Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the stop-thinking-that-you're-a-dictator dept.

The Intercept reports

A Federal judge in New York issued a nationwide temporary injunction [1], halting the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration on Saturday night, blocking the deportation of travelers with valid visas detained at airports in the past 24 hours.

Judge Ann Donnelly, a United States District Court Judge in Brooklyn, issued the ruling at an emergency hearing on a lawsuit [2] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on Saturday, as Trump's executive order temporarily banning citizens of seven nations with Muslim majorities from entering the U.S. took immediate effect.

The judge ruled that the government must immediately stop deporting travelers from those nations, including refugees who already went through a rigorous vetting process, and provide a complete list of all those detained, immigrants rights lawyer Lee Gelernt told reporters in Brooklyn.

[Ed Note (martyb): Original text and links from The Intercept are reproduced here — to bypass indirections and Javascript use the following links.]

[1] Direct link to a PDF of the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 8 Filed 01/28/17).
[2] Direct link to a PDF of the Original ACLU Complaint (Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17).

Previously:
Breaking News: Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:20PM (#460227)

    It isn't even trump. Its Bannon and his lieutenant Stephen Miller whispering in trump's ear.
    We are literally being governed by Breitbart. [nymag.com]
    They even wrote the inaugural address. [thehill.com]

    At least that's better than Clinton, right?
    The media was in her pocket.
    Now the presidency is in the media's pocket.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by moondoctor on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:33PM

    by moondoctor (2963) on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:33PM (#460229)

    Yep, bannon is the new cheney.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:25PM

    by Arik (4543) on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:25PM (#460235) Journal
    "At least that's better than Clinton, right?"

    Yes. Better by far he listen to Bannon than the Saudis and Pakistan.

    "Now the presidency is in the media's pocket."

    Which media? Faux news, CNN, MSNBC? Oh, no, you're talking about Breitbart, so again it could clearly be so much worse.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:38PM (#460240)

      > Yes. Better by far he listen to Bannon than the Saudis and Pakistan.

      Seems like he is listening to Saudis and Pakistans since neither of those countries are on the ban list, despite actually being the national origin of muslims who have killed people on american soil. Unlike the seven countries that are on the list. [cato.org]

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:44PM

        by Arik (4543) on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:44PM (#460245) Journal
        Yeah I already said it was a stupid idea, and that the courts would block it - months ago in fact.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:37PM (#460258)

          Non-sequitur to the rescue!
          You have now prevailed in teh argument.
          Your points proven, your claims validated!

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:44PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:44PM (#460286)

          One problem. Perhaps because he was "Sort of a God", or just because of political expediency, the SCOTUS already awarded President Obama absolute plenary power over immigration. So unless they want to really get a Constitutional crisis going by reversing themselves in less than two years, they are going to have to let Trump also wield this new power.

          Remember, Obama was not only declared entirely free to decide which laws passed by Congress would be enforced as a matter of resource allocation, his 'policy preferences' were binding Law upon the States because of this new emanation from some penumbra. They wanted to make their point extra clear and invented that whole bit about the absolute authority of the President over immigration policy to shut down any unruliness out in flyover country.

          So we can probably expect Trump to ignore these lower courts, much like Obama did on DAPA, continuing to ignore injunctions by lower courts until the Supremes themselves recoiled at granting the President the new power to actually bypass Congress and write entirely new laws instead of enforce/ignore/interpret/reinterpret existing ones. And the idea Trump would actually allow one NY judge to issue a nationwide ban would mean he never intended to do this at all and was just throwing some red meat to his base because the odds of it some lawless proggie trying it was 100%. So far he has been acting like he meant what he said on the campaign. We shall see.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:58PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:58PM (#460295) Journal

            Didn't this creeping unitary executive stuff start under Dubya the Armuhdilla Hunter? Lesson: never give an office political power if you don't want to see your opponent using it next term.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:16PM (#460382)

              It's been going on since at least FDR. Both parties certainly share some blame for it. But the polarization of politics has definitely contributed: Obama couldn't do anything via normal means because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with him on anything. When it was happening, I remember people warning about cheering on Obama's actions that were through executive orders out of fear for what a Republican president would do with the same power. It's unclear whether this was a deliberate strategy by the Republicans, but it unfortunately seems like it might be working out well for them.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:19PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:19PM (#460385)

                Obama couldn't do anything via normal means because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with him on anything.

                Maybe so, but that doesn't justify him or anyone else exceeding their authority; it would be better if things didn't get done than having the Constitution be violated.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:25PM

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:25PM (#460386) Journal

              Didn't this creeping unitary executive stuff start under Dubya the Armuhdilla Hunter?

              Arguably, it began under George Washington, who already experienced a few crises where people questioned his use of executive powers. But that's not a serious answer -- federal power ebbed and flowed over the decades for roughly 150 years.

              I've said this elsewhere, but I think the "creeping unitary executive" really began around the time of FDR. Have we had any significant curbing of executive power since then? Before then, there were still debates over the reach of the powers of the federal government. Laws were routinely overturned by SCOTUS for usurping the "police power of the states" and such. Since the early 1940s, I'm really not sure anyone takes any proposed restriction on federal power seriously. (Recall our former Speaker of the House literally laughing that anyone could ask a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare and the idea that there could be ANY restriction on federal power, other than perhaps explicitly enumerated "rights" in the Constitution -- and even those have been increasingly manipulated recently.) And while balance has shifted slightly among the branches, the Executive has always been the largest of the federal government, wielding the most resources.

              P.S. I'm not some smart-government "nutter" -- I actually think we need federal programs and regulations to live in a modern world. But we left the world of "Constitutional constraint" many decades ago. And thus creeping powers have just happened unilaterally through SCOTUS reinterpretations and executive orders, with less public debate at every expansion, let alone Constitutional revision as the Founders would have required.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:57PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:57PM (#460343) Journal

            Dang the luck - I've used all my mod points. That whole plenary power thing passed by me, thanks for the reminder!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:07PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:07PM (#460353)

              Dang the luck - I've used all my mod points. That whole plenary power thing passed by me,

              Why are we not surprised? And the "Unitary Executive"? The "Nixon Doctrine"? The proper mix for concrete? What else has passed by you, Runaway? What else? As Dan Quayle said: "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most."

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:30PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:30PM (#460370) Journal

                Which of my detractors are you? You have nothing better to do with your time, than to follow me around, making inane comments that contribute nothing. I'll probably just go mod bomb Aristarchus. Even if you're not him, he deserves it.

                • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:13PM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:13PM (#460399) Journal

                  Dude, paranoia much? What makes you think this was me? I am jmorris's SJW monitor, not yours! And besides, no one has to "follow" you around, you post shit everywhere, so it is kind of hard to avoid.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:03PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:03PM (#460421) Journal

                    It really doesn't matter - I shoot like Obama. Some raghead needs killing, Obama launched a couple drones into random places where he hoped the raghead might be. Same here - I can just shoot some random SJW when they start creeping me out. Aristarchus is pretty damned random, if you ask me.

                    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:43PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:43PM (#460436)

                      now, Now, I was going to come to your defense as one of the more reasonable and moderate right leaning bastards around here ;)

                      In your defense you started with a good question, and you don't have to go to raghead and sjw's around here firing indiscriminately.

                      To put it at your level, try being cool like bugs bunny and not reactionary like Yosemite Sam ;P

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:29PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:29PM (#460406)

            > the SCOTUS already awarded President Obama absolute plenary power over immigration.

            Oh really?
            And which case was that?
            Because it sounds like a fantasy story from the land of alt-facts.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:51PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:51PM (#460416)

              That is all jmorris is, memorizer of propaganda.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @02:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @02:55AM (#460494)

              This is fairly interesting to watch. The alt-right has simply crazy interpretations of events under the Obama administration. In their minds, Obama has already done everything, probably more, than Trump will do. So they believe that not only are they completely justified, but that they're getting vengeance against the other "team."

              I don't have any solid predictions to make at the moment, but I just have a feeling what they "accomplish" over the new few years will blow up spectacularly. One can kick and scream at reality, but reality doesn't particularly care about anybody's ego.

              Talk about a ham-fisted approach to immigration policy.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday January 30 2017, @11:41AM

            by TheRaven (270) on Monday January 30 2017, @11:41AM (#460605) Journal

            Remember, Obama was not only declared entirely free to decide which laws passed by Congress would be enforced as a matter of resource allocation

            There is precedent for this going back well over a century, so it's not exactly an 'Oooo, Obama' thing. That said, there's a big difference between a President deciding not to enforce a law and a President deciding to break a law. The US legal system, inheriting from English common law, starts from the perspective that humans have all freedoms and that laws can only remove them (i.e. you may legally do anything that is not explicitly prohibited by law). This means that the former gives the President the power to grant more freedoms by refusing to enforce laws that remove them, whereas the latter gives the President the right to remove freedoms.

            --
            sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:08PM (#460325)

    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are kicked out of the national security council and Bannon is brought in. [usatoday.com]