Pages

Friday, July 7, 2017

Hawaii tries again to undermine Trump travel order...

So the State of Hawaii went back to the scene of the original crime and demanded an emergency appeal to once again undermine the Trump travel ban (by claiming the Administration's interpretation of the USSC order is incorrect).

Specifically, the State of Hawaii claimed that the Administrations interpretation of who has a bona-fide relationship is being carried out incorrectly and wanted an emergency order that would allow them to expand that list beyond what the Administration has deemed appropriate.

To read between the lines, I think they expected to find a judge willing to supplant the judgement of the Administration with their own personal judicial judgement, which of course in the perfect liberal world would expand bona fide relationship to include things like good buddies, long lost cousins, immigration groups, and a hotel reservation (yes, some have argued that a hotel reservations should constitute a bona-fide relationship).

The court found against the State:
Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here. This Court will not upset the Supreme Court’s careful balancing and “equitable judgment” brought to bear when “tailor[ing] a stay” in this matter. Slip Op. at 10. Nor would this district court presume to substitute its own understanding of the stay for that of the originating Court’s “exercise of discretion and judgment” in “[c]rafting a preliminary injunction . . . dependent as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents.” Slip Op. at 9. This Court declines to usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court to interpret its own order and defers in the first instance.

Apparently while very quick to substitute their own understanding of existing law and older precedents, they are not so quick to substitute their own understanding regarding the details of this ruling. I think it would be fair to say that the Hawaii court in question is now a little "gun shy" about how far they can take their own personal opinions into their legal decisions. Or at least a little "gun shy" about moving against the USSC ruling in any way.

60 comments:

opie said...

Hawaii tries again to undermine Trump travel order...

Under mine???? You got to be kidding. They made an appeal to expand grandparents and were turned down. Sure appears they were following the proper protocol, which you consider undermine. I guess when you are losing the social wars as badly as you are....add some fake bullshit to the fray, something you diss daily. Sad, they mighty have fallen.

Myballs said...

They respect scotus not potus

C.H. Truth said...

They made an appeal to expand grandparents and were turned down.

Sure Opie... are you always this gullible?

No, what they did is ask one of 1800 Justices to substitute that Justice's personal Judgement over the Judgement of the Administration in determining what constitutes "bona-fide relationships".

If one of 1800 Justices decides to add Grandparents, another could add Cousins, and still another could add whatever the hell they want. It's the same thing as it was before... "The Resistance" wants 1800 separate "checks" against the judgement of the Administration on issues of merit and judgement... when (of course) the constitution is set up for the Courts to only "check" as it pertains to actual constitutional interpretation and making sure constitutional law is followed.

Bottom line: If the USSC did not feel the need to identify specifically what constitutes a bona-fide relationship for the Administration (and why should they, that's not their call)... then certainly they wouldn't expect subordinate Judges to do so.

It would be akin to the lower court Justice demanding that the USSC got it wrong and that this particular relationship needed to be defined by the Court. Last time I checked, District Court Justices are not supposed to overrule the U.S.S.C. on anything.

opie said...

ustices to substitute that Justice's personal Judgement over the Judgement of the Administration in determining what constitutes "bona-fide relationships".


Our law expert once again proves to all his total brainwashing by trump. Your interpretation is as valid as mine. Why don't you provide the bona fides of lawyering. LOL. IOW's the Scotus certainly did not ask for your opinion as well as Hi. Maybe they should have sat on the side line instead of publicizing a glaring omission. Oh well, that is my opinion which counts as little as yours.

caliphate4vr said...

Sure Opie... are you always this gullible?

That rhetorical? Cause he's fucking stupid

Commonsense said...

Our law expert once again proves to all his total brainwashing by trump

That would include the judge who saw the writing on the wall (The SCOTUS ruling) and denied the injunction.

Are you really this dense?

C.H. Truth said...

Our law expert once again proves to all his total brainwashing by trump.

Actually I read parts of the lawsuit that the State of Hawaii brought forward. The lawsuit did not make any constitutional argument that the Administration would not have authority to make this judgement... but rather they argued almost entirely that they believed that the Administration "got it wrong".

"all of the relationships the Government has deemed nonqualifying—grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and fianc├ęs—are “close familial relationships” within the meaning of the Court’s order. Each of these relationships is comparable to (if not closer than) the relationship between Dr. Elshikh and his mother-in-law. They too are within two degrees of consanguinity: i.e., the immediate relative of someone in the person’s nuclear family. A brother-in-law, for instance, is the brother of a U.S. person’s spouse; there is no reason in logic or law why that person is a more distant family member than the mother of a person’s spouse. Likewise, it is inconceivable that a person would claim that he suffers a lesser burden if his grandchildren are excluded from the country than if his mother-in-law is.”

Technically "their interpretation" would be that the ban should only apply to those who had "no connection to the United States at all". They even suggested that those who were in contact with immigration groups could validly claim that they had a bona-fide relationship.

Lastly...

They argued that because they "disagreed" with the Administration's ruling regarding what constitutes a bona fide relationships... that it was up to a District Judge to "settle the dispute" - effectively asking the District Judge to use his own Judgement as to what the USSC meant when it used the term bona-fide relationship.


_____


Perhaps you could tell us what Donald Trump said about this lawsuit, so we can see your basis for arguing that it was Trump who "brainwashed" people into believing this lawsuit was what I claim it to be about?

Because I have not read anything from Trump on this issue, and therefor find it difficult to see how one can be "brainwashed" based on no information.

KD, Foolish Liberals How is it to be Polish bitch slapped said...

anyone seen Bleeding from the nose Jane.


Polish President stated that both he and his wife did shake the hand of Pres. Trump, they had a great meeting.


Polish President spoke directly to cnn/newsweek/the three liberal stooges of CHT. "fight FAKE NEWS"

“Contrary to some surprising reports my wife did shake hands with Mrs. and Mr. Trump @POTUS after a great visit. Let's FIGHT FAKE NEWS,” he tweeted

John Podesta said...

Tweets of the Day

John Podesta responds to President Trump’s earlier tweet that everyone was talking about him at the G20 summit in Germany:

On a x-country road trip with my wife.
Pulled in for a pit stop in E. Fairmont W. Va. to see that our whack job POTUS @realDonaldTrump is tweeting about me at the G20.
_____________
Get a grip man, the Russians committed a crime when they stole my emails to help get you elected President.

Maybe you might try to find a way to mention that to President Putin.

BTW, I had nothing to do with the DNC.

God only knows what you’ll be raving about on Twitter by the time we get to Utah.

Dude, get your head in the game. You’re representing the U.S. at the G20.

highly amused, James said...

Wow. Well said, Podesta.

concerned for my country, said...

Is This Really the First Meeting for Trump and Putin?

Earlier this year, the Washington Post looked at President Trump’s previous claims that he and Russian president Vladimir Putin “have a relationship” and know each other “very well.”
_________________

Sounds pretty kissy kissy doesn't it. ;-)

obsequious Trump said...

“It’s an honor to be with you.”
— President Trump, quoted by the New York Times, while meeting Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Commonsense said...

As I said, bigger fish to fry:

US, Russia prepared to announce cease-fire in southwest Syria starting Sunday: Report

Skeptic said...

Let's see now. That's cease fire number how many? But I guess Donald just looked into Pooty's eyes and was convinced.

Podesta's brother said...

"During a heated Fox Business interview with Maria Bartiromo, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief John Podesta made a series of misleading statements when questioned about his involvement in a company that received $35 million from the Russian government while Clinton served as secretary of state"
http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/

SO WE RECIEVED $35 MILLION FROM THE RUSSIANS - hey look over there james

ROFLMFAO !!!

opie said...


Actually I read parts of the lawsuit that the State of Hawaii brought forward.

And that actually makes you an expert?? Very humorous, CH. The rest of your screed is nothing more than twisting your tenet to fit your bias. Sorry, you are pissing into the wind. technically, the Hi court was within its right to question the original ruling which was squashed. It worked the way it is supposed to which was my whole point. Why are you fighting with me since that was my original point....Just trying to impress me with your warped thought process won't work. LOLOLOL

Commonsense said...

Let's see now. That's cease fire number how many?

One more than Obama got.

skeptic said...

And they all collapsed...

Commonsense said...

What's collapsing is your fantasy that Trump is an ineffective world leader James.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling and spamming.

At least it's not about pedophilia this time.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling and spamming.

At least it's not about pedophilia this time.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling and spamming.

At least it's not about pedophilia this time.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling and spamming

At least it's not about pedophilia this time

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling and spamming

At least it's not about pedophilia this time

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling and spamming

At least it's not about pedophilia this time

Loretta said...

"What's collapsing is your fantasy that Trump is an ineffective world leader James."

When all he can do is spam and troll, he knows Trump is #MAGA

C.H. Truth said...

And that actually makes you an expert??

Nope... it means I took the time to read what the state of Hawaii was arguing. It only take a remedial understanding of English (not a law degree) to understand their argument. The make it clear enough I would think, even for you...

opie said...

Nope... it means I took the time to read what the state

Well la di fucking da.....you learned to read. Very impressive thet you read something. It only takes a biased brainwashed sycophant to argue that the the Hi AG was wrong in trying to appeal. I guess you feel anarchy would be a better method. LOL, I think you are just too obstinate to see that they did nothing wrong and your headline of this thread was hyperbolic BS. If you want to continue with your warped sense of being, maybe taking it up with the blatherer since she is one with you and worships every word emanating from your fingertips . Too funny, CH.

C.H. Truth said...

Opie...

it is what it is... as they say.

What it is... is that Hawaii didn't like the way the Administration defined bona-fide relationship, and therefor asked a Judge to step in and redefine it to include a larger subset of people... which would effectively place larger limitations on the ban and exempt more people.

That was their goal. To ask a judge to use "his" authority to redefine what the administration had already put in place. It's pretty black and white.

And yes, Opie... asking a Judge to throw out the Administration's definition of bona-fide relationship, and replace it with what "they wanted" that definition to be... is 100% an attempt to undermine the authority of the Administration, and by proxy undermine the ban.

______

The Justice (correctly) ruled that he did not have the authority to speak for the USSC and told the State of Hawaii that if they want the courts to give a different definition... then they better ask the USSC (not a district court).

Again, for all practical purposes the State of Hawaii was asking their own district Judge to overrule the USSC. You may find this perfectly acceptable and well within their rights (although it takes some idiotic logic)... but I don't believe most people want to see District Justices overruling the USSC in any situation, much less something this high profile.

opie said...

is that Hawaii didn't like the way the Administration defined

And as I have said numerous times, they spoke out, within the system, on how it was not fair, in their eyes. They were turned down, which is again, within the system. They seem to have accepted the final findings, in spite of your hyperbolic fake undermine headline that I have also noted previously, The rest of your superfluous screed is again you trying to show me how smart you are. You already know what I think of your expertise. LOLOLOL!!!! As to idiotic logic, you win the prize.....CH..... Keep talking CH, your hole is deep enough.

opie said...

is 100% an attempt to undermine the authority of the Administration, and by proxy undermine the ban.

Your opinion which is about a worthless as tits on loretta. LOL!!!!

James, concerned for my country, said...

Actually, I would like to see the cease fire work. I would like to see anything work out that could work out in the Syrian area, for the sake of the suffering masses as well as for the sake of the world and for the sake of our nation, even if it is Trump who achieves it.

I agree with David Gergen:

“The bigger takeaway here for me right now is… he seemed presidential today. And we actually had a Secretary of State who was explaining stuff to us. How often have we had that? This seemed like we were back to normal life for the first time — one of the only times in the last few months.”
— David Gergen, on CNN.

James, concerned for my country, said...

Trump Raised Election Interference with Putin

In a major shift, President Trump pressed Vladimir Putin on his country’s meddling in the 2016 election, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters after a long meeting between the two leaders, the New York Times reports.

Said Tillerson: “He began by raising the concern of the American people of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He pressed him more than once.”

Putin denied “such involvement” and Tillerson doubted ever getting Russian to admit their meddling: “It may be simply an intractable disagreement at this point.”

highly amused, James said...

POLITICO: Time away from Washington deepens GOP misgivings about health plan

Corralling 50 votes looks even more daunting in the run-up to August recess.

By Jennifer Haberkorn 07/07/2017 05:00 PM

___________________
McConnell knew this would happen if he could not get it rammed through. In the cold light of day, the GOP Senate version of healthcare looks even more DAO.

good old gentle democracy minded James said...

DOA, that is.

good ole obamacare said...

Just to reinforce, here’s a personal story. It’s hard evidence of what’s happening to every small business owner and independent contractor in America. Because of Obamacare my health insurance premium went from $500 per month to more than $1,700. For all you Obama and Hillary fans who took math at a public school, that’s well over TRIPLE the cost.

But that’s only part of the story. My co-pays tripled. My deductible doubled. My prescriptions are barely covered. Eye doctor visits are no longer covered. Dental visits are no longer covered.

Wait, it gets worse. And for $1,700 per month, my insurance no longer covers anything. It won’t pay a bill. It’s a disgrace. It’s a tragedy. It’s a disaster. It’s Obamacare.

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to comment about?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over?

good old gentle democracy minded James said...

Re: 8:57 could we see a slink for that? Parts of it sound suspicious.

However, even if true, blame for some of this, according to the experts, is on the Republicans. Anyway, now that the GOP has control of all three branches of government, we will be expecting them to come up with health care legislation that will take care of all this.

They own it now.

good old gentle democracy minded James said...

*link, not slink, lol

the NYT & WaPo said...

U.S. Finds Itself Isolated at G20 Summit

“For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies,” the New York Times reports.

“But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.”

Washington Post: “Normally a venue for drab displays of international comity, this gathering of economic powers saw clashes and talk of a possible transatlantic trade war. The tensions were also a warning signal of Washington’s DIMISHED CLOUT as leaders mounted a NEAR-UNITED OPPOSITION to U.S. policies.”

the NYT & WaPo said...

“For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies,” the New York Times reports.

“But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.”

Washington Post: “Normally a venue for drab displays of international comity, this gathering of economic powers saw clashes and talk of a possible transatlantic trade war. The tensions were also a warning signal of Washington’s DIMISHED CLOUT as leaders mounted a NEAR-UNITED OPPOSITION to U.S. policies.”

James, concerned for my country, said...

America First, Last, and Alone

MSN said...

GOP pessimism rising on ObamaCare repeal

Myballs said...

Leadership isn't going along to get along. The EU is crumbling. Only an idiot liberal would think Trump should agree with failed euro policies just to create false unity.

James, concerned for my country, said...

transatlantic trade war?

Myballs said...

Reminder​ to self, don't have James negotiate anything for me

james's daddy said...

Even though you never supply links yourself while you are busily spamming, here is your link:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/05/root-even-bill-clinton-admits-obamacare-is-destroying-middle-class/

james said:
"However, even if true, blame for some of this, according to the experts, is on the Republicans"

PLEASE PROVIDE LINKS AND PROOF FOR THIS - I think this is obviously wrong and never have heard the Republicans blamed for passing Obamacare. Of course you are a pastor and can't possibly be lying so prove Republicans to blame, this should be a riot.

ROFLMFAO !!!

james's daddy said...


I really look forward to hearing who james considers experts and where he has read this...

I guess every board has a clown,

ROFLMFAO

james's daddy said...

* !!!

james's daddy said...

While we wait to hear from your experts here is what Bill Clinton said about Obamacare:

"You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care, and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half and it’s the craziest thing in the world.

On the other hand, the current system works fine if you’re eligible for Medicaid, if you’re a lower-income working person. If you’re already on Medicare or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your health care.

But the people getting killed in this deal are the small-business people and individuals who make just a little bit too much to get any of these subsidies."

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to comment about yet?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to comment about yet?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over yet?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over yet?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over yet?

Loretta said...

"I really look forward to hearing who james considers experts and where he has read this..."

He's busy scouring the internet for....

....you know.

wphamilton said...

The states hostile to Trump will keep pushing, but now that the Supreme Court has reversed the boneheaded injunction (as expected), lower courts are now less inclined to accommodate them without some solid legal justification. It played out as I had outlined, with a number of Federal courts encroaching on the Executive powers until slapped down. What I don't understand is why the Administration didn't fast-track it through to the Supreme Court.

C.H. Truth said...

What I don't understand is why the Administration didn't fast-track it through to the Supreme Court.

Do you suppose there were legal experts within the Administrative team that didn't believe that a full appeals court would side with some of those lower court rulings?

It's hard to believe that you have to get to the USSC before you get an adult ruling...

wphamilton said...

Frankly I believe that Trump's legal team is second tier. Confidence in the 9th Circuit on this issue? Come on ... if it's really an urgent issue involving National Security, and it IS a Constitutional issue between two branches of the Federal government, why let it take months to get before the Supreme Court? The only reason I can think of is waiting to have Gorsuch established, but that's a terrible reason.