Boston Federal Judge refuses to extend immigration ban:Seattle Judge issues sweeping ban...

[don-o]

Well to quote the judge

U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart, a Seattle native who is an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the state of Washington proved that local economy and citizens have suffered irreparable harm and an injunction should be applied.

This is not a Governor attempting to sue so he can admit or bar anyone. It is the State of Washington joined by Minnesota  alleging irreparable harm to citizens of their states if the Immigration ban, not an Insurance ban is enforced...

Well that statement is ludicrous on its face. " Irreparable harm" He could not have made a more reversible call if the had tried.

And you're the one who brought insurance into the discussion, and tried to confuse the matter of standing. Regardless, the feds are going to challenge the ruling, based on standing. We shall see.

[Quix]

Have rarely tweeted though joined years ago.

The last 24 hours have tweeted a fair amount on Trump issues . . . and see that I have a number of replies.

HOWEVER, I CANNOT FIGURE OUT--after searching for more than an hour--HOW to see the replies to my tweets. Can anyone please help me?

[Norm Lenhart]

Have rarely tweeted though joined years ago.

The last 24 hours have tweeted a fair amount on Trump issues . . . and see that I have a number of replies.

HOWEVER, I CANNOT FIGURE OUT--after searching for more than an hour--HOW to see the replies to my tweets. Can anyone please help me?

Far as I know, you can't. You gotta go thread by thread.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Have rarely tweeted though joined years ago.

The last 24 hours have tweeted a fair amount on Trump issues . . . and see that I have a number of replies.

HOWEVER, I CANNOT FIGURE OUT--after searching for more than an hour--HOW to see the replies to my tweets. Can anyone please help me?

At the bottom of your tweet is an arrow with a number next to it, those are the replies. You click on the tweet itself to see replies. You will also get a notification at the top of the screen.

[truth_seeker]

If you think that the only people inconvenienced were the couple of hundred directly impacted by the EO, you're failing to consider the impact that a thousand plus rowdy demonstrators blocking traffic and generally causing mayhem at a busy airport can have on every other person trying to fly in or out of that airport.

Well then why not just signal to the left, that by demonstrating, they get their way.

[truth_seeker]

Well to quote the judge

U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart, a Seattle native who is an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the state of Washington proved that local economy and citizens have suffered irreparable harm and an injunction should be applied.

This is not a Governor attempting to sue so he can admit or bar anyone. It is the State of Washington joined by Minnesota  alleging irreparable harm to citizens of their states if the Immigration ban, not an Insurance ban is enforced...

But the suspension is to save lives of Americans, in the event one or more terrorists manage to infiltrate themselves in to the US.

And six previous Presidents initiated various immigration bans/suspensions.

[montanajoe]

Well that statement is ludicrous on its face. " Irreparable harm" He could not have made a more reversible call if the had tried.

And you're the one who brought insurance into the discussion, and tried to confuse the matter of standing. Regardless, the feds are going to challenge the ruling, based on standing. We shall see.

I went back and read my posts and I think my mention of Obamacare may have been where the insurance confusion came up....

To clarify the various attorney generals suing to block the ACA did not get their standing to sue because their states regulate insurance. They got their standing from Article III Section 2 of the Constitution in that there was a controversy between the Federal Government and the States.

As far as "irreparable harm" goes it a legal term of art that does not have the same meaning as most people understand it in everyday life. Essentially it means a harm that cannot be easily undone and simple money damages aren't sufficient to make things right. Sort of a whats done is done argument...

The WOT is my number one issue, seeing the Trump administration's total FUBAR in rolling out something as basic as this gives me no confidence they have the smarts to pursue and defeat our enemies when they can't seem to handle anything more complicated than a late night tweet

[Victoria33]

Sorry, I should have clarified.

Can he tell, say British Customs who British Customs lets on a plane in England? I very much doubt it. Were I president, I'd call it a national security issue and have a FISA court overrule these judges. Because this 100% IS a NatSec issue.

@Norm Lenhart

Let me put it this way:  We are back to how it was before Trump's executive order.  Right now, on CNN, there is news airlines are beginning to drop the bans they had due to the executive order.  American Airlines is the first a few minutes ago.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

Let me put it this way:  We are back to how it was before Trump's executive order.  Right now, on CNN, there is news airlines are beginning to drop the bans they had due to the executive order.  American Airlines is the first a few minutes ago.

But for how long? If Trump goes meekly along, he will lose support. i don't see him accepting this.  Too big a slap.

[Victoria33]

But for how long? If Trump goes meekly along, he will lose support. i don't see him accepting this.  Too big a slap.

@Norm Lenhart

CNN reports the White House attorneys are now working on an appeal to remove the judge's temporary order.  My guess is they will work through the night and get that done.  This is going to go quickly through the courts and end up in the Supreme Court.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

CNN reports the White House attorneys are now working on an appeal to remove the judge's temporary order.  My guess is they will work through the night and get that done.  This is going to go quickly through the courts and end up in the Supreme Court.

He should use FISA. Thats exactly why FISA exists.

[montanajoe]

He should use FISA. Thats exactly why FISA exists.

Nope that's not why the FISA court exists. It is not some secret super court that can exercise jurisdiction outside of the Federal system. It like all lessor federal courts is subject to the appellate review.

If the WH attorneys are minimally competent they can get this done tomorrow, but that presupposes more competence than they have demonstrated so far

[Norm Lenhart]

Nope that's not why the FISA court exists. It is not some secret super court that can exercise jurisdiction outside of the Federal system. It like all lessor federal courts is subject to the appellate review.

If the WH attorneys are minimally competent they can get this done tomorrow, but that presupposes more competence than they have demonstrated so far

It exists to assist the government in dealing with the terrorist threat. Thats the whole point of the ban. Dealing with the Terrorist threat.

I am unaware of an instance where FISA issued a ruling that another court overturned. And once FISA issues a ruling, Democrats have to play hell to even get access to what that ruling was. If FISA HAS been overturned at some point, it would still take time for the dems to even get it before a court that COULD overturn it.

And THEN, Trump could declare the matter a National Security issue outright and take it out of their hands entirely.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well then why not just signal to the left, that by demonstrating, they get their way.

Absolute non-sequitur and completely irrelevant to the point I made.

Thousands of people were inconvenienced beyond the couple of hundred foreign travelers detained.

That's a fact. To claim that only a couple of hundred were inconvenienced is sheer bunk.

[truth_seeker]

The WOT is my number one issue, seeing the Trump administration's total FUBAR in rolling out something as basic as this gives me no confidence they have the smarts to pursue and defeat our enemies when they can't seem to handle anything more complicated than a late night tweet

Can you be specific about what they did wrong.

[montanajoe]

Hanging you hat on something that never will happem there Norm.
Additionally would shed unnecessary public scrutinity on a system that has worked well.
The Federal Courts can do this if the WH gets their act tohether

[Norm Lenhart]

Hanging you hat on something that never will happem there Norm.
Additionally would shed unnecessary public scrutinity on a system that has worked well.
The Federal Courts can do this if the WH gets their act tohether

Oh I agree they probably won't. Personally I think they should. Because they COULD and the liberals WOULD if it gained them advantage politically. So I think doing it for the right reasons would be the correct course. But yea, they probably wouldn't.

[montanajoe]

Can you be specific about what they did wrong.

Sure, in brief:

First, it appears they delegated the lead in this to a political operative rather than a senior staffer who was an expert in immigration law, intelligence and defense and to compound the ineptitude they seemingly  delegated the drafting of the EO to a low level staffer without giving any direction as to the ramifications of each word of the EO and clear direction as to what they were attempting to accomplish with the EO.

Secondly, the EO was overboard, making no provision for LPR's, those travelling on business visa's, and military personal among others.

Third, instead of recognizing they had screwed up, admitting it, and fixing it, they went for days pretending everything was hunky dory squandering both political capital and public trust.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Paul Ryan - impeach the judge who issued an order clearly beyond the Constitution.