She is always on point, but never more so than this morning.
I'll be off-grid for a bit -- so do follow her blog closely. Her thoughts almost always closely align with mine (but are usually far more succinctly, and cogently put -- than mine):
. . . .Not only did Trump’s Muslim ban not exclude Saudis (from where more terrorists have come to attack the US than any other country, with the possible exception of Pakistan), but the increased vetting he demanded did not apply to diplomatic visas like the one he came in on. . . .
I’m of the mind that the national security dragnet will not catch every potential terrorist. But in this case, Alshamrani succeeded precisely because Trump’s racist ban was focused not on efficacy, but on bigotry, exempting precisely those who posed the most risk.
This should be a focus of bipartisan hearings — and it should draw more focus than whether or not Trump can drink a glass of water. Not because we need more dragnets, but because we need existing vetting programs to be focused on the most dangerous threats. . . .
Indeed. And. . . separately, we expect major Supremes action next now on Thursday. . . but the court has 14 cases left to announce -- so they may drop in one or more unscheduled decision days yet this week. Onward, grinning.
नमस्ते
5 comments:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/michael-flynn-dismiss/index.html. how?
Just off the road now — and saw this.
Well, it seems the able USDC Judge Sullivan has entered a stay to the mandamus order, and his duly appointed amicus (retired Judge Gleeson) has entered a clarifying motion.
There is likely to be a motion for an en banc rehearing, at the DC appeals level. Then if a loss there, it goes to the Supremes (likely).
It is not likely that Judge Rao’s convoluted, ill-informed meandering hodgepodge of illogic will be the final word, in sum.
This likely ends up being decided by the Supremes — in limbo through November 2020 — and likely beyond.
Crazy times, indeed. . . Namaste, Anon.
Probably the only thing worthy of a close reading is. . . The dissent by Judge Wilkins, beginning on page 19:
https://anewmerckreviewed.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/document.pdf
The Rao opinion is. . . a small phrase “unrecognizable“ as anything other than brazenly ill-considered partisanship — cloaked in a black robe.
Onward.
thanks....travel safe (or welcome home).
Back in the Chi. . . after seeing (again) MLK's Memphis National Civil Rights Museum. . .
And only one opinion from the Supremes this morning means lots of opinions next on Monday. . .
And perhaps, even bleeding into July. . . 13 decisions still to go.
Namaste!
Post a Comment