Utopia Talk - Politics - ‘an Island in the Pacific’

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 19 11:06:10 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / ‘an Island in the Pacific’

swordtail
Anarchist Prime Fri Apr 21 09:35:30
Jeff Sessions Dismisses Hawaii as ‘an Island in the Pacific’

By CHARLIE SAVAGEAPRIL 20, 2017

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke dismissively about the State of Hawaii while criticizing a Federal District Court ruling last month that blocked the Trump administration from carrying out its ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world.

“I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power,” Mr. Sessions said this week in an interview on “The Mark Levin Show,” a conservative talk radio program.

Mr. Sessions’s description of Hawaii, where the federal judge who issued the order, Derrick K. Watson, has his chambers, drew a rebuke from both of the United States senators who represent the state. Annexed as a territory of the United States in the late 19th century, Hawaii became the 50th state in 1959.

“Hawaii was built on the strength of diversity & immigrant experiences — including my own,” Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, wrote on Twitter. “Jeff Sessions’ comments are ignorant & dangerous.”

The other senator from Hawaii, Brian Schatz, who is also a Democrat, expressed similar sentiments, writing on Twitter: “Mr. Attorney General: You voted for that judge. And that island is called Oahu. It’s my home. Have some respect.”

Asked for a response from Mr. Sessions, Ian Prior, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said in an email: “Hawaii is, in fact, an island in the Pacific — a beautiful one where the attorney general’s granddaughter was born. The point, however, is that there is a problem when a flawed opinion by a single judge can block the president’s lawful exercise of authority to keep the entire country safe.”

(The State of Hawaii is a chain of islands, one of which is also called Hawaii; the judge’s chambers, however, are in Honolulu, which is on the island of Oahu.)

Judge Watson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, was confirmed in 2013 by a 94-to-0 vote; Mr. Sessions, then a United States senator from Alabama, was among those who cast an approving vote. A former federal prosecutor, Judge Watson earned his law degree from Harvard alongside Mr. Obama and Neil M. Gorsuch, the newly seated Supreme Court justice. He is the only judge of native Hawaiian descent on the federal bench.

Last month, Judge Watson issued a nationwide injunction blocking President Trump’s travel ban, ruling that the plaintiffs — the State of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii — had reasonable grounds to challenge the order as religious discrimination. He cited comments dating to Mr. Trump’s original call, during the 2016 campaign, for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

During the arguments, the government had contended that looking beyond the text of the order to infer religious animus would amount to investigating Mr. Trump’s “veiled psyche,” but Judge Watson wrote in his decision that there was “nothing ‘veiled’” about Mr. Trump’s public remarks. Still, Mr. Sessions reiterated that line of argument in the radio interview, saying he believed that the judge’s reasoning was improper and would be overturned.

“The judges don’t get to psychoanalyze the president to see if the order he issues is lawful,” Mr. Sessions said. “It’s either lawful or it’s not.”

http://www...awaii-pacific-island.html?_r=0

CrownRoyal
Member Fri Apr 21 10:01:49
A judge from the island in the pacific can block that order, just as well as the president from the island in Hudson River can issue it. Continental US is astonished by all the islanders

Aeros
Member Fri Apr 21 11:38:02
I think what is annoying Trump and his followers is the discovery that the Constitution says things they don't agree with.

For example, as written the Federal Judiciary is a single entity that exists by appointment of the President and confirmation by the Senate. There is no wording given to what form the Judiciary should take, or even how many judges there should be and how they are organized. In theory, there could only be one solitary judge for the entire federal government. So long as the President appoints it this way and the Senate confirms it a one judge judiciary would be perfectly constitutional.

In practice that is silly and not really feasible. So we have lots of judges, and have organized them in tiers of authority, with the higher tier being able to reverse a lower tiers decisions. What needs pointing out however is that every tier, from the circuit judge all the way to the Supreme court is invested with all the powers granted to the Judicial Branch. Which means a circuit judge can say what the Constitution says authoritatively, and can block even the President. Unless he or she is overruled by a higher level organ of the judicial branch.

Rugian
Member Fri Apr 21 11:44:15
The astounding part isn't that the ruling came from a shitty stupid island in the Pacific, it's that it came from anywhere at all. The president clearly has the authority under the duly-enacted laws to restrict visa grants, and the courts have no right to override him on it. But you can't expect anything better from judges that are still in Obamas pocket, I suppose.

CrownRoyal
Member Fri Apr 21 13:10:31
"The president clearly has the authority under the duly-enacted laws to restrict visa grants, and the courts have no right to override him on it."

I say only the courts in the continental part

http://www...ive-action-immigration-ruling/

Rugian
Member Fri Apr 21 15:11:20
"under the duly-enacted laws"

"the Obama administration did not "comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.""

FFS

Dukhat
Member Fri Apr 21 15:27:56
https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/855141456062763008

Mr. Attorney General: You voted for that judge. And that island is called Oahu. It's my home. Have some respect.

Rekt.

CrownRoyal
Member Fri Apr 21 15:43:16
"the Obama administration did not "comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.""

Oh, I am sorry, now you want to state courts reasoning for blocking presidents orders? Because at first you said that "The president clearly has the authority under the duly-enacted laws to restrict visa grants, and the courts have no right to override him on it. ". Now, apparently you think that courts can indeed override the president, just for a reason. Do you want to see the legal reasoning behind the "pacific island" judge ruling? I assure you, there is a reason. You may not like that reason, just as I am sure obama supporters did not like the Texas court reason for overriding the EO. But there is a reason.

Every judge on every court has an opinion. You appreciate one and strongly disagree with others. But that doesn't make one any better than other, and you approvingly quoting Texas court verdict doesn't mean shit, just as I am sure me quoting Hawaii verdict to you would mean very little. Or the Oregon judge who blocked the original travel ban(GWB appointee in obama back pocket)

Rugian
Member Fri Apr 21 16:40:42
You're the best CR. My original post had qualifiers in it; you proceeded first to ignore those qualifiers, and then you attack me for "now" adding qualifiers when I point them out. There's never been an argument that you haven't been able to weasel your way out of losing, has there.

CrownRoyal
Member Fri Apr 21 16:45:49
Dude, what is your argument? That you disagree with the verdict? How is that "astounding"? Explain why you think "The astounding part isn't that the ruling came from a shitty stupid island in the Pacific, it's that it came from anywhere at all."?

Aeros
Member Fri Apr 21 16:52:50
Would it matter more if the ruling came from Colorado?

Rugian
Member Fri Apr 21 16:55:36
The block required a twisting of the ban into being a violation of the Establishment Cause (which is ridiculous), as well as an assertion that it would have caused "irreparable harm" to the plaintiffs (which is irrelevant as far as constitutionality goes). The ruling is transparently political in nature, and the related injunction of the Ninth Circuit (where some of the justices' opinions basically all but said "Fuck Trump, we're proud to oppose him") make this even more obvious.

CrownRoyal
Member Fri Apr 21 17:10:37
Yes, I get that you disagree with the legal reasoning. Why is that astounding? Specifically, why is this astounding but the Texas court blocking presidential EO, not? Or maybe you were just as astounded back then, I can't recall. Please, don't bring up legal reasoning when explaining the astounding part, I already said that just because you agree with some verdicts and don't agree with others does not make some of them astounding. There are presidential EOS, and there is judicial review which can block them.

Hot Rod
Revved Up Fri Apr 21 21:44:33

They are democrats.

Who cares how much they whine.

Forwyn
Member Fri Apr 21 22:45:07
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson

jergul
large member Sat Apr 22 02:47:08
President Jefferson Forwyn?

Hot Rod
Revved Up Sat Apr 22 09:07:39

All judges should have a passion for the letter of The Constitution.

Forwyn
Member Sat Apr 22 10:22:46
He wasn't President at the time of that letter. He was President at the time of Marbury v. Madison, and expressed a similar sentiment.

jergul
large member Sat Apr 22 10:47:13
Forwyn
So he merely had designs on the office of the president when he first formulated his view on the division of power?

Forwyn
Member Sat Apr 22 12:38:54
The letter was long after his Presidency. He believed that each branch determines the Constitutionality of their own actions, and are beholden to their voters, or for egregious actions, to the threat of secession.

jergul
large member Sat Apr 22 13:21:06
Forwyn
Wow. How wrong he turned out to be.

Forwyn
Member Sat Apr 22 13:29:09
Yes, perhaps he should have acted a bit more like the tyrant Lincoln and ordered the army to dissolve the USSC if he wanted to preserve that view.

murder
Member Sat Apr 22 13:32:20

The Army can't "dissolve" the USSC.

Forwyn
Member Sat Apr 22 13:36:40
Nor can the President suspend Habeus Corpus or deport and exile a natural-born citizen for giving a speech.

Until they do.

show deleted posts

swordtail Anarchist Prime	Fri Apr 21 09:35:30 Jeff Sessions Dismisses Hawaii as ‘an Island in the Pacific’ By CHARLIE SAVAGEAPRIL 20, 2017 WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke dismissively about the State of Hawaii while criticizing a Federal District Court ruling last month that blocked the Trump administration from carrying out its ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world. “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power,” Mr. Sessions said this week in an interview on “The Mark Levin Show,” a conservative talk radio program. Mr. Sessions’s description of Hawaii, where the federal judge who issued the order, Derrick K. Watson, has his chambers, drew a rebuke from both of the United States senators who represent the state. Annexed as a territory of the United States in the late 19th century, Hawaii became the 50th state in 1959. “Hawaii was built on the strength of diversity & immigrant experiences — including my own,” Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, wrote on Twitter. “Jeff Sessions’ comments are ignorant & dangerous.” The other senator from Hawaii, Brian Schatz, who is also a Democrat, expressed similar sentiments, writing on Twitter: “Mr. Attorney General: You voted for that judge. And that island is called Oahu. It’s my home. Have some respect.” Asked for a response from Mr. Sessions, Ian Prior, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said in an email: “Hawaii is, in fact, an island in the Pacific — a beautiful one where the attorney general’s granddaughter was born. The point, however, is that there is a problem when a flawed opinion by a single judge can block the president’s lawful exercise of authority to keep the entire country safe.” (The State of Hawaii is a chain of islands, one of which is also called Hawaii; the judge’s chambers, however, are in Honolulu, which is on the island of Oahu.) Judge Watson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, was confirmed in 2013 by a 94-to-0 vote; Mr. Sessions, then a United States senator from Alabama, was among those who cast an approving vote. A former federal prosecutor, Judge Watson earned his law degree from Harvard alongside Mr. Obama and Neil M. Gorsuch, the newly seated Supreme Court justice. He is the only judge of native Hawaiian descent on the federal bench. Last month, Judge Watson issued a nationwide injunction blocking President Trump’s travel ban, ruling that the plaintiffs — the State of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii — had reasonable grounds to challenge the order as religious discrimination. He cited comments dating to Mr. Trump’s original call, during the 2016 campaign, for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” During the arguments, the government had contended that looking beyond the text of the order to infer religious animus would amount to investigating Mr. Trump’s “veiled psyche,” but Judge Watson wrote in his decision that there was “nothing ‘veiled’” about Mr. Trump’s public remarks. Still, Mr. Sessions reiterated that line of argument in the radio interview, saying he believed that the judge’s reasoning was improper and would be overturned. “The judges don’t get to psychoanalyze the president to see if the order he issues is lawful,” Mr. Sessions said. “It’s either lawful or it’s not.” http://www...awaii-pacific-island.html?_r=0
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Apr 21 10:01:49 A judge from the island in the pacific can block that order, just as well as the president from the island in Hudson River can issue it. Continental US is astonished by all the islanders
Aeros Member	Fri Apr 21 11:38:02 I think what is annoying Trump and his followers is the discovery that the Constitution says things they don't agree with. For example, as written the Federal Judiciary is a single entity that exists by appointment of the President and confirmation by the Senate. There is no wording given to what form the Judiciary should take, or even how many judges there should be and how they are organized. In theory, there could only be one solitary judge for the entire federal government. So long as the President appoints it this way and the Senate confirms it a one judge judiciary would be perfectly constitutional. In practice that is silly and not really feasible. So we have lots of judges, and have organized them in tiers of authority, with the higher tier being able to reverse a lower tiers decisions. What needs pointing out however is that every tier, from the circuit judge all the way to the Supreme court is invested with all the powers granted to the Judicial Branch. Which means a circuit judge can say what the Constitution says authoritatively, and can block even the President. Unless he or she is overruled by a higher level organ of the judicial branch.
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 21 11:44:15 The astounding part isn't that the ruling came from a shitty stupid island in the Pacific, it's that it came from anywhere at all. The president clearly has the authority under the duly-enacted laws to restrict visa grants, and the courts have no right to override him on it. But you can't expect anything better from judges that are still in Obamas pocket, I suppose.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Apr 21 13:10:31 "The president clearly has the authority under the duly-enacted laws to restrict visa grants, and the courts have no right to override him on it." I say only the courts in the continental part http://www...ive-action-immigration-ruling/
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 21 15:11:20 "under the duly-enacted laws" "the Obama administration did not "comply with the Administrative Procedure Act."" FFS
Dukhat Member	Fri Apr 21 15:27:56 https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/855141456062763008 Mr. Attorney General: You voted for that judge. And that island is called Oahu. It's my home. Have some respect. Rekt.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Apr 21 15:43:16 "the Obama administration did not "comply with the Administrative Procedure Act."" Oh, I am sorry, now you want to state courts reasoning for blocking presidents orders? Because at first you said that "The president clearly has the authority under the duly-enacted laws to restrict visa grants, and the courts have no right to override him on it. ". Now, apparently you think that courts can indeed override the president, just for a reason. Do you want to see the legal reasoning behind the "pacific island" judge ruling? I assure you, there is a reason. You may not like that reason, just as I am sure obama supporters did not like the Texas court reason for overriding the EO. But there is a reason. Every judge on every court has an opinion. You appreciate one and strongly disagree with others. But that doesn't make one any better than other, and you approvingly quoting Texas court verdict doesn't mean shit, just as I am sure me quoting Hawaii verdict to you would mean very little. Or the Oregon judge who blocked the original travel ban(GWB appointee in obama back pocket)
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 21 16:40:42 You're the best CR. My original post had qualifiers in it; you proceeded first to ignore those qualifiers, and then you attack me for "now" adding qualifiers when I point them out. There's never been an argument that you haven't been able to weasel your way out of losing, has there.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Apr 21 16:45:49 Dude, what is your argument? That you disagree with the verdict? How is that "astounding"? Explain why you think "The astounding part isn't that the ruling came from a shitty stupid island in the Pacific, it's that it came from anywhere at all."?
Aeros Member	Fri Apr 21 16:52:50 Would it matter more if the ruling came from Colorado?
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 21 16:55:36 The block required a twisting of the ban into being a violation of the Establishment Cause (which is ridiculous), as well as an assertion that it would have caused "irreparable harm" to the plaintiffs (which is irrelevant as far as constitutionality goes). The ruling is transparently political in nature, and the related injunction of the Ninth Circuit (where some of the justices' opinions basically all but said "Fuck Trump, we're proud to oppose him") make this even more obvious.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Apr 21 17:10:37 Yes, I get that you disagree with the legal reasoning. Why is that astounding? Specifically, why is this astounding but the Texas court blocking presidential EO, not? Or maybe you were just as astounded back then, I can't recall. Please, don't bring up legal reasoning when explaining the astounding part, I already said that just because you agree with some verdicts and don't agree with others does not make some of them astounding. There are presidential EOS, and there is judicial review which can block them.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Apr 21 21:44:33 They are democrats. Who cares how much they whine.
Forwyn Member	Fri Apr 21 22:45:07 "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson
jergul large member	Sat Apr 22 02:47:08 President Jefferson Forwyn?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Apr 22 09:07:39 All judges should have a passion for the letter of The Constitution.
Forwyn Member	Sat Apr 22 10:22:46 He wasn't President at the time of that letter. He was President at the time of Marbury v. Madison, and expressed a similar sentiment.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 22 10:47:13 Forwyn So he merely had designs on the office of the president when he first formulated his view on the division of power?
Forwyn Member	Sat Apr 22 12:38:54 The letter was long after his Presidency. He believed that each branch determines the Constitutionality of their own actions, and are beholden to their voters, or for egregious actions, to the threat of secession.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 22 13:21:06 Forwyn Wow. How wrong he turned out to be.
Forwyn Member	Sat Apr 22 13:29:09 Yes, perhaps he should have acted a bit more like the tyrant Lincoln and ordered the army to dissolve the USSC if he wanted to preserve that view.
murder Member	Sat Apr 22 13:32:20 The Army can't "dissolve" the USSC.
Forwyn Member	Sat Apr 22 13:36:40 Nor can the President suspend Habeus Corpus or deport and exile a natural-born citizen for giving a speech. Until they do.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: