My prediction, which is mine

I predict that the appeals court that this evening is pondering Trump’s immigration order will continue the stay, so that the order will not be enforced.

But this one is destined for the Supreme Court.

58 Comments

  1. GBJames
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    My prediction, which also is mine, is that your prediction is correct.

  2. Posted February 7, 2017 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    15 more minutes to listen live with side commentaries.

  3. Posted February 7, 2017 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    My thoughts exactly!

  4. Posted February 7, 2017 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Your mouth to not god’s ears.

  5. Patrick Orlando
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    President Trump will win.

    • Geoff Toscano
      Posted February 8, 2017 at 2:53 am | Permalink

      He’s just a so-called president!

    • Bob
      Posted February 8, 2017 at 7:23 am | Permalink

      President-in-Ept

  6. Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Which will result in a SCOTUS 4-4 split thereby maintaining the stay.

    • Dale
      Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      Unless they get their guy on the Supreme Court which they will probably do.

      • Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        Dems will play delaying tactics as always. They’ll keep this guy dangling like a spinner on a fishing line.

    • eric
      Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

      Dunno. Some of the issues are so badly wrong that, knowing that the best they could muster would be a 4-4 split, some of the conservatives may decide to flip just to be on the ‘right side’ of the decision.

      Kennedy and Roberts are conservative, sure, but I don’t think they’re “refusing entry to permanent legal residents of the US on an executive order is totes fine” crazy.

  7. Canoe
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    And we are likely correct except that (1) the order may be modified to apply only to previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future, which is what the orange one’s “justice” department is seeking. And (2), it may reach the supremes after they are augmented by the current nominee, who would be a doctrinaire supporter of this execrable gov’mint.

  8. Billy Windsock
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    My second prediction, which I call prediction number two, is that Tramp will Twitter abuse if he loses, and crow like a brontosuarus if he wins.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

      Crows are saurischians ; brontosaurs were ornithischians. So it’s hard to work out what you mean. Unless … with a that gut volume, brontosaurs farted and burped like a mobile gas digester ; crows are (likely) capable of mimicry. Yeah, I can see a crow that sounds brontosaur-ish.

      • Dave
        Posted February 8, 2017 at 5:27 am | Permalink

        Minor correction: brontosaurs (and other sauropods) are also saurischians. However, they were herbivorous so probably did fart quite a lot.

        • bobkillian
          Posted February 8, 2017 at 7:45 am | Permalink

          A brontosaurus fart is a pretty good description of the oh-my-it-can’t-be-a-muslim-ban argument made by our so-called government.

          If they hadn’t included green card holders, and hadn’t slipped in that carveout for “minority religions” … they could have succeeded.

          • Billy Windsock
            Posted February 9, 2017 at 7:17 am | Permalink

            My reference to the terrible lizard is linked to the Monty Python sketch.
            I know not whether a brontosaurus farted, crowed or whistled through its ear holes. Find Anne Elk on youtube and have a giggle on me.

    • Posted February 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

      I don’t have much confidence for our side, but I still have hope. It’s noe appropriate here, or anywhere, but my weird brain came up with Tweet ‘n’ Twat as a moniker for Tramp.

      • John Ottaway
        Posted February 8, 2017 at 3:04 am | Permalink

        George Takeii (of Star Trek fame) has taken to calling him Twitler, which I really like

      • GBJames
        Posted February 8, 2017 at 6:52 am | Permalink

        I think “Tweet ‘n’ Twat” is a fine addition to the collection of monikers growing up around President Cheetodust.

  9. Greg Geisler
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Have to agree with JAC. Regardless of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, it will be appealed. Greatly enjoyed the live feed/commentary on NYT website. I wish all of America was huddled around the tv/radio/web to listen and discuss.

  10. Eddie Bollenbach
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    If this goes to the Supreme Court, which it will, if they vote 4-4 the lower court ruling stands.

    • Joseph McClain
      Posted February 7, 2017 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      If I were Merrick Garland, I would call a reporter and explain that I would vote to strike the stay and let the Executive Order proceed. Mess with ’em a bit.

  11. Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    I hope I am wrong, but I predict the 9th circuit will vacate the stay. The Trump DOJ is pressing the national security rational very hard, and even though it is a blatant lie, the judges are not going to want to second guess that.

    • tomh
      Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

      Didn’t sound like it from the oral arguments. They sounded pretty skeptical about the ban.

      • Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

        This is one of those times when I will be deliriously happy to be wrong.

      • mordacious1
        Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

        They did, but their complaints seemed to center around comments Trump made during the campaign (ban all muslims, etc). If they just consider the document itself (which is what they should do), then parts of it might be stayed while the gist should remain in effect. You may dislike Trump, but the President is in charge of national security, not Congress and not the 9th Circuit or Washington State.

        • tomh
          Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

          Well, the comments indicate intent, and intent is often considered in deciding constitutional issues, witness some of the famous creationism cases that turned on legislative intent.

        • Posted February 7, 2017 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

          I apologize for not having watched this. But, how can preventing previously vetted and approved legal immigrants from coming back into this country, be done in the guise of national security? If they have proof that any of these people are terrorists, keep them out, but prove it, case by case. Not mass targeting of supposedly all people from certain countries,
          while ignoring others from worse countries just because we have friends there and do mega-business with them. Lie, lie, lie!!!

          • mordacious1
            Posted February 7, 2017 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

            That’s the part that will be overturned by the court (IMO). If you already live here (students, work visas, etc.), then you have standing and have some protection. But the power to restrict future visas from these countries rests solely with the President. Trump may restrict persons from these countries from getting entry visas. That’s the way the laws, including the Constitution, are written. Foreign citizens have no constitutional right to enter the US. None. It is a privilege that is granted by the Executive Branch of the US government, usually the State Dept. That privilege can be removed by the president at any time.

            As far as Trump’s business dealings, etc., the list of these seven countries was made by the Obama Administration. There are two criteria for making the list. We don’t trust the government of the home countries (e.g. Iran) or the home country is a failed state that cannot properly vet its own citizens (e.g. Syria, Iraq). Saudi Arabia does not fit either category.

            • tomh
              Posted February 8, 2017 at 1:12 am | Permalink

              “But the power to restrict future visas from these countries rests solely with the President.”

              The President doesn’t have unfettered power in such a case, he must comport with statutory laws and the Constitution. Even outside the country, as the Supreme Court decided in Boumediene v. Bush (the Guantanamo Bay case), he can’t “switch the Constitution on or off at will,” as the Court concluded in that case.

              Besides the Constitutional issues with due process and equal protection, and the First Amendment’s protections against religious discrimination, challengers also argue that there are statutory problems with the order, such as violations of the Immigration and Nationalization Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.

              As to how the courts will decide these issues, who knows? But it’s not as simple as saying the President can refuse visas for any country for any reason.

    • chris moffatt
      Posted February 8, 2017 at 7:56 am | Permalink

      You’re right; we can’t have federal judges making decisions based on the constitution and federal law can we?

      The national security BS rationale has been used too many times, and been upheld by the judiciary too many times, to sweep constitutional freedoms and rights away already, especially Amendment #4.

      • Posted February 8, 2017 at 11:42 am | Permalink

        “‘A matter of internal security’ – the age-old cry of the oppressor.”

  12. Randall Schenck
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    My guess, they will fold and let Trump have his immigration/religious ban. That is what it is. Don’t you feel so much safer, especially since the media isn’t reporting all these hundreds of terrorist attacks occurring all over the country.

  13. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    I listened to the argument livestreamed from CA9. Two of the judges (Friedland and Canby, I believe) seemed to be leaning toward the plaintiff.

    I can’t stress enough how tentative that “seemed” is. It’s easy to misconstrue judges’ questioning. Sometimes a judge will reach a preliminary decision on the briefs alone, before argument, and then will use the argument to test the validity of that preliminary determination by questioning the advocate for that side aggressively (while giving opposing counsel a relatively easy ride).

    I know it’s happened to me. When you’re on the loosing side, we call it “foreplay” — feels good while it’s happening, but in the end you’re screwed.

  14. Charles Minus
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad this is in the 9th Circuit. It has been historically liberal, progressive. It will uphold the stay.

  15. Carey Haug
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Shouldn’t judges rule based on whether this executive order is within the President’s authority regardless of the outcome? I predict that Gorsuch, if confirmed, will often surprise us, by following his philosophy regardless of whether Trump likes the outcome. I am hopeful he will stand up to overreach of the Executive branch.

    • Posted February 7, 2017 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

      Want to bet on that?

      • Carey
        Posted February 7, 2017 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

        Hopeful, not confident though.

  16. Posted February 7, 2017 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    My prediction is that this whole scenario is exactly how most of Trump’s presidency will play out. He will issue an order, which will be illegal, and/or unconstitutional, and/or ill-defined, and a federal judge will block it. The litigation will continue as long as it can. Then the cycle will start again.

  17. mordacious1
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    The problem with this Executive Order is that it was poorly thought out and written. My prediction is that, for the most part, it will be upheld or rewritten. Those people who are already here (students, work permits), will be allowed to come and go freely. New visas from these seven countries will be temporarily severely restricted. That is a power given to the Executive Branch and the due process argument is a very weak one.

    • Helen Hollis
      Posted February 8, 2017 at 1:32 am | Permalink

      When has the due process of law been weak?

      • mordacious1
        Posted February 8, 2017 at 2:05 am | Permalink

        In this case, the argument has been made that Trump is picking on muslims (for no reason whatsoever) and therefore the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies. Extending constitutional protections to foreigners who are wishing to enter the US is just ridiculous. If the 9th Circuit swallows that argument, I will lose all respect for them. People living in Syria have no constitutional rights unless they are American citizens or possibly, residents. SCOTUS has ruled that people visiting the US have certain constitutional rights, but they shouldn’t extend those rights beyond our borders to those who wouldn’t have them otherwise. It would be like saying that Osama Bin Laden could not be eliminated without a trial. To do so would be a violation of due process. Silly.

        • tomh
          Posted February 8, 2017 at 2:22 am | Permalink

          The argument that he’s excluding Muslims relies on the First Amendment’s religious protection and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantees. And whether the words “Muslim ban” are in the EO or not, evidence could come out that such is the intent. For instance, Rudolph Giuliani claims to have offered advice in how to draft the EO so that the “Muslim ban” would not, in fact, look like a “Muslim ban.”

          And, in fact, religion does appear in the Order. In its subsection on resuming refugee claims, which the EO suspends for 120 days, it instructs the government to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” In the seven nations covered by the EO, the majority religion is Islam, so only non-Muslims would be eligible.

    • Posted February 8, 2017 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      That’s because President Bannon wrote it.

  18. Dominic
    Posted February 8, 2017 at 3:41 am | Permalink

    I predict President Pence.

  19. p. puk
    Posted February 8, 2017 at 3:54 am | Permalink

    My prediction is that Trump will piss off one too many people and will end up being assassinated.

    ** This is not something I am wishing on him and not something I am hoping will happen as it would be a disaster. It’s just a little feeling I have about his destiny.

    • kieran
      Posted February 8, 2017 at 7:40 am | Permalink

      Rage quit

  20. Posted February 8, 2017 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    Off topic, but I think it will interest many:

    New Arkansas law lets husbands sue to stop wives having abortion

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/07/health/arkansas-rape-law-trnd/index.html

  21. Posted February 8, 2017 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    I have no comment to make.

    • Kevin
      Posted February 8, 2017 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      I will raise your no comment: I have no prediction to make.

  22. W.Benson
    Posted February 8, 2017 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    US Constitution, 25th Amendment, section 4:
    “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

  23. W.Benson
    Posted February 8, 2017 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    I found this today:
    US Constitution, 25th amendment, section 4:
    “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

  24. Posted February 8, 2017 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    My prediction is that they will compromise, keep part of the order and rescind other parts.

  25. Posted February 8, 2017 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    My prediction is that the order will go all the way to the Most High, the Supreme CAT!

  26. W.Benson
    Posted February 9, 2017 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Judgement in! You hit the nail on the head! Trump loses BIG!


%d bloggers like this: