TexasCHLforum.com

Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General.

POTUS now has six confirmed cabinet members. By this time in President Obama's first term, he had 12.

dhoobler wrote:Democrats are worried about DeVos, not because they are afraid she will fail, but rather, that she will succeed.

DeVos favors shool choice.

The best way to have school choice, like the best way to have heathcare choice, is to take single payer off the table. Let people pay for their choices with their own money, rather than robbing Peter to pay for Paul's choices.

Skiprr wrote:Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General.

POTUS now has six confirmed cabinet members. By this time in President Obama's first term, he had 12.

Here's an interesting graph.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... will-take/

ninjabread wrote:

Skiprr wrote:Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General.

POTUS now has six confirmed cabinet members. By this time in President Obama's first term, he had 12.

Here's an interesting graph.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... will-take/

W had a slow start. He had to spend half of his transition period fighting off democrat attempts to steal the election.

Price being confirmed as HHS Secretary is a good deal. Hopefully, he will start the process of undoing some of the damage and hopefully rolling back some of the ludicrous rules and regs.

Now to get the rest of his appointments confirmed and getting the decision of the 9th overturned.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-co ... 1486682025

Appeals court rules against Trump travel ban. I guess this was not unexpected since it is the 9th district.

It is still hard to believe when you read the language that they ruled against Trump.

I dare any of the Judges to travel to the seven countries and hang out a week or so.

We are in serious trouble if the Supreme Court ties or rules the same way.

Trump tweeted "See you in court"

In other Trump news http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kellyanne ... NlYwNzYw--

Kelly Ann Conway may have violated ethics rules after Nordstrum's stopped selling Trump's daughters clothes. Another place I now have to boycott. Shouldn't be hard though.

philip964 wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-co ... 1486682025

Appeals court rules against Trump travel ban. I guess this was not unexpected since it is the 9th district.

It is still hard to believe when you read the language that they ruled against Trump.

I dare any of the Judges to travel to the seven countries and hang out a week or so.

We are in serious trouble if the Supreme Court ties or rules the same way.

Trump tweeted "See you in court"

In other Trump news http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kellyanne ... NlYwNzYw--

Kelly Ann Conway may have violated ethics rules after Nordstrum's stopped selling Trump's daughters clothes. Another place I now have to boycott. Shouldn't be hard though.

He just has to re-write it to be a little more narrowly focused while fighting the court case.

Here's one question. Why can't he just invalidate all visa's that were issued before 1/20/17 to residents of those countries, and have them re-apply. Then ensure that all new visa applicants are fully vetted.

OK, not 'today' but I just ran across mention of it. Part of his 'negotiating strategy'?

Jan 30, 2017 - Trump Files Early With FEC For 2020 Candidacy

a google of "trump files to run in 2020" brings up quite an array of opinions.

Uploading the original text of the full (and at times somewhat headscratchingly odd) ruling of the 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals on the Motion for Stay of an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding.

STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; REX W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State; JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellants.
The 9th Circuit appellate court is, and has been, in it's own little Kalifornia world for many years. Its decisions are the most reversed of any Circuit when heard before the Supreme Court. In 2012 alone, an amazing 86% of their cases accepted by SCOTUS were overturned.

Fox News at [url]http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/02/09/ninth-circuit-most-overturned-court-us[/url] wrote:Perhaps the most controversial decision was striking down the Pledge of Allegiance due to the phrase “under God.” It also ruled citizens have no constitutional right to own guns and is often over-ruled when showing its disdain for capital punishment.

Critics deride the court, calling it the “Ninth Circus” and the “Nutty Ninth.”

I don't believe this one will go to the Supremes, though. A) SCOTUS almost never accepts cases that deal with matters that are date-limited...and this one, now with less than 76 days left on the initial 90-day window, would be difficult to squeeze into the docket even if they chose to; B) I think Gorsuch still has an 8- to 10-week fight ahead of him before an adequate number of dems cave and he is sworn in without use of "the nuclear option." POTUS doesn't want anything going to a SCOTUS that could result in a 4-all deadlock.

I think we'll see one of two things. First is that POTUS could go back to the 9th and call for an en banc appeal for the ruling to be reconsidered by 11 judges, not just the three who unanimously wrote yesterday's decision. The administration has two weeks to file. With the 9th being the most left-leaning in the country, the odds of an administration-friendly outcome is still not good. But I don't know if there's any real downside to chasing it that way, and my gut says President Trump would rather fight than switch.

But the switch is a viable second choice, and my money is on this as the final outcome. I think a new executive order will be written, one paying homage to green carders and being much more deferential to current visa holders while still putting some teeth into immigrant vetting. If crafted well, it should be tough for any to legally challenge under U.S. Code Title 3 and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Arguably, with more time and preparation on the initial order this could all have been much cleaner with smoother sailing from the start, but que sera.

In the end, we'll still end up with a period of much tighter control over foreign arrivals, while a long-term, tougher vetting process is put in place. Ultimately the Washington and Minnesota lawsuit is just wasting time and taxpayer money over a political, partisan hissy, and in less than a month we'll end up where we need to be anyway.

I don't want to wish ill upon anyone, but can you imagine the backlash the Ninth will face if someone comes here, and carries out an attack while the executive order is blocked? Any terrorists are gearing up for just such an eventuality, knowing that another ban will be in place. That was the reasoning for the immediate roll out of the order, to prevent anyone from knowing ahead of time about it, to try to circumvent it.

I just don't understand judges who like to legislate from the bench.

As an attorney, I am disgusted by the 9th Circuit's substituting their policy judgement for the President's. If courts are going to act like politicians then they deserve as much respect as do politicians.

Having said that, the President would be wise to pull back this EO, rewrite it to provide the basis for it and to clearly state the adjustments they have already made, get his State Department on board and the Justice Department on board and then reissue.

I have heard that both State and Justice bureaucrats acted subversively with regard to this EO. Trump should have had his own team in place before he moved forward. There were also elements of this order particularly with regard to green card holders that I thought were extremely unwise. Those appear to be fixed even though the 9th Circuit refused to admit that.

Just heard that the President is going to fight this on the merits before the District Court rather than appealing the 9th Circuit's decision. Makes some sense except that by the time the litigation is done the 90 day temporary period of the order will have run anyway.

stroo wrote:As an attorney, I am disgusted by the 9th Circuit's substituting their policy judgement for the President's. If courts are going to act like politicians then they deserve as much respect as do politicians.

Having said that, the President would be wise to pull back this EO, rewrite it to provide the basis for it and to clearly state the adjustments they have already made, get his State Department on board and the Justice Department on board and then reissue.

I have heard that both State and Justice bureaucrats acted subversively with regard to this EO. Trump should have had his own team in place before he moved forward. There were also elements of this order particularly with regard to green card holders that I thought were extremely unwise. Those appear to be fixed even though the 9th Circuit refused to admit that.

Just heard that the President is going to fight this on the merits before the District Court rather than appealing the 9th Circuit's decision. Makes some sense except that by the time the litigation is done the 90 day temporary period of the order will have run anyway.

He could write a brand new EO putting in the exceptions the Ninth identified as their basis, with a new 120 day time line. Basically accepting their decision, and requiring any opposition to try a new tact.
JMHO

stroo wrote:As an attorney, I am disgusted by the 9th Circuit's substituting their policy judgement for the President's. If courts are going to act like politicians then they deserve as much respect as do politicians.

Having said that, the President would be wise to pull back this EO, rewrite it to provide the basis for it and to clearly state the adjustments they have already made, get his State Department on board and the Justice Department on board and then reissue.

I have heard that both State and Justice bureaucrats acted subversively with regard to this EO. Trump should have had his own team in place before he moved forward. There were also elements of this order particularly with regard to green card holders that I thought were extremely unwise. Those appear to be fixed even though the 9th Circuit refused to admit that.

Just heard that the President is going to fight this on the merits before the District Court rather than appealing the 9th Circuit's decision. Makes some sense except that by the time the litigation is done the 90 day temporary period of the order will have run anyway.

As a non-attorney, I completely fail to understand how these traitorous, over stepping, partisan left wing low lifes, who have obviously violated any ethics oath that they may have taken, can even remain in their position / office as "judges". Isn't there some way to tell them; "You're Fired"?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-c ... 3/103.html

For all the amateur lawyers out there, here is a case where Roosevelts Attorney General who became a Supreme Court Justice wrote an opinion for the Supreme Court where he talks about that Judges should not be political because they are not elected and are not experts on the things the President has made a decision on. What the President has decided is above Judicial review.

After this case the law was written that the Judges have ignored.

In other news CNN feels the presidents handshake was too long and he should have bowed the the Japanese PM like the previous President did.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

philip964 wrote:In other news CNN feels the presidents handshake was too long and he should have bowed the the Japanese PM like the previous President did.

Just a quick aside. Something we all know, but the CNN mention reminded me. This is from a Pew Research study in 2014. It listed 36 different news sources and asked respondents which, only of the ones they recognized, they most distrusted as a valid source of news. Notice that those who classified themselves as "Mostly Liberal" had one distinctly distrusted news source, while those indicating they were "Mostly Conservative" did not.

From this, I'd say those leaning to the right are actually the more liberal in their willingness to evaluate data and information sources than those who lean to the left: