T Nation

Social Media - Devil in Disguise?


Depends on what they are ruling is. The ruling as I last checked was to suspend it, it was not struck down. Even if they only object to one part of the order it suspends the entire order. And it depends on the judge, which is why there are different levels of judiciary. It’s murky water. The judiciary interprets and enforces the law, they cannot make something legal or illegal. They can determine something does not jibe with the laws on the books, but they cannot make it legal or illegal. And a suspension of an action does not mean it’s illegal, it means it needs more scrutiny.

Of course businesses do a risk assessment when it comes to locations of questionable security. Why open a business somewhere if it has a high risk of getting burned to the ground?
You’re not going to open up a Georgia Pit BBQ in Mogadishu because it will be destroyed in no time flat. But you could open one up in Beijing because the risk is much lower.


Do you genuinely believe a business has the ability to do a terror risk assessment ANYWHERE close to what a country with intel agencies can do? I mean come on

This is pure semantics. By interpreting a law they are deciding what the law MEANS, which spells out whether or not something is legal. If the judicial branch says you can’t do X, it’s because X isn’t currently legal. Until such a time that a higher court overrules it, it’s illegal.


Completely false. It was judicial activism, plain and simple. The court’s opinion was that these immigrants have rights to due process if turned down to enter our country. Are you under the impression that it is a fundamental right to come here?


I don’t personally believe the EO is/should be illegal. But so many people are super keen on cherry picking what the government does/means. The INTENT doesn’t matter if you’re talking about whether or not it’s illegal. The fact of the matter is, until it’s overruled by a higher court, the ruling of the court stands, and that EO is CURRENTLY illegal.


Please explain how it is illegal, though. The court basically said these people have a right to come into this country. That is absurd.


Treco, we’ve gone off on other topics, but this reminded me a bit of your OP.

From T.S. Eliot’s essay The Perfect Critic, 1920:

The vast accumulations of knowledge—or at least of information—deposited by the nineteenth century have been responsible for an equally vast ignorance. When there is so much to be known, when there are so many fields of knowledge in which the same words are used with different meanings, when every one knows a little about a great many things, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to know whether he knows what he is talking about or not. And when we do not know, or when we do not know enough, we tend always to substitute emotions for thoughts.


Something is illegal when a court rules as such. I don’t think the EO should be “illegal” as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of any US citizens. That being said, the court ruled on it, and until a higher court overrides it or the laws that currently exist are changed, it’s CURRENTLY illegal.

Also, can’t stress this enough, I don’t think the EO is “illegal.” I’m also not a federal judge, so what I think doesn’t matter.


I wouldn’t be surprised if the sites mentioned here appeared in Facebooks newsfeeds of some people here…



Do you not see the problem with judges claiming non citizens have U.S. rights? That was their basis of shooting down the ban. Nothing illegal in the EO, just the judicial branch trying to grab more power from the executive branch.


I agree with this part. The next part is where we differ. I feel like Trump was setting a tone to CLEARLY avoid the entire political process when he doesn’t NEED to. He’s got all of Congress, soon to have the SCOTUS, and he has the oval.

Obama started to get excessive with EOs at a certain point, but the key difference is he used EOs as a fallback after he ran into a Congress that was fundamentally and openly stating they would blanketly refuse to work with him on any legislation, regardless of the content. Regardless of how you feel about Obama’s EOs, they were still clearly his only move.

I see the Judicial kicking back to keep him in line as much as possible.


Just to add to this, pfury…

I don’t see Gorsuch as being some rubber-stamping Conservative who will always yield an opinion that is favorable to Trump.

He seems to be a “pure” legal scholar who will deliver a decision or opinion that has a sound legal basis.

I think he will be one of those “surprises” whose respect is for the Law, not the Political winds of the Day.

I can’t wait to see how he rules.


No, I am not saying that.

No shit.


Then the logic that a country didn’t appear on the list because “Trump already vetted them” kinda feels like horseshit doesn’t it?


I think your struggling with terminology. ‘Illegal’ isn’t the proper term when dealing with laws and executive orders. When ruled for or against are deemed in line with the rule of law as it extends from the constitution. They are either valid or invalid based on the constitution or constitutional law, similar ruling that set a legal precedent. So they are upheld as rule of law or dismissed. They are not legal or illegal.


No, I am not saying that either.


He could have tried to compromise. Clinton managed to get a lot done with a Republican Congress. And his legacy cannot be done away with the swipe of a pen. Obama could have worked with congress if he wanted to, he just wasn’t willing to give in, even a little.

EO don’t mean that much in the end. They are temporary measures. You have to pass laws through congress for any permanent solutions. Similarly, the only meaningful stuff Trump can do will be what he can work out with Congress. His EO’s can be undone as quickly as they were created. Hence, it’s obama’s own fault he would not work with Congress.


I feel like this part completely falls apart when you can pull up clips from idiots like Boehner and co who’s entire platform was based around making Obama a 1 term president and refusing to work with him regardless of content.

I guess I just need clarity here about why countries like Saudi Arabia (biggest host of the 9/11 hijackers), etc were left off the list if he’s not being completely biased.


Probably because of this guy-

You also have to remember (or find out) that the Saudi don’t do anything themselves directly. They do things like construction projects, terrorist organizations, etc. through other channels, and hire people from lesser countries to get their hands dirty.


Which means to me, best case, Trump bitched out of putting them on the list. Seems like the guy who won’t be intimidated got pretty intimidated.

Weren’t like 13 of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi citizens?


Were they? I’d be surprised if they were natural born citizens of Saudi Arabia. Even if they were, the point stands that Saudis do not do lesser things like come in as a refugee and perpetrate an act of terrorism. They have a very aristocratic view of themselves, to the point of considering non-Arabs pigs that need to be slaughtered.

You can look into it yourself, or maybe @loppar could come along at some point and explain it to you.

edit: Poking around on wiki says that some of them were born in Saudi Arabia, so I’ll eat that mistake.