save tens of thousands of lives every year. Does anyone do that? Of course not. We put liquor stores on every corner and ignore the problem.

The hysteria over terrorism is a huge misdirection and fraud for political purposes. It's a massive illusion. If it were me I'd let in people from foreign countries but throw out all the drunks. Muslims don't drink, you know. Something to be said for that. When a drunk kills you, he's probably a nice Christian.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Lomax on February 5th, 2017, 6:48 pm 

I don't think it's good methodology to just compare death rates - the fact that terrorism doesn't kill more people might be used as an argument for spending so much money preventing it, rather than against. We do in fact spend colossal amounts on both cancer research and road safety. (Incidentally the Effective Altruism community tends to rank poverty relief as far better value-for-money than cancer research, cancer treatment or heart disease treatment, if saving lives is your aim.) It should be added that heart disease is mostly self-imposed. Wealthy democracies must defend their basic social structure if they're to remain wealthy (which they must remain, if they want to spend lots of money on medicine), and terrorism does in fact wreak havoc in countries which are unable or unwilling to spend enough money combating it. So there's two sides to this coin, so to speak.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Braininvat on February 5th, 2017, 7:18 pm 

"Like" buttoned 3 posts in a row, got a bit carried away. Would add that people assess risk very poorly especially when fearful emotion is in play. They devour junk food, drive too fast, skip exercise, booze, and so on, feeling the risks to be very abstract so far as they're concerned. CNN shows bombed marketplaces, falling buildings, and other horrific scenes of terror far more than they show the interiors of sludged-up coronary arteries, growing tumors, or bodies mangled in car wrecks.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Lomax on February 5th, 2017, 7:22 pm 

Braininvat » February 6th, 2017, 12:18 am wrote:"Like" buttoned 3 posts in a row, got a bit carried away. Would add that people assess risk very poorly especially when fearful emotion is in play. They devour junk food, drive too fast, skip exercise, booze, and so on, feeling the risks to be very abstract so far as they're concerned. CNN shows bombed marketplaces, falling buildings, and other horrific scenes of terror far more than they show the interiors of sludged-up coronary arteries, growing tumors, or bodies mangled in car wrecks.

Quite so. But, to paraphrase George Orwell: "some things are true even if CNN says they are true."
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Dave_C on February 5th, 2017, 9:03 pm 

Hi Lomax,
Lomax » February 5th, 2017, 5:48 pm wrote:I don't think it's good methodology to just compare death rates - the fact that terrorism doesn't kill more people might be used as an argument for spending so much money preventing it, rather than against. We do in fact spend colossal amounts on both cancer research and road safety. (Incidentally the Effective Altruism community tends to rank poverty relief as far better value-for-money than cancer research, cancer treatment or heart disease treatment, if saving lives is your aim.) It should be added that heart disease is mostly self-imposed. Wealthy democracies must defend their basic social structure if they're to remain wealthy (which they must remain, if they want to spend lots of money on medicine), and terrorism does in fact wreak havoc in countries which are unable or unwilling to spend enough money combating it. So there's two sides to this coin, so to speak.

I think we're in agreement. Poverty - let's do something about it. The point isn't cost per unit life, it's more like cost per improvement of life, environment, etc... On one end (positive end) of the spectrum is the billions spent on health research and environment. On the other end of the spectrum are the trillions spent following 9/11 to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

My opinion: Use research to determine the best way to spend money. I'd like a government that uses politicians to act as managers over researchers but let the researchers make the recommendations and have politicians follow through.

To return to the OP, I think one of Trump's failings has been his focus on these types of trivial issues (Muslims, The Wall) and the fact he thinks he alone knows what's best. On the other hand, I'm all for a more equitable approach to free trade and a reduction in the US national debt. I'd like him to prove he really is the omniscient demigod (not demagogue) that he claims to be.
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Lomax on February 5th, 2017, 10:00 pm 

Dave_C » February 6th, 2017, 2:03 am wrote:I think we're in agreement. Poverty - let's do something about it. The point isn't cost per unit life, it's more like cost per improvement of life, environment, etc... On one end (positive end) of the spectrum is the billions spent on health research and environment. On the other end of the spectrum are the trillions spent following 9/11 to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

My opinion: Use research to determine the best way to spend money. I'd like a government that uses politicians to act as managers over researchers but let the researchers make the recommendations and have politicians follow through.

Because it's not in my nature to pine for consensus, I would just add a couple more qualifiers. Your "billions vs trillions" statement makes it sound like the difference is one of orders of magnitude; actually the estimated figures of 2-4 trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000 - $4,000,000,000,000) for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (combined) refer not just to the eight years during which hostilities were in full swing but for continued engagements and for future payments to veterans. The US spends 95 billion dollars ($95,000,000,000) yearly on medical research so seen through a wider chronological lens the price of medical research is greater. I don't regret this fact; I only point out that it is the reverse of what you made seem to be the case.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby wolfhnd on February 6th, 2017, 2:44 am 

The immigration plan that Merkel supported is almost word for word the one Nazi collaborator George Soros presented in a paper. It is more or less a way to maintain a slave labor supply in the face of declining European reproductive rates. Don't be fooled by the cover of a book. We could do much more for those people suffering from civil war and sectarian violence in the middle east by establishing safe zones than by accepting a small fraction of the needy on a misguided immigration plan. There are people that need to immigrate but they are mostly non Muslims because they will never be safe in any of the Theocracies in the region.

The list of countries that Trump suspended immigration from is the one Obama created to list states with high rates of terrorist. It is not a Muslim ban but a ban on immigration from countries who cannot reliably establish the intention or even the nationality of a large segment of the people within their borders.

People have a right to seek asylum of that there is little question but the professionals at the state department not Trump will have to make the vetting process more efficient if international law is going to be fairly administered. The current system unjustly favors economic migrants and ignores many people who legitimately fear for their lives or have merit for immigration.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Lomax on February 6th, 2017, 3:13 am 

wolfhnd » February 6th, 2017, 7:44 am wrote:The list of countries that Trump suspended immigration from is the one Obama created to list states with high rates of terrorist.

I think it is worth remembering that we have the attestation of Rudy Guiliani that Trump asked him how to institute a Muslim ban, and that this was Guiliani's advice.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby doogles on February 13th, 2017, 5:50 am 

I received this in an email today, but I'm not quite sure where it fits into the current legal system of the USA. My impression is that the 1952 law mentioned therein remains active and that it can be used as a precedent in law. It was used by Jimmy Carter in his term of office. Such precedents seem to be paramount in modern law, and I would be interested if anyone can assure me that the current Court rulings against Donald Trump's Executive Decision were valid in view of this 1952 Act -

"Wouldn't it have been interesting if,
at some point during the presidential campaign, if one of the candidates
asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington, D.C., ever heard of
the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?"

I did not know of this act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.

Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most,
of the people we elect to work for us in Washington do not have the slightest
idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States,
Donald Trump was severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit
or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities
and even people of certain religions (Muslims).

The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things,
being un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.

Congressmen and senators swore that they would never allow such legislation,
and our president called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, surprise, surprise!"

It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been
applied on several occasions.

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
allows for the "suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president,
whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into
the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

"The president may, by proclamation and for such a period as he shall
deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, immigrants or
non- immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to
be appropriate."

Who was president when this was passed? Democrat Harry Truman.

Who do you suppose last used this process? Democrat Jimmy Carter,
no less than 37 years ago, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States.

But Carter actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the
United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them.

Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000
Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

So, what do you say about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received
from the Democratic senators, representatives and the Obama Administration?

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that
an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with
the principles of our Constitution."

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance
to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should or could be refused
immigration to OUR country.

Authenticated at: (look under 1952)
http://library.uwb.edu/Static/ USimmigration/USimmigrationlegislation.html
U.S.immigration/1952_ immigration and_nationality_ act.html

Trump is invoking the existing law."


I've checked out that McCarran-Walter Act, and it appears to still be valid. Your can check the Act in its original wording by copy and pasting its name into Google.

I'm old enough and old-fashioned enough to believe that residents of any country should have the democratic right to restrict entry of anyone they feel is undesirable for any reason to enter their country AT ANY GIVEN TIME, subject to change with changing circumstances.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 796
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby toucana on February 13th, 2017, 10:43 am 

doogles [/b]» Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:50 am wrote
I received this in an email today, but I'm not quite sure where it fits into the current legal system of the USA. My impression is that the 1952 law mentioned therein remains active and that it can be used as a precedent in law

The act you refer to was originally vetoed by president Harry Truman in 1952. He had this to say about it:
We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries–on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again... These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.

Truman's veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate. This happened of course at the height of the shameful and rabid witch-hunting of the HCUA led by the despicable Senator Joe McCarthy (Wisconsin), hardly the most inspiring precedent in modern American history.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was subsequently dramatically amended, most notably in 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) and again in 1990. Only parts of it remain in force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

None of which however bears on the fact that Trump's most recent executive order of 2017 was a crude and legally illiterate attempt to stigmatise and invoke prejudice against a specific religious group, namely Muslims, nothing to do with nationalities at all.

As the courts noted, the ban made no sense at all, not least because no nationals of the seven countries listed in the EO have been responsible for any documented terrorist attacks on US soil, whereas two of the countries that were *not* included - Saudi Arabia and Egypt most certainly have.

You do know that 15 of the 19 jihadist 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia ? So why was it not included in the ban ? The answer seems to be that Donald Trump and his family members have extensive business dealings in KSA and in Egypt as well which they didn't wish to to be hindered.

The procedure that Trump's order tried to invoke was struck down by the courts at the first time of asking. Trump has apparently now abandoned plans to appeal the latest verdict in the supreme court after his third and latest defeat.

As Hillary Clinton put it in a recent tweet:
Courts 3 - Trump 0
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby doogles on February 14th, 2017, 5:33 am 

Thank you for that information Toucana.

At the time I read that email, I didn't realise that the McCarran-Walter Act was the basis of the McCarthyism phenomenon we witnessed with shame during the 1950s. The effects were evident here in Australia at the time. Like many other people I had an ever-present minor fear that someone might brand me a Communist.

I was looking for the 1990 Amendments to that Act, but I suppose one would have to actually purchase a copy of the complete Act with all of it's amendments from the Government Printer or whoever.

I did come across a 1990 article in The Washington Post that didn't sound too optimistic though on this site - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 3a10e69367 .

It was written by a David Cole and published on November 18, 1990. Here is a brief excerpt -

“Reports of the McCarran-Walter Act's death are greatly exaggerated. Its spirit lives on in the 1990 revisions, which continue to deny immigrants the very freedoms of belief and association upon which this nation of immigrants was founded. Far from repudiating the ideological litmus test, Congress merely adjusted it to today's paranoias. The national pastime of witch hunting did not begin with the McCarran-Walter Act, and unfortunately it will not end with its repeal.

The writer is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a volunteer staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.”


It apparently has some clauses about terrorists and other persons considered potential risks to the stability of the USA.

But I appreciated your response.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 796
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: 'So Called' President Attacks Judge

Postby Braininvat on February 25th, 2017, 1:15 pm 

https://apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866

New report from DHS, disputing the Admin's threat assessment of the 7 countries singled out for the immigration ban.

Watch for angry tweets and obfuscations.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills



Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests