Would you be willing to expand upon this terrible ignorant comment? A presidents words "on twitter" are of no more "legal" import than a crack addict.
Um. It would appear you did not read the decision. It clearly notes that the intent of the ban matters in determining whether or not it was legal, and suggests that Trump's tweets and statements reflect the intent. This isn't complicated.
The judges just admitted to corrupting their jurisprudence over politics
Where and how? The ruling is detailed, careful and fairly comprehensive (much more so than I expected it to be). The reasons are laid out. The precedents are clearly cited.
You cite nothing to support your claim that this is politics (and note that 2 of the 4 judges who agreed were appointed by Bush, so the idea that this is politics is silly).
Not only that, the 9th is one of the most overturned courts in history. I would not consider this a closed case in the least. I would be shocked if it did not continue to climb the court ladder.
Multiple times in the post I noted that this is early and the case is far from over. Why do you pretend anyone said it was over?
Separately, why I know that Fox news was trumpeting that the 9th is the "most overturned court" that, by itself, is misleading and actually wrong. The 9th is the largest of the appeals courts, has the most judges of any of the appeals courts and hears more cases than any of the appeals courts (the 5th Circuit is a distant second). The 9th Circuit (along with the 2nd circuit) also tend to get a lot of "important" cases for a variety of reasons, including the massive population covered by the 9th.
Separately, the "most overturned" is meaningless, because the SCOTUS hears so few cases from most appeals courts. Specifically, from 1999 to 2008 the Supreme Court reviewed 0.15% of 9th Circuit cases. That's not 15%. That 0.15. So the reality is that the Supreme Court does not review well over 99% of 9th Circuit orders.
Also, FACTUALLY it is wrong that the 9th is the most overturned (at least according to the most recent ABA stats I could find). That honor goes to our least favorite appeals court around here: the Federal Circuit.
So, maybe lay off the Fox News a bit (or whatever news source repeated this wrong info) and admit that maybe you don't know what you're talking about.
Re: Don't why even have even customs checkpoints. Every person in the world has a right to come here and stay.
From that decision, Immigration and Customs are completely unconstitutional. Why, if the Canadians and Mexicans want to pour across without limits, it's their right.
All the order says is that the lower court had every right to put a temporary ban on this executive order.
The point that you seem to focus on lower down, that all aliens have Constitutional rights, is different from what you seem to think it is. It's just saying that they have a right to due process -- not that they have a right to enter the country unimpeded. The issue here is whether or not there was due process provided to those people, and the court here doesn't see any evidence to support that.
A warrant simply requires that the one requesting it clearly state what they are looking for and where, and judging by past stories most judges tend to issue them without much pushback unless they're very weak, so the fact that the IRS and SEC both object so strongly to a simple warrant requirement is a pretty good indicator that they're engaged in extensive fishing expeditions, browsing through emails just because they can in the hopes of finding something they can use.
You forgot probable cause. A warrant requires probable cause. That's actually a decently high bar.
The opposition by the tech companies is because they're afraid H1B visas are at risk, nothing else.
This is not even remotely true -- and I know because I was engaged with the process and spoke to many of the people involved. This was mainly driven by employees of companies, AGAINST the wishes of management who didn't want to make waves. But, nice try.
TD is definitely pro Democrat. When the Obama administration was in charge and the police, FBI, CIA, DHS and all the rest of the alphabet soup, were all out of control no one made one comment about it.
It has not often strayed into mainstream political issues.
Many of the issues are related, and the fact is that the issues we DO follow certainly have become mainstream. SOPA became mainstream. Net neutrality became mainstream. Mass surveillance became mainstream.
I'm sorry Mike - it really isn't about humanity.
Wow. I didn't know you could read my brain and why I write what I write. How do you do that?
It was about humanity. I wrote about it because I couldn't not write about it, because it's a disgrace and I have a platform.
If you were concerned about humanitarian issues surrounding immigration then there has been plenty to write about ever since Techdirt started.
There is no more annoying and cynical a ploy then someone saying "you can't write about this because you didn't write about some other horrible thing." That's ridiculous and you know it.
The fact is that so long as you have any set of rules that prevent some people entering the country then there will be regular cases of inhumanity when "jobsworth" officials apply those rules.
This also makes no sense. The issue here is that this was a MASSIVE upheaval impacting hundreds of thousands of people, and completely overturning decades of precedent and history, potentially destroying a careful diplomatic balance, alliances and industries.
It's kind of a big deal.
So why speak out about this particular one now?
Because it's a big deal and I chose to. Until you're my boss, you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot write about.
Really there is no point when you have no particular expertise to add to this debate.
Heh. Okay... Again, maybe look at this very post and see if you still think that's true. I have expertise in some areas, and one of them is knowing tech companies and their positions on policy issues and how certain things impact them.
But, nah, some random dude named Richard says I have nothing to add. Guess I'll pack up now...
To be fair... in the trademark system, you don't need to have a registration to technically hold the trademark. Common law trademark is actually pretty powerful. So, they could argue that they held a common law trademark on the phrase, and thus could license it, and then use that to get the registration.
I think some could make a reasonable argument that they never had a common law trademark either, but...
Re: "Because we can, and what are you going to do about it?"
Or put simply, they were willing to hand you the absurd and boneheaded talking points because they figured they'd be too dry and boring for you to do anything with them, but they weren't willing to hand them to The FOIA Terrorist because screw that guy.
FWIW, I'm not sure that's true. For the most part, FOIA staffers are pretty professional. I generally ascribe this kind of mistake to pure sloppiness/carelessness, rather than direct vindictiveness. But you never know.
The problem with the FOIA system is that it's just so easy to say "no."
Well, David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach, I like how you skipped over the fact that all of the complaints you used about "Sharia laww" etc were the same arguments made against every other immigrant group in the past.
Free trade deals are NOT for the benefit of the countries themselves but for Corporations benefit. as in where can we move our production to so we make the most money.
True free trade actually benefits the citizens of the involved countries quite a lot. The real problem is that almost nothing that we see today is truly about free trade. Much of it is, exactly as you suggest, about cronyism and protectionism for companies under the guise of free trade.
But you shouldn't use that to tarnish the actual benefits -- both economic and social -- of actual free trade.
I have known many Chinese-Americans from when I lived in San Francisco, Mike. Young and old. And, guess what? They still don't assimilate. Marrying outside of their race is not acceptable, though it is done, but with a lot of guff from their society. The same could be said of many Jewish people. They have told me directly: the push is to marry within the Jewish or the Chinese society within America. Do some branch out? Sure they do. But a huge majority do not.
LOL for a whole variety of reasons -- made even funnier if you knew anything about me and my life, my family and my friends -- of all of which prove that the statement above is almost 100% stereotypical hogwash. Sure, some people marry within their cultures, because cultural connections often are part of a community, and so that's the people that you meet. But that doesn't mean they don't assimilate.
But of both these groups, and also Italians and Irish, and other Europeans who came to this country, which ones believe in stoning women and hanging gays? This is the base belief of those who come here from the Muslim faith.
Italians and Irish were most frequently Catholic. Catholics don't exactly have a history of being accepting to gays and women, do they?
And, for what it's worth, when Italians and Irish first came over to America, they too, were encouraged to marry within their own communities. That's pretty common, but not a sign of a refusal to integrate.
What's the chance these people will assimilate, Mike?
Extraordinarily high. How many Muslims do you actually know? I know many and they're all highly integrated into American society, just like all of the Jews, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Indians and Germans I know.
Maybe by the 2nd or 3rd generation, their offspring will.
Again, this is no different than EVERY OTHER IMMIGRANT GROUP BEFORE. When my great grandparents moved here, you know what they did? They joined a local community group that was made up of people from the old world, where they came from. Because when you're in a new place, of course you want to see familiar faces and have people you can rely on to help you out as you build your new life.
And, yes, of course they kept speaking their native tongues. But so what? They also became Americans.
At least, your people, and all of the other peoples you and I have mentioned could generally be trusted to put the Constitution above their religion and Sharia law.
Oh lord. You're totally ignorant are you. Any time I see someone raise the bogeyman of "Sharia Law" it's clear that they've been brainwashed. The fears about "Sharia law" are no different than the fears about Judaism for Jews when they immigrated, or Catholicism when the Irish and Italians came, or Chinese/Confusionism when the Chinese came. You're scared of "different" and you interpret it stupidly.
Seriously: EDUCATE YOURSELF. Go look at the fear mongering about Catholics 100 years ago. It's nearly identical to the insane fear mongering about "Sharia law" today.
Try this: do some research on Al Smith and how people freaked out that he might run for President and be controlled by the Pope rather than the Constitution. It's the same superstitious nonsense that you spout about "Sharia Law."
I don't see that with this group.
Because you've been brainwashed by the ignorant.
And they don't see it in Europe either.
I've traveled extensively in Europe. What you're claiming is not reality.
I've driven through the south of Birmingham in early 2001--16 years ago--and passed through miles and miles of women in black hijabs (sic). Why is that, Mike?*
I've been there too and didn't see anything like that. Were there some people wearing their traditional clothes? Sure. So what? When I walk in almost any city in the world I can find some people wearing traditional clothes. So what?
Where's the adherence to English values in the UK, Mike?
Pretty much everywhere.
Where is your humanity, Mike? For those who are citizens in the country that your kin gave their loyalty to? You want to come here? Leave that intolerant, that violently intolerant shit at home.
Again, you're spewing myths and fantasy. Yes, some people retain aspects of their culture from where they came from -- as they should. The idea that they brought with them "intolerance and violence" is laughable. There's simply no evidence or data to support that.
The only intolerance I see is from you.
You're an ignorant fool and I hope you educate yourself. Get out of your bubble and maybe go meet some real people, not the myths in your mind.