What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[CountDeMoney]

FAKE TROLL! SO SAD!

[alfred russel]

LaCroix, rather than defending every trump adminstration thing with whatever comes to your mind with 2 seconds of reflection, you would do much better by posting far less frequently and giving real thought to your arguments.

And when I say "much better", I'm talking about for you who gets banned for spamming nonsense, for us that are reading your spam, and for the trump admin that you are trying to defend.

I don't think this has to do with reflection or real thought. I could post my arguments on /r/the_donald and find agreement

Lord Jesus, I tried to help him. He would not listen. Whatever happens from this point forward, I absolve myself from responsbility. I have done what I could. Amen. 

[LaCroix]

lol hey minsky

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy/?utm_term=.5f8d04e917cd

The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show "that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims." But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.

Indeed, a brief examination of cases suggests the idea has been too wild to suggest. For example, the 10th Circuit has rejected the use of a district attorney's campaign statements against certain viewpoints to show that a prosecution he commenced a few days after office was "bad faith or harassment." As the court explained, even looking at such statements would "chill debate during campaign." If campaign statements can be policed, the court concluded, it would in short undermine democracy: "the political process for selecting prosecutors should reflect the public's judgment as to the proper enforcement of the criminal laws." Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995).

There are sound policy reasons for ignoring campaign statements or promises to shed light on subsequent official action. For one, campaign promises are often insincere, designed to appeal to voters. Indeed, they are explicitly instrumental, and their goal is not policy outputs, but election. Moreover, implemented laws or policies are often substantially different from promises, as is the case here.

[LaCroix]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-eyes-sending-snowden-u-s-gift-trump-official-n718921?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

Snowden's ACLU lawyer, Ben Wizner, told NBC News they are unaware of any plans that would send him back to the United States.

"Team Snowden has received no such signals and has no new reason for concern," Wizner said.

this is amazing on so many levels

[CountDeMoney]

lol dude, his shit has already been packed.

[Ed Anger]

I'd like to see Snowden crucified on the national mall.

[Zoupa]

Why

[LaCroix]

because he took US secrets and cut a deal with powers at odds with US interests

[Razgovory]

Why

He committed a capital crime.

[LaCroix]

is this one of those "why are you cheering over bin laden's death" moments

[The Minsky Moment]

lol hey minsky

I agree.  This article is pretty awful: it mis-characterizes the States' complaint, it reads into the Court opinion arguments that aren't there, it confuses the difference between legislation and executive orders, it cites an out of circuit case as though it were authoritative, then mis-states the holding of the case and then misapplies it to a totally different context with a totally different standard of review, and finally makes an even more eyebrow-raising misapplication of a workplace discrimination case involving allegations of statements made by "non-decisionmakers" (is the argument that Trump was not the decisionmaker??)

  Saying the the article is laugh out loud bad seems a bit harsh.  I would say at least a C+ for effort, D for execution. 

[LaCroix]

you heard that one of the circuit judges actually requested for the entire court to review the decision en banc?

someone didn't agree in a big way

[The Minsky Moment]

you heard that one of the circuit judges actually requested for the entire court to review the decision en banc?

someone didn't agree in a big way

En banc rehearings are pretty common in the 9th circuit, especially for the more important cases.  There is nothing unusual or suprising about it.  Had this occurred in the 2nd circuit it would be a different story.

[LaCroix]

where are you hearing/reading that en banc rehearings requested by a circuit judge (rather than a party) are common in the 9th circuit? everything I've seen says it's a rare move

[The Minsky Moment]

where are you hearing/reading that en banc rehearings requested by a circuit judge (rather than a party) are common in the 9th circuit? everything I've seen says it's a rare move

It's rare only because typically the party requests promptly in an appropriate case.  Here the administration first signalled that it wanted to go straight to the Supreme Court, and then more recently started talking about reformulating the order (probably because at least someone in the administration is capable of counting to five).  If so the sua sponte request would be the only way the case could get a further hearing. 

The 9th circuit is by far the largest of the appeals courts - it would pretty surprising  if there wasn't a single judge who didn't support the EO.