What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[LaCroix]

the EO did not lose in the courts. that rumor seems to be carrying some legs. a district court judge overruled that a very, very small aspect of the EO. that doesn't affect the rest of the EO under traditional concepts of judicial review of laws. you construe things narrowly and try to keep the law intact if possible. that's how obamacare survived -- parts of it were ruled unconstitutional and literally cut from the rest of the act.

You know better than this.  So far all the applications have been TROs so there hasn't been any full reviews yet.  But there have been court findings of substantial likelihood of success on the merits.  There have been four separate district court rulings - and they address the core of the executive order.  These cases are just at the beginning but so far the administration is getting pasted in Court.  It is not typical for an EO to get hit with TRO grants within hours of issuance,

I haven't heard of the court rulings concluding the president lacked authority to ban immigrants under s 1182(f). not being sarcastic -- if this is what you're saying, this is need to me. I haven't read the court orders and was under the impression they all hit on the same things.

this wasn't a typical EO, and iirc the green card or visa portion might be unconstitutional and that's why TROs were granted.

[viper37]

If he oversteps his support will dry up fast.

See, that's the problem with you: you have Faith.  Faith in people to be reasonable.

[LaCroix]

There's nothing wrong with Yates pulling a Richardson.  She didn't sign on to be a part of this disgraceful shit show.  The criticism is that she didn't resign, but the difference is the lack of personnel below her, to wit:

Unfortunately, she was the highest existing Senate confirmed official in the DOJ, and therefore the only official authorized to sign FISA warrants for surveillance.

So the charitable interpretation is that she stayed on to preserve this capability until the Trumpists could get their act together and put someone else in.

looked up Richardson because I wondered whether anything similar like this had happened before

Richardson had promised Congress he would not interfere with the Special Prosecutor, and, rather than disobey the President or break his promise, he resigned.

that's really different than what happened here. this was a direct order to all DOJ to disobey the president to not craft / make legal defenses of the EO throughout the districts. every US attorney was ordered to stop planning their cases at the district court level, etc.

[viper37]

her entire job is supposed to be non-partisan. she has no ability under the constitution to direct the DOJ in ways independent from congress and the executive. there simply is no constitutional mechanism for what she just ordered the DOJ to do. plus, she didn't even say it was unlawful, she said she was unsure

She didn't receive any orders/instructions from Congress.

And from what I gather, in your mind, the role of an AG is to rubberstamp executive orders, regardless of what she thinks and even go to court, to defend in bad faith, an order she thinks is illegal?

So, if she was a District Attorney, you'd be confident in seeing her pressing charges against an accused she believes might be innocent, or at least very reasonable doubt that he's not guilty and then proceed to lie in court and twist procedures to make the accusations stick?  Is that what you are telling us?

[viper37]

Explain. I don't really understand Dakota's position beyond that the AG is bound to support the President at all times, which I see no basis for.

I don't know how to explain more without repeating myself.  My understanding is the AG is bound to comply with all legal orders.  If she's given an order that she objects to on grounds other than legality, she always has the option to resign.  Not resigning, and locking down the DOJ, is a political stunt.

She said she wasn't convinced of the legality of the order.  I would agree with you if she said "the order is legal, but my morals and ethics don't agree with it".

[LaCroix]

no, so like your job is a dishwasher. the employment contract making you a salaried employee, stock options, all those benefits soon provided by trump. you can wash the dishes. you can even tell management you need new dishes. You can argue with top management (president or whoever) about the need for new dish policies, etc.

but the employee contract doesn't vest authority for you to inform the entire dishwashing organization to not go to work.

A more effective resignation one would have been to resign, make a public that isn't wild, and that's it.

[viper37]

a district court judge overruled that a very, very small aspect of the EO.

because that very, very small aspect was what was asked of the judge to rule on.  Unless I grossly misunderstand your justice, a judge can not rule on something he is not asked to review.  If I challenge one article of the law in court, the judge can not rule on the validity of the entire law, only on the specific challenge I brought before him/her.

[The Minsky Moment]

I haven't heard of the court rulings concluding the president lacked authority to ban immigrants under s 1182(f). not being sarcastic -- if this is what you're saying, this is need to me. I haven't read the court orders and was under the impression they all hit on the same things.

The Mass and EDNY orders are on line and only a couple of pages long.  There are findings of likelihood of success on due process and EP claims.  Since those are constitutional claims, the scope of the President's statutory authority under the INA would be irrelevant.  And if the President persists, he will have to explain and justify compliance with 1152.

[LaCroix]

Explain. I don't really understand Dakota's position beyond that the AG is bound to support the President at all times, which I see no basis for.

I don't know how to explain more without repeating myself.  My understanding is the AG is bound to comply with all legal orders.  If she's given an order that she objects to on grounds other than legality, she always has the option to resign.  Not resigning, and locking down the DOJ, is a political stunt.

She said she wasn't convinced of the legality of the order.  I would agree with you if she said "the order is legal, but my morals and ethics don't agree with it".

you could maybe check the legality of trump's OE in five days, but there's just many things to consider. looking at various sections, then researching the actual law, which could take some time. There's collecting documents related to the history of the act, pulling committee meeting notes, etc.

[LaCroix]

I haven't heard of the court rulings concluding the president lacked authority to ban immigrants under s 1182(f). not being sarcastic -- if this is what you're saying, this is need to me. I haven't read the court orders and was under the impression they all hit on the same things.

The Mass and EDNY orders are on line and only a couple of pages long.  There are findings of likelihood of success on due process and EP claims.  Since those are constitutional claims, the scope of the President's statutory authority under the INA would be irrelevant.  And if the President persists, he will have to explain and justify compliance with 1152.

due process and s 1182(f) are covered under Kerry v Din, which I haven't had a chance to read. sleep now, will check tomorrow

[viper37]

no, so like your job is a dishwasher. the employment contract making you a salaried employee, stock options, all those benefits soon provided by trump. you can wash the dishes. you can even tell management you need new dishes. You can argue with top management (president or whoever) about the need for new dish policies, etc.

but the employee contract doesn't vest authority for you to inform the entire dishwashing organization to not go to work.

A more effective resignation one would have been to resign, make a public that isn't wild, and that's it.

A dishwasher isn't in any position of authority.  Find me a better example, please

Give me an example about a person with authority over subordinates who must direct them in a legal manner, according to the oath he/she swore to uphold on taking the job.

I don't know.  Like a US officer asked to conduct a punitive raid in a random civilian village in Syria after a terrorist attack.  Should he order he soldiers to kill every men, women and children because that is the order he received from the President?  Assumed the President has signed an executive order authorizing the military to retalitate against civilians of any mulsim country in case of a terrorist attack against US interests.  Should the US officer ponder at the legality of the actions he is about to undertake, of should he follow the orders he got?

If a submarine commander is ordered to launch a nuclear missile at Pakistan in retaliation to a mass shooting by a gay muslim in an Austin nightclub, should he do it without hesitation?

[viper37]

Explain. I don't really understand Dakota's position beyond that the AG is bound to support the President at all times, which I see no basis for.

I don't know how to explain more without repeating myself.  My understanding is the AG is bound to comply with all legal orders.  If she's given an order that she objects to on grounds other than legality, she always has the option to resign.  Not resigning, and locking down the DOJ, is a political stunt.

She said she wasn't convinced of the legality of the order.  I would agree with you if she said "the order is legal, but my morals and ethics don't agree with it".

you could maybe check the legality of trump's OE in five days, but there's just many things to consider. looking at various sections, then researching the actual law, which could take some time. There's collecting documents related to the history of the act, pulling committee meeting notes, etc.

Currently, the EO is getting trunced in courts.  The probability of winning the defense is close to zero.  Current defenses have proven ineffective.  Saying "I don't believe it's lawful" is tantamount to saying "it's unlawful" in lawyers speak.

If she tought the order was lawful but refused to do it, she wouldn't have employed this language.

[The Minsky Moment]

due process and s 1182(f) are covered under Kerry v Din, which I haven't had a chance to read. sleep now, will check tomorrow

Not remotely on point
+1182(f) was not at issue in the case
+ It was a 5 (w/2 concurs)-4 with Scalia writing the opinion.  Uh oh.
+ the two concurring justices found DP satisfied because the affected individual was subject to a statutory admissibility bar AND there was a bona fide factual basis for that finding.  Good luck to the trumpistas proving that in as applied challenges.
+ it is of no help on the EP challenge.

[Syt]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump  10 Std.vor 10 Stunden
Mehr
The American dream is back. We're going to create an environment for small business like we haven't had in many, many decades!

[DGuller]

He finally smiled.  .  See, not a sociopath.