It’s legal. It’s temporary. obama did it. Carter did it. Get over it

@RedTeam: Common Sense probably meant to respond to the same left wing whack job you were responding to. Did you see how today the left wing whackos came out and called for a military coup like the military would support some left wing hostile takeover being how it stands in stark contrast to what the left stands for? Keep your powder dry. These whackjobs are hellbent on starting something they won’t be able to finish.

@another vet:

Keep your powder dry. These whackjobs are hellbent on starting something

Yeah, I know Common Sense normally has common sense. That’s why I wasn’t hard on him, though I would have thought he knew me a little better.

Justice Department to challenge judge’s halt of travel ban

“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate.”

You just ran into Checks and Balances. File away. That’s how it works.

@RedTeam: I guess I am going to have to blame this on Windows 8@Curt: My emails dont come through at all or no message or link, nothing in Junk or spam.

@RedTeam: I did not say Trump/ Arnie was on CNN. You need to read more carefully RT. Fake news would be what’s coming from Trump mouthpieces like Conway—also loved her coined “alternative facts”

There is no investigation underway on BS 3-5 million illegal votes. Trump backed off his absurd claim.

Opening Statement
On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?

Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally, and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will lose, and Trump’s position will win.

The Evidence
Both judges appeared to reject the position of many critics: both appeared to reject the position the First Amendment prohibits the order; both appeared to reject the position the Fifth Amendment prohibits the order; both appeared to reject the position that Congressional statutes prohibit the order. Both appeared to reject claims the order discriminated on t basis of speech or religion in any way that immigration law precludes or forbids. Instead, both agreed all that mattered is whether the laws had a “rational basis.”

Here is where the Boston judge and the Seattle judge appeared to disagree. According to reports of what was said at oral argument in Seattle, the Seattle judge believes rational basis review requires the law-making branches of government “prove” with “facts” presented in court that their position is the correct one. As the Boston judge noted, this interpretation of the law — inviting the judicial branch to replace the elected branches of government — is directly contrary to precedent. This is why the Seattle judge’s opinion is likely to lose out ultimately, and Trump’s will prevail.

As the Boston judge explained, the Supreme Court provided that rational basis review merely means the law “bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.” The Supreme Court made clear rational basis review “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices.” (Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993).

Immigration law includes a “delicate policy judgment” courts must not invade, as the Supreme Court itself said, and the Boston judge reiterated. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). As the Ninth Circuit reiterated, “we defer to the political branches in the immigration field.” Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2012). As the Boston court noted, the order clearly and expressly relates to concern of “infiltration by foreign terrorists” from countries identified as a risk for just that without further vetting procedures put in place. Rational basis review “is not a genuine effort to determine the actual reasons for the law, nor to inquire into whether a statute actually does further the announced interest of government. All that is required is a) does a government interest exist in securing the country from terror?; and b) does the law limiting entrants purport to relate to that interest? It does not matter if the judge thinks it shouldn’t relate or won’t relate. That decision is for the lawmaker, not the law interpreter.

The Seattle judge seemed to believe no such vetting process was “rational” unless facts showed a foreign terror incident had already successfully occurred in this country. (Even under higher levels of scrutiny, the courts have never required the evil sought to be prevented actually occur before passing law to try to prevent it from occurring in the first place.) This is second-guessing law-making decisions, not seeing whether there was a “reason” given as the “basis” for the decision, which is all rational basis review allows in our tri-partite form of government.

Closing Argument

Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns. In the ultimate outcome of these decisions, memories of Super Bowls past will prove prescient: Like the Patriots, Boston will best Seattle once again

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Judge James Robart delcared, “Black Lives Matter,” during a hearing with the Seattle police union.

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

Seattle, Washington – U.S. District Judge James Robart on Monday expressed a strong anti-police bias when dealing with a case involving Seattle police union’s contract negotiations. Judge Robart went on a rant about deadly force statistics against black people and proclaimed, “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart is presiding over a 2012 consent decree requiring the city to adopt reforms to address Department of Justice allegations of biased policing and excessive force. The proposed changes will have a major effect on all union members, including discipline being investigated and determined by non-law enforcement investigators. The changes make it faster and easier to discipline an officer if the public believes that the officer was wrong, whether or not that was actually the case.

Despite some of the proposed reforms seeming outlandish, the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild has been mostly going along with the process without much pushback. However, the guild recently voted to reject the most recent proposed contract after they were upset that the negotiation deals were leaked to the media and Black Lives Matter groups.

The vote resulted in Judge Robart threatening to intervene if he determined that the guild was interfering with any proposed process that was under the blanket of “police reform.” Which basically gives the city a go-ahead to implement any changes they want to the disciplinary process, with the union having no say.

During Judge Robart’s self-righteous rant, he stated, “I’m sure the entire city of Seattle would march behind me.”

Continuing to build an image in his mind of being some sort of folk-hero, Judge Robart went on to say that 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population. Judge Robart then declared that “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart’s rant is actually a perfect example of why law enforcement officers cannot be excluded from the process of disciplining other officers. The statistics on police shootings that Judge Robart cited were completely out of context, and ignore the reasons that shooting occur.

The statistics Judge Robart cited are meant for people to infer that the rate in which black people are shot by police is actually affected by the suspect’s skin color. However, police officers understand that officer-involved shootings happen when violent suspects are threatening people’s lives.

The constitution defines the presidents power, not any court. (Otherwise, why have a written constitution?)

@July 4th American, #103:

Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!

That’s absolutely, positively, unequivocally incorrect. You need to review the chapter in a U.S. government textbook regarding the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.