Apple Not Listed on New Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Second Travel Ban

[2010mini]

Iraq had nothing to do with it. and it's to stop terrorists who his as refugees from coming in.

What?!?

Which refugee has been found to be a terrorist? You may not know this but refugees already undergo screening.

I said nothing about Iraq. I said countries whose citizens have carried out terrorist acts in the US have not been banned.

Namely:

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.

 

[Starflyer]

Yet hate speech is illegal

Source?

 

[Rocketman]

Interesting

Noodle through these:

http://caught.net/caught/crime.htm

http://oathact.us/precedent

Article III, §2 of the Constitution limits federal courts to hearing only "cases" and "controversies." Through case law, the Court has interpreted this limit to mean that the courts may hear only those disputes which are traditionally thought to be resolvable through the judicial process — in the language of the courts, these cases are "justiciable." Simply put, the case itself can't be brought to court if: a) the court has no way of deciding the case; b) the court can't provide a remedy, even if the case is decided; c) the case isn't an actual right-here-right-now dispute between two parties with real interests involved (as opposed to a hypothetical dispute with no "skin in the game"); or d) the case involves an issue that is already delegated by the Constitution to another branch (i.e., a so-called "political question").

However, even if the case itself is justiciable, the person bringing that case must have "standing." The idea behind "standing" is that independent of whether a dispute exists that a court can remedy, the person raising the dispute must have the legal right to be in front of the court in the first place.

The plaintiff gains this right by meeting a three-pronged test: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," i.e., "an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical'"; second, a causal connection must exist between the injury and the conduct complained of, that is, "the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court"; and third, "it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'" (all quotes from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, citations omitted)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

http://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/violating-the-oath-of-office-is-a-federal-crime.65934/

http://www.thematrixhasyou.org/fraud-upon-the-court.html

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

• 
  Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
  In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
  Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
  That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
  The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,"Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
  "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
  Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
  Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

 

[Stella]

Let's face, he's legally allowed. Time to get over it and move on, but it seems some of you just can't.

Apparently courts disagree!!

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4027061

 

[DougFNJ]

What?!?

Which refugee has been found to be a terrorist? You may not know this but refugees already undergo screening.

I said nothing about Iraq. I said countries whose citizens have carried out terrorist acts in the US have not been banned.

Namely:

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.

The main one that comes to my mind is some of the shooters in the Paris attacks in 2015 had refugee passports. I believe Switzerland is having some issues with the refugees as well.

All you need is one to slip through the cracks.

Curious though, everyone talks about how inhumane we are being when we are not so easy to let them in, but nobody mentions the secure refugee camps we set them up with in their own countries giving these people 3 meals and shelter. Any particular reason why it is so important that they be here with the possibility of someone entering that does not have the greatest intentions?

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates are considered US "allies" in the fight against Terror and the Islamic State. It would had been a guaranteed block, but it sounds like no matter what revisions are made, our justice system insists we live life on the edge.

 

[Stella]

I'm actually not - Trump wanted this ban throughout.

The original travel ban would give an allowance for Christians. This new travel ban dropped this.

So easy to conclude he wss targeting Muslims.

Let's face it, ignoring facts, blindly listening to what the media tells you to believe, and regurgitating the same silly talking points over and over doesn't make that non sensical statement valid.

 

[DougFNJ]

I'm actually not - Trump wanted this ban throughout.

The original travel ban would give an allowance for Christians. This new travel ban dropped this.

So easy to conclude he wss targeting Muslims.

Can you please provide the wording that excluded Christians?

Now I do remember Trump saying after news of ISIS members cutting Christians' heads off and drowning or burning them that he will help these people, but that was not in the form of excluding them from the ban. That's the funny thing about that part of the world though isn't it? People are a little too okay with Christians being exterminated and Jews getting threatened to be wiped off the map. Inconvenience these people for 90 days from entering our country while we try to improve our security and vetting....THATS the inhuman part. People are a little too backwards these days.

 

[manu chao]

Ummm those bans were based on nations.

Which nations?

Can someone please find the word Muslim in this wording?

Despite the word 'Muslim' not being used, you correctly identified that Muslim Jihadism was the criteria used to include countries in that list (of course leaving out countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where Muslim Jihadism is also alive and well, but that is another issue).

This is the exact language in the order. But it's Trump so it must be bad and horrible right?

This is Trump who has promised a Muslim ban during the campaign and keeps reiterating that he wants to keep all of his promises. It's hard not to conclude that banning Muslims was a big motivation behind this travel ban.

Release your taxes Trump! So they illegally find and release his taxes and find he paid a higher rate of taxes than Obama, Bernie Sanders, the Clintons, Warren Buffett, etc etc, and then there was silence, on to the next way to attack him.

They 'released' the returns for one year, still waiting on the rest.

It's his first 100 days. Give the man a little slack, or are you rooting for him to fail which means we all fail?

If Trump fails, we all will fail. Now, if that isn't putting one person above the constitution, I don't know what it.

And you know, by the time this makes its way through the courts, the 90 days (counting from the original order) will likely be over. But will Trump back down then and say that his administration has done what it has promised and implemented new vetting procedures or will that 90 days suddenly be no longer 90 days but longer?
[doublepost=1489695533][/doublepost]

Inconvenience these people for 90 days from entering our country while we try to improve our security and vetting....THATS the inhuman part. People are a little too backwards these days.

Do you really believe that banning them for 90 days will make any material difference in the grand scheme of things of decades of terrorism? Isn't it rather just a PR gesture to show your determination (to security and xenophobia)?
[doublepost=1489695774][/doublepost]

Source?

Sorry, I misremembered (I remembered the laws to this effect but not the Supreme Court eventually striking them down). I should have used a different example, like the restrictions on "certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem" as Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law in 1942.

 

[DougFNJ]

Which nations?

Do we seriously need to name the nations in the order over and over?

Despite the word 'Muslim' not being used, you correctly identified that Muslim Jihadism was the criteria used to include countries in that list (of course leaving out countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where Muslim Jihadism is also alive and well, but that is another issue).

This is Trump who has promised a Muslim ban during the campaign and keeps reiterating that he wants to keep all of his promises. It's hard not to conclude that banning Muslims was a big motivation behind this travel ban.

I love how it always finds it's way to be conveniently left out the second part of his sentence of that promise....."Until we figure out what the hell is going on". Kind of like when you guys awent all over Trump saying Mexicans are bad, conveniently leaving out the words "SOME OF THEM ARE" before criminals, murderers, etc.

'released' the returns for one year, still waiting on the rest.

They ILLEGALLY released, you forgot that portion too. Would you even know what you would be reading if he did?

Trump fails, we all will fail. Now, if that isn't putting one person above the constitution, I don't know what it.

So when Obama took presidency, and I certainly was not happy when that happened and I made the same statement, I have a funny love of this country. You know what I meant, and if you think things have been looking bright and shiny for the last 15 years, and believe that our Government helped the cause with bailouts, funding failures, wars, major recessions, terror attacks that could had been avoided, and on and on, maybe you should stay on your medication. And by the way, I include Bush in the screwing up this country.

you know, by the time this makes its way through the courts, the 90 days (counting from the original order) will likely be over. But will Trump back down then and say that his administration has done what it has promised and implemented new vetting procedures or will that 90 days suddenly be no longer 90 days but longer?

I guess we will find out? But lets just judge it before it happens.

 

[TechGeek76]

Apparently courts disagree!!

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4027061

And it will all be overturned soon enough, again, as he has legal authority.

 

[manu chao]

Do we seriously need to name the nations in the order over and over?

I am referring to the nations whose nationals were supposedly banned in orders by previous presidents.

I love how it always finds it's way to be conveniently left out the second part of his sentence of that promise....."Until we figure out what the hell is going on".

Because it is a meaningless phrase. The Trump administration won't be figuring out things that the previous administrations didn't. Trump has the same CIA, FBI, DHS, etc. at his disposal as previous presidents. His appointees won't be noticeably smarter on average than the previous ones. Despite his self-image, Trump is not Superman. The promised Muslim ban and the implemented six-nation ban were and are a PR measure to show action on the security front and to appeal to the lingering xenophobic feelings of part of his electorate (which might include himself).

They ILLEGALLY released, you forgot that portion too. Would you even know what you would be reading if he did?

I didn't choose the word 'released', I just repeated it for the sake of not starting a fight over the word with the previous poster (though I put it in quotes). And you also have the habit of leaving out the second sentence, which pointed out that what has become public is only a single year.

So when Obama took presidency, and I certainly was not happy when that happened and I made the same statement, I have a funny love of this country. You know what I meant, and if you think things have been looking bright and shiny for the last 15 years, and believe that our Government helped the cause with bailouts, funding failures, wars, major recessions, terror attacks that could had been avoided, and on and on, maybe you should stay on your medication. And by the way, I include Bush in the screwing up this country.

I have no idea how anybody could honestly believe that Trump can do better. He is a much more problematic individual in so many ways than all the presidents for quite a while going back in history.

I guess we will find out? But lets just judge it before it happens.

I'm an eternal optimist and thus my hope is that Trump will screw things up so horribly that his ideas, his style, his methods will be thoroughly discredited for a good while. The sooner he crashes and burns, the better for the nation and the world. Sometimes things have to get worse first for things to get better.

 

[mozumder]

It's not illegal, what part are you not understanding? He has 100 percent AUTHORITY to do this.

It's illegal in the US.

He doesn't have the AUTHORITY to establish a religion by picking and choosing people based on religion, since it violates the first amendment against the establishment of a religion.

The first amendment supersedes any other law.

Which part didn't you understand?

 

[2010mini]

The main one that comes to my mind is some of the shooters in the Paris attacks in 2015 had refugee passports. I believe Switzerland is having some issues with the refugees as well.

All you need is one to slip through the cracks.

Curious though, everyone talks about how inhumane we are being when we are not so easy to let them in, but nobody mentions the secure refugee camps we set them up with in their own countries giving these people 3 meals and shelter. Any particular reason why it is so important that they be here with the possibility of someone entering that does not have the greatest intentions?

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates are considered US "allies" in the fight against Terror and the Islamic State. It would had been a guaranteed block, but it sounds like no matter what revisions are made, our justice system insists we live life on the edge.

So it's ok to let citizens in from our allies. Even though we have proof citizens from those countries have committed fatalities from terrorism on US soil? But for those countries who citizens have not, ban them?!?? Yeah, great logic there.

The Paris attacker had a fake passport. It has been reported this was a deliberate scheme by the Islamic state to drum up fear of refugees. Seems it worked.

 

[Gutwrench]

This is an excellent topic. I wish Apple would have listed their opposition. I guess that means they don't oppose it?

 

[nt5672]

I don't get the logic of this travel ban....

Ban people from countries whose citizens have not attacked the US. But let in ones from countries that have....

The ban is to ban people that cannot be adequately vetted. The real facts are that we may be letting in terrorists because we cannot determine with our current policies who are terrorists and who are not. The travel ban is temporary to allow the government time to get procedures in place to protect American's. Trump never said he hated muslims, he said he would stop muslim terrorists. A big difference if you care to look at the facts and not just listen to the fake media trying to take down our President.

Oh and Obama implemented the same ban on the same counties with absolutely no opposition, or letters from Apple. This has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with judicial overreach and the desire to destroy the balance of power in the Constitution on behalf of anti-American activists.

If Apple wants to be anti-american, then I think they should full well send another letter. It would tell us the true nature of Apple's leadership.

 

[Gutwrench]

The ban is to ban people that cannot be adequately vetted. The real facts are that we are letting in terrorists because we cannot determine with our current policies who are terrorists and who are not. The travel ban is temporary to allow the government time to get procedures in place to protect American's. Trump never said he hated muslims, he said he would stop muslim terrorists. A big difference if you care to look at the facts and not just listen to the fake media trying to take down our President.

But what do you think about Apple not being listed in the brief opposing the travel ban?

 

[nt5672]

But what do you think about Apple not being listed in the brief opposing the travel ban?

Don't know? Political positions based on fake news is completely beyond my ability to understand. Hopefully, Cook sees that he should focus on things that effect Apple, and should not be responding to fake news and other anti-American activities. He wants to stand up for unlimited immigration because that gives Apple cheap workers, I am fine that with as long the resulting policies do not allow terrorists to invade and kill hardworking American citizens.

 

[Rocketman]

I'm actually not - Trump wanted this ban throughout.

The original travel ban would give an allowance for Christians. This new travel ban dropped this.

So easy to conclude he wss targeting Muslims.

Nobody has enough time to correct all your errors and one-sided claims. Read what the judges actually did. A TRO. They disregarded all fact and law.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3518045/Download.pdf

 

[DougFNJ]

I'm an eternal optimist and thus my hope is that Trump will screw things up so horribly that his ideas, his style, his methods will be thoroughly discredited for a good while. The sooner he crashes and burns, the better for the nation and the world. Sometimes things have to get worse first for things to get better.

And there ya go. The hope that fellow Americans get the worse in life, things get worse means people get broke and homeless, many lose their jobs, companies go out of business, and hey maybe a few thousand people die as a cherry on top for you just so you can beat your chest and yell from your rooftop that you were right? I could tell your a really good person.

Thank God the total opposite just keeps proving people like you wrong over and over, he's brought jobs in even before he took office, companies are coming back which will bring even more jobs, the market continues to hit record highs despite what everyone predicted, and he is just getting started.

You may not know that though sitting in your parents basement on food stamps watching CNN all day while the world is happening around you. Why don't you just close your laptop for awhile and go back to your video games and let the adults talk about adult things now.

 

[DougFNJ]

So it's ok to let citizens in from our allies. Even though we have proof citizens from those countries have committed fatalities from terrorism on US soil? But for those countries who citizens have not, ban them?!?? Yeah, great logic there. .

So I guess you are saying we should have a total Muslim ban? Some people could mistake your statement as being racist, better be careful what you say or you'll offend people.

The Paris attacker had a fake passport. It has been reported this was a deliberate scheme by the Islamic state to drum up fear of refugees. Seems it worked.

Hmmm I guess it's that hardcore investigative reporting from those hard working news sources that throw the news out and then fix it along the way.

 

[2010mini]

The ban is to ban people that cannot be adequately vetted. The real facts are that we may be letting in terrorists because we cannot determine with our current policies who are terrorists and who are not. The travel ban is temporary to allow the government time to get procedures in place to protect American's. Trump never said he hated muslims, he said he would stop muslim terrorists. A big difference if you care to look at the facts and not just listen to the fake media trying to take down our President.

Oh and Obama implemented the same ban on the same counties with absolutely no opposition, or letters from Apple. This has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with judicial overreach and the desire to destroy the balance of power in the Constitution on behalf of anti-American activists.

If Apple wants to be anti-american, then I think they should full well send another letter. It would tell us the true nature of Apple's leadership.

First off, nowhere in my post did I allude to Trump hating Muslims. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I have stated. Second, Obama era ban was to slow down and put in place the vetting Trump is saying doesn't exist. We VET refugees. It is not a free for all.
[doublepost=1489711736][/doublepost]

So I guess you are saying we should have a total Muslim ban? Some people could mistake your statement as being racist, better be careful what you say or you'll offend people.



Hmmm I guess it's that hardcore investigative reporting from those hard working news sources that throw the news out and then fix it along the way.

I am saying IF you are going to ban. Ban travel from countries whose citizens have actually killed US citizens on US soil. THAT would be logical.

It wasn't "....hardcore investigative reporting..." that was from actual intelligence agencies here and in Europe.

No logic in the political section I see.....

 

[DougFNJ]

First off, nowhere in my post did I allude to Trump hating Muslims. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I have stated. Second, Obama era ban was to slow down and put in place the vetting Trump is saying doesn't exist. We VET refugees. It is not a free for all.

That vetting has been stellar, look at the amount of attacks we had on our soil under Obama. I particularly loved his long delayed responses that interrupted his golf games, vacations, and baseball games in Cuba. One small example of so many reasons he was so great.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

These are the countries that the Obama Administration felt were hotbeds for terrorist activities and this temporary ban is to make sure our screening process is not allowing dangerous people through.

America has some of the most stringent vetting on the planet already. And saying that Obama did something similar is not a get out of jail free card. I disagreed with a lot of things Obama did.

All of the countries on the ban list haven't attacked us. And yet Saudi Arabia is not on the list, even though the Saudis were behind 9/11.

 

[2010mini]

That vetting has been stellar, look at the amount of attacks we had on our soil under Obama. I particularly loved his long delayed responses that interrupted his golf games, vacations, and baseball games in Cuba. One small example of so many reasons he was so great.

The US has has an on going idiotic Middle East agenda for decades. It was idiotic under Obama. It was idiotic under Bush jr. It was idiotic under Clinton. It was idiotic under Bush Sr. it was idiotic under Reagan.... need I go on?

What Trump is proposing is to dial up idiocy ten levels.

But I get it. You brought up Obama because if I'm calling out Trump's stupidity. Then I must be for the "other side" right?

All presidents take vacations. The US Gov't does stop because they are playing golf or sipping a martini. That's the problem today, we expect the office of the president to be the King of The US. The president isn't "presidential" if he isn't seen on camera for every frigging event. Events that we have multiple departments to handle.

 

[Dekema2]

law supporting trump immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background. Despite what a random Hawaiian court says.

Iran is on the list. Iran is 99.4% Muslim.