Why judge blocked Trump travel ban

Immigrants arrive at Boston airport. (Reuters photo via WSJ)

Immigrants arrive at Boston airport. (Reuters photo via WSJ)

Now, we’ve never been big fans of executive orders and question whether they comport with the law and the leeway any given law grants the executive branch.

But Trump’s order suspending immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days in an effort to block potential terrorists and to give time for vetting sounds much like what Obama did without prompting legal challenges. Without consulting Congress Obama called for allowing 110,000 Syrian refugees into the county. Trump cut that in half.

But a Seattle judge, in his seven-page ruling, granted a temporary restraining order sought by the state of Washington.

 

His rationale seems a bit dubious. How is the state irreparably harmed by a 90-day cessation of immigrants?

This is what he wrote:

robart1

robart2

Sounds more like a savings and potential benefit to taxpayers and the state than an irreparable harm. It might well be the right decision under the law and the Constitution, but is it for the right reason?

 

 

Advertisements

34 comments on “Why judge blocked Trump travel ban

  1. Athos says:

    You’re right on with your observation, Thomas. Anyone else getting tired of being the world’s sugar daddy? (and no, we get no benefit from it!)

  2. Reziac says:

    Every study I’ve seen finds that immigrants are a net tax loss, on average something like $56k/year each. I think a reasonable court would find that allowing immigrants -into- the US does ongoing and irreparable harm to citizens.

    @Athos… yep. America First for a change.

  3. Steve says:

    A bit sideways from the topic but, this is relevant.

    It’s a long but very good read.

    Hint, Think Hari Seldon. For real.

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

  4. Rincon says:

    An interesting read, Steve. This is why money can win elections.

  5. Steve says:

    Read it again. The discoverer isn’t wealthy. He is ethical.
    Billionaire money isn’t needed to make this work, just a group of “enlightened” people could do it just the same.

  6. Rincon says:

    Wow! The discoverer isn’t wealthy, so this technology AND OTHERS THAT ARE SIMILAR (many which have been around for decades) can’t possibly be used by the wealthy. And any geek can do the same in his basement. Thanks for that gem, Steve, but that’s a little like claiming that any good geek can make an operating system that can compete with Windows. The following quotations from your link seem to cast doubt on your assertion:

    “The campaign would pay the company at least $5.8 million to help identify voters in the Iowa caucuses, which Cruz won, before dropping out of the race in May.” Did someone say money?

    “Cruz—and later Trump—was funded primarily by the secretive US software billionaire Robert Mercer who, along with his daughter Rebekah, is reported to be the largest investor in Cambridge Analytica.” They did! They did say money!

    “Then, in November 2015, the more radical of the two Brexit campaigns, “Leave.EU,” supported by Nigel Farage, announced that it had commissioned a Big Data company to support its online campaign: Cambridge Analytica.” I know. Must be a coincidence.

    “First, Cambridge Analytica buys personal data from a range of different sources, like land registries, automotive data, shopping data, bonus cards, club memberships, what magazines you read, what churches you attend. Nix displays the logos of globally active data brokers like Acxiom and Experian—in the US, almost all personal data is for sale.” For sale? As in money?

    “We have profiled the personality of every adult in the United States of America—220 million people,” Nix boasts.” Our basement hacker would have to work some long hours to match that.

    “The embedded Cambridge Analytica team, apparently only a dozen people, received $100,000 from Trump in July, $250,000 in August, and $5 million in September. According to Nix, the company earned over $15 million overall.” Hmmm…more money. Now that it’s gained notoriety, the prices will skyrocket.

    “The measures were radical: From July 2016, Trump’s canvassers were provided with an app with which they could identify the political views and personality types of the inhabitants of a house. It was the same app provider used by Brexit campaigners. Trump’s people only rang at the doors of houses that the app rated as receptive to his messages. The canvassers came prepared with guidelines for conversations tailored to the personality type of the resident. In turn, the canvassers fed the reactions into the app, and the new data flowed back to the dashboards of the Trump campaign.” It would appear that 1984 upon us, only 33 years late.

    The nerds are right. Information is power. And in most cases, more money yields superior information and provides the means of using it to one’s advantage.
    Even if everyone gains access to these techniques, those with the greatest ability to utilize it – the Tom Bradys among them – will command huge sums for their services and their customers will see the greatest benefits.

    More primitive, but still effective techniques have been around for decades. For example, it was discovered by political strategists in the ’70’s that audiences analyzed watching speeches responded more to how something is said than to what was said. That discovery and others have permanently altered our campaigns and who wins. They are no longer geared to logic and reason simply because those are relatively ineffective.

    Why do you say the discoverer is ethical? Your “ethical discoverer” appears to have NOTHING to do with Cambridge Analytica.

  7. Rincon says:

    Does it occur to anyone else that this technology can be adapted quite readily by a government that wants to keep tabs on its citizens? As I said, 1984 appears to have arrived.

  8. Steve says:

    “can’t possibly be used by the wealthy”

    Making shit up and arguing it against yourself is unbecoming an intelligent person such as yourself.

    I didn’t say what you claim I say.
    This issue hasn’t been in place for decades, either. It has been used twice so far, Brexit and the 2016 US election. Brand new, as new as it gets.
    Psychohistory is real. Think Hari Seldon.

    As for your second post, yes. Certainly very scary. Never answer those Facebook “quizzes”, surveys and “what would you be if…”
    Turn off all access to apps in your smart phone, use a good firewall app to accomplish this.

    But it really doesn’t matter because we all are going to be in the matrix (or mattress and sex toy) internet of things or IOT as it’s called, no matter what we do. Overall, this is not bad, but we need to know the new world we all live in.
    Mikko Hypponen (F-Secure)
    I chose the start time for a reason, give it 2 minutes. The whole presentation is well worth watching, professional IS are well aware of his points but reminders never hurt and the 45 minutes passes quickly.

  9. Steve says:

    Forgot the Mikko Hypponen (F-Secure) link

  10. Steve says:

    Sorry, my link is set to the wrong time, back it up to about 29:30

  11. Rincon says:

    My word: “This is why money can win elections.”
    Your words: “Read it again. The discoverer isn’t wealthy. He is ethical”

    And now, you say I’m “making shit up”

    Not making up anything. Perhaps misinterpreting your words. What is your point if not to claim that this technology can’t help the wealthy influence elections?

  12. Steve says:

    You also said “More primitive, but still effective techniques have been around for decades.”

    That’s what Clinton used.

    You did make a ton of conclusions based a “misinterpretation” of what I said.

    You also said (with snark)
    “but that’s a little like claiming that any good geek can make an operating system that can compete with Windows”
    I refer you to Linus Torvalds

    Of course the guy who figured it out has nothing to do with the people who are using it to sway elections, that was his primary concern.
    Trouble is, once out of the bottle it is impossible to stuff the Djinn back in. (I have said this on several previous occasions.)

    My clear point is every single device we use is also a tracking device and we have willingly, even happily, accepted them into our lives with very little conservative thought ,if any thought at all.
    I allow my devices as little access to my privacy as is possible and I regularly scrub them off the internet.
    This does not mean I don’t use the new tech and it is not to say this new tech has brought only bad and danger. It does mean everyone needs to approach all of it with a very skeptical, conservative frame of mind. That is what Mikko Hypponen is saying and that is what people should be taking away from that deep dive you really did read….but missed the point.
    Blocking as much politics as possible on social media is just about the only way we can stop being influenced by this new process. That is the primary tool it uses to feed us the things they find we are most likely to accept and even like no matter the veracity of the claims.
    I am betting the same things are being used in Germany and France now.
    This is not money driven, it is power driven. Money is simply a tool of those who seek power and control.
    This new process is dangerous, people really need to be shown what it really is, in a totally non biased manner, because bias is what it relies on for all of its effect.

  13. Steve says:

    These guys got caught.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/06/ftc_spanks_vizio_for_slurping_viewer_activity/

    People need to know, in a totally unbiased manner, what is up and how to take control of it.

  14. Athos says:

    “My word: “This is why money can win elections.”…” said the Rin Man.

    How’d that work out for Hill Rodham Clinton?

    President Donald Trump-

    I just can’t get enough of seeing this in print on this blog!

  15. Rincon says:

    “More primitive, but still effective techniques have been around for decades.
    That’s what Clinton used.” Did I ever say the using of these techniques by Clinton is a good thing?

    “I refer you to Linus Torvalds” Even this one exceptional geek you selected, barely made a dent in Microsoft’s vast profits. The same will occur in this matter. The only way moneyed interests would not dominate the use of this technique is if there were lots and lots of dedicated geeks, willing to spend vast amounts of their time and money. In contrast, moneyed interests need only write a check. What’s possible is vastly different from what actually happens.

    “Of course the guy who figured it out has nothing to do with the people who are using it to sway elections, that was his primary concern.” Read your own article. There were TWO discoverers and one used it to influence two elections already.

    “Trouble is, once out of the bottle it is impossible to stuff the Djinn back in.” Who said anything about stuffing it back in?

    “Blocking as much politics as possible on social media is just about the only way we can stop being influenced by this new process.” You really think that this is the only possible response? Wow! Did it ever occur to you that perhaps our personal information – and tracking our lives is very personal – shouldn’t be offered for sale as a commodity?

  16. Rincon says:

    Come on, Athos. I said this technique can allow money to win elections. Hillary didn’t have access to it. Trump did and won. Your point was?

  17. Steve says:

    Way to totally miss the point, even when spoon fed.

    Enjoy your biased life.

  18. Rincon says:

    Clever reply, Steve.

  19. Steve says:

    Yeah.

    Turns out, I am too extreme for both the Left and the Right!

    Not sure how I can get even more centrist, but I am trying like a rock in your shoe!

  20. Athos says:

    Hey Rinny,

    President Donald Trump! (sounds good, huh?)

    In this election, money had nothing to do with Trump winning. Hill spent what?, over a Billion$?
    And how’s that charitable Clinton Foundation doing?

  21. Steve says:

    Well,
    Clinton spent a record amount $1,200,000,000.00

    Trumps campaign spent about half that amount.

    Yup, it’s all bout the money, just like Rincon claims. What Rincon isn’t being clear about is what “kind” of money is being targeted for blocking, Koch money=bad money….and that is funny too because the evil Koch bros money wasn’t part of the Trump kaboodle.

    Face it, Democrats, you peeps screwed the pooch this time.

    But It looks like Trump is handing tons of ammo directly to Democrats for the ’18 and ’20 campaigns.

    Republicans got two years to figure this out and get it right….if these first couple weeks are any indication, Republicans are going to go down in flames in the next couple elections.

  22. Rincon says:

    I had to smile about the rock in the shoe, Steve. I hope that I am more than just a speck of sand in your shoe as well. After all, how can we learn anything if we’re too comfortable? We agree that Trump’s extremes will likely give the Democrats good ammunition in two and four years, but there’s a long way to go. The biggest consternation seems to be about the immigrant issue, but that doesn’t bother me greatly. Many of his appointees are extremists and sound like they will likely bring a ton of misery. That bothers me more. We’ll see. I’m also still bothered that the Senate will adopt refusing to consider appointees in the last year of a Presidency as a standard procedure. Looks like a lot of years with a Court of fewer than nine justices. Just one more nail in the coffin of Constitutional protection.

    Trump was able to run precisely because he was able to self finance the early stages of his candidacy, and you say money is irrelevant. What have you been smoking? It should also be obvious to all but a few that the amount of money spent is less important than how effectively it was spent. That being said, it does not apply to the extremes,although spending 200 million just might get you a cabinet position, even if all you do is donate it. On the other hand, twenty bucks has an astronomically small chance of accomplishing anything major. Money just raises the odds, but raising the odds is the only way to acquire power. Almost nothing is a sure thing.

    But you’re both off the subject. I think we agree that this new technology promises to be very powerful in building future political power. What we seem to disagree on is whether having large amounts of money conveys a very large advantage in acquiring political power. It always has and always will, but part of our job as citizens is to not allow moneyed interests to manipulate our own political will. We are failing in this regard and this technology allows far greater voter manipulation than in the past. It especially allows messaging directed at emotions rather than reason, precisely the weak spot of most humans..

  23. Steve says:

    Irrelevant?
    Where did I say that?

    As for the cost to use this new tech, yup. I bet that gets really expensive down the road. We should see if it works in France and Germany. IF it does, the sky is the limit for those future power brokers.

    As for the new tech, looks like you have a good handle on it.
    Now spread the word.

  24. Rincon says:

    Sorry Steve. I must have misunderstood. I hope liberals and conservatives can agree that allowing people to use certain Internet services only if they sign a multipage document of fine print can border on extortion, depending on what is included in that print. It is asking too much to expect individuals to read, digest and analyze in detail, the large numbers of “agreements” which require our consent in order to utilize the Internet in a normal fashion. With this technology, even a rational, informed decision made by each of millions of individuals (granting permission to sell information) can have dramatic negative effects on society and in turn, on the very individuals giving permission, without these individuals remotely understanding the harm that they and others could suffer.

  25. Steve says:

    Licence agreements aren’t a culprit. This thing is bigger than that and the only defense is personal knowledge.

    France and Germany will tell the future.

  26. Rincon says:

    This thing is not bigger than that, unless you’re excluding the sale of personal information by off line entities. Stop the wholesale peddling of personal information and this technology cannot be misused.

    You’re welcome to your opinion, but I would bet your life (not mine, of course) that you don’t carefully and completely read and analyze every user agreement that has flashed onto your screen. I have the personal knowledge and so do you, but I, at least, haven’t and don’t intend to spend hundreds of hours carefully analyzing mounds of minutia. This is a situation, like many, where being conscientious as an individual has no impact unless tens or hundreds of millions do the same thing. No sign of that yet. I’ll let you know when I see it.

    Inconveniently, the real world doesn’t obey ivory tower political theory.

  27. Steve says:

    You are missing the point again.

    EVERY SINGLE connected device is being used in this. From the fridge to the “smart” TV to sex toys to the mattress. I am not joking, they are building a mattress with sensors that will send info to a phone.
    There are sex toys that connect to the internet and send info back to the manufacturer.

    The internet Of Things is tracking everyone, everywhere. IF people do not know about it, then you will not be able to stop it in any way at all because no one will get up in arms and confront their representatives demanding the laws you describe.

  28. Rincon says:

    Yes, it’s necessary for people to know about it. That, alone is insufficient, but it’s a good start. Thanks for the heads up about the sex toys. Hope they’re encrypted. Wouldn’t want my neighbors listening in.

  29. deleted says:

    Although with Don in office, I fear for our beloved republic, I do have to acknowledge that little rays of sunshine can yet manage to get through the gloom.

    http://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/9th-circuit-upholds-temporary-restraining-order-on-trumps-muslim-ban/

  30. Steve says:

    Went out to eat today for lunch.
    Open unencrypted wifi sites popped up on my phone for “sleephacker” So I searched for “sleephacker wifi”

    Here’s what I found. I think they were in a mattress store nearby.

    https://sleephack.com/

    I bet the people buying the mattresses have no idea about securing their mattress from internet attack….like those Vizio TV owners who had no idea Vizio was (for several years) recording their every viewing choice ever on the tv. Vizio was just fined 2.2 million for that offense.
    And securing that sex toy? who would ever think of such a thing?

    And no, security with IOT stuff is almost non existent. Worse, updates are even more spotty.
    Manufacturers just stop maintaining their stuff after a very short period of time leaving them open on the net and they become gaping holes in your home people can use to access your whole network everything on your router becomes available through the open device like a fridge or TV or mattress or the toy in the nightstand.
    Recently there were two DDOS incidents that used millions of IOT devices worldwide as the bots hammering the servers with ping requests.

    Think again about a “good start” cigarettes would never have become outlawed in many places unless the public first became aware of their dangers and started demanding action by their representatives.
    IOT is no different. If you don’t know how to turn off as much tracking as you are able, then you will be tracked to within a millimeter of your daily life by the second.
    That is what this new process is doing, using much more than Facebook likes, it uses absolutely everything with a connection to the internet.

  31. deleted says:

    Consistent with previous Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, the Ninth Circuit opinion was that the court was entitled to look behind the stated reasons for the ban, to plausible evidence of the true reasons.

    “It noted that the states challenging the executive order “have offered evidence of numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban.’” And it said, rejecting another administration argument, that it was free to consider evidence about the motivation behind laws that draw seemingly neutral distinctions.”

  32. The Hialeah ordinance specifically banned Santeria practices while exempting other animal slaughter. There was no other stated reason. There were no hidden ulterior motives. I was working at the Miami News when all this went down.

  33. […] court partially restored the congressionally dictated power of the executive branch to control […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s