Obama-Appointed Hawaiian Judge Freezes Trump Travel Restrictions Before They Take Effect

This Twitter thread by a lawyer associated with CATO notes this judge did not write much about the policy at all -- instead, he spends almost all his time arguing about Trump's motives that animated it.

He can't find anything unconstitutional about the actual policy, so he just says "But this guy is motivated by anti-Islamic bigotry so the policy, somehow, becomes unconstitutional."

Which puts us in the Alice in Wonderland situation of one president not being able to enact a policy, whereas another president -- one who has all his Social Justice Warrior Wokeness boxes ticked -- can enact the very same policy.

He also notes the people who brought the lawsuit (nominally -- I'm sure this was really a case of an interest group recruiting potential plaintiffs) didn't even apply for a waiver, which they could in fact do, meaning they did not exhaust all possible alternatives before filing to enjoin the executive order. He says this is a very easy reversal, based just on that.

Of course, that assumes the Ninth Circus justices care about the law when they issue their rulings -- which is very much in doubt.

Posted by: Ace at 07:41 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Hmm.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:42 PM (LTHVh)

2 I don't know whether to repeat my willowed comments or not.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:42 PM (LTHVh)

3 Trifecta?

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:42 PM (LTHVh)

4 Jessss!

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:42 PM (LTHVh)

5 I'll summon The Others.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:43 PM (LTHVh)

6 The judges.

They think themselves kings.

Posted by: blaster at March 15, 2017 07:43 PM (HV1LS)

7 It's got to be great to be a lawyer in the 9th circuit. You can just walk in and rub a pot roast all over yourself and as long as you are going against the obvious rule of law you're going to win anyway.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 15, 2017 07:44 PM (/tuJf)

8 What was it the Bard said?

Posted by: Nigel West Dickens at March 15, 2017 07:44 PM (OwdyX)

9 Judges can do whatever they want. There is no consequence. Impeachment? Rarely. And over what will be fashioned a policy difference? Not gonna happen.

Posted by: blaster at March 15, 2017 07:45 PM (HV1LS)

10 Maybe we should beat the Norks by nuking Oahu? Win Win. Open Borders so Fuck The World.

Posted by: Puddin Head at March 15, 2017 07:45 PM (vV/gB)

11 So if Sudan were to declare war on the US Trump could not shut down immigration from Sudan because of something he said during the campaign.

Posted by: Mark1971 at March 15, 2017 07:45 PM (xPl2J)

12 First thing we do, let's kill all the judges.

Posted by: Shill Wokespeare at March 15, 2017 07:45 PM (U6f54)

13 So, can anyone throw a lawsuit at this judge?

I know the Left wants lots of Muslim terrorists here; can we make these judges personally responsible if something happens?

Will doing something like that calm this shit down?

Posted by: shibumi at March 15, 2017 07:45 PM (FkAXz)

14 Smirky looking cocksucker he is.

Posted by: Under Fire at March 15, 2017 07:46 PM (6LwXe)

15
Sounds like it should be easily reversed under the ShutTheFuckUpAlready Clause.

Posted by: iSoothsayer iPro iLX at March 15, 2017 07:46 PM (MCtb9)

16 Apparently, the judge's moral compass was all a-kilter due to some defective smart device or something being in close proximity.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at March 15, 2017 07:46 PM (LWu6U)

17 The judges.

They think themselves kings.
--

They can over-rule the President.

They are Gods.

Posted by: shibumi at March 15, 2017 07:46 PM (FkAXz)

18 It's time for Congress to honor their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution" and to start impeaching these dipshit judges. That is the Congress' friggin job!!

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 15, 2017 07:46 PM (zc3Db)

19 Don't attempt to make sense of their arguments. It's they win, we lose. That's all.

Some people are going to die before the rule of law gets restored to the Republic.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:46 PM (LTHVh)

20 Both good and bad here. The decision itself is ridiculous but it will be so easy to overturn and largely settle the issue that it's sort of a gift. That being said, something has to be done to reign in the judiciary, too many judges have lost their damn minds.

Posted by: Motorhead at March 15, 2017 07:46 PM (zcVlC)

21 At this point, I think Trump needs to say "How many CBP agents does the Hawaiian court have?" and have the department go by his order.

The courts are creating a Constitutional crisis.

Let them have one, then.

Posted by: blaster at March 15, 2017 07:47 PM (HV1LS)

22 I would've loved to have seen the reaction from progressives if somebody had challenged the birth control mandate by using the anti-Christian "bitter clingers" remark Obama made during the campaign.

Posted by: Mark1971 at March 15, 2017 07:47 PM (xPl2J)

23 This is gonna get boring, the lefty judges shutting down Trump's moves.

Posted by: Les Kinetic at March 15, 2017 07:47 PM (U6f54)

24 We have been in a rolling constitutional crisis for quite some time as for all intents and purposes the constitution and the law are what the black robed tyrants deem it is.

Time for a fearless muscular executive to tell the judges to go pound sand.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 07:48 PM (+lv+r)

25 How does the judicial branch out rank the executive branch? Just do it and see what happens.

Posted by: tcn in AK at March 15, 2017 07:48 PM (cm1Bl)

26 Why doesn't Judge Robart just keep issuing his own Executive Orders?

Posted by: ShainS at March 15, 2017 07:48 PM (mt8X9)

27 Where are the freaking Jap Zeros when you need them?

Posted by: Cosda at March 15, 2017 07:48 PM (NjzfM)

28 At this point, I think Trump needs to say "How many CBP agents does the Hawaiian court have?" and have the department go by his order.

Alas, the State Department is infested. They will refuse to obey the President and will defy the political appointees.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:49 PM (LTHVh)

29
Are we at the stage when this judge claims he's receiving death threats?

Posted by: iSoothsayer iPro iLX at March 15, 2017 07:49 PM (MCtb9)

30 If Trump is a modern incarnation of Andrew Jackson, hopefully we'll hear (or see it on Twitter) this soon:

"This low-energy judge has made his decision, now let him enforce it! SAD!"

Posted by: Thrawn at March 15, 2017 07:49 PM (E/ibL)

31 I agree. Just ignore these cock suckers.

Posted by: Under Fire at March 15, 2017 07:49 PM (6LwXe)

32 Which puts us in the Alice in Wonderland situation of one president not being able to enact a policy, whereas another president -- one who has all his Social Justice Warrior Wokeness boxes ticked -- can enact the very same policy.

Can SCOTUS overturn this case with any sort of censure for those making the capricious and egregious ruling?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 07:49 PM (oVJmc)

33 The Tank is rolling down a road and they keep throwing out spike strips. They know a spike strip means nothing to this Tank; however, they know that if one spike gets caught in the tread and makes its way to a vulnerable spot maybe then......

Posted by: I'm a Mad Dog at March 15, 2017 07:50 PM (XNNr5)

34 Alas, the State Department is infested. They will refuse to obey the President and will defy the political appointees.

That sounds like a good way to clean house.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 07:50 PM (oVJmc)

35 DJT should just tweet, "now let him enforce it ", a la Andrew Jackson to John Marshall.

Posted by: Strobe at March 15, 2017 07:50 PM (sv+WN)

36 Stop issuing visas all together. It's really Trump's only move.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:50 PM (LTHVh)

37 As noted in the previous thread:

The Left have been advocating the approach seen here for years.

Basically, they declare that a decision based on animus is invalid.

However, they declare such decision to always be bad, even if made under neutral and legitimate reasons, because it will advance the previously noted animus, even if the measure doesn't do that.

They get their preferred outcome by simply declaring all alternatives to be invalid.

The EO ruling highlights another thing pushed by the Left: Invalidating dissent while claiming "democracy" and "people power".

You can choose what ever position you like just as long as it is a valid (or not an invalid) position.

Further, if a person is declared to have animus towards some group, that person no longer has a valid say because any position assigned to that person is tainted with that animus.

Remember, the Left define "racism" as "power plus prejudice" and define "power" as something that White people have.

Thus, White people are not allowed to dissent in this Leftist "democracy" when it comes to questions of race (and everything is about race).

Similarly, this can be applied to straight people, men, "cis-normatives", the able-bodied, &c.

"Democracy", then becomes nothing more than shutting up and supporting pre-determined "correct" positions.

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 15, 2017 07:51 PM (rUIbB)

38 Basically, the Hawaii decision treats the new executive order the way that the Ninth Circuit treated the old executive order. So the judge ignores the changes that were made. Similarly, no discussion of the express authority given by Congress to the President to have plenary authority over whether foreigners without green cards or visas can come in.

Also ignores that the individual plaintiff's relative could apply for a waiver, but apparently didn't

One practical answer is to ratchet up the vetting so that few visas get issued. This has probably already started.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 07:51 PM (SIY7D)

39 Trump should just follow through and ignore this judge's ruling---just like Obama did with BP and the gulf stuff.

Posted by: IrishEi at March 15, 2017 07:51 PM (HiDrR)

40 What's already been thrown overboard is giving priority to persecuted religious minorities. My response is practical. No refugees. Period. Full stop.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 07:51 PM (SIY7D)

41 36 Stop issuing visas all together. It's really Trump's only move.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:50 PM (LTHVh)

===========

Exactly. End ALL immigration immediately ...

Posted by: ShainS at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (mt8X9)

42 Hawaiian, huh?

Is that tfg asshole so arrogant that he is this blatant at running a coup against PDT?

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (LWu6U)

43 These are bad decisions, but with Gorscuch on board I expect that they'll get cleaned up.

Big issues are standing and nationwide application.

Standing can get tricky, but with the new order it's now quite attenuated.

Also expect a smack down over district judges issuing nationwide orders.

SCOTUS will see that the alternative is chaos.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (SIY7D)

44 Also want to mention...

I see Obama and Holder all over this crap. Holder said this was exactly what they were going to do. Both of those treasonous a-holes should be in jail already.

Posted by: IrishEi at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (HiDrR)

45 How many divisions does this judge have?

Posted by: Puddin Head at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (vV/gB)

46 He should have fired every one of those people who signed the protest. He should have fired them right then 'cause more need firing now.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (XNNr5)

47 End immigration, end tourism. See who blinks first.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (LTHVh)

48 Wow. The judge questions whether Trump has any evidence to support his claim. So now some judge in Hawaii has more knowledge of what's going on with our national security than the President?

Unbelievable.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (/tuJf)

49 Just checked the opinion. Standing is based on people not being able to come to the University and some guys relative not being able to come visit. None have a visa. None have tried to get a visa with the waiver provision in the new Executive Order.

But the decision doesn't say that any of these folks get a visa, just that the EO is unenforceable. So if they're extreme vetted few and maybe none get in.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 07:52 PM (SIY7D)

50 Can SCOTUS overturn this case with any sort of censure for those making the capricious and egregious ruling?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 07:49 PM (oVJmc)

Depends on how fast it makes it to SCOTUS.

The badly written first EO and open "ban all Muslims" cry from Trump spokes-holes may end up leading to a SCOTUS ruling where courts are give absolute power to invalidate anything by judging people's hearts and souls.

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 15, 2017 07:53 PM (rUIbB)

51 That judge needs to be keelhauled.

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 07:53 PM (sdi6R)

52 Ninth Circuit said that Trump had a Bad Heart and upheld Seattle's knocking down the Old Order.
Hawaii judge says the same thing about the New Order, ignoring the changes that were made, because Trump still has a Bad Heart.
So what must Trump do to not have a Bad Heart, so that he can do what Congress has already authorized him to do.

Answer is in Hawaii footnote 17. Basically a public and abject apology by Trump to Muslims is required, says the judge. And Trump must bring him a shrubbery

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 07:53 PM (SIY7D)

53 Hawaii is approaching a tipping point.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 07:54 PM (XNNr5)

54 OT: today, Satan finally moved out of my throat. But only to relocate himself into my nostrils, where I guess he'll be staying the night.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 15, 2017 07:54 PM (6FqZa)

55 And people like me who voted for Trump only for the judicial appointments were told by never Trumpers that that wasn't a good enough reason. Yes, it was.

Posted by: Mark1971 at March 15, 2017 07:54 PM (xPl2J)

56 Trump should revoke all the H-1B visas for good measure. Bring the pain, DT!

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 07:54 PM (LTHVh)

57 I still can't find the place in the Constitution that gives anyone from anywhere the right to come here. Or the part that gives judges unlimited power.

Posted by: huerfano at March 15, 2017 07:55 PM (jkkMG)

58 Its a HUGE fucking problem that in a post-9/11 world we have idiot-judges acting on motions from idiot-lawyers who pretend to be more worried about "tourism" and "1st-amendment rights" of NON-CITIZENS (HINT: THERE ARE NONE, YOU STUPID FUCKS) than the protection of our country and its people.

When the revolution comes in earnest, I hope these stupid fuckers are the first ones placed against the wall.

Posted by: Crusader at March 15, 2017 07:55 PM (ewSN2)

59 can be bothered to use the law, then you need to be impeached. NOW

Posted by: talgus da Deplorable at March 15, 2017 07:55 PM (fJQAI)

60 Some of us were talking about this below.

Just to repeat my usual boring but accurate screed.

Every bit of this is lawlessness, and there is no "smackdown" from above that fixes it. How far are we into the "temporary" review period for admissions from the six countries? A review based entirely on intel assessments that applicants from said countries cannot be adequately screened.

There is not one part of any of this that touches on any court's authority, or any party's "standing". It is entirely outside the court's jurisdiction.

Judicial coup. Nothing less. And it won't be reversed - not decisively - because the entirety of the legal guild appears unable to view judicial matters in proper context. Under our system, as it has evolved/dissolved, there is *no* greater threat to freedom and rule of law than lawless courts.

Absent replacement of 90% of all judicial personnel, and re-setting of mindsets in 99% of all legal types, there is "fixing" this.

Executive repudiation and congressional curtailment of judicial purview and resources are the only solutions, and we're not even gonna hear a mention of those.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 07:56 PM (QDnY+)

61 this is stupid. Have a Texas judge order the ban be enforced.

play their own game against them

Posted by: Grad School Fool at March 15, 2017 07:56 PM (swEzU)

62 should have obviously been "there is NO fixing this".

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 07:56 PM (QDnY+)

63 Is Peggy Noonan still a scrunt?

Posted by: SFGoth at March 15, 2017 07:56 PM (dZ756)

64 This is gonna get boring, the lefty judges shutting down Trump's moves.
--

It makes the Screeching Autistic Libtards happy, and in their world, that's all the matter.

The rest of us are less than dirt to them. We don't matter. We have never mattered.

They will spend the next four years doing everything humanly possible to stop Trump in regards to every single thing he does. Guaranteed.

Posted by: shibumi at March 15, 2017 07:56 PM (FkAXz)

65 Perhaps all the federal marshall's in HI should be assigned to mandatory training...for 6 months...in AK.

Posted by: Under Fire at March 15, 2017 07:57 PM (6LwXe)

66 Guess how many refugees Hawaii takes in

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at March 15, 2017 07:57 PM (6Ll1u)

67 Trump Jacksonian? willowing one from Mad Dog Mattis:

"Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 07:57 PM (XNNr5)

68 this is stupid. Have a Texas judge order the ban be enforced.

play their own game against them

Then it rockets to the 4-4 SCOTUS where at least three of them will vote to support the legal reasoning of the Ninth Circuit.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 07:58 PM (oVJmc)

69 Is Peggy Noonan still a scrunt?

Posted by: SFGoth at March 15, 2017 07:56 PM (dZ756)
***********
She rites purdy.

Posted by: Scrud at March 15, 2017 07:58 PM (XNNr5)

70 Hawaii is approaching a tipping point.
Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 07:54 PM
~~~~~

Maybe we should just station a couple thousand more troops there and help it tip.

Posted by: HankJohnson at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (HiDrR)

71 Guess how many refugees Hawaii takes in

From here on in? All of them.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (oVJmc)

72 It's time to drain the judicial swamp. And fast.

The Prog scum have found their means of resistance and will use it at every opportunity.

Posted by: Country Boy at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (1QKha)

73 Whoa. I'm just an engineering geek, - what does the ripeness of a claim have to do with the law? Good Lord, Lena Dunham's panties are ripe.

Is "ripe" an actual legal disposition?

Posted by: Fritz at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (YAPkP)

74 An idea: Set aside the temporrary travel ban for Hawaii only, but keep it in place for the other 49 states: Hawaii can take all the Syrian, Yemeni, etc., tourists, students, and "others" that it wants. But ban travel from Hawaii to the other 49 states.

Posted by: LASue at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (CLKfs)

75 I read that it was some national Imam group that filed the lawsuit. Shocker.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (89T5c)

76 The funny thing is HI got a bill passed forcing all US Military serving in HI must be discharged in CONUS to avoid having too many qualified 'others' competing with the locals for jobs. Senator Inoyue was a full on bigot.

Posted by: Puddin Head at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (vV/gB)

77 Remember, Prop. 8, and anti-Gay Marriage measure from California, was struck down because proponents were "animated by irrational hate", because it was declared that there could be no non-hate reason to support it...

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 15, 2017 07:59 PM (rUIbB)

78 He has shifty eyes, and frankly the judge doesn't like the look of his mouth.

That's how court decisions are made these days. "This is unconstitutional because I don't like you."

Or "this is unconstitutional because I saw on CNN that you're a racist, because reasons they didn't go into in detail, but sounded pretty bad."

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 15, 2017 08:00 PM (wB8Tg)

79 57 I still can't find the place in the Constitution that gives anyone from anywhere the right to come here. Or the part that gives judges unlimited power.

Posted by: huerfano at March 15, 2017 07:55 PM (jkkMG)

==========

It's right there in the superior South African Constitution, nationalist! Read a book sometime ...

Posted by: Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg at March 15, 2017 08:00 PM (mt8X9)

80 We need a new judiciary act - get rid of the regional circuits and go to a specialty based system. Bankruptcy, tax, criminal, national security, etc.

Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2017 08:00 PM (zZb/S)

81 What will the Martians think of our flag there if we won't take in refugees?

Posted by: Sheila Jackson Lee at March 15, 2017 08:00 PM (OwdyX)

82 Hey it's a good thing congress is taking the month of April off, be a perfect time to get Trumps SCOTUS pick through in order to end this fucking madness.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:00 PM (+lv+r)

83 It is time to consider divorce

Posted by: Killerdog at March 15, 2017 08:00 PM (AReXo)

84 Somebody remind me, here. That last fella, the one who issued a record number of Executive Orders -- did we have to wait for all the courts to adjudicate them before they took effect?

Seems to me you used to have to have this thing called "standing."

Posted by: Stringer Davis at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (H5rtT)

85 Forgot, the best part -- reappoint them ALL. Without the BS Senatorial preference.

Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (zZb/S)

86 66-

0.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (89T5c)

87 They are lucky it's only people with time on their hand who know what's going on.

Posted by: J. Hook at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (XNNr5)

88 If Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg dropped over dead this evening, I'd petition the court to take it up ASAP.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (oVJmc)

89 Going just like judges in family courts. By the book.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (2qHjF)

90 >Then it rockets to the 4-4 SCOTUS where at least three of them will vote to support the legal reasoning of the Ninth Circuit.

Does it move that fast?

I don't know the process here.

I had thought things would just be in limbo for a while

Posted by: Grad School Fool at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (swEzU)

91 Hmmm, I just don't recall voting for a Hawaiian judge to set federal immigration policy.

Posted by: LASue at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (CLKfs)

92 These rulings may have little actual effect, if the visa process gets tightened up.

The Hawaii judge didn't order any of the University people or that one guy's relative to get in. He wouldn't dare.

Should be noted that federal judges here aren't just pissing on the President, but on Congress which gave him the authority per the Constitution.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (SIY7D)

93 Sigh. I don't know what to do about the judiciary.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 08:02 PM (wmaTe)

94 It's right there in the superior South African Constitution, nationalist! Read a book sometime ...
Posted by: Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg

I can guarantee its not in the South African Constitution, maybe Sweden.

Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2017 08:02 PM (zZb/S)

95 I remember the stories about the Sendero Luminoso in Peru and the FMLN in El Salvador kidnapping and executing judges back in the late 70's and early 80's and in Peru they still do I think.

Now I understand why.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at March 15, 2017 08:03 PM (5VlCp)

96 I forgot about the "I don't like this guy clause" in the Constitution.

Posted by: no good deed at March 15, 2017 08:03 PM (hJamr)

97 I'd love to see him impeached and removed from the bench but that won't happen until there are 67 Senators who are willing to live up to their oaths of office.

In the meantime, we should look to remove any and every law professor who is a progressive from the law departments in our public colleges and universities that are in states that are under complete GOP control. This would be a good start and the sooner it is done, the better.

Posted by: Sasquatch the Original trans-Wookie at March 15, 2017 08:04 PM (+2s9i)

98 I mean, this really is an issue. The federal judiciary is (for the most part, SCOTUS is kind of an exception) incredibly leftist. They will hinder any R and help any D. They have the ability to slow everything down to a crawl.

Between an unaccountable judiciary, a democrat minority in congress who is 100% supported by a corrupt media, a corrupt academia, etc...

I mean, what is the answer here?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 08:04 PM (wmaTe)

99 POTUS has shifty eyes. Ergo, all his laws are NULL AND VOID!!

Posted by: Some Unknown Hawaiaan judge at March 15, 2017 08:04 PM (CLKfs)

100 Jeebus, the first EO wasn't "badly written".

But the point is that is that judiciary has no role in making any assessment about the EO - beyond the pro forma recognition that it is based on statutory and constitutional executive authority, and therefore the court has no more to say and no plaintiffs can have standing.

This is sort of what I'm talking about. The whole question here is the judiciary's role. It's not about the particulars, about version 1 or version 2, or other details.

Either the judiciary is part of the inter-agency review process, or the NSC process, or it isn't. Either the undisputed and clear plenary executive power to control admissions to the US means something, or it doesn't. That simple.

As of now, that executive authority is suspended, and the courts now are part of visa policy-making, the constitution, statutes, and common sense notwithstanding.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:04 PM (QDnY+)

101 Hawaii is approaching a tipping point.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 07:54 PM

All I can say is that this shit didn't happen when the real Steve McGarrett was in charge. Not this wimpy pretty boy one they got now.

Posted by: tu3031 at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (qJhUV)

102 @92

Congress doesn't really give a shit.

When the first judge invalidated the first EO by pretty much not even considering the very clear law that the EO was based upon, Congressional Republicans should have gone balistic.

Basically the GOP has deemed the President to be on his own.

He won't be gettting any support from them.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (+lv+r)

103
In the meantime, we should look to remove any and every law professor who is a progressive from the law departments in our public colleges and universities that are in states that are under complete GOP control. This would be a good start and the sooner it is done, the better.
Posted by: Sasquatch the Original trans-Wookie at March 15, 2017 08:04 PM (+2s9i)

Then we would have no law professors.

I'm in law school right now. In a school not known as a liberal school. One professor is a big time democrat, but a fan of capitalism. The rest are to the left of Stalin. Almost all went to Harvard.

Mostly nice people, but I mean... thats law school academia.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (wmaTe)

104 That guy on Hawaii 5-0, Lo Chin as Fat Ho, could teach this judge a lesson.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (97XyN)

105
It's amazing how one individual judge is more powerful than the entire government or will of the people. It's time to take these black robbed tyrants down a notch or ten

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (auHtY)

106 That's correct, Hawaii took no refugees from the affected countries. But this judge apparently decided the law for the whole country.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at March 15, 2017 08:06 PM (6Ll1u)

107
"Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"

Buh-bye, Mad Dog...

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at March 15, 2017 08:06 PM (v1g1+)

108 It's amazing how one individual judge is more powerful than the entire government or will of the people. It's time to take these black robbed tyrants down a notch or ten
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (auHtY)

...How?

They gave themselves the power of judicial review wayyy back in the day with Marbury v. Madison.

How do you challenge that? Who has the power to change that?

If Congress passed a law stripping judicial review from the judiciary and the president signed it, SCOTUS would just find it unconstitutional.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 08:07 PM (wmaTe)

109 The coming civil war is going to a doozy!

Posted by: Puddin Head at March 15, 2017 08:07 PM (vV/gB)

110 If Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg dropped over dead this evening, I'd petition the court to take it up ASAP.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 08:01 PM (oVJmc)

It's April. - In April they pick the cases they are going to hear.The Dems do not want Gorsuch to participate in setting SCOTUS agenda.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:07 PM (XNNr5)

111 >>That guy on Hawaii 5-0, Lo Chin as Fat Ho, could teach this judge a lesson.

It's Kam Fong as Chin Ho. Do they all look the same to you, racist?

Posted by: JackStraw at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (/tuJf)

112 Whatever happened to the idea that Congress checks the Judiciary by limiting its jurisdiction?

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (97XyN)

113 97
In the meantime, we should look to remove any and every law professor who is a progressive from the law departments in our public colleges and universities that are in states that are under complete GOP control. This would be a good start and the sooner it is done, the better.
Posted by: Sasquatch the Original trans-Wookie at March 15, 2017 08:04 PM (+2s9i)

The fastest way to do that is eliminate all government student aid. Then colleges will have to lower tuition to what students and their families can actually afford. And that will mean severe belt-tightening in colleges. The deadweight professors and bullshit "studies" courses will have to be jettisoned.

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (sdi6R)

114 So, another unelected shithead gets to substitute his judgement for that of the president. This shit has to stop.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (kTF2Z)

115 People need to start disappearin'

Posted by: Under Fire at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (6LwXe)

116 "Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"

He didn't really say that, did he?

Posted by: Notorious BFD at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (Tyii7)

117 The WA AG lied about the TX Obama DACA EO case -- the

The district judge only issued an injunction for TX. The Fifth Circuit then applied it to the Fifth Circuit. It went to SCOTUS and a 4-4 tie, which sent it back to the Fifth Circuit which then made it nationwide.

See the difference.

WA AG purposefully made it sound like the TX judge made it nationwide from the start.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:09 PM (SIY7D)

118 ...When the first judge invalidated the first EO by pretty much not even considering the very clear law that the EO was based upon, Congressional Republicans should have gone balistic. ...

Basically the GOP has deemed the President to be on his own.

He won't be gettting any support from them.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (+lv+r)

Gentlemen we've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs.

Posted by: Nutz McCain at March 15, 2017 08:09 PM (XNNr5)

119 Whatever happened to the idea that Congress checks the Judiciary by limiting its jurisdiction?

It died with the idea that Congress actually passes laws, instead of delegating to the bureaucracy to rule by regulation.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at March 15, 2017 08:09 PM (oVJmc)

120 112 Whatever happened to the idea that Congress checks the Judiciary by limiting its jurisdiction?
Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (97XyN)

Well, arguably they could. Article 3, Section 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I'm not sure that's ever been tested though, and I'm pretty sure any limitations placed on the court would be found unconstitutional by the court.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 08:09 PM (wmaTe)

121 Mostly nice people, but I mean... thats law school academia.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 08:05 PM (wmaTe) fnord (wmaTe)

You know, I'm kind of getting past the point where people, supported by a free and open society, who want to deny it to everyone else, are "mostly nice."

The gormless store clerk who always votes D *may* be "nice," but the people building *literal* systems of oppression (like college speech bans and administrative law takeovers) as part of their totalitarian ideology are *not*.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 15, 2017 08:10 PM (wB8Tg)

122 I say we vote that Hawai judge off the island.....

Guture Survivors

Posted by: tbodie at March 15, 2017 08:10 PM (EUw/L)

123 Future. Dammit. Future.

Posted by: tbodie at March 15, 2017 08:10 PM (EUw/L)

124 Yep. Close the damn doors.

He can even say he was backed into this corner. He didn't want to do this, he tried to be reasonable, he followed the law, but it wasn't good enough, blah blah blah.

Posted by: Bicentennialguy at March 15, 2017 08:12 PM (nILVB)

125 I'm not exactly a legal expert but,

Wouldn't this be grounds for this judge to be disbarred, and summarily removed?

Posted by: Captain Oblivious at March 15, 2017 08:12 PM (0EFmf)

126 They picked Hawaii for a reason. It's in the Ninth and is probably chock full of federal Obama moles who are on Trump's side in name only.

The Ninth is due to be broken up anyway-way too big and corrupt.

It is commonly said that the Supremes would split 4-4. That would actually be shocking if they transferred CINC's authority to the judiciary. It would invite the Full Andy Jackson.

Never invite the Full Andy Jackson.

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at March 15, 2017 08:12 PM (Ndje9)

127 "Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"

I can't imagine any grown adult uttering that line aloud.

Posted by: Crusader at March 15, 2017 08:12 PM (ewSN2)

128 Does the constitution grant the president the plenary power to do this? Yes.

Did congress further codify this power? Yes.

Then we're done here.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at March 15, 2017 08:12 PM (kTF2Z)

129 "I'm not sure that's ever been tested though, and I'm pretty sure any limitations placed on the court would be found unconstitutional by the court."

Yes, it would precipitate a Constitutional crisis. But it's a crisis the courts would lose if the Executive and Legislative stood firm.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 15, 2017 08:12 PM (97XyN)

130 "Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"
He didn't really say that, did he?

Posted by: Notorious BFD at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (Tyii7)
***********

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hopx48y

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:13 PM (XNNr5)

131 Stopping all immigration does nothing to solve this.

Getting a "smackdown" from SCOTUS does nothing to solve this.

Repudiation of lawless courts is the only thing that will, in a practical sense, restore some constitutional balance and rule of law.

But that's not happening. Because Trump and team lack the insight or ballz to go that route, and almost all legal types are unable to escape their brain-dead (and very dated) guiding assumption that rule of law requires courts to be obeyed.

(and Hat I think you're confusing Kennedy's despicable hiding behind lawless const. officers in CA to deny Prop 8 proponents - and CA voters - standing in one case with Kennedy's delusional, arrogant, repugnant sermonizing and Bokassa I social-engineering decree in the Obergefell case)

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:13 PM (QDnY+)

132 I've seen some leftists warn their fellow horde members that Trump is using the same strategies to wear them down that Walker used in WI, and so far this looks like a full-on repeat of WI. The left touches themselves all over if the slightest skirmish goes their way, and in the meantime they fail to see that the long-term consequences will be disastrous for them.

WI in 2011: Libtards occupy capitol and literally crap all over it, Dem lawmakers skip town, and judges overturn laws because reasons. End result - Walker wins, public unions are crushed and WI votes GOP for president for the first time wince 1984.

USA in 2017: Libtards beat up people they don't like, scream about how they are "nasty women", fling poo like monkeys, and get judges to overturn EOs because reasons. End result - probably the same result that Nicholas Biddle's resistance to Jackson or Orval Faubus' resistance to Eisenhower had - they'll get crushed.

You simply can't thumb your nose at public opinion and expect to get rewarded for it. Leftists forget that while Civil Rights and gay marriage were helped along greatly by the courts, both were pretty popular as well. Open borders and welcoming terrorists is not exactly a vote winner, anymore than letting men into girl's bathrooms is.

Posted by: TheLowerDepths at March 15, 2017 08:13 PM (1WTGm)

133 >>>"Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"
He didn't really say that, did he?<<<

I suspect this is how you coerce the globalist rubes in your defense perimeter to pony up some more cash for their protection. Pay up, you fucks!

Posted by: Fritz at March 15, 2017 08:13 PM (YAPkP)

134 And what stops Trump from saying National Security means we're applying this law as is the Executive's right until reviewed by the full Supreme Court. All 9 members.

Posted by: David at March 15, 2017 08:14 PM (T2uZP)

135 Posted by: Duke Lowell at March 15, 2017 08:12 PM (kTF2Z)

Yeah, that's the weakness of the "limiting jurisdiction" argument here. The judiciary's jurisdiction has already been limited, they're just ignoring the limitation.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 15, 2017 08:14 PM (97XyN)

136 You know, I'm kind of getting past the point where people, supported by a free and open society, who want to deny it to everyone else, are "mostly nice."

The gormless store clerk who always votes D *may* be "nice," but the people building *literal* systems of oppression (like college speech bans and administrative law takeovers) as part of their totalitarian ideology are *not*.

Agreed. I have one word to describe ANYONE over the age of 30 that voted for Hillary: "evil".

I don't want to hear their justifications or excuses. Because there are no "valid" reasons for such behavior.

Posted by: Crusader at March 15, 2017 08:14 PM (ewSN2)

137 Everyday some yappy little ankle nipper, who thinks they are being cute and coy, attempts to bring down The Trump. Sad.

Posted by: washrivergal at March 15, 2017 08:15 PM (Ivjge)

138 You know, I'm kind of getting past the point where people, supported by a free and open society, who want to deny it to everyone else, are "mostly nice."

The gormless store clerk who always votes D *may* be "nice," but the people building *literal* systems of oppression (like college speech bans and administrative law takeovers) as part of their totalitarian ideology are *not*.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 15, 2017 08:10 PM (wB8Tg)

======

Great point. It's likely that the German elite found Dr. Mengele to be charming during parties ...

Posted by: ShainS at March 15, 2017 08:15 PM (mt8X9)

139 Man I used to love Hawaiian Punch. Too much sugar I can't drink it now.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 15, 2017 08:15 PM (4ErVI)

140 112 Whatever happened to the idea that Congress checks the Judiciary by limiting its jurisdiction?
Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 15, 2017 08:08 PM (97XyN)

Ask Congress. They've abdicated all of their Constitutional responsibilities.

They have created administrative agencies which answer to the Executive, and issue regulations with the force of law.

They don't even bother passing budgets anymore. Think they're going to start impeaching judges?

The scary part is that Congress has neutered itself, and given near-dictatorial powers to the President and Judiciary. Unlike Germany in 1933, no Enabling Act was necessary. They did it voluntarily.

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 08:16 PM (sdi6R)

141 If Trump ignores the judge, expect threats of impeachment from member of congress on both sides of the aisle.

If a terror attack happens, expect claims of a false flag Trump-backed attack.

At some point shit will get real. I'm not liking the looks of this 'resistance'.

Posted by: Mathers at March 15, 2017 08:16 PM (3myMJ)

142 It's well within the legislatures power to reign in the jurisdiciton of the courts even the SCOTUS.

We have been in a court instigated constituional crisis for decades and not just at the federal level.

It's time to do something.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:16 PM (+lv+r)

143 Yeah, that's the weakness of the "limiting jurisdiction" argument here. The judiciary's jurisdiction has already been limited, they're just ignoring the limitation.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at March 15, 2017 08:14 PM (97XyN)
*************

They ignore the Constitution, the law, the people, and Trump.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:16 PM (XNNr5)

144 Here comes Trump on terrorism.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 15, 2017 08:16 PM (/tuJf)

145 What's the vote count from tulip land?

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at March 15, 2017 08:16 PM (6Ll1u)

146 It's time for Congress to honor their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution" and to start impeaching these dipshit judges. That is the Congress' friggin job!!
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair

And most have law degrees. They must realize how egregious this kind of thing is.

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at March 15, 2017 08:17 PM (vRcUp)

147 #boycottPineappleandSpam.

Posted by: Under Fire at March 15, 2017 08:17 PM (6LwXe)

148 That guy on Hawaii 5-0, Lo Chin as Fat Ho, could teach this judge a lesson.

It's Kam Fong as Chin Ho. Do they all look the same to you, racist?

-
Well, this seems appropriate here.

http://tinyurl.com/hcubnxz

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks. Now worse than Hitler! at March 15, 2017 08:17 PM (Nwg0u)

149 Remember all those times when the low level federal courts determined Obama was doing something unconstitutional and it stopped his administration from continuing?

Posted by: Moron Robbie at March 15, 2017 08:17 PM (/f1mm)

150 Trump should go to the woodshed and pony up on "Jackson".
They need some.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:18 PM (XNNr5)

151 Posted by: TheLowerDepths at March 15, 2017 08:13 PM (1WTGm)

Friend on FB the other day, (I usually avoid it like the plague), posted about how 'idiots' were following an imbecile (Trump). Trump 'only gets his news from Breitbart, he wasn't tapped'. I posted the front page NYT from inauguration day with the wiretapping article next to the pic of PDT and Melania. His reply? 'Trump doesn't read the NYT. Fake news. And it doesn't change anything'.

The willful stupidity and digging in of heels is pretty terrible; I don't know we're going to see a WI-post-Dem-scram reversal here.

Posted by: atomicplaygirl (Gab: atomicplaygirl) at March 15, 2017 08:18 PM (Gim9y)

152 But that's not happening. Because Trump and team lack the insight or ballz to go that route, and almost all legal types are unable to escape their brain-dead (and very dated) guiding assumption that rule of law requires courts to be obeyed.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:13 PM (QDnY+)

==========

Can somebody here get rhomboid an audience with The President? Maybe tweet these ideas at him or one of his staff?

[Very educational to read who understands the macro, long-term issue here ...]

Posted by: ShainS at March 15, 2017 08:19 PM (mt8X9)

153 If a terror attack happens, expect claims of a false flag Trump-backed attack.

At some point shit will get real. I'm not liking the looks of this 'resistance'.
Posted by: Mathers at March 15, 2017 08:16 PM (3myMJ)

Can Trump direct some of these "refugees" to Hawaii? After all, Obama deliberately placed them in red states out of spite. If the blue states want them so badly let them have them.

Posted by: Donna tanned, but not completely rested and ampersands&&&&and so there at March 15, 2017 08:19 PM (P8951)

154 The judges.

They think themselves kings.
--

They can over-rule the President.

They are Gods.

-
They wear robes like the pope.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks. Now worse than Hitler! at March 15, 2017 08:19 PM (Nwg0u)

155 "Which puts us in the Alice in Wonderland situation of one president not being able to enact a policy, whereas another president -- one who has all his Social Justice Warrior Wokeness boxes ticked -- can enact the very same policy."

And therefore a government of Men, not of Law.

Won't end well.

Posted by: West at March 15, 2017 08:20 PM (LuGuu)

156 Because Trump and team lack the insight or ballz to go that route,

We're all going to have to add another word to our lexicon.

Contemplate the winning of yet.

Posted by: DaveA at March 15, 2017 08:20 PM (FhXTo)

157 Ha! Trump basically just said Hillary will never be President.

Now that's funny.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 15, 2017 08:20 PM (/tuJf)

158 Time for the Congress to start restricting jurisdiction, although there's really no need at this point, and more importantly start impeaching some judges.

Posted by: Monty James at March 15, 2017 08:20 PM (gKOMX)

159 Ignoring the judge's ruling is not the way to go. Need to let this play out. Left wants Trump to go Andy Jackson.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:20 PM (SIY7D)

160 WASTF!

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:20 PM (gwPgz)

161 >>>"Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"

The answer to that is: "The only thing you can do about that is complete your mission. Just like Patton and the rain. I guess you could ask for a prayer like he did. Seemed to work and the Chaplain got a medal."

Posted by: Mathers at March 15, 2017 08:21 PM (3myMJ)

162 Looks like the Germans need to bomb Pearl Harbor again.

Posted by: Bluto Blutarsky at March 15, 2017 08:21 PM (AsQl2)

163 These are bad decisions, but with Gorscuch on board I expect that they'll get cleaned up.

That cannot be assumed at all. This SC has already revealed too many wild cards.

Issues like this shouldn't even have to go that far anyways. Prog scum can still have their judges do plenty of harm even before a SC decision.

This shit needs to be cut off at the roots.

Posted by: Country Boy at March 15, 2017 08:21 PM (1QKha)

164 IIRC, for the longest time SCOTUS was held in such high esteem its meeting place was the WH cafeteria.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:21 PM (XNNr5)

165 162 Looks like the Germans need to bomb Pearl Harbor again.
Posted by: Senator Bluto Blutarsky at March 15, 2017 08:21 PM (AsQl2)

Fixed for accuracy.

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 08:22 PM (sdi6R)

166 #boycottPineappleandSpam.
Posted by: Under Fire at March 15, 2017 08:17 PM (6LwXe)

From my cold dead hands, brah.

Posted by: hogmartin at March 15, 2017 08:22 PM (8nWyX)

167
Serious question:

If as Ace accurately states we are through the looking glass, and darkly, why can't President Trump merely fire back at the judge and state he is abrogating his duty to uphold the law and instruct his branches to ignore the ruling?

Serious as a friggin' heart attack, yo.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 15, 2017 08:23 PM (mbhDw)

168 These are bad decisions,

-
There are no bad decisions; only bad presidents.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks. Now worse than Hitler! at March 15, 2017 08:23 PM (Nwg0u)

169 You may have to accept, that winning was not enough
You might have to oblige these screaming infantiles, and give them their war
And Kill Them ALL

Posted by: KenH at March 15, 2017 08:23 PM (nER8W)

170 The rule of law only works if the vast majority of the population, not just 50.0001%, believe it to be a good thing.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:23 PM (gwPgz)

171 163 These are bad decisions, but with Gorscuch on board I expect that they'll get cleaned up.

That cannot be assumed at all. This SC has already revealed too many wild cards.

Issues like this shouldn't even have to go that far anyways. Prog scum can still have their judges do plenty of harm even before a SC decision.

This shit needs to be cut off at the roots.
Posted by: Country Boy at March 15, 2017 08:21 PM (1QKha)

And the idea that the Supreme Court will "fix" it by a ruling is itself part of the problem.

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 08:23 PM (sdi6R)

172 So, warmening is turning otherwise harmless populations into radicalized terrorists? Sigh.

Posted by: Notorious BFD at March 15, 2017 08:24 PM (Tyii7)

173 Serious question:

If as Ace accurately states we are through the looking glass, and darkly, why can't President Trump merely fire back at the judge and state he is abrogating his duty to uphold the law and instruct his branches to ignore the ruling?

Serious as a friggin' heart attack, yo.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 15, 2017 08:23 PM (mbhDw)

Now that would be Jacksonian.
Trump ain't there yet.
Oh, please God.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:24 PM (XNNr5)

174
So all that time that Trump's people spent "crafting the language" of the new EO so it was more narrow in scope and would hold up against a challenge was a complete waste of time because no matter what the EO said some egomanic lefty judge was going to do this any way

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2017 08:24 PM (auHtY)

175 Well, I have no faith in the Supreme Court which just recently ruled that a jury verdict can be over-turned if you can show that one of the jurors may have said something politically incorrect at some point in their life, putting a stop to this non-sense.

Cue the Fred Thompson quote from "The Hunt for Red October".

Posted by: Darth Randall at March 15, 2017 08:25 PM (v3DL/)

176 The Defense Science Board has a bunch of AGW clowns on it, something W Happing will have to fix.

Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2017 08:25 PM (zZb/S)

177 lol, Trump's going rogue, love it.

Posted by: spypeach at March 15, 2017 08:25 PM (u/r83)

178 So, warmening is turning otherwise harmless populations into radicalized terrorists? Sigh.

Posted by: Notorious BFD at March 15, 2017 08:24 PM (Tyii7)

I think he was saying mud and drought are coming and the Marines should be ready for it.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:26 PM (XNNr5)

179 @167

He could but you would probably have about 1/3 of Republicans in the House and Senate screaming constitutional crisis and impeachment.

We are in deep shit and the GOP has no will to fight.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:26 PM (+lv+r)

180 "The thought of man is not triable, for the devil himself knows not the thought of man" - Old forgotten legal adage

Posted by: Kodos the Executioner at March 15, 2017 08:26 PM (lsthc)

181 "Now that would be Jacksonian.
Trump ain't there yet."

And he shouldn't be. Not yet. Not by a long shot.

Fighting the Admin State is a higher priority.

Trump will be appointing hundreds of new district court judges, and soon

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:26 PM (SIY7D)

182 It's funny that these people think that 8' wall around their house will keep them safe when the Civil war they started takes place, don't ban me for violent content for pointing out the truth. Please.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at March 15, 2017 08:27 PM (6Ll1u)

183 and the GOP has no will to fight.

It all makes sense once you realize that they are in on it.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 08:27 PM (LTHVh)

184 It is time to consider divorce
Posted by: Killerdog at March 15, 2017 08:00 PM (AReXo)

It's way past time, but at least you're on board. Progress is being made.

Posted by: Country Boy at March 15, 2017 08:27 PM (1QKha)

185 Posted by: Mathers at March 15, 2017 08:21 PM (3myMJ)

My thought for the day was that thank God that the same National Weather Service pukes that waffled on this blizzard weren't around in WW II to give advice to General Eisenhower on Tuesday, 5 June 1944.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:27 PM (gwPgz)

186 If Congress had any balls they would pack the court. 13 justices. 9-4 votes. When Ginsberg reaches room temp, 10-3.

Posted by: torabora at March 15, 2017 08:28 PM (8k5yj)

187 they are in on it.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at March 15, 2017 08:27 PM (LTHVh)

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:29 PM (XNNr5)

188 >>And most have law degrees. They must realize how egregious this kind of thing is.

Hah. That's funny.

Not that they might not realize it, but the thought that they might care.

Posted by: garrett at March 15, 2017 08:29 PM (Gbk/a)

189 @174

They are not looking at the law they are "looking" at what's animating the law.

They claim the law is bourne of wicked intent and has no rational basis.

You could have Zombie Thomas Jefferson write the law some leftist judge is going to enjoin it.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:29 PM (+lv+r)

190 Trump will be appointing hundreds of new district court judges, and soon

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:26 PM (SIY7D)

Not if Chuckie Schumer has anything to say about it, and it doesn't seem to make any difference what McConnell thinks, if he thinks!!

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:30 PM (gwPgz)

191 Ignoramus don't worry, it will "play out" - meaning one gigantic ratchet turn will be completed, further eliminating the rule of law. As I said, no way this admin. has the ballz to do the right thing and repudiate.

This trend has been "playing out" for decades, though only recently in terms of national security.

The only way this could have been acceptably "played out" within the system was to have had the initial WA idiocy emergency appealed up the chain, and for SCOTUS to have cut-and-pasted the MA district judge's ruling, which basically said "the courts don't have a role here".

That's the point. "Playing out" a lawless judicial coup inside the collapsed judicial system does not preserve or restore rule of law. It just guarantees more - a lot more - of the same.

Every single one of these lawsuits should have been dismissed up front. There is no standing (if the concept is to have any meaning) for domestic parties to block a national security policy decision clearly rooted in the law.

But this is a lost cause. Legal types (and much of the public) stupidly equates rule of law with complying with court orders - even when, as in this case, the courts are acting in a ridiculously lawless fashion.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:30 PM (QDnY+)

192 190
Not if Chuckie Schumer has anything to say about it, and it doesn't seem to make any difference what McConnell thinks, if he thinks!!
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:30 PM (gwPgz)

Preserve, Protect and Defend Leviathan So Help Them G-d.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 15, 2017 08:30 PM (mbhDw)

193
Forget policy differences.

If Trump does not act to preserve Constitutional separation and limitation of powers, the objectivity of a supposedly non-partisan civil service, and the honesty of the press, policy will no longer matter.

I'm actually frightened at the utter lawlessness being called patriotism and "judicial review."

Posted by: San Franpsycho at March 15, 2017 08:31 PM (EZebt)

194 I think he was saying mud and drought are coming and the Marines should be ready for it.

And that's uncommon for the Middle East and Africa? I suppose I should read the article but old habits die hard.

Posted by: Notorious BFD at March 15, 2017 08:31 PM (Tyii7)

195 186 If Congress had any balls they would pack the court. 13 justices. 9-4 votes. When Ginsberg reaches room temp, 10-3.
Posted by: torabora at March 15, 2017 08:28 PM (8k5yj)

Yeah, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 08:31 PM (sdi6R)

196 Dammit. Went out to dinner with husband and missed the "smart vibrator" thread.

And it's our damned anniversary!

(What the hell is a smart vibrator? Do I want/need to know?)

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:32 PM (PY9jH)

197 How about a nice Hawaiian punch!

Posted by: BurtTC -Obviously not reading the comments first at March 15, 2017 08:32 PM (Pz4pT)

198 And what stops Trump from saying National Security means we're applying this law as is the Executive's right until reviewed by the full Supreme Court. All 9 members.
Posted by: David at March 15, 2017 08:14 PM (T2uZP)

Yup...there it is. Tell the wackadoodle "Justices" that the President will enforce the EO until a hearing before the Supremes.

Until then they can let President Trump know how his ass tastes.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at March 15, 2017 08:33 PM (5VlCp)

199 ...Every single one of these lawsuits should have been dismissed up front. There is no standing (if the concept is to have any meaning) for domestic parties to block a national security policy decision clearly rooted in the law. ...

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:30 PM (QDnY+)

Each one is another step validating a cray world.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:33 PM (XNNr5)

200 Just cooked 52 pieces of bacon for for my one meal a day.. Bacon only dinner. 1100 calories. Long night, Short night? To be determined.

Night Horde.

Posted by: Phone of Widespread Pepe at March 15, 2017 08:33 PM (3cOA7)

201
How about a nice Hawaiian punch!

*sashays into thread*

How about a nice Hawaiian shaved ice?

*flounces out of thread* *jazz hands*

Posted by: Choom Boy Barry at March 15, 2017 08:33 PM (PY9jH)

202 "But this is a lost cause."

Let's check back in a few months. SCOTUS will rule at least 5-4 to reverse the Ninth Circuit and spank the district court judges.

Your emergency SCOTUS appeal could have backfired. New Order is more defensible (shouldn't need to be, but it is).

Owning the White House to appoint Right Leaning Judges is the long-term answer.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:34 PM (SIY7D)

203 Posted by: atomicplaygirl (Gab: atomicplaygirl) at March 15, 2017 08:18 PM (Gim9y)

Oh, I don't expect the lefties to change their tactics. They didn't change in WI. What happened in WI was that the state changed, and they were too busy yelling slogans and retweeting each other and generally seeking solace in the horde to notice.

The same thing is happening now. Do you think the average apolitical person or swing voter likes judges overruling things for no real reason? Do you think a person who just wants to live their banal life in peace appreciates the left freaking out every second of the day? I don't for a moment. But libtards are so caught in their own bubble that they can't fathom that their constant freak-outs, deep state antics and rule by judicial fiat will turn off people who could be get-able votes in 2020 but who don't like elite pricks telling them what to think and do every second of the day.

Posted by: TheLowerDepths at March 15, 2017 08:35 PM (1WTGm)

204 196 Dammit. Went out to dinner with husband and missed the "smart vibrator" thread.

And it's our damned anniversary!

(What the hell is a smart vibrator? Do I want/need to know?)

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:32 PM (PY9jH)

=============

It tells you the mineral content of the stones you've inserted in your ... uhm ... whatever ...

Posted by: Gwyneth Paltrow at March 15, 2017 08:35 PM (mt8X9)

205 What the hell is a smart vibrator? Do I want/need to know?)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:32 PM (PY9jH)

No.

And.

NO!

More importantly, Happy Anniversary.

Posted by: tbodie at March 15, 2017 08:36 PM (EUw/L)

206 Oregon and Washington both are a part of the ridiculous lawsuit. Congress has got to step in and make things happen, this is utterly unacceptable. The president of the United States doing mundane, routine things cannot be blocked constantly by one dude in a robe.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:36 PM (39g3+)

207 So ignorant layperson question. Suppose the majority of folks in HI don't like this judge doing this and would like to see him impeached or whatever it would take to remove him.

How would they go about that? Petition congress? Get a group to sue congress to impeach the judge on the basis that judges making illegal defacto laws threatens their constitutional rights? ???

Posted by: PaleRider at March 15, 2017 08:36 PM (eASYU)

208 No but seriously, are we really considering Hawaii a real state?

I thought it was just a fake state, like Guam or the Virgin Islands. Or Connectabutt.

We don't let them vote... do we?

Posted by: BurtTC at March 15, 2017 08:37 PM (Pz4pT)

209 39 Trump should just follow through and ignore this judge's ruling---just like Obama did with BP and the gulf stuff.
______________________

Or Trump could do what Obama did when the TX district judge ruled that his DACA EO-amnesty was unconstitutional: have DOJ lawyers flat-out lie to the judge (repeatedly) and tell him that it's not being implemented by the executive branch, when it fact, it is.

Obama got to keep giving out DACA visas, and nothing happened to the lying DOJ lawyers, except that the judge told them they needed to take ethics classes (which all lawyers have to do every year anyway, to satisfy their CLE requirements).

If it was good enough for Obama, then nobody will have an issue with Trump doing the same, right? LOL.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (riF5p)

210 My concern is that the more success they have doing this, the more they're going to use it to block everything that the president tries to do. Everything.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (39g3+)

211 We're *in* the civil war already. We have been during the last 8 years as well. I'd argue we've been in a civil war since 9/11. Our response to 9/11 SHOULD have been America First, and SHOULD have included the obliteration of that stupid black rock in Saudi Arabia.

Instead, the country split itself in half. Half pretended nothing of any consequence took place. The other half pretended that "something" took place, but that it didn't have a lot to do with Islam, and that our border safety wasn't really a priority. We moped around Iraq and Afganistan and pretended we were "responding" to 9/11, but weren't really doing anything more substantive than the "nothing really happened on 9/11" crowd.

I'm amazed every day how so many in power and how more than three-quarters of our country act as if 9/11 wasn't even a thing, just a silly little accident with no causes and nothing that we should really correct within our country.

Posted by: Crusader at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (ewSN2)

212 And what stops Trump from saying National Security means we're applying this law as is the Executive's right until reviewed by the full Supreme Court. All 9 members.

Posted by: David at March 15, 2017 08:14 PM (T2uZP)

Yup, whatever it takes to let these kings in black robes know their is a limit to their powers

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (auHtY)

213 I'm honestly wondering why you all are so angry. I support Trump so much my honest opinion of the past three months would get me banned. But these pinprick strikes aren't going to weaken the President. Quite the contrary. The Americans who voted him in will see no account judges trying to block every good faith measure he makes, while dispensing with even the pretext of law. Then President Trump can say, "well, I tried," and get the people behind his real objective- ignoring the judges (good) or taking real action against them (better). It doesn't matter that the media will call him Hitler, it doesn't matter if low info voters don't understand it. He has to motivate his own troops if he wants to fight. And if former Never Trumpers are motivated, that time is coming soon.

Posted by: trev006 at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (cOSsi)

214 No but seriously, are we really considering Hawaii a real state?

I thought it was just a fake state, like Guam or the Virgin Islands. Or Connectabutt.

We don't let them vote... do we?

Posted by: BurtTC at March 15, 2017 08:37 PM (Pz4pT)

Like Guam. You mean it can tip over?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2017 08:39 PM (auHtY)

215 *sashays into thread*

How about a nice Hawaiian shaved ice?

*flounces out of thread* *jazz hands*
Posted by: Choom Boy Barry at March 15, 2017 08:33 PM (PY9jH)

A shaved whaaaaat???

Posted by: Andi Sullivan- 8" at March 15, 2017 08:39 PM (Pz4pT)

216 No but seriously, are we really considering Hawaii a real state?

I thought it was just a fake state, like Guam or the Virgin Islands. Or Connectabutt.

We don't let them vote... do we?

Posted by: BurtTC at March 15, 2017 08:37 PM (Pz4pT)

Like Guam. You mean it can tip over?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2017 08:39 PM (auHtY)

Considering the voting record, clearly they already ARE tipped over.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 15, 2017 08:40 PM (Pz4pT)

217 Suppose the majority of folks in HI don't like this judge doing this and would like to see him impeached or whatever it would take to remove him.

How would they go about that?

There is no process. Its up to congress to take action, and they almost never do. out of more than 3000 of judges and 227 years the USA has been a nation, congress has only impeached...

sixteen.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:40 PM (39g3+)

218 The last time we were in Hawaii, the Japanese were practically running the place. The Japanese tourists were so polite, as they kept us from entering the beach changing rooms because Round Eye.

Beautiful, over-priced, touristy place run by people who really don't seem connected in any way with mainland 'Murica.

My two cents.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:40 PM (PY9jH)

219 If asked, most of the rest of the federal judges would say these rulings are dangerous from a process standpoint and have to be over-turned.

The most alarming thing is a district judge purporting to rule for the nation ON A TRO.

Even the likes of Kagan has been sane when questions of power and overreach have come up.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:40 PM (SIY7D)

220 No, Ignoramus, I know you seek all solutions within the current framework, but that's not tenable. It's the *framework* that's broken and corrupted.

And my "lost cause" reference was to the possibility of Trump repudiating the courts, as he should have done already.

"Winning" inside the discredited judicial system is not winning, it's just hoping you have enough of "your guys" in the right place at the right time to eke out a victory. When your policies are clearly lawful and constitutional.

A long-term solution clearly is *not* to hope for permanent success in packing "your" guys into a corrupted system that is no longer a judiciary but just an unaccountable legislature (staffed by people even dimmer and more alien than the actual legislature, hard as that is to imagine).

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:41 PM (QDnY+)

221 Wait, I was wrong. Its not sixteen.

Its eleven. Five of those were other elected officials.

Only seven judges were ever removed from office.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:41 PM (39g3+)

222 I suggest that Trump give up on issuing any executive orders on immigration designed to halt it, and instead indicate that he will take foreigners from other countries but that the admission process in order to vet them will take four years. Then slow walk each and every application, keeping the applicant in their country of origin until the process is completed. That way no one is truly being denied potential entry into the country, and Trump has the time needed to properly vet them.

The Judiciary isn't the only branch of government that can slow walk a process. Make the procedure the punishment.

Posted by: SaltyDonnie at March 15, 2017 08:42 PM (nWmg2)

223 We moped around Iraq and Afganistan and pretended we were "responding" to 9/11, but weren't really doing anything more substantive than the "nothing really happened on 9/11" crowd.

Posted by: Crusader at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (ewSN2)

======

Agreed. GWB had an opportunity to go down as one of the great all-time Presidents ... but he was too "compassionate" ...

Posted by: ShainS at March 15, 2017 08:42 PM (mt8X9)

224 And most have law degrees. They must realize how egregious this kind of thing is.

-
On The History Channel last night they had a doc about the Nazi Einsatzgruppen. They shot hundreds of thousands of Jews. What I didn't know was how well educated they were. Eleven of the top twenty officers had Ph.Ds. One had two Ph.Ds and insisted on being addressed as Dr. Dr. Fischer so everyone would know. I know, it's shocking that a Nazi Einsatzgruppe would be an asshole.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks. Now worse than Hitler! at March 15, 2017 08:42 PM (Nwg0u)

225 There is no process. Its up to congress to take action, and they almost never do. out of more than 3000 of judges and 227 years the USA has been a nation, congress has only impeached...

sixteen.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:40 PM (39g3+)

Would assume those were the kinds of "judges" who rape goats or murder underaged hookers.

Probably a few horse thieves and mail train robbers amongst the 16 as well.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 15, 2017 08:43 PM (Pz4pT)

226 On Jan 20 we switched from rule by executive order back to something else

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at March 15, 2017 08:43 PM (6Ll1u)

227 As evil as the Left was when it was officially in charge, it is twice as evil now that it is nominally out of power.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at March 15, 2017 08:43 PM (Om16U)

228 "Obama got to keep giving out DACA visas, and nothing happened"

And Trump's people can apply extreme vetting and deny visas from these countries. And deny all refugee entries.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:43 PM (SIY7D)

229 @209

The difference is that our enemies have armies of lawyers, agitation groups, the MSM and a fair number of GOPers to make damn sure the administration follows the judges order to the letter.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:43 PM (+lv+r)

230 Serious question:

If as Ace accurately states we are through the looking glass, and darkly, why can't President Trump merely fire back at the judge and state he is abrogating his duty to uphold the law and instruct his branches to ignore the ruling?

Serious as a friggin' heart attack, yo.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton

Trump can issue a new EO everyday.

Trump could reassign every Federal employee working immigration and refugee desks to 'sensitivity training' at DPG, without phones or email, indefinately.

Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2017 08:44 PM (zZb/S)

231 We have no Congress.
We have no Law.
America is on autopilot.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 08:44 PM (XNNr5)

232 @209

The difference is that our enemies have
armies of lawyers, agitation groups, the MSM and a fair number of GOPers
to make damn sure the administration follows the judges order to the
letter.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:43 PM (+lv+r)

Sadly, this.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:45 PM (PY9jH)

233 But that's not happening. Because Trump and team lack the insight or ballz to go that route, and almost all legal types are unable to escape their brain-dead (and very dated) guiding assumption that rule of law requires courts to be obeyed.

===

Payasos!

Posted by: General Pinochet at March 15, 2017 08:45 PM (EZebt)

234

another lovely Trump speech

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 15, 2017 08:45 PM (0mz2+)

235 Well it clear what John McCain thinks about all this...

Montenegro! The Epicenter of American Security for the 21st Century.

Posted by: William Eaton at March 15, 2017 08:46 PM (MuTTO)

236 I'm pickin' smart vibrations.

Posted by: the Bean Bois at March 15, 2017 08:46 PM (vRcUp)

237 A long-term solution clearly is *not* to hope for permanent success in packing "your" guys into a corrupted system that is no longer a judiciary but just an unaccountable legislature (staffed by people even dimmer and more alien than the actual legislature, hard as that is to imagine).

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:41 PM (QDnY+)

Worse, with the actual legislature, you at least have the faint hope of being able to vote the bastards out every once in a while!

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:46 PM (gwPgz)

238 Because Trump and team lack the insight or ballz to go that route, and almost all legal types are unable to escape their brain-dead (and very dated) guiding assumption that rule of law requires courts to be obeyed.

Maybe, or maybe they're trying to go through the most direct legal route first, because that's the first and proper way to start out. We can see what they have done so far, but either you or I can say what they'll do next.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:46 PM (39g3+)

239 another lovely Trump speech

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 15, 2017 08:45 PM (0mz2+)

I missed this evening's, but heard the one he gave in Michigan. He rings true to the average hard-working American, something Princess Precious could never do, and something the MFM will never, ever understand.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:46 PM (PY9jH)

240 Just cooked 52 pieces of bacon for for my one meal a day.. Bacon only dinner. 1100 calories. Long night, Short night? To be determined.

Night Horde.
Posted by: Phone of Widespread Pepe at March 15, 2017 08:33 PM (3cOA7)

Wow, I'm impressed.

Posted by: Country Boy at March 15, 2017 08:48 PM (1QKha)

241 Red diapar baby, raised by America-haters top to bottom. His mama turned him over to an indonesian trannie who fed him dogmeat, and then he was 'tutored' between the knees of a commie homo. Then he met ayres and jarrett, and probably soros. None of this happened by accident.

Posted by: Eromero at March 15, 2017 08:48 PM (zLDYs)

242 The guy who developed waterboarding, and personally gathered information that would stop attacks after 9/11 was sued by the ACLU in 2014 on behalf of three gitmo prisoners.

We either win the lawfare or watch more Americans get killed. Ruin lawyers. Ruin judges. Ruin the sources of foreign money. They picked the fight, and genuinely evil people are their tool. They've taken away any reason to be restrained or proportionate.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at March 15, 2017 08:48 PM (VdICR)

243 Heh. (Newsbusters) Madcow blames "viewer expectations" on her epic FAIL last night.

giggle

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:49 PM (PY9jH)

244 I thought it was just a fake state, like Guam or the Virgin Islands. Or Connectabutt.

We don't let them vote... do we?
Posted by: BurtTC at March 15, 2017 08:37 PM (Pz4pT)

In the early 2000s, it was not uncommon to see bumper stickers with a US flag and a Hawaiian flag, with the slogan "9/11: we stand with you".

Oh gosh, one of the united states standing with the United States. Don't get yourselves winded doing us any f*ing favors, guys.

Posted by: hogmartin at March 15, 2017 08:49 PM (8nWyX)

245 Liberal Activist Judges are a boil on the butt of humanity.

Posted by: ALH at March 15, 2017 08:49 PM (Z56vq)

246 I'm honestly wondering why you all are so angry.

[snip]

Then President Trump can say, "well, I tried," and get the people behind his real objective- ignoring the judges (good) or taking real action against them (better).

Posted by: trev006 at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (cOSsi)

=====

I'm angry because THAT hasn't happened yet. I'm happy to give it time, but each small surrender to The Left only emboldens them further. I hope soon we can say that you were right ...

Posted by: ShainS at March 15, 2017 08:49 PM (mt8X9)

247 We have no Congress.
We have no Law.
America is on autopilot.
Posted by: gNewt

We are NOT on autopilot. The pilot is Andreas Lubitz.

Posted by: Steve and Cold Bear at March 15, 2017 08:49 PM (vRcUp)

248 I'm tired of speeches I want action.

Posted by: vox Populi at March 15, 2017 08:50 PM (XNNr5)

249 Rhomboid.

What you're saying is that Trump should go Full Andy Jackson now. I also hear you say that you were itching for this fight in order to end Marbury Judicial Review.

Understand that that would be a big fucking change in our constitutional order. And remove a check on a future President we might want (and need).

If you want that fight, I suggest you need something bigger than these EOs as a pretext.

I also think that Trump is already fighting on other fronts, and while he should keep fighting this one I'd let it play out.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:50 PM (SIY7D)

250 Turtle could slam thru Goresch tonight, at 3AM.

But, dear god the left is playing with matches in a ammo bunker. Just one of these dickheads that got let by this BS goes all stabby, 'splodey, or decides to drive on the sidewalk somewhere -- and Trump has a 60+ majority in the Senate and the Dims probably couldn't recruit a dogcatcher to run against him.

Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2017 08:50 PM (zZb/S)

251 207 So ignorant layperson question. Suppose the majority of folks in HI don't like this judge doing this and would like to see him impeached or whatever it would take to remove him.
_______________

He's a federal judge, appointed for life. To be removed from the bench, he would have to be impeached by congress, and then convicted by the senate (for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors).

HI citizens could, if they wanted to, request their congressional reps to initiate impeachment proceedings. But since most of them are Dims, it's unlikely to happen. And the citizens would get nowhere with a lawsuit, as they can't use the courts to force congress to do its job.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (riF5p)

252
Red diapar baby, raised by America-haters top to bottom. His mama turned
him over to an indonesian trannie who fed him dogmeat, and then he was
'tutored' between the knees of a commie homo. Then he met ayres and
jarrett, and probably soros. None of this happened by accident.

Posted by: Eromero at March 15, 2017 08:48 PM (zLDYs)

This is the left: (hands over ears) "LALALALALA I can't hear you!!!"

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (PY9jH)

253 One (potential) thing about the ridiculous rulings is more and more legal eagles on the left can go public and denounce these judge-shopped anti-constitutional rulings. It can educate the public on the problems of an activist judiciary.

Most people still want border control, and not many want their neighborhood converted into a Muslim no-go refugee zone, as has happened. The histrionic left is perhaps being splintered with the nuts like Snoop and Ashley.

But the swamp has many loyalists to the swamp. Rush mentioned today how so many in military or other places long to get a place in the CFR ... kinda like being a made man I guess, except for the globalists instead of the mob.

Posted by: illiniwek at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (BrMft)

254 @247

^^This^^

The threat is coming from inside the house.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (+lv+r)

255
America is on autopilot.
Posted by: gNewt

Where's Julie Hagerty when you need her?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (IqV8l)

256 Miss me yet?

Posted by: Judge Lynch at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (WDdjT)

257 and SHOULD have included the obliteration of that stupid black rock in Saudi Arabia.

Again,
returning substantial fractions of Gods children to him as radio-active gas is a LAST resort.

Posted by: DaveA at March 15, 2017 08:52 PM (FhXTo)

258 I'm out of words to express how I feel about the GOPe. At least none I can type here.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:53 PM (PY9jH)

259 Posted by: BourbonChicken at March 15, 2017 08:48 PM (VdICR)

Lately no one has asked why I use this as a signature:

Shakespeare had it right, way long time ago:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

~ Henry VI, Part 2

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:53 PM (gwPgz)

260 "One (potential) thing about the ridiculous rulings is more and more legal eagles on the left can go public and denounce these judge-shopped anti-constitutional rulings."

A lot of leftist judges would say these rulings are egregious. They know if they go too far, the gig is up

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:54 PM (SIY7D)

261 Then President Trump can say, "well, I tried,"

He can copyright "Sorry it took so long, complicated business".

Posted by: DaveA at March 15, 2017 08:54 PM (FhXTo)

262 But, C. Taylor, this is not some academic matter, nor some routine and long-running matter like how to adjudicate in-holder mining claims on National Forest land, or something like that.

This was a national security directive regarding admissions to the US from conflict zones that are producing most of the world's terrorist foot-soldiers. A temporary halt and review.

In other words, a purely operational matter. Entirely within the president's exclusive authority. No legal or constitutional issues exist around this authority - no parties have "standing" to challenge it in court.

So no, the proper response to a judicial coup is not to try to please the lawless, arbitrary, unserious court. Obviously.

Yes - it's the *normal, typical* response. As I keep noting, very few people can imagine anything other than complying with a court's order, however absurd or dangerous, but that's their failing, it's not smart or effective. Not any longer. Not when things have reached this stage.

Federal district courts, as of now, are full players in visa policy. Whereas their actual, legal role is zip, nada, zilch.

Let's see Trump try to bring integrity to the H1B process (actually that one is so far gone the best approach is to cancel it entirely and start over). Who here doubts that any serious changes will be stopped dead in their tracks by ...... federal district judges, with domestic industries as plaintiffs with "standing"?

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 08:54 PM (QDnY+)

263
I love Hawaiian shaved ice.

Posted by: washrivergal at March 15, 2017 08:54 PM (Ivjge)

264 211 We're *in* the civil war already. We have been during the last 8 years as well. I'd argue we've been in a civil war since 9/11.
Posted by: Crusader at March 15, 2017 08:38 PM (ewSN2)

I'd say it started even earlier, in the aftermath of the 2000 election. That was when half of the country started saying "He's not *my* President".

And I first saw the phrase "cold civil war" around that time.

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 08:54 PM (sdi6R)

265 For those of you who haven't bashed your tv, Trump in on Tucker.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 15, 2017 08:54 PM (/tuJf)

266 "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

~ Henry VI, Part 2

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 15, 2017 08:53 PM (gwPgz)

Interesting factoids about the founding of the state of Georgia (Savannah) by Gen. James Oglethorpe:

No lawyers

No booze

No slavery

No Irish (they arrived after he left, and became one of the largest concentrations of Irish in the Colonies)

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:55 PM (PY9jH)

267 "Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today"
Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 07:57 PM (XNNr5)

----------------------------------------------------

It is becoming clear that Mattis was not a good hire.

Posted by: William Eaton at March 15, 2017 08:55 PM (MuTTO)

268 Honesdale extended their snow emergency through Friday, so the schools might not reopen until Monday. It took the snow plow guy over an hour to clear my fifty foot driveway. The cars, (with the exception of one), are still under a three foot blanket of the nasty white stuff.

Best guess for the amount of snow we got is 2 feet, 8 inches. Should warm into the forties through the weekend though, and some of it will melt off.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at March 15, 2017 08:55 PM (bQLQX)

269 are john mccain and chuck schumer fart tubing again!

Posted by: chavez the hugo at March 15, 2017 08:56 PM (KP5rU)

270 "You all know this was challenged in Hawaii just so it would go to the Ninth Circus."

Yep. It should get a new three judge panel, which might make a difference, or not. Then go en banc, by which time Gorsuch should be on board,

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 15, 2017 08:57 PM (SIY7D)

271 Trump on Tucker.

(Yeah, phrasing, I know.)

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:57 PM (PY9jH)

272 Posted by: illiniwek at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (BrMft)

The lure of easy money, it has a very strong appeal!

Posted by: Zombie Glenn Frey at March 15, 2017 08:58 PM (gwPgz)

273 Trump will not decide who the new judges will be. For example, for the 7th Circuit of Appeals,, there is a commission where the nominee must get approval of 2 Dems. And if the person is from WI, Tammy Baldwin has veto power.

Posted by: robert at March 15, 2017 08:59 PM (M7hCv)

274 Obama ignored Federal injuctions regarding offshore drilling, correct?

I'm with rhomboid, though. It's not enough to simply ignore them. We need to fix this and fix it so it stays fixed.

Posted by: TexasDan at March 15, 2017 08:59 PM (yL25O)

275 Honesdale extended their snow emergency through Friday, so the schools might not reopen until Monday.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at March 15, 2017 08:55 PM (bQLQX)

One of my aunts is a nurse and lives in Hunlock Creek. She spent the last 3 days unable to leavethe hospital.

Posted by: hogmartin at March 15, 2017 08:59 PM (8nWyX)

276 I like the idea of slow walking vetting. even more, though, is free airfare to Hawaii for refugees. wait till groups of militant Sudanese go on hajib patrol on a couple of beaches.

Posted by: vivi at March 15, 2017 08:59 PM (11H2y)

277 Only seven judges were ever removed from office.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:41 PM (39g3+)

===

And then elected to Congress.

Ref. Alcee Hastings

Posted by: San Franpsycho at March 15, 2017 09:00 PM (EZebt)

278 251 207 So ignorant layperson question. Suppose the majority of folks in HI don't like this judge doing this and would like to see him impeached or whatever it would take to remove him.
_______________

He's a federal judge, appointed for life. To be removed from the bench, he would have to be impeached by congress, and then convicted by the senate (for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors).

HI citizens could, if they wanted to, request their congressional reps to initiate impeachment proceedings. But since most of them are Dims, it's unlikely to happen. And the citizens would get nowhere with a lawsuit, as they can't use the courts to force congress to do its job.
Posted by: TrivialPursuer at March 15, 2017 08:51 PM (riF5p)

...and he's a federal judge, so while he sits in a court in hawaii, he's part of the federal judiciary and is subject to everything trivial pursuer said (at the federal level), not a state recall / impeachment process.

Also, FYI -- there have been very few article III judges removed from the bench in the history of the US.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 09:00 PM (wmaTe)

279 "You all know this was challenged in Hawaii just so it would go to the Ninth Circus."

Democrats have been undermining the judiciary at least since FDR tried to go all Schicklgruber on us.

All part of the long march.

Posted by: FUBAR at March 15, 2017 09:00 PM (bcDxW)

280 Trump on Tucker.

(Yeah, phrasing, I know.)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2017 08:57 PM (PY9jH)

You know what I never thought about before, until just now? How does it stay tucked?

With all that Trump on action going on, wouldn't it pop back out?

Posted by: BurtTC at March 15, 2017 09:01 PM (Pz4pT)

281 One of my aunts is a nurse and lives in Hunlock Creek. She spent the last 3 days unable to leavethe hospital.

Posted by: hogmartin at March 15, 2017 08:59 PM (8nWyX)

Cannibalism! Baby raping!

Posted by: Shep Smith at March 15, 2017 09:01 PM (PY9jH)

282 65 Perhaps all the federal marshall's in HI should be assigned to mandatory training...for 6 months...in AK.
Posted by: Under Fire at March 15, 2017 07:57 PM (6LwXe)

Oh no you don't. We don't want that crap up here.

Posted by: tcn in AK at March 15, 2017 09:01 PM (cm1Bl)

283 Trump has a nuclear option. Tell DoD to man the immigration desks, send the civilians home.

Or, tell the FAA to pull the operating permits of any airline that allows them on-board. Sure, they can sue ... but any airline grounded for more then a few days - isnt getting back into the sky.

Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2017 09:01 PM (zZb/S)

284 nood.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 15, 2017 09:02 PM (wmaTe)

285 Trump is playing their game. He needs to make the game his. Own it.
He should do something dramatic that shakes them to the core that they cannot undo.

Posted by: gNewt at March 15, 2017 09:02 PM (XNNr5)

286 Pretty Sure Alcee Hastings is the last one to be impeached, and that was a long time ago.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 09:02 PM (39g3+)

287 268 Honesdale extended their snow emergency through Friday, so the schools might not reopen until Monday. It took the snow plow guy over an hour to clear my fifty foot driveway. The cars, (with the exception of one), are still under a three foot blanket of the nasty white stuff.

Best guess for the amount of snow we got is 2 feet, 8 inches. Should warm into the forties through the weekend though, and some of it will melt off.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at March 15, 2017 08:55 PM (bQLQX)

Wait--I thought the conventional wisdom was that the storm was a nothingburger and the weather forecasters had beclowned themselves.

Where I am, the last forecast I saw before it started was 8-12" of snow. The storm tracked further inland than predicted and it changed over to sleet and freezing rain, the fabled "wintry mix".

But it precipitated for the predicted length of time. If it had stayed all snow, we would have gotten, get this, 8-12".

Posted by: rickl at March 15, 2017 09:04 PM (sdi6R)

288 Unfortunately, Trump looks ineffective and powerless when he loses these battles. The guy wasn't prepared to take office, left Obama holdovers in place because he didn't have replacements chosen, and keeps getting rolled by Federal Judges.

Has there been a more powerless President in recent times?

Posted by: robert at March 15, 2017 09:04 PM (M7hCv)

289 NOOD

fwiw

Posted by: browndog at March 15, 2017 09:04 PM (bGMOs)

290 Mark Steyn interviews James E Mitchell

I came away from this feeling like a nuke might have to go off before America gets its Lazlo pyramid sorted out. I'm so angry about this.

https://youtu.be/3LZA3_1LbWY

I assume the editor cut out all the moments when he was being horrible to the catering service.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at March 15, 2017 09:06 PM (VdICR)

291 We the one thing I learned about Hawaii is from watching "Dog the Bounty Hunter", and that is: there is a lot a meth in Hawaii.

Posted by: Darth Randall at March 15, 2017 09:06 PM (v3DL/)

292 Ignoramus (perhaps the least appropriate nick here at the HQ, in your case, BTW), not sure how much "bigger" things have to get here.

Won't review the basics, you know them. Courts have literally seized power from the president in areas where the president is fully and duly empowered to do what he's doing. (and this isn't about oil leases or something, this coup means actual people have been admitted to the US in the last month who should have been denied entry, based on the most obvious and compelling national security reasons)

Also not sure about Marbury. Does "judicial review" mean that courts can just substitute their judgments and preferences for those of the executive when he is acting within his express authority? This becomes circular if Marbury means *all* actions of all branches of the US Govt. are subject to judicial review.

But I don't accept your overall premise. The constitutional order is *already* turned upside down - by the judiciary, and congressional lassitude. This is just the latest, and perhaps most egregious, example.

Repudiating the lawless courts acknowledges and confronts the problem, but giving them the Sudetenland hoping that will satisfy them ..... well we all know how that usually turns out.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 15, 2017 09:06 PM (QDnY+)

293 Wow, Trump is the most powerless president ever, he keeps losing? Seriously people? Its like hanging out in manic depressives anonymous here. The guy has been in office just over 50 days, lets see what he does next before slitting our wrists, eh?

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 09:07 PM (39g3+)

294 For those of you who haven't bashed your tv, Trump in on Tucker.
Posted by: JackStraw at March 15, 2017 08:54 PM (/tuJf)

he got to fly on the plane!
good get for Tucker

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 15, 2017 09:08 PM (0mz2+)

295 RE 211: "We moped around Iraq and Afganistan and pretended we were "responding"
to 9/11, but weren't really doing anything more substantive than the
"nothing really happened on 9/11" crowd.
" <br />
Take a look at a map. Where is Iraq? Where is Afghanistan? What lies between the two countries? Do you see any strategic significance in flooding Iraq and Afghanistan with US troops? Now look at all the countries that connect to these two countries, especially Iraq. What happened when Saddam was toppled and the US troops stuck around to help rebuild?<br /> I'll tell you what happened. Large numbers of radical muslims flooded into Iraq to try and kill US soldiers. Instead of terrorists hitting soft targets around the world on their own time, they were engaging the well-trained and well-equipped troops of the US armed forces as soon as they could, and they were getting themselves killed. The largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, was surrounded and neutered. The number of fanatics was on a quick decline. In 2008, there were more homicides in the USA than there were in Iraq. 2009 was continuing to improve over 2008's numbers until Obama worked his magic. So don't give me this "moping around in Iraq and Afghanistan" crap. It was an excellent military strategy that solved the problem of the invisible enemy presented by Islamic terrorists. At the same time, it was a clear line in the sand for the leadership of Iran to back the fuck off or else.

Posted by: pete at March 15, 2017 09:13 PM (78f+H)

296 So a judge stays an XO because he thinks the plaintiffs are likely to win in court, when does it go to court?

Posted by: Burnt Toast at March 15, 2017 09:16 PM (P/kVC)

297 By the way, what happened to the media's daily body count from Iraq? Once Obama took over and pulled out the US troops, the body count began to rise again, and with his arming of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in order to topple existing governments, it began spreading all over the Middle East and North Africa. ISIS is a direct result of Obama, and yet the media completely stopped counting. I'd be willing to wager more civilians have died under Obama's foreign policy blunders than died in the 6 years of Iraq occupation.

Posted by: pete at March 15, 2017 09:20 PM (78f+H)

298 Posted by: pete at March 15, 2017 09:13 PM (78f+H)

Asked a SOF guy about this honeypot theory. He said,

They are religious fanatics, not stupid. They send everybody on tour, they take some pot shots at us, then send them to Europe and everywhere else.

Meh...

Posted by: Burnt Toast at March 15, 2017 09:22 PM (P/kVC)

299 Eventually, the US Supreme Court is going to have to decide the question, can the US government discriminate against the Islamic religion notwithstanding the First Amendment on the basis that fundamental precepts of the Islamic religion, such as requiring the penalty of death for apostasy and blasphemy and Muslim supremacy over non-Muslims, violate the doctrine of unalienable rights on which the United States of America is based and which must take precedence when interpreting the First Amendment. Accordingly, the government could flatly prohibit the immigration of Muslims into the United States and take other straightforward measures to unapologetically protect the American people from the dangers of Islam.

But this ultimate legal clash should wait until Trump has more nominees on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at March 15, 2017 09:22 PM (3OAG2)

300 Judges agree that judges make the law. Congress refuses to impeach. What is the remedy of the people?

Posted by: Toad-O at March 15, 2017 09:39 PM (cct0t)

301 Gettin' kinda hard to make a non-banworthy comment here.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, at Provisional Basestar at March 15, 2017 09:41 PM (66CWr)

302 93,
"Sigh. I don't know what to do about the judiciary."

I do know what to do but not how to get Congress to do it as things stand now.

They could limit the court's jurisdiction in these matters, or...

End all of the infeior courts. Congress made them and can end them.

Then enact a new court system. End the rule that the Senators from a certain State can have veto/selection power over nominees. This might have made sense when Senators were the State's Representatives to the Federal government but now they are just "at large" Congressmen and the same as the lower house.

Posted by: geoffb5 at March 15, 2017 09:51 PM (d3wbb)

303 There is no process. Its up to congress to take action, and they almost never do. out of more than 3000 of judges and 227 years the USA has been a nation, congress has only impeached...

sixteen.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 08:40 PM (39g3+)

One of whom is (or at least, was) a member of the House of Representatives.

Posted by: Fox2! at March 15, 2017 09:52 PM (brIR5)

304 Recess appointment Gursuch pending confirmation, appeal to SCOTUS and let's get this done. Why is this so hard?

Posted by: Kaldar at March 15, 2017 10:00 PM (vemGv)

305 286 Pretty Sure Alcee Hastings is the last one to be impeached, and that was a long time ago.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 15, 2017 09:02 PM (39g3+)

There have been several others since then, including at least one in which Hastings voted to impeach on all four charges - including perjury, which is what got Hastings impeached and convicted.

Posted by: Fox2! at March 15, 2017 10:04 PM (brIR5)

306 Immigration is all that matters any longer. Period. If courts can decided which policies to implement and how to enforce them, war.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at March 15, 2017 10:53 PM (nArfz)

307 Some intelligence sources says that the judge is arachibutyrophobic.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 15, 2017 11:02 PM (e8kgV)

308 Impeachment is basically a dead letter. There is not a good check and balance here.

The "judge's" "ruling" is anti-law, not law. It is all will-to-power. He's basically saying that if Muslims are a fifth of the world's population, they must constitute a fifth of our immigrants--you know, ike the Founders wanted blahblahblah. Even if a good chunk of them think you are a third-class citizen who must submit or die.

It's cultural suicide really. And we're not going to the ovens with these mindless idiots.

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at March 15, 2017 11:03 PM (Ndje9)

309 I asked my idiot SIL if she had heard the legal arguments made by the 9th Circuit. She said "No, not all of them." I asked "Any of them?". Answer: No.

The I pointed out there was a very good reason she hadn't heard any legal arguments - there aren't any, just BS about intent to discriminate against Muslims and unconstitutionality that has no relevance to non-US citizens or legal residents.

Then I smacked her on the ass and suggested she use what talent she has to find some guy to screw her, instead of playing lawyer.

That last part may be slightly enhanced for readability.

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at March 15, 2017 11:25 PM (LeUrG)

310 We need to impeach judges who overreach and/or substitute their personal beliefs for the rule of law.

Posted by: Locke Common at March 15, 2017 11:42 PM (5PqMo)

311 102 @92
Basically the GOP has deemed the President to be on his own. He won't be gettting any support from them.

By the time mid-terms roll around, Trump should be in a position to say "Here is what I have done for you voters, and here are the Congressholes that tried to prevent me from doing it." Then see how many of them survive the culling.

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at March 15, 2017 11:49 PM (LeUrG)

312 Funny how the shadow -resident Barry the ice cream scooper was here in the islands playing golf with his bfs....hmmmm

Posted by: Island Girl at March 16, 2017 04:07 AM (FJrl0)

313 William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says you don't WANT to see this issue go to SCOTUS, as that will set precedent that The Courts *DO* have legal jurisdiction over the President's powers as enumerated in the Constitution.

http://tinyurl.com/zpc8cy3

This country's Prog-lawyers are now playing a new game, Executive-Branch-From-The-Bench, to add to their already-discovered powers (40 years and counting) of playing Legislate-From-The-Bench.

It *H A S* to stop.

Posted by: Deip-Lo, Rabble Extraordinaire at March 16, 2017 04:58 PM (3xxU6)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0443 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0174 seconds, 321 records returned.
Page size 172 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.