First, you are misguided because it's a temporary ban and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don't
The existing vetting process is insanely thorough and complete. And, tellingly, it has not allowed in any terrorists from any of those countries. This is a bullshit excuse for a bullshit policy.
Second, unless you have a house full of immigrants, YOU are inhumane! At least, by your reasoning.
That's not how this works. It's not how any of this works. I'm not saying we need to accept everyone. I'm not even saying that we need to stop carefully vetting those who come. I'm saying that what was cruel and inhumane was a broadbased policy, based on no factual basis at all, that ripped apart families, caused massive harm on tons of people who had ALREADY BEEN VETTED.
And, you are most likely a hypocrite because you have doors and windows on your house, probably an alarm on your car. Why? Because you don't want just anyone walking into your house and because you probably don't want just anyone going into or stealing your car. It's the same thing, but on a larger scale. We don't want just anyone coming into our country.
Lovely strawman. Again, I never argued that we need to let everyone in. I'm saying we don't create a purely bullshit policy that tears apart families and people who have already been properly vetted because of unknown bullshit reasons.
One potentially serious problem is the culture clash. Many of these refugees follow the ways of Sharia Law.
This is the same bullshit that comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME there's a new influx of immigrants from a particular country. Remember the Know Nothing party? They said the same thing about those darn Catholics who would bring their awful religion to the US.
Regulation tends to favor large incumbent firms and stifle innovation while competition forces better service delivery and encourages innovation.
Yes. But that ignores that some regulations -- antitrust, and what the FCC was doing here -- are designed to increase competition. There was nothing in the rules that were traditional burdensome "regulation." It was just creating a playing field that made it easier for reasonable competition.
How about no net neutrality and eliminating noncompetitive ISP monopolies?
This ruling is pretty much irrelevant for the tech industry. Sure, certain companies are virtue signaling hard over this but the real impact is negligible. The middle east is just not a hot bed for talent (except for Israel).
You are 100% wrong (again). Having spoken with many of the companies, this has had tremendous consequences already. One large company is cancelling a user event in the US because people from outside the US don't want to travel here, but they're not sure if they can do it outside the US, because some of their employees here are afraid they won't be allowed back in if they do leave.
There are numerous stories like that. Besides, much of this was driven by employees, not the "jobs" issue, but because of basic human decency. The tech industry has long worked hard to provide the world with great innovations. Breaking up the world, creating strife and wars is bad for general progress and innovation in general, not to mention humanity.
Xians in Syria are genuine political refugees. People just fleeing bombs in Aleppo are not. People who aren't oppressed minorities can use that normal immigration process (and quotas) like anyone else.
You have no idea how the refugee process works. Don't pretend you do. Because you don't.
No you were 100% wrong. And I can't believe you're doubling down on it.
The 86% was for 2012. Did not catch that part.
Again, this is wrong. The Supreme Court left in place well over 99% of the rulings in the 9th Circuit. It agrees to hear a tiny percentage (last stats I saw covering 1999 to 2008) showed that SCOTUS heard approximately 0.15% of 9th Circuit appeals. In other words, it leaves in place well over 99% and just picks up a few outliers.
And, again, the fact that it hears more 9th Circuit cases is no surprise, since the 9th Circuit hears FAR MORE than any other circuit, and often has many really important cases. But the 86% is misleading in the extreme. And to put it into context, the Supreme Court will reverse or vacate significantly more than 50% of the cases it hears (so it's not like this is a coin flip) BECAUSE it generally only takes cases where some of the justices have serious concerns. Most courts see reversal rates anywhere between 60 and 85% -- but, again, only on the cases taken.
That still means that well over 99% of all appeals court decisions are left alone by the Supreme Court, including in the 9th circuit.
If you're trying to read the tea leaves based on this kind of faulty analysis, you're going to get into trouble.
Plus, the 9th circuit court of appeals is a joke. 86% of their rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court. They care little for the law. Instead they push their personal opinions.
Actually, 99.88% of the 9th's rulings have been left alone. Approximately 0.12% have been overturned. Your statistics are wrong.
And the 9th certainly has its history of wacky decisions (some of which we've written about here), but let's not be completely clueless in our claims. You kind of look ignorant if you spout of that 86% of their rulings have been overturned. And I'm sure you don't mean to look totally ignorant, do you?
I swear Mike, you are going whacko lefty... what is the deal? Get your crap together.
I'm doing no such thing. Here's a hint: just because someone's analysis disagrees with your own, it doesn't make them a "leftist" or "right wing" or anything like that. Perhaps they just disagree with you. I don't know why you're so obsessively focused with this false "left/right" spectrum anyway. I've pointed out in the past how dumb it is and you can't let it go. Why is that?
IF, the judges considered anything said, tweeted, or typed that is OUTSIDE of the order to ban then that is the proof. So did the judges admit that they also took into account... the twitter or any other public but NOT LEGALLY BINDING media of Trump in their decision? Yes or No?
What? Part of the court's job is to determine the intent of the executive order, and therefore it is entirely reasonable to consider the statements of those associated with the executive order. There is longstanding precedent for this (also cited in the ruling). You seem to think that the judicial system works very differently than it does.
They made no such claims, they just said they would be surprised as a matter of musing... try to avoid taking things out of context please! Your job should already intimate to you the need to not do that!
Actually, that's exactly what was claimed. The commenter said "I would not consider this case closed." And I responded asking where I had said it was closed, because I had said exactly the opposite in my post. Now you claim that they didn't say the very thing I responded to?
Dude. Really? You're the one taking things out of context.
That may matter to YOU proving that this is more political for you than not. I don't care who appointed a judge, they should be able to perform their duties with integrity regardless.
Holy shit. What the serious fuck is wrong with you? I didn't say it mattered. I was responding to the spurious claim that the judges were "political" by pointing to the evidence that they were not. I agree that it doesn't matter who appointed them because they should perform their job. And the indicators are that THEY DID THAT.
Try to steer clear of the cliff, taking things out of context or construing them to mean something they do not will only make you look like a looney political hack.
Hilarious since your entire comment here was taking my words out of context. Don't be that guy.
Does Techdirt understand that I don't want to see article after article hysterically screaming about Trump?
Can you point to what in the article was "hysterical screaming?"
We are reporting on a lawsuit that is relevant to the stuff we normally write about and follow and did so in the same manner that we report on lots of other lawsuits.
It's odd to me: when we reported, repeatedly, on lawsuits against the Obama White House, we never had people bitching about "I don't want to see article after article hysterically screaming about Obama" even though we covered countless lawsuits against his administration, where we regularly agreed with the plaintiffs that the administration had gone way too far.
This isn't partisan. This isn't about "Trump". This is about issues that impact us and that we normally write about it. If you want a "safe space" that won't challenge your view of the world, then maybe go elsewhere.
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.