Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

And when you think he is done embarrassing himself and will take a bit of a break after the latest accident? brainfart? Trump moment? he just goes and does it again...

Source in german, sorry:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...eutschen-sind-boese-sehr-boese-a-1149282.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...staetigt-kritik-an-deutschland-a-1149336.html

Anyway, its Trump bitching to EU leaders about how its unfair that Germany exports cars and that Germany doesn't have a trade deficit...

 

And how hard it is to get planning permission for golf resorts.

 

Trump strategy to winning bigly:
Say so much crazy stuff the world only remembers half of it

 

It just keeps coming at you so fast. You don't have time to dwell on just how awful his latest outburst is because your brain is only just starting to process it when the next one comes along.

 

and right on cue...

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

 

Remind me again about the US system... IIRC there are supposed to be 3 equal branches of government, designed to keep each other in check, right? And they are the Legislative (House/Senate), the Executive (Trump and his minions) and... what was the third again? Oh, that's right... the judiciary.

So it looks like the system is working, to an extent. The Legislative branch have failed to curb the excesses of the Trump family and Goldman Sachs (because they see an opportunity to get away with so much under the orange man-child's watch), but the Judiciary are independent (just about) - and have decided that what The Donald and his colleagues have said is a likely an indication of how they actually see things.

So after 2 years of talking about a Muslim ban, and then they try to enact a law that disproportionately impacts on Muslims, various courts around the US have come to the same conclusion... that the bans are likely to be specifically targeted at Muslims and thus are illegal. I'm really not sure what the controversy is.

 

Sorry should have been more precise.
Legal residents do and illegals on american soil do. What this does is pretend that constitutional rights apply to non citizens abroad.

Because judges are there to interpret the text of the order itself and whether that order is constitutional or legal under US law. The basis that they are using the establishment clause to apply to non citizens not resident or in US territory is incorrect. There is also precedent for banning certain classes of aliens going back to WW2 and also just after WW1.

Saying that the 3 branches of government are there to keep each other in check is an incomplete answer. It is not the job of the judiciary to decide what is good or bad policy. The judiciary is there to decide whether the execution or the text of a law is Legal, which keeps congress from passing unconstitutional law and the executive from executing illegal orders under the US law. The constitutional framers were creating a sovereign nation and It's a touchstone of sovereignty to be able to exclude whomever they wish for any reason, article 1 section 8 clause 4 grants congress plenary power to establish uniform rules for naturalisation, by establishing rules for naturalisation you have to be establishing rules for how people can not be naturalised.


It's a stupid policy but it would be the place of congress to remove the presidents powers under 50 USC section 21

or USC 1182(f)

And the following judgement to be overturned

Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)

Look it's a stupid bloody policy but the judiciary is not set up to decide that and it can only set a bad precedent with unforeseen consequences.

EDIT: I.e. you wont like to see what happens in 4 or 8 years time when most of the judiciary could be republican picks. Also when acting attorney general Yates decided not to zealously defend this lawful order in her role as the attorney of the US government it should have resulted in her disbarment. He could also pull an Andrew Jackson and say"the court has made their order now let them enforce it" although nobody tell Trump that.

 

The judges have looked at the Executive Order and have decided that because it is targeting people of a particular religion, it is illegal. It's fairly straightforward really. They are not saying the EO is bad - though it clearly is - they are saying it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. This is a particularly significant law in the US given that a large proportion of its founders actually arrived fleeing religious persecution.

The WH have subsequently tried to frame the EO to make it sound like it is not exclusively targeting people because of their religion, but the problem is that all the drafters of the EO have be shouting about how they are going to ban muslims from entering the country, so when the the EO is challenged in court, it is easy for the court to conclude that it is based on religious bias.

Note to future tyrannical presidential candidates: Either keep your mouth shut during the election campaign, or stop promising to do things that are illegal if you get elected. It's not rocket science.

 

Unfortunately the Congress is granted full power to exclude anyone including on the basis of religion. Remember the Turner vs Williams precedent I cited that shown it were perfectly fine to exclude a non naturalised person on the basis of their speech outside of the US I.e the person were an anarchist.
Plenary power means full power. Non us citizens not in residence Do not have constitutional rights. And the powers granted by Congress to the president are to be able to exclude anyone for any reason. The framers wanted a sovereign nation that means being able to decide who comes to that nation, the protections for those RESIDENT in the US is substantial for the persecution reason you state not with the intention of hamstringing the government's sovereign power to fight possible seditious entry if it were that the protection applied to those non resident non citizens. It is infact incredibly rare for the supreme Court to rule against an order that is within the presidents power with this exception. On top of the plenary power doctrine there's the consular non reveiwability doctrine also. The president persuant to USC. 50 (21) and USC.1182 can exclude any group for whatever grounds including religion. The ww2 internment situation would be impossible without USC 50.

Obviously legal cases are complex, and I could be missing a statute that the possible motive may violate and therefore be wrong, however given what I understand this seems like judicial over reach. And it looks to set dangerous precedent in regards to applying the establishment clause to non us citizens. Also there's a big debate here about textualism that can send it haywire. The current judgement will come down to Anthony Kennedy when it gets to the supreme Court and my money will be on: it is overturned 5-4, maybe more given how timid the Sc is from ruling anything about migration law against the government.

In all it's not simple, it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

Given what you understand??

Either a) the WH really needs you onside, rather than the legions of experienced briefs they currently have, or b)... you don't understand the issues as well as the courts do.

Given that Trump sacked the head of the FBI because he was bringing down some heat during a legitimate investigation, why on earth would the WH stand for all these Judges conspiring against them, given the case for the EO is so watertight?

Occam's razor.

 

In the words of Margaret Thatcher "what a good idea"

Lower courts get judgements wrong all the time and unfortunately there are many reasons why the court could make such a decision. Even the supreme Court gets decisions wrong. Also the lower court is a non textualist decision so that complicates things as republican appointed judges (rightly so IMO) tend to be textualists.

Also BTW this is not the opinion of myself but each part is the thoughts of better minds on the matter than myself, it would be rather arrogant to claim original thought when I had to make so many citations to law and doctrine formulated by centuries of legal minds.

2.a. I don't see what the FBI has to do with anything
B. The only way to remove a judge is for the Congress to impeach and convict in the Senate. C.Take this example ginsburg spoke against Trump in the campaign arguably breaking the oath she took for th Sc. What does anyone want to do about it. Naff all.
D. He could pull an Andrew Jackson and just tell the court to enforce their order and carry on none the less.

I'm just saying from the information I have these court rulings are not watertight and look like overreach and sets a dangerous precedent for the American Republic beyond the small victory of stopping a stupid policy. Does the statute and constitutional realities, visavis its
Rights not applying to aliens, not at least raise some questions for you?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-apos-blog-tweets-144604779.html

 

Really that's their critique; champagne popsicles? I mean you can get a bottle of champagne for £11 in this country and America doesn't even have rules of origin like the EFTA so I imagine their so called champagne can be got cheaper. I really don't get the complaint.

 

Wow. You really don't.

 

Judging by the way Trump comported himself at the Arlington National Cemetery I'm guessing their whole family doesn't know the difference between commemorating and celebrating.

 

Well, they're both words with lots of syllables...

 

No I really don't, it just seems like extreme pettiness. It's not like there are important things going on right now, like I don't know $200bn of weapons to wahabi saudi just before the manchester attack (and egypt attack) or "back channels to russsia" kushner...
THE MEANING OF MEMORIAL DAY: WHY DO WE CELEBRATETHE MAY HOLIDAY? memorial day in Chicago: 10 ways to celebrate
People do "celebrate" memorial day in the US it's just the expense at a time of possible cuts to welfare under Trump that yahoo article complained of.

 

A former employee of Jared kushner describing him:

source
Ouch