[Cause]

death rattle, on 08 February 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

Intimidating is exactly the word that came to mind. But listening was thrilling.

On another note, after Trump's disastrous, murderous screwup in Yemen, Yemen has officially barred US anti-terror ground missions in the country.
https://www.nytimes....d=tw-share&_r=0

DJT is a moron and his foreign policy is already failing.

His foreign policy in this regard seems to be a continuation of USA policy in general. The raid is not unusual. It just went horribly wrong. If it went well he would have been a hero. He has done a lot a wrong but in this case I have to say his actions were on par with previous administrations.

[Silencer]

Cause, on 08 February 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

death rattle, on 08 February 2017 - 03:08 AM, said:

Intimidating is exactly the word that came to mind. But listening was thrilling.

On another note, after Trump's disastrous, murderous screwup in Yemen, Yemen has officially barred US anti-terror ground missions in the country.
https://www.nytimes....d=tw-share&_r=0

DJT is a moron and his foreign policy is already failing.

His foreign policy in this regard seems to be a continuation of USA policy in general. The raid is not unusual. It just went horribly wrong. If it went well he would have been a hero. He has done a lot a wrong but in this case I have to say his actions were on par with previous administrations.

Considering the merit of previous administrations engaging in this kind of activity isn't exactly well established, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that makes it fine. Normal, maybe, but that's not really the same thing.

(As an aside, I always get amused at all the comment trolls going on about Obama not ending drone strikes etc and how "lefties" weren't upset about it when he did it, despite ongoing criticism for it over the years. Even more so when it's made out to be this deal-breaker/trump card that makes everything else he did evil or worthless - as if one aspect of the government being wrong during someone's tenure as president is the be all and end all. Although I suppose if you assume the people you're talking to hero-worship the man in question, being able to point out one flaw would in theory ruin that image. Guess that's what you get for setting up strawmen/projecting your own tendencies onto others...)

[worry]

It wasn't usual, because DJT literally ordered the mission with no forethought whatsoever, aside from hope that it would bolster the Muslim Ban.

[worry]

A little insight into how ISIS is taking the Muslim Ban: https://storify.com/...-the-travel-ban

[Tiste Simeon]

Mezla PigDog, on 07 February 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

Did any Brits sign the online petition to cancel Trumps state visit? I couldn't bring myself to sign because of the wording that it would be too embarrassing for the queen. I don't really care if the queen has an awkward couple of days at work. I can't work out if that means I have my priorities mixed up. If only it had simply said that we can't let our traditional pomp and circumstance be used to lend legitimacy to a bigoted wannabe tyrant. It would be a tad hypocritical of us as a country because we did whore Queenie out to the Chinese president in the name of trade deals a while back.

Yes. I actually support the royal family but I also know that the Queen is dignified and whatever enough for it not to matter too much. That part was not the reason I signed.

I did it because he is a narcissistic bellend and hopefully this petition will cram it down his throat how unpopular he is. It won't make any difference but I like the thought that in his private times he is desperately upset about it.

[Gorefest]

Well, the british government is currently also morally bankrupt, so Trump and May make a lovely pair.

[MTS]

Tiste Simeon, on 09 February 2017 - 06:54 PM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 07 February 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

Did any Brits sign the online petition to cancel Trumps state visit? I couldn't bring myself to sign because of the wording that it would be too embarrassing for the queen. I don't really care if the queen has an awkward couple of days at work. I can't work out if that means I have my priorities mixed up. If only it had simply said that we can't let our traditional pomp and circumstance be used to lend legitimacy to a bigoted wannabe tyrant. It would be a tad hypocritical of us as a country because we did whore Queenie out to the Chinese president in the name of trade deals a while back.

Yes. I actually support the royal family but I also know that the Queen is dignified and whatever enough for it not to matter too much. That part was not the reason I signed.

I did it because he is a narcissistic bellend and hopefully this petition will cram it down his throat how unpopular he is. It won't make any difference but I like the thought that in his private times he is desperately upset about it.

Now I think I know why Obama is smiling so much on his vacation.

[worry]

9th Circuit's decision is in. Unanimous decision (three judge panel) against Trump/DOJ. The stay will remain for now.

[HoosierDaddy]

Surprised it was unanimous. Creates a fairly unprecedented (hehehehe, get it?) situation where an 8 panel SCOTUS will hear one of the most important cases in an early presidency.

[EmperorMagus]

death rattle, on 09 February 2017 - 11:32 PM, said:

9th Circuit's decision is in. Unanimous decision (three judge panel) against Trump/DOJ. The stay will remain for now.

And he's already having an emotional breakdown on twitter.

Okay, it's just one tweet, but it's in ALL CAPS!

[worry]

Did I use "stay" right or was the stay what the DOJ was asking for, re: the earlier court's ruling?

And yah, the unanimity was surprising and awesome. I'm sure nerdier people than I will break down the written decision, but I've heard already it's a doozy (eg. "total repudiation").

And yes, the all caps Tweet was awesome. "SEE YOU IN COURT!" (likely spittle flying everywhere). My favorite response from someone I follow, a simple: "that was court".

[HoosierDaddy]

Haven't read the judgment; but in nomenclature the previous verdict has been "Upheld" and is now subject to review if SCOTUS grants Writ of Certiorari, meaning at least 4 wish to hear the case.

Process in very, very simple terms:

FYI: A "Stay" is issued as a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) on acting on a specific action. The original "Stay" here was that the Federal District Court found enough damage that immediate and irrevocable harm is taking place. To alleviate that an immediate stay must be put in place to avoid said harm until a court has ruled as to whether it is legal.

Fed argues there isn't irrevocable harm being done or they have a cause to do such.

District court: Stay is granted.

Fed Circuit. Stay is upheld.

This is where we are right now.

Writ of Certiorari is asked for: (Will you hear our case on the Temporary Restraining Order SCOTUS?)

-> If yes, court rules either overturning decision or upholding it.
-> If no, Circuit Court is upheld. TRO stays in place for near future.

Down the line: Someone sues as to the actual constitutionality of the EO if TRO is overruled; or new EO with different language.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 10 February 2017 - 07:27 PM

[EmperorMagus]

I've been reading Hobbes for one of my classes, and this quote struck particularly true regarding the current political climate:

Quote

Ignorance of the causes, and original constitution of right, equity, law, and justice, disposeth a man to make custom and example the rule of his actions; in such manner as to think that unjust which it hath been the custom to punish; and that just, of the impunity and approbation whereof they can produce an example or (as the lawyers which only use this false measure of justice barbarously call it) a precedent; like little children that have no other rule of good and evil manners but the correction they receive from their parents and masters; save that children are constant to their rule, whereas men are not so; because grown strong and stubborn, they appeal from custom to reason, and from reason to custom, as it serves their turn, receding from custom when their interest requires it, and setting themselves against reason as oft as reason is against them: which is the cause that the doctrine of right and wrong is perpetually disputed, both by the pen and the sword: whereas the doctrine of lines and figures is not so; because men care not, in that subject, what be truth, as a thing that crosses no man's ambition, profit, or lust. For I doubt not, but if it had been a thing contrary to any man's right of dominion, or to the interest of men that have dominion, that the three angles of a triangle should be equal to two angles of a square, that doctrine should have been, if not disputed, yet by the burning of all books of geometry suppressed, as far as he whom it concerned was able.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 10 February 2017 - 01:49 AM

[Vengeance]

I have read all of Calvin and Hobbes and I have never seen that. What year was it from?

[Tiste Simeon]

I think it was one of the conversations they had on his little cart before they fell into a ravine...

[Cause]

Is the supreme court likely to look at the case? If a lower court of 3 judges all agreed unanimously that the ban is unconstitutional its seems unlikely that a higher court would find differently?

[Mentalist]

Cause, on 10 February 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

Is the supreme court likely to look at the case? If a lower court of 3 judges all agreed unanimously that the ban is unconstitutional its seems unlikely that a higher court would find differently?

See HD's post above. The "Constitutionality' has not been ruled on yet, per se.

The only issue in question right now, is whether the ban should be temporarily stayed (i.e., "paused"), until that issue IS heard (and such cases can take years of prep, no one approaches Constituional Law lightly)

As for whether SCOTUS will hear it- in Canada it'd depend entirely on what arguments the AG would come up with to question CoA's decision. In the US, it might boil down to Justices' political preferences.

[Tiste Simeon]

Surely the new SCOTUS will dance to Trump's tune?

[Abyss]

Tiste Simeon, on 10 February 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Surely the new SCOTUS will dance to Trump's tune?

Likely.

Unfortunately.

[QuickTidal]

https://techcrunch.c...-enter-country/