7 ms·

It's a 90 day travel ban. How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts? It'll be over before it goes to trial. I guess it could be ready if the ban is extended.

by melling 10y ago

infinitone 10y ago
You do realize it can become indefinite right? It is 90 days only if the countries share 'data' which the trump regime poorly defined. And its highly unlikely countries like Iran would accept that.
- nacs 10y ago
  Exactly, this is only the start of a very slippery slope. It'll start with this 90 day Muslim ban and devolve into something much longer and much worse.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "You do realize it can become indefinite right?" Legally, it could be, but politically, it probably won't. This temporary ban is political theatre. First - migrants from different parts of the world already face very different degrees of scrutiny - this has been ongoing for a very long time, certainly under Obama etc.. - so the issue of 'national discrimination' will hold up under legal pressure, I think. Second - the commenters point is pragmatically valid because this exec order is a political means for Trump to show that 'he's doing what he said he would do' and to give impetus to his base. That's mostly it. It's not a real operational measure. After 90 days, Trump will declare that 'we've made changes to the vetting process and have 'extreme vetting' (even though there was already 'extreme vetting' under Obama) - and this will be over. Caveat - your point about Iran is valid - but Iran is a very different country than the others, and is on the list for different reasons. I believe that stronger restrictions may be put in place for Iranian citizens after 90 days - this is the beginning of the 're-establishment' of a new Iran-USA relationship which will go in the opposite direction Obama had it going in, for better or worse. Probably worse, but hey. Remember that Trump promised to 'end' the deal that Obama made with Iran - and this ban is going to be part of Trump's 'negotiating process', if you can call it that. It may be worthwhile to legally challenge the order anyhow - for local political reasons (institutions and governments want to seem like they are 'doing something about this injustice) - but also to make sure that, as you say, this could go on for longer than 90 days - but I doubt that. Anyhow - it's important to look at this from a political perspective as much as a legal one, because the game that's being played is mostly political.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    No one is going to fix this without someone like Microsoft suing. The republican congress may defect from Trump eventually but it won't be to appear soft on terror.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "No one is going to fix this without someone like Microsoft suing" You could be right, but I'll bet $1000 that almost all of this is going to be legally moot in 90 days. Listen, I don't like Trump, but I think we have to sit outside the political game to see it clearly.
gpm 10y ago
They can (other suits already have in this case) win preliminary injunctions in a matter of days. So sure it'll be over before it goes to trial, but in the mean time the suit can still have a very positive effect. It would also establish precedent against a new ban of this sort being established.
geofft 10y ago
The ACLU and NILC got the stay of execution Saturday night, about 28 hours after the executive order was signed. I was one of the protestors outside the Brooklyn courthouse; NILC tweeted around 7 PM that they just heard they got a 7:30 PM court date, and wanted supporters. Not all the lawyers got there on time (and it took longer for the NYPD to realize they should have a presence) but the hearing happened. That was enough to stay execution for people who had already arrived in the US or were in transit at the time of the ruling. If Microsoft gets just a stay for future travelers within even a few weeks, that will be enough to allow them to continue business while fighting the legality of the order itself in the courts. I'd guess they can also seek penalties or restitution.
PopsiclePete 10y ago
Huge PR win, at the very least. "In what is a dark, and fascist time in Trump's America, brave companies like Microsoft and Amazon and standing up to the Orange Dictator in a brave cry for Freedom" and yadda yadda. Also, they want to make sure they don't lose out on any future prospects to the competition - can't have too many college grads deciding getting a green card in America isn't worth all the vitriol and hatred being spewed at you by the Administration and starting their own companies or going to the competition, I imagine.
hermitdev 10y ago
Good luck, Trump's executive order is perfectly legal within his delegated executive authority, whether you agree with it or not. The only point of contention is that it's Trump that originated the order instead of when Obama the same thing with Iraq for 3 months, and Clinton called for something similar during his 8 years. The countries that are currently (temporarily) banned are effectively failed states, lack an effective government, or are effectively hostile to the US, and lack the infrastructure or cooperation to provide proper background checks for entry into the US. Entry is a privilege, not a right. It is not a religious ban, and it's not a blanket ban. Most people so far delayed have been cleared for entry.
- oneplusone 10y ago
  They are not the same. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
- findK 10y ago
  You failed to see this is coming from Stephen Bannon and Jeff Sessions, both hate muslims. But then again.. so might you
- OxO4 10y ago
  Obama did not do the same thing [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...
  - hermitdev 10y ago
    Washington Post as an impartial fact-checker? Surely, you must be joking. WP has been pretty blazen in disregard in their "facts" during the election and have most blatantly been pushing an anti-Trump agenda under Bezos's guide. Obama most certainly did suspend or slow immigration from Iraq for a period, regardless of religion. Difference is Obama only did it for Iraq for 30 days, Trump has named 9 countries for the "ban" for 90 days, none of which is capable or willing to cooperate with background checks. All 9 countries are countries that were known to the Obama administration as either harboring or sponsoring terrorists. There is no religious test here. There is no racial test. Everyone wanting to the enter the US from these 9 countries are all subjected to the same scrutiny.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> It's a 90 day travel ban It's a 90 day ban on certain countries followed by an permanent ban by countries that don't meet as-yet-unspecified information sharing standards. Plus some other parts (like the complete refugee ban) with different timelines. > How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts? Pretty near instantly. > It'll be over before it goes to trial. Perhaps (or, more likely, the parameters and legal issues will shift before that happens), but that just means that getting a TRO pre-trial may be as good as prevailing at trial, as far as the initial 90 day ban policy is concerned.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > like the complete refugee ban "Complete" ban on any excess over 50,000 refugees within FY2017.

It's a 90 day travel ban. How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts? It'll be over before it goes to trial. I guess it could be ready if the ban is extended.

by melling 10y ago

It's a 90 day travel ban. How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts? It'll be over before it goes to trial. I guess it could be ready if the ban is extended.

infinitone 10y ago

You do realize it can become indefinite right? It is 90 days only if the countries share 'data' which the trump regime poorly defined. And its highly unlikely countries like Iran would accept that.

nacs 10y ago
Exactly, this is only the start of a very slippery slope. It'll start with this 90 day Muslim ban and devolve into something much longer and much worse.
edblarney 10y ago
"You do realize it can become indefinite right?" Legally, it could be, but politically, it probably won't. This temporary ban is political theatre. First - migrants from different parts of the world already face very different degrees of scrutiny - this has been ongoing for a very long time, certainly under Obama etc.. - so the issue of 'national discrimination' will hold up under legal pressure, I think. Second - the commenters point is pragmatically valid because this exec order is a political means for Trump to show that 'he's doing what he said he would do' and to give impetus to his base. That's mostly it. It's not a real operational measure. After 90 days, Trump will declare that 'we've made changes to the vetting process and have 'extreme vetting' (even though there was already 'extreme vetting' under Obama) - and this will be over. Caveat - your point about Iran is valid - but Iran is a very different country than the others, and is on the list for different reasons. I believe that stronger restrictions may be put in place for Iranian citizens after 90 days - this is the beginning of the 're-establishment' of a new Iran-USA relationship which will go in the opposite direction Obama had it going in, for better or worse. Probably worse, but hey. Remember that Trump promised to 'end' the deal that Obama made with Iran - and this ban is going to be part of Trump's 'negotiating process', if you can call it that. It may be worthwhile to legally challenge the order anyhow - for local political reasons (institutions and governments want to seem like they are 'doing something about this injustice) - but also to make sure that, as you say, this could go on for longer than 90 days - but I doubt that. Anyhow - it's important to look at this from a political perspective as much as a legal one, because the game that's being played is mostly political.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  No one is going to fix this without someone like Microsoft suing. The republican congress may defect from Trump eventually but it won't be to appear soft on terror.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "No one is going to fix this without someone like Microsoft suing" You could be right, but I'll bet $1000 that almost all of this is going to be legally moot in 90 days. Listen, I don't like Trump, but I think we have to sit outside the political game to see it clearly.

gpm 10y ago

They can (other suits already have in this case) win preliminary injunctions in a matter of days. So sure it'll be over before it goes to trial, but in the mean time the suit can still have a very positive effect. It would also establish precedent against a new ban of this sort being established.

geofft 10y ago

The ACLU and NILC got the stay of execution Saturday night, about 28 hours after the executive order was signed. I was one of the protestors outside the Brooklyn courthouse; NILC tweeted around 7 PM that they just heard they got a 7:30 PM court date, and wanted supporters. Not all the lawyers got there on time (and it took longer for the NYPD to realize they should have a presence) but the hearing happened. That was enough to stay execution for people who had already arrived in the US or were in transit at the time of the ruling. If Microsoft gets just a stay for future travelers within even a few weeks, that will be enough to allow them to continue business while fighting the legality of the order itself in the courts. I'd guess they can also seek penalties or restitution.

PopsiclePete 10y ago

Huge PR win, at the very least. "In what is a dark, and fascist time in Trump's America, brave companies like Microsoft and Amazon and standing up to the Orange Dictator in a brave cry for Freedom" and yadda yadda. Also, they want to make sure they don't lose out on any future prospects to the competition - can't have too many college grads deciding getting a green card in America isn't worth all the vitriol and hatred being spewed at you by the Administration and starting their own companies or going to the competition, I imagine.

hermitdev 10y ago

Good luck, Trump's executive order is perfectly legal within his delegated executive authority, whether you agree with it or not. The only point of contention is that it's Trump that originated the order instead of when Obama the same thing with Iraq for 3 months, and Clinton called for something similar during his 8 years. The countries that are currently (temporarily) banned are effectively failed states, lack an effective government, or are effectively hostile to the US, and lack the infrastructure or cooperation to provide proper background checks for entry into the US. Entry is a privilege, not a right. It is not a religious ban, and it's not a blanket ban. Most people so far delayed have been cleared for entry.

oneplusone 10y ago
They are not the same. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
findK 10y ago
You failed to see this is coming from Stephen Bannon and Jeff Sessions, both hate muslims. But then again.. so might you
OxO4 10y ago
Obama did not do the same thing [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...
- hermitdev 10y ago
  Washington Post as an impartial fact-checker? Surely, you must be joking. WP has been pretty blazen in disregard in their "facts" during the election and have most blatantly been pushing an anti-Trump agenda under Bezos's guide. Obama most certainly did suspend or slow immigration from Iraq for a period, regardless of religion. Difference is Obama only did it for Iraq for 30 days, Trump has named 9 countries for the "ban" for 90 days, none of which is capable or willing to cooperate with background checks. All 9 countries are countries that were known to the Obama administration as either harboring or sponsoring terrorists. There is no religious test here. There is no racial test. Everyone wanting to the enter the US from these 9 countries are all subjected to the same scrutiny.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> It's a 90 day travel ban It's a 90 day ban on certain countries followed by an permanent ban by countries that don't meet as-yet-unspecified information sharing standards. Plus some other parts (like the complete refugee ban) with different timelines. > How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts? Pretty near instantly. > It'll be over before it goes to trial. Perhaps (or, more likely, the parameters and legal issues will shift before that happens), but that just means that getting a TRO pre-trial may be as good as prevailing at trial, as far as the initial 90 day ban policy is concerned.

dingaling 10y ago
> like the complete refugee ban "Complete" ban on any excess over 50,000 refugees within FY2017.