Hey, there! Log in / Register
State allowed to join lawsuit over seven-country travel ban
By adamg on Thu, 02/02/2017 - 3:00pm
A federal judge today added Attorney General Maura Healey to a lawsuit filed by two UMass Dartmouth professors against the federal travel ban that left them detained for several hours at Logan Airport on Saturday.
In a request to be added to the suit, Healey's office wrote:
The Executive Order at issue compels the Commonwealth to engage in unlawful, unconstitutional and economically and socially destructive discrimination; it causes harm to the Commonwealth's economy by hampering the movement of people and ideas into the state and by discouraging internationally-linked activity in Massachusetts; and it affects the ability of thousands of immigrants, refugees, and asylees to travel to and from Massachusetts.
US District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton granted Healey's request.
Separately, Gorton agreed to a request by the Boston Globe to open the filings in the case to the public via the PACER online system. Filings in immigration cases are normally sealed and Gorton had earlier rejected a request by the two professors to give the public access.
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 The Globe's argument for making the documents public | 102.38 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
How does federal immigration
How does federal immigration policy "compel the Commonwealth to engage in unlawful, unconstitutional and economically and socially destructive discrimination."
How does the order compel the state to do anything?
Supremacy clause Article VI USC,
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The executive order carries the force of law.All are bound by the above the orders are null.
That explains absolutely
That explains absolutely nothing.
The travel ban is only enforced at the international border, which is controlled by the Federal government. It has indirect impact on the state (foreigners here on a student visa) but does not compel the state to do anything.
Thank you, Ms. Healey.
Glad to see some of the state's brass won't accept a slide into totalitarianism without a fight.
If Trumps EO is
If Trumps EO is "totaltarianism" they we've been under its grasp for decades...
So?
Just because each president since Washington has attempted to grab more and more power doesn't mean we should accept it.
There are huge differences with regard to respect of the rule of law between Trump, Obama, and Bush. Neither Obama nor Bush violated to constitution within their first week of office. Neither Bush nor Obama staffed their White House with people who openly want to destroy the foundation of the country.
I had a lot of problems with
I had a lot of problems with Cheney and the rest of the Bush crew, but at least you could say their self interest was tempered by an understanding that without a functioning nation, you can't continue to raid the pockets of the defense budget. And they were a bit more competent. This administration is of the BURN IT DOWN LOOT THE ASHES school of thought, which is unacceptable.
Except when they are the ones
Except when they are the ones doing it.
Retroactive to Obama, Carter?
This is the same Maura Healey who told women who were nervous to use the ladies room if a man were inside to "hold it." Can we expect a retroactive suit against Obama for blocking Cuban refugees last month or all Iraqi immigration in 2011? Or a suit against Jimmy Carter for blocking all immigration from Iran in 1979?
Lemme just hit 'compile'...
javac -nowarn The_Fish_Bot.java
java The_Fish_Bot
SECRET MUSLIM OBAMA HITLER JIMMY CARTER
[segmentation fault]
Well...
Some people do think that Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster.
Proof
It's true.
Name calling
Is the end game when you don't have a rational response.
Question to Adam about "thumbs up" icon
Would you clarify if someone is able to keep "voting" approval for his/her on comments. I really struggle to belief that the comments that Fish makes enjoy any appreciable support. Similarly, is it possible that a single poster is able to create multiple ID's for the purpose of making comments and/or voting approval of comments.
If I had to guess
I'd say that it's a combination of cranky regulars, and dedicated /r/the_donald-reading "old man yells at cloud" types who are trying to brigadier the comment system. That would also explain why there's no equivalent of a downvote button; the vote counts here are usually low enough that a dedicated squad of ~15 anonymous users on different IP addresses could bury any opinion that isn't on the Milo Yiannopoulis train.
Need different IP?
I've wondered if I've repeat-upvoted a couple of comments on my own, by clicking the thumbs up and then coming back a few hours later and forgetting that I've clicked it and clicked it again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's a fairly simple thing
That somebody who thinks he knows what he's doing could probably game pretty easily (it's based on cookies; ask the Globe or the Times how well cookie-based systems work to block people).
It's kind of a stupid thing to game, though. Voting a comment up a lot doesn't move the comment higher up on a page or get it in some "Most like comments" box or anything. But to Erik's point, the system does have a down-vote option, but I disabled that because even back in the day, I figured there was enough negativity on the site.
But since people are gaming the numbers, maybe it's time to just disable it.