In response to my position on the Trump travel ban (perhaps hugely misinterpreted), I received many emails and comments, mostly unfavorable.
Some comments were on “The Law” and others cited facts about the Ninth Circuit Court. One person cited a recent article from Hoover.Org.
Let’s address those emails and comments in light of the fact that Trump has backed down from taking the case to the Supreme Court.
On Friday, the Financial Times reported Trump Says No Rush to Appeal Travel-Ban Ruling, May Issue New Order.
In defense of Trump, that appears to be a BS news headline. I can find no Tweet nor any other reference where Trump said “no rush” except for references that point back to that headline from the FT.
It would have been very damaging to the Trump case had he said there was no need to rush given the urgency he placed on the ban.
The FT is making up news headlines. With that bit of mainstream media fake news out of the way, let’s consider other viewpoints.
It’s the Law
Several readers emailed that Trump’s position is “The Law”. Typically they cited Federal Immigration Code 1182 Sec.(f):
“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.”
I remind them that the constitution once ruled that blacks were worth 3/5 of a vote and their slavemasters could vote their vote for them.
The 3/5th rule is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the compromise. It provides that “representatives shall be apportioned … counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” A later provision of the same clause reduced the Congressional representation of states who denied the right to vote to adult male citizens, but this provision was never effectively enforced. (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already eliminated almost all persons from the original clause’s jurisdiction by banning slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those serving lifetime prison sentences, which the amendment excluded from the ban.)
Various laws once allowed “separate but equal”.
So spare me the sap about what “The Law” says, as if “The Law” is final. The constitution is not even final.
Curious Positions on “The Law”
Many of those citing “The Law” only do so because they happen to agree with the law as written.
I point out Roe v. Wade, a correct ruling that is without a doubt “The Law” given it has been tested a number of times at the Supreme Court level.
The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious belief, no more, no less.
PEW research shows 59% of US adults say abortion should be legal in most cases. 69% say Row v. Wade should not be completely overturned.
But 69% of conservatives actively seek to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. They do so despite “The Law”, despite common sense, and despite the blatantly unconstitutional position of imposing religious beliefs on others.
Adding to their massive hypocrisy, the same crowd complains about “activist judges” making laws, although they seek to install “activist judges” to make the law in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Finally, it’s safe to assume most of those “conservatives” see no harm in blowing countries to smithereens or droning innocent men, women, and children to death.
Next in line to object to my immigration stance are those who do not understand math.
Numerous people sent me articles about how often ninth circuit court rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court. For example, the Daily Caller notes the 9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court
The American Bar Association notes the Supreme court only reviews an average of 64 cases per year, which is about 0.106% of all decisions by the federal courts of appeals.
Regardless, something on the order of 99.9% of ninth circuit rulings are not challenged at all. Those challenged are not necessarily heard by the Supreme Court.
The Daily Caller and most other articles readers sent also failed to mention that the 9th court contains 20% of the US population and is overburdened with cases.
The American Bar Association is dated, but the math has not changed by much.
My favorite reader comment comes from reader Franny who claims “From a legal perspective, the Ninth Circuit decision is a heaping pile of crap. I predict the full court en banc will withdraw it — that’s how embarrassing it is.”
That comment, in and of itself, is laughable, as noted above. However, I thank Franny for providing a link to a Hoover article titled A Flawed Restraining of a Flawed Order, by Michael McConnell.
McConnell blasts the decision of the ninth Circuit Court for second-guessing Trump’s reasons and for sidestepping various issues.
He also blasted the circuit court for their statement “More generally, even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects, it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order.”
McConnell stated that is “precisely backwards”.
Mish Take: I do not want judges rewriting executive orders or laws to make them legal. Since when was that a good idea?
A more reasonable point of view would have been insistence that the court strike those provisions that it deemed unconstitutional.
With that adjustment, I am basically in agreement with McConnell. Please pay attention to these McConnell quotes:
- The Title: “A Flawed Restraining of a Flawed Order”. Trump’s order was flawed – I agree
- “The President’s inappropriate personal criticism of the judges and the judicial process did not help his case.” – I agree
- “The order is constitutional with respect to the vast majority of its applications.” I agree while noting that “vast majority” does not mean “all”
- “The smartest move by the Administration is to revise the executive order to make clear that it only applies to unadmitted and nonresident aliens” – I agree, but Trump should have done this in the first place, not make the court rewrite his order.
- “I fear that slogging forward in the Court of Appeals, before the same panel, is unlikely to be successful, and that returning to the district court will lead to endless battles over executive privilege, in which the Administration will take the same position any executive would take, but which will be treated as uniquely Trumpian defiance of judicial authority. Better to correct the order and start afresh, with organized implementation and full public explanation.” Again, I agree
That’s five agreements with one major disagreement as to whether or not the ninth circuit court should have rewrittenTrump’s order.
Not only did McConnell chastise Trump for “inappropriate criticism” the title of his article notes the flawed nature of Trump’s order.
Trump’s order, prohibiting the return of legal residents, was at best blatantly stupid. His comments toward the court were inappropriate.
After stating he would take this case to the Supreme Court, Trump backed down, as has been the case more often than not lately.
Why did Trump back down? He would likely lose, as McConnell clearly states.
In regards to points 4 and 5, I fully concur with McConnel. Trump should correct the order and start all over.
My position is simple and easily defended:
- At best, Trump made an incredibly bad decision to block legal residents from returning.
- More likely, Trump’s action was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court would have ruled that way had the case proceeded (like it or not).
- The 9th circuit was correct in not rewriting the law for Trump. Judges should not rewrite laws.
- Trump acted childishly and foolishly toward the court. That was another poor decision on Trump’s part. There was no upside.
- Trump had the right to bar entry to new aliens from those seven countries. I never stated otherwise.
- I was and still remain, firmly against German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-arms welcome of refugees.
- Had Trump issued a clear order, he would not be in this mess. It was a self-inflicted wound.
Think First, Tweet Second
- Assessing the Constitutional Merits of Trump’s Seven-Nation Ban
- Back to the Past: Steen Jakobsen Asks Did Trump Change Anything?
- Secretary of State Tillerson: A Moderating Influence on Trump? Russia to Return Snowden?
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Conscience of a Conservative said:
Trump engaging in personal attacks against those who don’t agree with him is nothing new. Back in the 1980’s he had planned a major real estate development on t on the West Side of Manhattan, Television city. Trump wanted zoning changes and tax breaks. The only problem was Ed Koch was not supportive of the plan as Trump had proposed. The result should be quite obvious, a very vocal and public spat between Trump and Koch over the media.
Trump put out statements like “moron” mayor should quit his job. “The city under Ed Koch is a disaster,” he told the New York Times. “If Donald Trump is squealing like a stuck pig, I must have done something right,” Koch fired back.
Days later, Trump was saying that Koch’s New York was “a cesspool of corruption and of incompetence,” while Koch was calling the developer “greedy, greedy, greedy” and “piggy, piggy, piggy”—before unironically declaring that he had “no intention of allowing this important matter to degenerate into a barnyard kind of contest.”
This went on for some time, but in the end Trump’s television city was never built.
Conscience of a Conservative said:
In a letter to the mayor which Ed Koch released to the public, Trump called the mayor a moron and his advisers jerks. Sounds a lot like how Trump handles criticism of judges, congressman and media people today.
Trump won because he fights the same way as progressives do, not necessarily on principles but on personal destruction. Progressives do not debate, they simply announce that the debate is OVER, that their opponents are racists, misogynists, Luddites and deplorables.
It has become an ugly world wherein Trump has learned to fight. It has been the left that has created this hateful and destructive theme, and we see it continue today with every single action they take….all of it laced with hate and destruction. They do not seek compromise or even civil communication, and Trump finds himself in the middle of enemy territory where anything and everything he says is leaked. How is it possible that Flynn’s conversations are leaked to the media, conversations that were recorded by the intelligence community?
Trump will not moderate because he understands there is nothing to moderate with. Like radical jihadists, the left only wants one thing from its opposition….not compromise, not retreat,,,,,complete defeat relegated to submission. Look at their speech, their protests. NO ONE is allowed to speak against them…NO ONE. This is no different than radical Islam, the religion of NO TOLERANCE. Trump is an asshole but he is the ONLY person wiling to stand against them. Every other conservative has cowed to their politically correct bullying, apologized for not stepping to the back of the line at each challenge. Look at Germany. Look at Germans, many who have been suppressed from speaking out to what is happening to their country, because to speak out for one’s own people, culture, nation, it to be called a NAZI and labeled and extremist threat. This is what progressives have in mind for US, and we can listen as ACTORS tell us of their fear of “brown shirts” from the right when it is only the left threatening. The media “worries” about a judge receiving death threats while saying NOTHING of the tens of thousands of death threats against Trump. They simply say out loud that because Trump RESISTS, because Trump FIGHTS BACK, he deserves what he gets, while those calling for his demise are concerned citizens and patriots. If we don’t want bruises, we should stay silent.
This is our ugly progressive world, where to resist THEM is an unpatriotic threat, where TEACHERS can make videos portraying the assassination of Trump and its simply in poor taste whereas Trump can call a judge “so called” and it is a threat to our government.
We are a broken nation, lost in ideology with no ability to see what is happening to us.
Conscience of a Conservative said:
As I wrote. Trump’s way of fighting has nothing to do with the current political environment. He’s fought this way for decades and when the fight had nothing to do with politics but merely his desire to build and get tax breaks and zoning changes. Has nothing to do with progressives, conservatives, “globalists”, or any of that.
Never said anything MADE Trump the way he is. Only that the way he is, is the ONLY means of combating progressive politics. Trump simply wants to WIN. Conservatives will NOT fight back. They simply roll over at any progressive attack because they believe they cannot win when levered by the progressive media. They are correct except that Trump has learned that the media can be shunted by using the exact same methods that THEY use. Derision and denigration.
Big surprise CC, a lot of people speak and fight like that ( Trump) , that is why media exageration is so obvious in its pursuits, sticks out like a sore thumb whereas trump is short and direct, and obviously very blunt.
Why use a thousand words when a few would do?
Conviction by noise and endless elaboration is product of the armchair, not the decision maker. I suppose a lot of people are getting uncomfortable in their seats… the rest room is going to get mighty crowded by the time they realize they confused a news desk for a lavatory.
you are blinded by hate — interesting because that’s also the title of the previous article by Mish regarding the eu and greece.
a small suggestion, never use the words never, every or always (pun intended). your comment is full of them.
Blinded by the reality in which we live. There are no absolutes when generalizing but their are thruths for all to see. But you are correct in that I am blinded by hate for a progressive movement intent on ABSOLUTELY SILENCING ME.
Trader Joe said:
I think 3/5 is on the high side
Isn’t Trump supposed to be a master strategist and businessman? Isn’t this the premise by which he was elected? What the heck happened? Perhaps he is just drunk with power and hopefully this damning response from the court will sober him up quickly.
The reality is that his pride may stop him from admitting that he screwed up by putting out another order that is less dramatic. He would probably rather wait for a terrorist attack so he can say “look what the judiciary has done to us”. A perfect “I told you so” moment that he would relish. Then public opinion would certainly swing his way.
CW, I’ve never heard Trump described as either a “master strategist” or a “[master] businessman.” His forte–according to him–appears to lie in being a superior negotiator. We’ll find out soon enough if that’s true. He’s never negotiated with an adversary or competitor that had as much at stake as representing an entire country. I think he’s apt to find that his rivals in business were pikers compared to what he’s about to run up against.
Mish – well written.
Old Guy said:
I do think the USA needs to enforce the immigration laws already on the books. When the executive order was written and then President Trump as usual started running his mouth on twitter I knew the order was doomed. Bush and Obama did indeed do the same thing for certain countries but instead worked with his party to make them work.
Trump is a rookie and thinks he can have things his way and this will continue to hurt this administration until the man can at least be civil. No matter what this president does he is going to have to work with his party and at times with the Democrats.
I still prefer Trump over Hillary but the USA is on hard times when we now vote for the lesser of two evils. I hope given time he will learn some manners.
On the flip side Trump can now say he tried to stem immigration and could not do it because of the courts and the crazy left.
I mute the news now until they are done ranting about Trump and watch the weather and I am done. The media states it is not biased and wow do they look stupid. Every thing this administration does is now under a microscope and the media’s bias is really out there again.
They never did this with the Obama administration.
You are your own man with many original ideas and many really good observations about economics and the world in General.
It is never good if one becomes a fanboy of some politician and you will never become a fanboy of anyone and I will also never become a fanboy of Trump.
The Trump travel PAUSE and more importantly it’s first interpretation by DHS was FLAWED,
Trump needs a new order where Greencard holders are not affected and that is explicitly stated in the order (they were waived through even before that activist judge from Washington State made his ruling because of the media outrage and because the original interpretation by DHS that Greencard holders would be stopped was considered stupid even by the Trump team).
The judge James Robart also made a ridiculous claim that NONE of the citizens of the 7 countries under the ban had committed any terroristic acts in USA.
The attorney for government was UNPREPARED and did not challenge this BS by the judge.
Now the facts have come out that 72 people from countries on the travel PAUSE list have committed terroristic acts in USA since 9/11.
However USA should look more into the rape-epidemic and even gang-rapes and murders gripping Sweden and Germany and happening also in other countries which received asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afganistan etc. and use this as a further justification for a pause.
There is currently NO REAL SCREENING of asylum seekers in Europe because asylum seekers LIE about everything including about their name and age and most of them have “lost” their identification.
Also even if one has identification it CAN NOT be trusted because ISIS has legal passport machines and materials they have seized from Syria, Mosul in Iraq and Libya so ISIS can make passports for Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Likewise ALL the screening done by USA before taking “refugees” who are playing the refugee lottery by staying in UN refugee camps years and years because of the free food and the possibility of being picked into a western welfare country through the UN refugee admittance program is based 100% on what the “refugees” tell the UN personnel and american bureaucrats.
EVERYONE is accepted as a refugee in UN refugee camps, ALL they have to do is turn up.
The refugee admittance program which picks refugees from UN camps and gives them free lives in welfare paying west in the 10-15 countries that take part is ineffective and makes many people stay in refugee camps longer playing the refugee lottery instead of returning home so this refugee lottery should be stopped.
In Finland there have been many rapes of children by iraqi asylum seekers and even gang-rapes of young women and asylum seekers have attacked and raped finnish women in Helsinki city parks in the middle of the night after incompetent finnish authorities have no control of their comings and goings.
Iraqis, somalis, afganistanis etc. have criminality that is many times that of finns or other immigrants to finland like estonians, swedes and russians.
3 iraqi asylum seekers and one syrian asylum seekers GANG-RAPED a young finnish woman in the main Helsinki train station within a few hundred meters from Finnish Parliament.
There has also been many members of violent Militias in Iraq coming to Finland ABUSING the asylum process and seeking life on welfare after committing crimes in Iraq.
There is a recent court case where 2 brothers KILLED hundreds of people in Iraq in a massacre that was filmed and then came through Turkey-Greece-Macedonia-Croatia-Slovenia-Austria(start of welfare europe)-Germany-Denmark-Sweden seeking asylum from Finland because they believed the bureaucrats would be incompetent and Sweden was full and had asylum seekers sleeping on the streets by that point in the insanity of the year 2015 started by stupid POLITICAL decisions by Sweden and Germany with Angela Merkel being totally irresponsible and incompetent in her “virtua-signaling-at-all-costs” policies of stating there is NO LIMIT on how many asylum seekers Germany will take and LURING people to drown when trying to get to Greece to walk from Greece to Germany and to get that FREE apartment and FREE welfare money and family re-unification to welfare.
As you pointed out, poorly written.
Last- Math on overturning and abortion are irrelevant to the case. The law “as amended” is “The Law”.
1) A presidential order (properly written) is within his powers.
2) Courts should NOT rewrite laws or orders (either to expand or contract), the exception is to rule on one provision (striking it and leaving the rest intact).
3) The question you have brought up is “legal residents” and how to handle.
Two classes: Reentry-Those existing for years and simply returning to the USA,
New – Those issued and now seeking first time entry.
Multiple Visa Types – Permanent residents, Education, Tourist etc.
Fact: There are countries that pose a significant risk entering the USA
There are problems with vetting persons from those countries.
Request was made for 120 day suspension
Even with a matrix was identified with vetting requirements, exceptions will needed.
A lack of enforcement has created a huge shift. This shift has been going on for three
generations. We have “illegal” great grand parents with children and grand children
born here. My point is, what has been tolerated has crossed from economic
immigration to humanitarian.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
As you may know, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 (S. 45), was introduced on January 7, 2015. This legislation would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, further defining the term “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. If enacted, S. 45 would have denied citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents are not citizens, permanent resident aliens, or an alien actively serving in the U.S. Armed Services. Although S.45 was not enacted prior to the adjournment of the 114th Congress, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider any relevant legislation during the 115th. I will continue working to curtail illegal immigration, while ensuring that those following the rule of law have an equal opportunity to realize their potential as they become productive members of our society.
More relevant than math, abortion, and terrorism, is WTF. I WANT TO BE SAFE AND I WANT IMMIGRATION AND PEOPLE TO BE PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY.
For the Appellate Court to ask for “proof of future risk” is not the courts job, just as rewritting the order is not their job.
Now we have the Mexican government “donating” $50,000,000 to clog the immigration courts. You and I will pay the bill. Something is going to give. It may be us, the courts, or the country as we know it. Screw the finepoints, Send me your draft and I’ll get it to the Senate and Trump. It’s that simple. Fix it.
There should also NOT be a blanket cancellation of visas but there should be a hold placed on those visas so that each visa-applicant is required to submit to additional screening at US embassy before coming and there needs to be visa cancellations for people who believe in sharia law, who believe women are inferior, who believe muslims leaving islam should be punished by death, who believe in arranged marriages, who believe woman must wear a burga and hide her face, who believe there should be no freedom of speech when it comes to islam, who believe western world who they are trying to get into to get FREE apartment and FREE welfare money is evil and degenerate, who believe terrorism is justified in some situations, who have EVER supported ISIS, Al-QAida or extremist interpretations of islam in their facebook posts (ALL social media and phones and computers should be inspected by US visa officials before granting visas or refugee placements to people from high-risk countries).
People with evil and bigoted views need to be stopped from moving into USA and Europe and USA needs to AMERICANIZE muslims by stopping arranged marriages.
The pakistani wife who came through spouse visa to USA and took part in San Bernardino terrorist attack should NEVER have been in USA.
Farook should have been told to marry a woman already in america.
Europe as a whole needs to EUROPEANIZE muslims by stopping the current lax and loose spouse visa policies and family re-unifications and europeanmuslims need to marry other european muslims or other europeans instead of IMPORTING hundreds of thousands backwards muslims from their original home countries through arranged marriages.
The extremism in Europe is mostly caused by out of control asylum system which is ABUSED by millions of welfareseekers (if they would be seeing asylum they would have stopped in the 1st SAFE country) but long term the radicalization of european muslims has been caused by arranged marriages to women and men from home countries who do not know the language in the european country they move into, who mostly have no skills or education to get a good job in europe and who too many times bring backwards attitudes and extremist interpretation of islam with them.
Europe has been letting these arranged marriages happen and then brought the wives and husbands to Europe through fmily re-unification.
After many years on welfare bitterness creeps in and instead of working harder and learning local language many of the people who have come blame europeans and embrace victimhood of racism and comforting arms of islam that tells them that muslims are better than others.
The most unfortunate thing in the immigration through arranged marriages and family re-unification after marriage is that the kids grow up on welfare and also get bitter like their parents are bitter and the parents do not have the ability to help their children succeed so the 2nd and 3rd generations turn out even more worse and because the people with most extremist islam interpretations make the most kids it means these extremist interpretations are the only islam many european muslims know.
Asylum system is BROKEN.
Family re-unification is BROKEN.
Immigration system as a whole is BROKEN.
There are currently 4 liberals and 4 conservatives on the Supreme court.
In case the Supreme court would be tied 4-4 the original shoddy and sloppy decision by Washington State judge in Seattle called Robart would become the law of the land.
The stupidest decision would be making a supreme court play about this during 4-4 split.
Gosurch needs to be confirmed before any serious issues are put through Supreme Court although I have a really bad feeling that Gosurch might be a crypto-liberal in immigration issues meaning he would be against Trump.
When someone is EAGER to please like Gosurch was revealed to be it is always a warning sign of a possible statist group-thinker with political correctness in the brain.
Best option is making a new order that explicitly does not effect greencard holders and where there are no blanket removals of already issued visas but instead each visa is looked at individually.
When there is a legal challenge to this new executive order the government lawyers need to be PREPARED with facts and figures and not totally unprepared like the government lawyer appearing before the Seattle judge was.
I disagree, Katsaus. There are four liberals on SCOTUS. But there are only two solid conservatives (Alito and Thomas). Roberts is usually–but not always (see Obamacare case)–leaning in that direction. But Tony Kennedy is, at best, a moderate. He’s no more a conservative than Schmuck Schumer is. But that’s what is likely to happen when a POTUS nominates a cocktail-party kind of person like Kennedy and like Sandra Day O’Connor before him. The Georgetown salons displace good jurisprudence b/c Kennedy doesn’t want to offend his Happy Hour pals.
actually mish, the idea that life begins at birth is not solely a religious view—–and a logical person who is not religious can hold the view on the evils of abortion——because no one really knows beyond all doubt when human life actually begins—–is it at conception or perhaps 3 months, or perhaps 1 minute before birth, or only upon birth?——-not knowing and yet promoting abortion is akin to a hunter promoting shooting at his prey before he is 100% sure it is indeed a deer and not a person—–
Life starts at conception.
A human being does not come into existence before that point.
The idea that the next in line is the same as the previous is obviously false.
There is no religion involved, but you make a religion out of law, one that sees fit to persuade the parent to end the process of pregnancy based on trivial and subjective argument.
Frankly, your view disgusts me.
Man is often cited as man’s worst enemy, you have just demonstrated it to an extreme. You give permission by some pontifical illusion that you are entitled to arbitrate blindly over the unborn.
I had better stop there or I will be banned from posting, but you hear what I am saying in my self imposed silence, every word you fear to be called .
The “inconvenient truth” is that abortion is about convenience.
Religion… It’s got to be those damn evil Christians again. Muslims would never cause these types of problems, but of course the right to choose would not be the woman’s but the man’s. By all means, bring more of them in. Does it not seem a bit odd that progressives seem so happy to embrace Muslims into their fold, when so many Muslims are in complete contradiction with every value that Progressives hold. They reject a woman’s right…to about everything. They absolutely reject tolerance, with most of their native countries killing other religions and even those of their own religion if they vary in their specifics.
No, progressives only see as their true enemy those deplorable conservatives who want to keep this OUT of our nation, who want to preserve the rights of women AND their unborn children, who want our constitution honored and enforced, and EVERYONE held accountable for their actions and choices.
calm down crys.. I’d go further than Mish.
I know many a person that deserves to be aborted in their 175th trimester.
Just my view here. Not trying to flame anyone. If a scientist took some cells from a fetus, & examined them, there would be at least 3 observations: (1) The cells are from an alive organism, (2) the DNA is different from the mother – this is a unique organism, and (3) analysis of the DNA would show the organism is not a giraffe, not a gerbil, & not a geranium – the cells are from a human organism. So this is a living, unique human. I believe in human rights (I do not believe in drone bombing innocent men, women, and children to death), so I believe that human does not deserve death.
There is all sort and its influence that goes on in this world, from relations , culture, society and so on.
When an outside party named LAW is called to make a DECISION on what is allowed under its jurisdiction, a decision that will shape the future actions and thoughts in the society it rules over, there is an unavoidable moral hierarchy :
1. YOU PROTECT HUMAN LIFE.
2. You protect the quality of human life.
So the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those willing to harm human life, that they PROVE their petition for intervention is of a lesser harm than non-intervention to those most directly involved, the mother and child, and to a certain extent the father and relatives , where survival is taken as the absolute . That does not mean a vote, it means the vote is already made to protect life and it cannot be overruled without the utmost certainty.
There is no room for blanket permission UNDER LAW, the two concepts above are NOT INTERCHANGEABLE , as that would be a breach in moral understanding wide enough to accommodate any atrocity the world has ever witnessed, as well as being the surest path to the destruction of all social value.
CURRENTLY THAT IS WHAT WE MUST WITNESS AND ADAPT TO DAY AFTER DAY, THE PERTAINING LAWS AS THEY EXIST IN MANY COUNTRIES ARE ODIOUS, IT IS ONE REASON WESTERN SOCIETY IS BECOMING DEGENERATE. .
So in your society, your territory, you establish the correct framework. Those who disagree have options, they are not easy options, but you cannot have a nation under law condone those actions outside of the above, and condemn itself in the process.
And I very much appreciate your explanation JP, as well as any other support in this from commentators. It is a very hard topic to take a decisive stance on as it is like placing yourself in the eye of a storm where swirling around just out of reach of you are so many arguments and so much emotion and hate that, well… have to be very careful and approach it with a lot of meditation, and mostly alone to achieve that.
Way to vent Mish. Lots to discuss but I will just say you showed a couple instances of half truths while giving us one. The law is applied in various ways but your reference to the constitution was not true. While it does say what you quoted, you should also point out that later amendments overturned the first language. The constitution can grow and change but only by amendments, not judicial fiat.
Thanks Mish. It’s all ways refreshing to read your viewpoints in an otherwise sea of insanity.
Your worst post ever Mish. The Constitution is not a “living document”. Slavery was outlawed with an amendment. If you want to change the law then change the law. But don’t let judges make stuff up. I am appalled. Also, how can you continue to rip on Europe for opening the gates to refugees but then rip on Trump for wanting to shut it down? Have you lost your mind?
Amendments are no longer constitutional, as the constitution is now read to imply that the ONLY rights that matter are the minority’s rights, and as a minority cannot “legitimately” gather the political force required by amendments, those rights that they would normally pursue through amendments MUST be awarded by courts. What has effectively happened is that minorities have been “affirmative actioned” over the majority. Immigrants are a minority, so as such, they cannot be denied entry to our country. And if they declare their hate for our constitution, our laws, our values, our traditions, then that places them in an even smaller minority, thereby granting them even greater rights.
We have allowed progressives to redefine what it “means” to be American, and ANY action that would prevent America from changing its national identity, is deemed “unAmerican”.
We can’t be “American” and have closed borders.
We can’t be “America” and demand those who come here actually want to BE American.
We can’t be “American” and insist that we are allowed trade parity, a balanced trade.
We can’t be “American” and tolerate Christianity in our public spaces.
We can’t be “American” and REJECT Islamic sharia law and practices.
And, we most definitely cannot be “American” and have voted for Trump. That IS our progressive message.
What I want to know is….were we EVER real “Americans”?
Trumps blanket travel ban was absolutely flawed, but so was the way Obama handed out Visas and green cards with no vetting.
Trump should issue a new directive blocking all new refugees and Visa’s from these countries. He should instruct DHS to set up a division to review all Visas and green cards issued in the past couple of years while Obama left the border wide open and allowed “catch and release”. He needs to review all funding for anyone that is not a US citizen and here without a specific reason to be here. We have become a dumping ground thanks to Obama’s policies and all immigrant benefit programs need to be reviewed.
As long as there are American citizens living on the streets, not one penny should be paid to any immigrant coming here without giving back. The EU is collapsing because they believed that socialism works in every environment and now find that when your population explodes with nothing but leeches and criminals, it doesn’t look so hot. When you have a country with 8 million residents and most of them working, then the program works. When you have a country with over 320 million people and half already collecting benefits, then you have a disaster. It’s time to clean up Obama’s mess and it will hurt a lot of people that have been sucking on the trough for the past 8 years. Obama and the democrats built Obamacare to move millions on to Medicaid giving them a taste of free healthcare. How do you take it away? Time to bite the bullet and accept the country is broke and there is no choice to make hard decisions. We have $9 trillion in new debt and I am betting a lot of it came from wasteful spending on the ACA and immigration.
When non-lawyers decide to practice law, the result is foolishness.
“I point out Roe v. Wade, a correct ruling that is without a doubt “The Law” given it has been tested a number of times at the Supreme Court level.”
No,Roe v. Wade has never been tested, it is dogma that has been reiterated and amplified. Roe was a power grab from the States, where the issue was being decided individually.
“The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious belief, no more, no less.”
No, it’s scientific fact.
Slaves (not blacks) were counted at 3/5 for apportionment. Irrelevant. The Constitution can be changed only by Amendment, not by Judges.
The issue here was a law embodying Congress’s Constitutional and exclusive power over immigration and naturalization, that had been used by every President since Ike, and had been held by the Courts to be un-reviewable. The District Judge ignored all that. A TRO requires a finding of reasonable chance of success on the merits. Robarts didn’t make such a finding, because there is no chance of success on the merits without overturning SCOTUS, which is beyond the power of Robarts or the 9th circuit.
Robarts also didn’t make a finding of standing, because there was no standing, which means particularized harm to the plaintiff. The State of Washington is not harmed by foreign travel restrictions, and since the restrictions didn’t apply to US citizens, neither are Washington’s citizens. The 9th circuit should have dismissed the case, but instead they decided to ignore 200 years of law and fabricate a ruling out of thin air.That isn’t “law”, it’s simply leftist judges ignoring the law.
And we want to pretend that appointed POLITICAL judges are the enlightened and unbiased truth. What you have laid out is beyond debate, YET, those on the left will NEVER concede that they have no authority over TRUMP. NEVER.
Mish wants to believe that the court’s ability to stop Trump somehow signifies liberty, when in reality it shows that progressives fully own the judicial system, and given they cannot effectively motivate enough VOTERS to render their power and agenda, have sought the unelected and unaccountable branch of government to wield their will. This is something we should ALL fear greatly, and was a considerable force in Trumps’s election….SCOTUS. We ALL understand that SCOTUS is our last line of defense in this battle. The vast majority of courts are run by progressives now, as is evidenced by our latest 9th decision. Once they own the courts, it will matter not what elections take place because as we see here, the courts will ALWAYS have the final say. Judges MUST be term limited.
Mish finds out the hard way what happens when he adapts guest posts as his own, the reason some reject offers made along that line.
John D Daniel said:
Interesting to me all the laws and arguments pro/con flow from a world view and find relevance in only one’s view. However, the truth remains the truth notwithstanding chest pounding and pontification to the contrary.
Franny Ryan said:
Mish, I agree with you as to the policy. Trump’s EO was also a heaping pile of crap. But the law is the law. I don’t think that you have experience with what judges are actually supposed to do when issuing or affirming temporary restraining orders. They do, in fact, have to “re-write” the law to restrain only the parts that are actually illegal. There is a big difference between what Trump should not have done, and what he did not have the power to do. Nearly every thing in the EO was within his power, and the court should not have restrained those parts. Notwithstanding all of the administration’s foolishness.
Jimmy Carter banned ALL travel to and from Iran, and deported thousands of Iranian students without any evidence of wrongdoing. The courts ruled that was within his authority, and they couldn’t touch it or tweak it, because Congress has total Constitutional power over the issue, which it delegated to the President….Other Presidents, including Clinton and Obama, have done similar things….Trump’s order is minimal in impact, except for Syria, which is the equivalent of 1979 Iran. Contrary to the 9th circus, 72 terrorists have been arrested from these 7 countries.
Is it important to control immigration? https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/herschel-in-one-month-94-illegals-in-north-carolina-committed-sexual-assaults-on-children-over-500-times/
Mike from Medway said:
From 1840-60, the Democratic-Republican Party morphed into the Democratic Party. At the
same time, the Whig Party and a few splinter parties morphed into the Republican Party.
Now, 160 years later, is it time for a new party to appear, approximately in the middle of the eagle, instead of out on the tips of the wings?
Mike, as we used to say growing up in Texas many years ago, ‘There’s nothing in the middle of the road except white lines and dead armadillos.”
Points well-taken, Mish. The Ninth Circuit isn’t called the Ninth Circus for no reason.
The Trump people completely blew ‘the process’ when they issued this executive order. Gen. Kelly, to his credit, has fallen on his sword, as it were, and accepted a bunch of blame that he had no reason whatsoever to shoulder.
I suspect that Trump, even though he’s no rocket-scientist (the one rocket-scientist we did have as POTUS was a dreadful one), will eventually figure out what most successful senior executives know: process drives product. Right now, his staff is too inexperienced to know how to do or what to do because not one of his ‘direct reports’ has ever worked in any other White House.
In addition, that industrial-strength liar, Mike Flynn, will, I hope, be fired soon. He was a disastrous choice in a key position. Luckily, through no effort of his own, he has a very capable #2: K.T. McFarland. She worked in the Nixon White House under Kissinger and also served in the Reagan Administration. She is stable, savvy, and capable and knows how to wage bureaucratic war if the situation calls for it. Flynn is a disaster in his current slot as head of the NSC, just as he was in his previous one as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (from which he was fired). He’s an untruthful, Ready-Fire-Aim nutcase who needs to be fired. His subordinates used to characterize his many lies and fabrications as “Flynn Facts.” I trust that Pence will engineer his departure. If he doesn’t, Flynn will do to Trump what he did to the VPOTUS: lie through his teeth and embarrass the hell our of him publicly.
Most of us believe in second chances. But, in Flynn’s case, a second chance after a blatant lie is not only undeserved. It would be recklessness of the first order for such a lie to, in essence, be rewarded.
As for what comes next, it appears that some common sense might have somehow seeped into Trump’s pea brain: he’s not going to press the current E.O. any further. With luck, he’ll withdraw it and start over. But he should sit still–not his strong suit–until after Gorsuch is confirmed. That assumes, of course, that Gorsuch doesn’t do anything else as stupid as what he did last week in trusting a dishonest lunatic like Sen. Richard Blumenthal to keep his mouth shut. Gorsuch almost lost me on that one, not because of what he said, but because he said anything at all.
As for your 3/5 history lesson, I believe that you missed key part of it: The primary reason behind the 3/5 was to penalize slave states for not getting rid of slavery. In non-slave states, black men had the full privileges of citizenship. The Framers hoped that the “3/5 Rule” would motivate slave states to ditch slavery in order to increase their representation in Congress and in the Electoral College. That didn’t happen nearly soon enough, of course, and, when it did, it took the Civil War to bring it off.
BTW, “Michael McConnell” is former Judge Michael McConnell. He served on the 10th Circuit (the same one Gorsuch sits on) from 2002 until 2009. He was mentioned for the High Court before Roberts and Alito were nominated. I suspect he quit in 2009 because he saw that he was never going to get to SCOTUS. He’s now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and also serves as Of Counsel to Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.
Thanks for a most-interesting thread, Mish.
Complete nonsense. Apparently they don’t teach Civics in High School any more. Mish knows less than I knew in 8th grade….
Rather than making arbitrary statements, let’s hear what YOUR substance is. . .if you have any.
The law is the law until the Legislative branch decides to change it. The Judicial branch of government was made the weakest for a reason. Civics 101….or it was when I went to school, probably isn’t anymore since most people I talk to believe the courts make the law. Sad.
See my comments above. There are no grounds for a Temporary Restraining Order, and the order entered by Robert should have been summarily dissolved. I have litigated in the federal courts, and the Supreme Court with success. The Laws of the US are presumed constitutional, and this particular law has been held such by every previous court, because of Congress’s exclusive control of such matters.
Franny Ryan said:
McConnell is also one of the foremost constitutional law scholars in the world. (I was his student at the University of Chicago Law School many years ago.) It is unfortunate when non-lawyers confuse policy preferences for legal requirements, and analyze legal decisions through the lens of emotion. I don’t think Trump will let the Supreme Court rule on this before we have nine justices again. At the same time, I don’t believe the current court would affirm this order. It really is a legal mishmash.
You’re right, he can’t let 8 justices split on this and make a precedent of sorts….He has made his point anyway, which is that there are lawless judges out there who rule the country without any accountability.
Laws are at the whims of society. Let’s use abortion to demonstrate.
1. The law convicts a man of murder for assaulting a woman and killing a fetus but let’s a doctor kill a fetus lawfully. A fetus is either alive and a person or not.
2. The law protects the rights of all people. Thus the right of the woman prevails over the rights of the fetus which is not a person. A person happens when it is decided by the society law.
Thus laws are no more moral than the morality of society. This is about social codes of morality and not religion. Are we a moral society? No, most societies think they are but in reality live by their own moral code. Last question to ponder, what is morality if there is no absolute standard.
Jon Sellers said:
Morality is simply the religious side of ethics. And religion is based on faith (things unseen), not fact (things seen). Therefore it is by definition impossible to know if there is an absolute standard because it us impossible to prove it. Which brings us back to your first statement: “Laws are at the whims of society”. And I’ll add that they always have been and always will be.
Morality is always a personal thing. Exodus 21:22 can give one the impression that the life of a fetus is of lower value than the life of a born person. And yet most Christians give it little consideration and point to “Thou shalt not kill”. On the other hand, God orders that a son who disobeys his father must be stoned to death. And no one ever wants to put that into law.
So my point is that morality is more about who we really are as a society and we accept the bits of our religious beliefs that fit that picture and reject the ones that don’t. And that is as it always has been and always will be.
Exactly. Religion says man is subject to God while society makes man a God unto himself. Neither works very well for a modern society. Thus the pull of conservatives vs. liberals.
Alan L. said:
Mish, as someone who opposes both drone strikes and abortion after the first trimester both on moral grounds, I don’t appreciate the unrelated and unnecessary screed against “imposing their moral values”. Surely you must realize that all law fundamentally springs from a moral source; secularism is an arrangement in which we regard some morals as definite or necessary and admit doubt with regard to others. After all, you are basically saying that Trump’s executive order on immigration is immoral and therefore should be overturned. You almost admit that the law and the constitution do not directly support you on that point.
To be clear, I think Trump’s order was pointless and will accomplish little. It was carelessly implemented to boot. However, you claimed point blank that the order was both illegal and unconstitutional, and neither seems to be true from what I can tell. The black-letter law allows Trump to prevent the entry of any class of aliens. The constitution only says that immigration law must be uniform — a phrase which has never precluded different treatment of the nationals of different countries. Thus the order on its own is legal and constitutional, whether I like it or not (I don’t care too much, really — except that people with prior visas and residence permits should not have been kept out as a matter of integrity). Everything else is revisionist nuance and, I would say, wishful thinking.
And now, instead of amending the constitution (as was done with the 3/5 rule for slaves, making your point there a red herring), we have a process where judges appointed for life change the constitution by fiat to match the points of view heralded by the likes of the NY Times as the consensus of all dignified and moral people. This new, undemocratic, unrepublican method for changing our fundamental laws is abhorrent, just like the concept of the imperial presidency that has grown up over the last half century is abhorrent.
I regard this kind of judicial overreach as a much bigger deal than Trump’s ham-fisted executive order. At this point, we are ruled by whims instead of laws. The 9th circuit order — which you seem to support — is nothing more than the whim of half the country. This inability to abide by plain and clear laws invites equally outrageous executive overreach in response.
Elegantly put. Thanks so much.
Wow, Mish. Scanning comments got me Well written to Worst post ever, and a whoooollle lot of lengthy commentary in between. Think you touched a painful nerve this time.
People don’t hold opinions that they think are wrong, but the stakes have never been higher.
In the US code related to the hiring of aliens, the only code I’ve reviewed, the POTUS is specifically named as the person SOLELY responsible for enforcement, verification of effectiveness, and changes if necessary to that code. If the POTUS cannot temporarily ban entry from countries during what is EFFECTIVELY an undeclared war (that’s another topic for discussion) where 120k bombs and missiles were fired within those countries by the US with elements who have SPECIFICALLY stated that they intend to infiltrate within “refugees,” if the POTUS can’t do that, who can?
We don’t have adequate monitoring of our physical borders or even remotely adequate ENFORCEMENT of existing laws and now the prez can’t even do this?
Jon Sellers said:
The prez absolutely can do this, but as in everything, he has to do it in a constitutional manner. And the prez does not get to decide what’s constitutional, the judicial branch gets to do that. That’s just the way the founding fathers set the country up.
Alan L. said:
Technically speaking, the idea that the judiciary gets to decide what is and isn’t constitutional was not what the founding fathers intended — that came later (Marbury vs. Madison). Some, like Jefferson, felt strongly that the court was not and could never be the sole arbiter of constitutionality. There were even secessionist movements in Virginia and others in the early 1800s based on the state’s belief that they could decide what the constitution meant.
Since the Civil War, it has been generally accepted that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, but that was 80 years after the founding.
Another home run of a comment, Alan. Thanks very much.
Ryan Schaap said:
Yes, the law is simply what the system says it is at any given time. However, just to be clear, the 3/5ths compromise did not give slave owners additional votes, at least not directly anyway. What it did was allocate more seats in the house of representatives, and thus electoral college, to states with slaves by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of apportioning those seats. Ironically, slave states wanted slaves counted as full people for purposes of apportionment because it would increase their political power. Free states balked at this because of the lack of political rights slaves had, resulting in the compromise. Effectively, every voter in slave states had there vote increase in power because they got additional representatives based on the size of their disenfranchised slave population. A very sad mark in American political history.
I understand that, Ryan. What I’m trying to say–and I guess I did a bad job of it–might be better conveyed by an example.
Let’s assume that, at the time the Constitution was drawn, there were two identical states with identical black populations. In one state, the blacks were free; in the other, they were slaves and thus counted as 3/5. I believe that, in order to penalize the slave state, the number of representatives the slave state got in Congress was lower than the number from the non-slave state. In other words, had the slave state freed its blacks, the state’s representation in Congress would have increased.
Do you agree with that, Ryan?
Ryan Schaap said:
That is correct and slave states could have done that voluntarily at any time. However, that would have required making slaves free people and giving them political rights.
bill McClure said:
This issue as others is one of several issues that people in America have developed very strong feeling about . There are to many to list . What is needed now is a calm reasoned approach. Hoping for that islike hoping pigs could fly well maybe a Sperm whale(can’t get one on an airplane). Praying for both sides to cool of but it appears some people have more than enough $ and ego to keep this going.
In summary to many mad, irritated people and people keep stirring the pot not turning the heat down.
And, unfortunately, Trump is making it worse in order to cater to his base.
George Bustamante said:
There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. Roe v Wade should be struck down and the case remanded to the 50 States. Currently, many of those States would legislate abortion to be legal. Additionally, there is no provision in the Constitution to force the federal taxpayer to pay for abortions, which are a personal matter. If you want one, you shoould pay for it yourself; they are not expensive Religious oraganizations or charities should have the freedom to refuse abortions at their facilities; there are other facilities that would be willing to do so.
Agree 100%, George. When I said that to the wife of a good friend, she said (paraphrasing), “What about the women in Mississippi and Alabama? They would have no access to abortion services.”
I said, “Well, in that case, the men in those states could experience involuntary celibacy. I’ll bet they’d fold in a nanosecond on the abortion question.”
Jon Sellers said:
I also agree and feel the same way. It should be delegated to the states. And I guarantee you the states will allow abortions. However, doing anything to criminalize abortion would be devastating to the Republican Party, so it won’t happen.
Even though I oppose abortion, I would never seek to criminalize it. What I want is to have the right to say it is wrong without being denigrated for it. Want I want is for abortion to be real….the taking of a life, NOT a CHOICE, anymore than to suggest that the death penalty represents CHOICE.
WE have turned the taking of innocent lives into a political issue over CHOICE and not life. Life should not be a choice, it should be a fact that is not redefined based upon the convenience of the moment, and not a choice to be celebrated in the streets. Those supporting this notion are BLIND if they think marching in the street demanding the right to take a life “at will” is somehow demonstrating a higher moral existence than than willingness to endure hardship to SAVE a life…..something that many of these people feel very strongly about when it comes to starving children in Africa.
Ron J said:
I said, “Well, in that case, the men in those states could experience involuntary celibacy. I’ll bet they’d fold in a nanosecond on the abortion question.”
There were a lot of women in the March for Life. They were the ones subject to getting pregnant, yet they opposed abortion.
I understand. But I’d bet that majorities of women in both states would support a first-trimester type of state law. The ones in the march are mostly well-to-do. Poor people don’t have the luxury of such activity.
If we have five million illegal immigrants marching in the streets, does that mean they are right?
It’s a funny thing how elections matter until they don’t, until the majority is not the correct majority, and then in that case all that democracy has proven is that the majority of people are stupid.
Also, the fact that it won’t be taken to the SCOTUS is most likely a strategic move and not a sign of weakness of the case:
If the federal government fails to persuade the appeals court to block the order, it might petition the Supreme Court to intervene. Five of the eight justices would be needed to reverse that decision.
“I think it’s unlikely this makes it to the Supreme Court,” said Kathleen Kim, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “I believe that if the Supreme Court wants to maintain its integrity as a majoritarian body serving as a legitimate system for checks and balances, it will not consider an appeal.”
That would leave the merits of the arguments to be debated in a Seattle courtroom, with the case and perhaps others making their way to the top court for review in months or even years — especially if appeals courts issue conflicting rulings on whether it’s legal.
The court’s reputation as a liberal bastion was reinforced by some of its rulings in the past year. In November, the court blocked Arizona from enforcing its ban on so-called ballot harvesting, a practice favored by Democrats because it allows voters in remote areas to have their ballots brought to the polls by another person. In June, the court threw out an earlier ruling striking California’s strict laws on who can can carry concealed weapons.
Winston, if you consider the likelihood of a 5-3 SCOTUS defeat to be a “strategic move,” and not something due to “the weakness of the case,” good luck w/that line of thinking.
The argument against abortion isn’t just religious. When do constitutional protections to the right to life apply? Immediately on birth? Why not 1 second before? Why not when the baby is viable outside the womb?
Jon Sellers said:
That has been decided by Roe v Wade. And the answer is after the first trimester. Prior to that, a fetus can be aborted at will by the mother. After that point, it becomes a question of a mother’s right to self-defense. A doctor can perform an abortion only if the pregnancy is a threat in some material sense to the mother.
Well written, Mish. The WA state AG, Bob “That’s not a hairpiece” Ferguson had also originally objected to the EO paragraph regarding persecuted non-Muslims as discriminatory. He is apparently ignorant of the Lautenberg Amendment, which does just that for non-Muslim Iranians. It seems to be objectionable only when proposed by Trump.
Frank Lautenberg (D. – NJ) was a Leftie U.S. senator, to boot.
Mish, still not considering the possibility that Trump is *intentionally* creating conflict with the judicial branch?
Donald Trump’s senior policy adviser Stephen Miller: “The judiciary is not supreme.”, “This is a judicial usurpation of the power. It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it”
Ron J said:
If the green card issue was out of bounds, the court should have ruled on that particular detail, but the court blanket ruled against the whole EO. The President does have the constitutional and congressional authority to prevent foreigners from entering the country.
Mish…citing the 3/5 ths rule is a fallacious argument in this case. Saying the court has been wrong in the past just doesn’t give weight to your argument. Try that in front of a judge and you’d be laughed out of court.
Michael Surkan said:
The executive order was a success even if it was struck down by the courts. It was wildly successful at firing Trump’s base and mis-directing the opposition. Heck, the fact the courts blocked the order allows Trump to build anger and resentment towards the courts, making it easier for him to railroad his initiatives past the judiciary in the future.
With Trump it’s all about ratings and on that front the executive order has been WILDLY successful. Trump has successfully sucked up all the oxygen in the media to discuss HIS agenda. Almost nothing else gets any airtime.
Finally someone gets it. Mish doesn’t because he believes in “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” which is a fun aphorism, but otherwise complete nonsense. Trump isn’t stupid.
Yes, he forced the opposition out into the open in support of terrorists entry into the country.
They are not really terrorists. They are simply victims of social injustice who choose to express themselves through workplace and entertainment venue violence. All they really want is a hug, sharia law and to have sex with our daughters.
Mish, I completely agree with your statement, but I think people are not understanding the implication of the President’s statement on visa & guest workers. My daughter is in the process of obtaining her PhD in information technology — cutting edge stuff that is at the forefront of cybersecurity. She works under a HB-1 visa but her employer told her last week that they were not certain that her visa could be renewed, in view of the White House’s recent statements.
The implication is this: She moving, she’s not waiting for things to settle down. She is one of many very very bright people (and her husband who is also doing his PhD in artificial intelligence) that have decided to leave. The amazing thing is that they are not the only ones. Among their group of friends/colleagues the numbers are frightening; nearly 1/3 of their friends are actively looking (and finding) jobs in other countries.
Its more then possible that nothing will come of the possible termination of these special tech visa’s but these highly sought employees are not waiting around. They’ve both found amazing jobs outside the US, the house is on sale; by then end of June they will probably be gone… a real loss for the economy.
of course the funny thing is that she’s still got a full scholarship at an Ivy league school for here PhD — she will just have to commute a little longer.
What has been said that would lead her or her employer to believe that her visa would not be renewed? Trump generally supported H1B visas and only recently has it come under discussion relative to certain employers actually firing their American employees so as to hire cheaper foreign ones. Is your daughter taking an American’s job?
It’s really odd that Trump creates a TEMPORARY EO to prohibit new entries of seven nationalities, and submits existing visas to higher scrutiny, and now America hates immigrants and wants to keep everyone out. I must have missed a news release where Trump prohibited immigration. It IS hateful that we would want only those people coming to America to do so legally and with full love and respect for our country.
It is the progressives and their media that are hyping this hate rhetoric, attempting to convince everyone that slavery will be reinstated, women will be bare foot and pregnant and Muslims will be hanging from every tree. It is sad and extremely destructive….and they KNOW IT, and are doing it anyway. They are mischaracterizing every policy and statement that Trump makes….FOR EFFECT.
Trump just transferred the risk associated with a foreign attack to the judicial branch of government and specifically the 9th district. Why take action when they have taken responsibility?
At some point Robarts will realize he’s now responsible for guaranteeing something which can not be guaranteed.
Blame…for all things….is determined by the media. If we are attacked, they have already established blame on Trump. They have said that his temporary stay has created more terrorists, more Muslims hate us now because Trump has decided to look a bit more closely, and to temporarily ban travel from seven countries on an established list of potential threats. It is this HATE for America that those who would attempt to defend America engender in otherwise adherents to the religion of peace. Nope. Bush is dead, long live Trump as the new “cause of it all”.
Obama has a Peace Prize, so we know it can’t be his fault.
8 years from now the courts will be stacked by Trump, Roe and Obergefell will be overturned with a lot of other things, and it will all be “The law of the land” because the constitution doesn’t matter, only what the supreme court says the constitution says. They might find a right to life from conception. They might find a bunch of other things you don’t like. Then you will be complaining about Judicial Supremacy imposing their will and overriding what the people want.
Either you want a democracy (in California, Gay Marriage was banned by a 57% vote), or you want Judicial supremacy, but you can’t control which judges you get.
You can’t pick democracy v.s. certain judges, at least not without a huge dose of hypocrisy.
A high school sophomore with a B average could clearly understand the intent of the law per 8 USC 1182 (f):
” (f) 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.”
It’s sad that grown adults feel we have to debate it and the Ninth Circuit refuses to even address it specifically.
Doesn’t matter what the law says, or even what the constitution says. All that matters is what the current crop of enlightened jurists say, because they say that they have the last say, the BEST say and the day they own the SCOTUS, the constitution will no longer be a “living document” as it will be DEAD.
I’m with you on this one Mish. People focus on details because they want to believe in something, applying science and logic narrowly in order to reinforce that faith. Consequently they overlook the big picture in a process of denial; something that unfortunately is all too human.
Keep up the good work. I find your “talk” to be level and open minded. In this age of extremism and denial that makes your input priceless.
….”the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote: “Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.””
This is religious????? What it is is INCONVENIENT, which is why it is necessary to bury this FACT under a storm of obfuscation. When power meets truth, truth tends to get buried.
Mish, my biggest problem with the “No restraint to legal entrants” is the number of fake visas and green cards that have been found. It’s possible that this number is being magnified for political purposes, but counterfeiting identities is a common practice in some countries. Vetting every person becomes necessary in light of that, in my opinion. Otherwise, thanks for your intelligent and well-reasoned article.
” The constitution is not even final.” It is final until it it changed. In modern cost estimates we spent something like four trillion dollars (counting a single life as worth five million, not the one million that was the approximate value when I was a little boy) to change the slavery part.
I think your main points are clearly correct.
“The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious belief, no more, no less.”
Human life begins at conception. It is a fact about the world; claiming otherwise is doublespeak. The embryo is not of a different species (it is human), and it is clearly alive; if left alone it will differentiate and grow. Whether we are obliged to protect human life at this stage is a matter of ethics and/or religion. I would have thought you would get this distinction, Mish.
“It’s a trap!”
If there is a terrorist attack in the US of any kind at any time in the future from anyone originally from the 7 temporarily banned countries whether they came here before the vetting attempt or afterwards, it will be to the great political detriment of whoever stood against the vetting.
Of course, the incredibly biased media will be making all kinds of excuses for the left that they’d never make for the right.
The above message should not have been a reply to yours and since there’s no editing with WordPress… However, here’s a reply.
“Human life begins at conception.”
Technically, yes, just barely more so than the spermatozoa and egg that just met. However, I’m with Carl Sagan on this one. Until the cerebral cortex begins to develop the fetus if it was able to live outside of the womb would not have the characteristics that differentiate us as human when compared to lower animals. I’ve checked and whether it was planned to be so or not, that happens to be the usual time limit for an abortion although if I had my choice that limit would be even earlier simply because of the human physical appearance of the fetus… and ideally even earlier through the use of contraceptives to prevent a pregnancy in the first place.
There are progressive elite who have suggested even birth is an arbitrary line of definition to “life” and that what is really relevant is “person” and that until a human can actually think and act for itself, understand right and wrong and so forth, true life deserving of protection by the law should not exist. The fact that a child is a dependent upon others forfeits their protection rights under their law and could be subject to an “abortion” at any time that they prove an undue burden to the mother. It IS all about convenience, is it not? Or as wrldtrst would suggest, ANYONE who proves to be a pain in the ass.
Our world appears to be ruled by consensus now, and not even one of a provable majority, simply the loudest, so I can’t help but wonder about our arbitrary rules of “life” and just exactly WHO in our future will be awarded the coveted title of “viable”.
It is telling how beliefs that were widely held but a few years ago are now considered “extremist” in nature and to be silenced. Every tradition, every memorable value has now been lumped in with slavery as the abhorrent past.
Making America Great Again stirs up all of our recent historical indoctrinations that tell us of how horrible we have always been, how backward, racist and murderous. In modern indoctrinated consensus, America NEVER was great, and from the progressive perspective we never will be until we wipe clean any vestiges of our white Christian culture….especially one with predominantly white Christian men in charge.
We watch as white men are under constant attack by white progressive women.
We watch as Hispanic men who are known cultural chauvinists are imported by the millions.
We watch as the absolutely male dominated sharia law Muslims are imported and protected.
We have watched as black men popularized and were lauded and made rich for the denigration of their ho’s and bitches.
We have watched as the traditional family has been reduced to a cartoon, and the “alternate lifestyles” given equivalence to that which brought life to our bodies…a mother and a father.
Tell me again what the progressives are for? WHO they are for?
The “technically, yes” is my point. Mish sees himself as an engineer; a science type. But he is making a clearly false claim, and he doesn’t see that.
Lots of people in hospitals need assistance to survive (and we don’t “abort” them), so the ability to live independently outside the womb would not be a rational cut-off. Lots of humans are profoundly retarded (and we don’t “abort” them, although the Nazis did), so any particular level of intelligence or awareness is not a rational cut-off.
Anyway, you can now buy an abortion pill online, that was originally meant to be an ulcer drug: misoprostol. It works at any stage of pregnancy with little or no risk to the woman. It is widely used in South America and you can also buy it at flea markets on the American side of the Mexican border (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/). So you can now DIY without much expense or hazard.
I am a Trump supporter. The media and the liberals do not under stand us. When Trump attacks an organization or individual it opens our eyes. For instance, i now know how much fake news the media puts out to the unsuspecting public. I now know the judiciary is political and there is voter fraud. The democrats are the ones who have been and are obstructionists. Then you have pundit like this S. Jacobson who says Trump has done nothing. I don’t agree. He is rolling back onerous regulations and has started draining the swamp. More importantly he has killed PC, and I am loving it. I will bet the next election will lose more office holders for the Democrats. There are more of us than them!!
If we do not live under the rule of law then we live under the rule of man. The 3/5 ths rule was changed via civil war and the constitution AMENDED to nullify that section.
The 10th amendment to the constitution says that the states have purview over everything not granted to the federal govt. The constitution says nothing about abortion, making it a state matter. There is no exception because 59% of people poll one way or the other; we are a nation of laws not polls.
Franny Ryan said:
More careful legal analysis of the opinion.
Thank you for linking a reasoned and logical legal analysis of Trump’s EO immigration ban. It’s refreshing to read honest legal opinions as opposed to fake legal opinions mired in angry political retribution.
It’s scary when appellate circuit courts exceed their authority and play political games from the bench. It’s the cousin of full-blown tyranny. Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, HW Bush and Obama did exactly what Trump attempted to do and not one court felt the need to intervene.
The author made it clear that the court did not even consider the actual law 8USC1182(f) in it’s decision.
Trump will be vindicated and his enemies will end up with egg on their faces.
Hell hath no fury like a scorned liberal.
Wow. I’m a fan, Mish, and have been reading your blog for years. But this is one of the most pathetic posts I’ve seen you make.
And for the record, I agree with you that Trump’s EO was ineffective at best, detrimental at worst. So don’t count me among those that argue against the court because I like the EO.
You cite Federal Immigration Code 1182 Sec.(f). Then you immediately follow it with a comparison to the 3/5th rule. So, by this comparison, you are arguing that it is a bad law. Again, don’t necessarily disagree, but you obviously admit that it is the law. Then you attack people who want courts to rule against the law in the area of abortion (agreed – bad idea) and call them hypocrites, after you just equated Federal Immigration Code 1182 Sec.(f) with the 3/5th rule. Should courts subvert that law because you disagree with it? Who’s the hypocrite now?
Then you say “At best, Trump made an incredibly bad decision to block legal residents from returning. More likely, Trump’s action was unconstitutional.” Based on what? People keep throwing around the term “unconstitutional” here. Exactly what part of the Constitution guarantees access to the U.S. to legal resident aliens? And they are still aliens are they not? And the law says “any aliens or of any class of aliens,” does it not? It says “Whenever the President finds…”, does it not? Not you, not me, not the Ninth Circuit. The President.
You also say that “Judges should not rewrite laws.” But you want them to rewrite this one because it’s a bad law? If you and others want the law changed then lobby your congressperson to change the law. The Ninth Circuit cited all kinds of reasons why Trump’s EO was a bad idea. I happen to agree with a lot of those reasons. But they are absolutely irrelevant to whether or not the EO was legal.
Finally, I don’t disagree that Trump may well have lost at the USSC. With only 8 members and 4 of them who often rule based on what they want the law to be rather than what it is, the lower court ruling would then stand. That still doesn’t mean there is any real basis for the Ninth Circuit ruling.