Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bets on what the SCT will do? I am betting 6-2 in favor of upholding dct ruling.

Do you know anything about SCOTUS? Best case for Trump is 4-4 (Ginsberg, Sottimayor, Kagen, Breyer), which has the effect of upholding lower Court rulings. Kennedy probably swing over to make it 5-3. Roberts might also swing liberal on this. But odds are 5-3 against. But please, tell us which of the 3 liberal women judges plus Breyer votes to uphold this POS order? I'd love to see the 6-2 against list, for a good laugh.

I think PP is referring to a SCOTUS ruling upholding a district court ruling striking down the EO. Take a breath.

[i]

It has to go to the circuit court first anyway. Scotus isn't going to see any of these cases for a year at least. They haven't even been litigated past the TRO stage. That alone will take months. And depending on what happens politically if the government loses, they may not appeal, or may appeal selectively. No need to hold your breath on Scotus anything.

Though when it does get there Alito will sign off on virtually anything the government does.

Courts can fast track cases in extraordinary circumstances, which this probably qualifies. Ordinarily, it takes a long time to get to the Supreme Court, but not always.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bets on what the SCT will do? I am betting 6-2 in favor of upholding dct ruling.

Do you know anything about SCOTUS? Best case for Trump is 4-4 (Ginsberg, Sottimayor, Kagen, Breyer), which has the effect of upholding lower Court rulings. Kennedy probably swing over to make it 5-3. Roberts might also swing liberal on this. But odds are 5-3 against. But please, tell us which of the 3 liberal women judges plus Breyer votes to uphold this POS order? I'd love to see the 6-2 against list, for a good laugh.

I think PP is referring to a SCOTUS ruling upholding a district court ruling striking down the EO. Take a breath.

[i]

It has to go to the circuit court first anyway. Scotus isn't going to see any of these cases for a year at least. They haven't even been litigated past the TRO stage. That alone will take months. And depending on what happens politically if the government loses, they may not appeal, or may appeal selectively. No need to hold your breath on Scotus anything.

Though when it does get there Alito will sign off on virtually anything the government does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

+1. This is what happens next. The Marshals are the Judicial systems law enforcement branch. They go in and compel compliance. The Judge should be able to hold ICE agents in contempts. Possibly jail. But this sets up a scenario when Trump (okay Bannon) tries to stop the marshals (FBI? National Guard? I'm guessing FBI since he has Comey in his pocket). And it could get very ugly, very fast, and what happens next is unpredictable. We have three branches of government for a reason. And whether you support Trump or not, this should disturb you greatly. Because Trump just have the Constitution the big middle finger.

Trump should have taken Mr. Kahn's pocket copy of the Constitution and read it. Also, I'm pretty sure Trump does not know the difference between a green card, a student visa, a tourist visa, an H1B visa, a citizen from visa waiver country, and an illegal alien.

either way visitors from any of these countries need to be scrutinized who keep coming back and forth and no more refugees let in. FINALLY someone has the spine and balls to do something about it!!!

All those scary refugees, fleeing persecution. Boo!

Sure they are.FLEEING??? HAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHA they don't live in the country that first offers them asylum in Europe but they rather move on to more prosperous wealthy nations that have more benefits. Fleeing my ass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bets on what the SCT will do? I am betting 6-2 in favor of upholding dct ruling.

Do you know anything about SCOTUS? Best case for Trump is 4-4 (Ginsberg, Sottimayor, Kagen, Breyer), which has the effect of upholding lower Court rulings. Kennedy probably swing over to make it 5-3. Roberts might also swing liberal on this. But odds are 5-3 against. But please, tell us which of the 3 liberal women judges plus Breyer votes to uphold this POS order? I'd love to see the 6-2 against list, for a good laugh.

I think PP is referring to a SCOTUS ruling upholding a district court ruling striking down the EO. Take a breath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bets on what the SCT will do? I am betting 6-2 in favor of upholding dct ruling.

Do you know anything about SCOTUS? Best case for Trump is 4-4 (Ginsberg, Sottimayor, Kagen, Breyer), which has the effect of upholding lower Court rulings. Kennedy probably swing over to make it 5-3. Roberts might also swing liberal on this. But odds are 5-3 against. But please, tell us which of the 3 liberal women judges plus Breyer votes to uphold this POS order? I'd love to see the 6-2 against list, for a good laugh.

I think PP is referring to a SCOTUS ruling upholding a district court ruling striking down the EO. Take a breath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at DHS. I think the EO is disgusting but dhs employees are being put in an impossible decision. I heard there were cBP and tsa agents crying at dulles last night. The average employee of the federal government depends on their superiors to know what they are legally supposed to do. If they were getting one message from their bosses and one from the press?

When. The DAPA injunction came down department leadership immediately instructed compliance. IMO our ire should be directed at dhs leadership not customs officers who are not legal experts

Crying?

Yes. Is it so hard to believe that some of them are human beings getting conflicting advice from 10 different sources and feeling shitty allot detaining a 5 year old?

+1. I'm a fed who is no fan of Trump's, but I feel the foot soldiers' pain. They were handed this unenforceable piece of shit EO and told to immediately enforce it, but not given any directions as to how. They are given conflicting orders, and no clarification. Most people do not want to put an eledely refugee or a 5 year old back on a plane. They have their boss stressed out because he is getting conflicting orders and no guidance. You have the President telling yo to do one thing. The Courts telling you to do another. TV weighing in TPP. And you never read Marbury v. Madison. All the protestors aren't helping. BPD agents now have lots of people furious with them. And are still unsure as to how to do. They know this in unconstitutional, so they are stuck.

You've sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and the judge's order isn't particularly lengthy or complex. Those detained included a five-year old American citizen and permanent legal residents. CBP policies, procedures and regulations were not amended. Not even a close call. They need to be cited for contempt.

You're assuming they had all those facts at hand. From all accounts customs was a mess yesterday. These people went into work with basically no guidance on what to do or how to do it. I'm not saying heads shouldn't roll, just that the average agent/officer was likely just trying to do their best in an impossible situation.

Chain of command in situations like this is serious. CBP leadership needs to be called into a courtroom for sure.

Handcuffing green card holders, searching their phones and asking whether they support Trump doesn't seem to be trying to do your best. A kindergartener returning to his home country wasn't planning a sneak attack.

Well, under the order -- if your job is to strictly carry it out -- those things all seem like requirements, except for the asking about Trump part. Look, I think the order is heinous, but let's put the blame where it belongs -- at the top. Most officers on the ground are just trying to carry out what they're told are their new responsibilities. The asking about Trump part is excessive but not clearly unlawful. Refusing to allow access to lawyers in the face of a court order IS clearly unlawful, however. That's where the problems for individuals arise, not from the moment they started enforcing the EO, which is their job.

"I was just following orders" are not a defense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bets on what the SCT will do? I am betting 6-2 in favor of upholding dct ruling.

Do you know anything about SCOTUS? Best case for Trump is 4-4 (Ginsberg, Sottimayor, Kagen, Breyer), which has the effect of upholding lower Court rulings. Kennedy probably swing over to make it 5-3. Roberts might also swing liberal on this. But odds are 5-3 against. But please, tell us which of the 3 liberal women judges plus Breyer votes to uphold this POS order? I'd love to see the 6-2 against list, for a good laugh.