Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump's Muslim Ban: The Shitshow has begun

Trump's Muslim Ban: The Shitshow has begun (Page 6)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2017, 07:04 PM
 
Question: As I understand it, the purpose of the 90 day temp ban was to give us breathing room until a new vetting process was in place. It's been over 90 days since they first tried to implement the ban. The amount of time they needed to implement the new vetting process has passed. What is the point of the temp ban now?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2017, 08:47 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 12:39 PM
 
My guess here is they actually intended to do something with that 90 days, even if it was just nebulous schemes to throw raw meat at the base.

Once the issue became RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAY, everything else (such as the ostensible reason it was enacted in the first place) became secondary.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 03:36 PM
 
Oh, I agree the legal challenge is about sending a message now, I'd just like a reporter to call them out on what progress or changes have been made over the time frame.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 03:48 PM
 
Absolutely. It's a slap me in the face obvious point.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2017, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Absolutely. It's a slap me in the face obvious point.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2017, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Question: As I understand it, the purpose of the 90 day temp ban was to give us breathing room until a new vetting process was in place. It's been over 90 days since they first tried to implement the ban. The amount of time they needed to implement the new vetting process has passed. What is the point of the temp ban now?
This idea has apparently germinated for long enough and is beginning to sprout.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2017, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This idea has apparently germinated for long enough and is beginning to sprout.
Yeah, I saw a GOP senator mentioned it?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2017, 07:33 PM
 


Well that's one way to undermine your case.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2017, 08:43 PM
 
Maybe Trump should have EXTREME VETTED his staff?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 12:28 PM
 
SCOTUS reinstates most of travel ban pending hearing in October.
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...0f25c234304a4a
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 02:53 PM
 
Not even a little shocked. It's time the activist courts had some of their power trimmed. Travel bans aren't a new thing and you can't say that this one is unconstitutional merely because you hate the guy issuing it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Not even a little shocked. It's time the activist courts had some of their power trimmed. Travel bans aren't a new thing and you can't say that this one is unconstitutional merely because you hate the guy issuing it.
When The ACLU lawyer was asked the question "If Hillary had issued the XO, would it be constitutional?", he said yes.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 04:22 PM
 
Now that's what I call privilege.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2017, 09:39 AM
 
Far as I can tell the stay on the hold has some broad exemptions.

What's more confusing is oral arguments won't occur until another expiration of the 90 days so I'm not sure if that s an attempt to defang or avoid the case or something else.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2017, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Far as I can tell the stay on the hold has some broad exemptions.
Not just broad, but also vague, and given the fact that the oral arguments will be held after the 90 days have expired, this may cause some follow-up legal proceedings that have to litigate what “relations to the US” means.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What's more confusing is oral arguments won't occur until another expiration of the 90 days so I'm not sure if that s an attempt to defang or avoid the case or something else.
Makes me think this whole procedure is to decide about the validity of the extension of this XO.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2017, 01:09 PM
 
Sadly Hawaii is challenging how the admin is limiting the scope of stay through its definitions of close family.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2017, 06:01 PM
 
That'll last a few hours.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2017, 02:21 PM
 
First judge wisely said he wouldn't try to interpret who SCOTUS meant by close relative. Second one has broadened the list that qualify. Hope this goes back up the chain quickly.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 01:45 PM
 
News is unclear but it sounds like SCOTUS upheld the broad family exceptions. Unholy trinity dissented
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 02:00 PM
 
SCOTUS cancelled the hearing now that new rules are in effect. I don't see why they scheduled it in the first place since they knew it would expire before their next term. This entire ordeal felt like theater on their part.

Also, Venezuela?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 07:31 PM
 
Sudan was dropped in the new order. Possibly by agreeing to accept lots of deportations. guardian article

I wonder if Mexican border crossers who's country of origin can't be determined will be unloaded to Sudan. It would depend on the exact wording of the agreement, assuming an agreement does exist.

Venezuela (certain government-related people), Chad and North Korea (blanket bans) were added. Everyone knows what a hotbed North Korea is for Muslims. Also, the new order is permanent. So much for Trump's ban expiring in 90 days after new vetting procedures were completed. Lie.

Activist groups suspect Venezuela and North Korea were added as a smokescreen. So Trump can argue the ban isn't related to religion. Never mind what he said during the campaign, or in multiple tweets.

The SCOTUS cancelled the hearing, but asked for updated briefings from the government and opponents. They certainly haven't closed the case.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Venezuela (certain government-related people), Chad and North Korea (blanket bans) were added. Everyone knows what a hotbed North Korea is for Muslims.
That's the point, isn't it? By adding this random countries they make the law defensible. Unless you got email of them admitting to this, doesn't this stand up in court?

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The SCOTUS cancelled the hearing, but asked for updated briefings from the government and opponents. They certainly haven't closed the case.
It's a different case now. There will be no ruling on whether that 90 day ban was constitutional or not. They dodged it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 08:32 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2018, 06:24 PM
 
3.0 going to SCOTUS at the end of April
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2018, 07:40 PM
 
So, the arguments were held last week. I haven't listened yet, but court watchers say it went poorly for those against the ban.

Notably, the solicitor general argued that if we elected a raging anti-semite who did an Israel ban, as long as he had some BS reason for it, it'd be ok.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:09 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,