https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judg...1500004506

Bound and determined to get shut down by the Supreme Court again.

(07-14-2017 07:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judg...1500004506

Bound and determined to get shut down by the Supreme Court again.

I think Trump keeps pushing, and forgets stuff. Like grandparents. Why can't grandparents come to the US to see their sick child or grandchild who is in the hospital here? Trump's team keeps rushing these orders, and leave things not correct. I think the Trump team needs to do is go back and do some corrections.

If you try and consider every possible outcome, nothing would ever get done. You'd be in a state of paralysis by analysis.

(07-14-2017 07:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 07:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judg...1500004506

Bound and determined to get shut down by the Supreme Court again.

I think Trump keeps pushing, and forgets stuff. Like grandparents. Why can't grandparents come to the US to see their sick child or grandchild who is in the hospital here? Trump's team keeps rushing these orders, and leave things not correct. I think the Trump team needs to do is go back and do some corrections.

Uhm.. Grandparents ? Where is this claim coming from. They're in the family relations category, so by the EO that was issued, they're in the not-locked out category, from what I've read..

As for this judge... this is one of those examples, where I think the judge KNOWS he's going to be overturned again by the Supreme Court, but he's just going to continue to be an idiot and jam up the works and try to make a name for himself.

Wait, I'm confused. The supreme court ruled on this and now a lower court is defying the ruling?

The Supreme Court made a ruling where they "clarified" what the EO was saying, Tiger, basically nullifying the earlier bans by the lower courts, but never ruling on the EO in itself.

I will say I had an issue with the Supreme Court doing that without ruling on the actual EO in its' entirety. I want to say Gorsuch and Thomas had used the argument I believe.

They never ruled on the Constitutionality on the EO itself... (That's supposed to be later this year I think?)

(07-14-2017 07:59 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  The Supreme Court made a ruling where they "clarified" what the EO was saying, Tiger, basically nullifying the earlier bans by the lower courts, but never ruling on the EO in itself.

I will say I had an issue with the Supreme Court doing that without ruling on the actual EO in its' entirety. I want to say Gorsuch and Thomas had used the argument I believe.

They never ruled on the Constitutionality on the EO itself... (That's supposed to be later this year I think?)

Yeah, I think you got it correct as that was my understanding.

(07-14-2017 07:59 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  The Supreme Court made a ruling where they "clarified" what the EO was saying, Tiger, basically nullifying the earlier bans by the lower courts, but never ruling on the EO in itself.

I will say I had an issue with the Supreme Court doing that without ruling on the actual EO in its' entirety. I want to say Gorsuch and Thomas had used the argument I believe.

They never ruled on the Constitutionality on the EO itself... (That's supposed to be later this year I think?)

That's proper.

What came before the Court was the issue with the stay.

(07-14-2017 07:59 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  The Supreme Court made a ruling where they "clarified" what the EO was saying, Tiger, basically nullifying the earlier bans by the lower courts, but never ruling on the EO in itself.

I will say I had an issue with the Supreme Court doing that without ruling on the actual EO in its' entirety. I want to say Gorsuch and Thomas had used the argument I believe.

They never ruled on the Constitutionality on the EO itself... (That's supposed to be later this year I think?)

Ok, I now recall that being discussed in a different thread. Thanks for the explanation.

Agree.... Laws aren't supposed to envision every possibility, however remote. They're supposed to cover the obvious ones, and let specific issues be left to the courts/judges/enforcement

Pretty clear... if you don't belong here, you aren't supposed to be here. OF COURSE there are exceptions, but exceptions almost by definition aren't done by fiat, but by specific due process.

Sure, that could mean that the grandparents don't get to see their grandchild before they die... but that happens to citizens of this country and people all over the world every day. I don't see why we should be catering to foreigners who can afford the cost of last minute international flight but not poor Americans who can't afford bus fare

Bad link. So what did the judge do?

Quote:Sure, that could mean that the grandparents don't get to see their grandchild before they die

See Hambone.. I still disagree that this happens. The SC clarified "close relations" would not be affected by the ban.. I think grandparents would qualify in that regard.

I saw another article. He included in laws, aunts and uncles and cousins as well.

In general, the Trump administration was consistent with other law in what constitutes "close relations." Grandparents and grandchildren is not a stretch either. However aunts and uncles and cousins and some of the in laws included are not "close relations."

(07-14-2017 10:40 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, that could mean that the grandparents don't get to see their grandchild before they die

See Hambone.. I still disagree that this happens. The SC clarified "close relations" would not be affected by the ban.. I think grandparents would qualify in that regard.

I'm not saying it would.... I'm merely saying that I don't care if it does.

I think we spend far too much time trying to think of some odd set of extraneous circumstances under which one person (who in this case isn't a citizen and doesn't have the inherent right to be here) POSSIBLY could be troubled... and not enough time thinking about the dozens of loopholes we've no w created under which people with ill intent can now exploit us.

Not necessarily speaking about this event at all, just sort of the general means by which we seem to want to write laws. We complain about 'loopholes' all the time and how people (often the wealthy) exploit them, and many believe the answer is even more strict and specifically defined rules... when it is that explicit wording that usually creates the loopholes in the first place.

(07-14-2017 07:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 07:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judg...1500004506
Bound and determined to get shut down by the Supreme Court again.

I think Trump keeps pushing, and forgets stuff. Like grandparents. Why can't grandparents come to the US to see their sick child or grandchild who is in the hospital here? Trump's team keeps rushing these orders, and leave things not correct. I think the Trump team needs to do is go back and do some corrections.

Why should grandparents get to come?

(07-14-2017 10:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  I saw another article. He included in laws, aunts and uncles and cousins as well.

Its worse than that.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ruled Thursday night that the federal government’s list of family relatives eligible to bypass the travel ban should be expanded to include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts and other relatives. Watson also ordered exemptions for refugees who have been given formal assurance from agencies placing them in the United States.

The SC doesnt sound like its messing around. They only gave the Hawaiian judge until tomorrow to respond to the JD's petition.

He's about to get hit with a big blackthorn shaleleigh in the noggin.

He's playing word games.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of Judge people of a certain political persuasion like.

How does the trial court have jurisdiction to do anything related to the EO while It's on appeal with the supreme court?

(07-17-2017 09:09 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  How does the trial court have jurisdiction to do anything related to the EO while It's on appeal with the supreme court?

They dont, but that doesnt stop some judges from trying to screw with the process. It also sets up the process whereby the JD doesnt have to appeal to the 9th circuit. If the SC sends the case back down to the lower court, and they still improperly rule, the JD can take the case straight to the SC and bypass the 9th.