Why question the legitimacy of the judge’s ruling on the basis of geography at all? That’s the problem with Sessions’ statement. He makes it sound as if the judge’s ruling was somehow less than binding and/or legitimate because of where the judge sits when he issued it. Surely you must see that?
He was just mouthing off. Arguing. Insisting that his viewpoint is correct. Lawyers get paid to do that. The guy who wins in court is the guy who “argues” the best for his case.
OK, I understand now.
I do think that there is in fact this perception that while Hawaii is technically as much part of the USA as Pennsylvania or Michigan, that it doesn’t *feel *as American as Pennsylvania or michigan.
It’s warmer, and you need a larger satellite dish.
We really don’t know what problem Sessions had with the court order. Was it because a judge could overturn the executive order or was it because he was sitting on island in the Pacific when he did it? Would it matter if it was an island in the Atlantic or if the judge was standing? Or perhaps just a boat in the Pacific? Maybe it was any judge and he always refers to the geographical location of people when he talks? It may be the latter because he’s probably used to demeaning the actions of anyone who isn’t from Alabama, but then again he didn’t say “…the President of the United States sitting at a resort in Florida…”.
That’s all speculation though. I think this is just another clever distraction so nobody figures out that Jeff Sessionsis actually this guy.
Should this perception be promoted by the Attorney General of the United States?
Then he can lay out reasons why the EO is constitutional and why the judge was incorrect in blocking it.
Instead, he went with argument from incredulity and ad hominem attack.
These tactics often work on the ignorant, but they are not good legal arguments.
On the other hand, if you are indeed correct that the guy who wins in court is the one that presents the best argument, then I do hope that he continues with this quality of legal analysis.
Which is what the OP was doing.
Which I said in post #2.
Well, there is a certain logic, if somewhat twisted, to what he was getting at. How much Islamic Terrorism has Hawai’i experienced? Someone living there has a different experience with that than someone living in DC. Not that I’m agreeing with him, but that’s what I think he’s getting at.
One of the reasons I filed for divorce was that I had to mortgage my late Mother’s house to pay of Mrs. Plant’s (v.2.0) credit card debt. Her attorney assured judge Gray that “Mr and Mrs Plant were enjoying their second home.”
Others have answered, but as the OP I’ll chime in - yeah, no one is angry over the nitpicky stuff, but they are offended by the dismissal of Hawaii as somehow not deserving of being part of the legitimate US judicial system because of its location. Hawaii’s status is a sensitive issue, since mainland Americans often don’t know much about it, and make absurd assumptions. (Case in point: when my extended family gathered in Hawaii to celebrate my in-laws 50th wedding anniversary, one of my then-teenage nieces asked me if they all wear grass skirts in Hawaii, and if they speak English.)
As for me, yes, I am being nitpicky (not angry, just nitpicky) over the reference to “an island.”
To try to explain my nitpickityness a little further, Sessions seems to have used “Hawaii” to mean “the island of Oahu” in his statement. But then Prior came in and, taking his words at face value, used “Hawaii” to mean “the island of Hawaii.” As Oahu and Hawaii are two distinct islands, the statements together can’t both be literally true.
The kindest way one can justify it all is to say it was rather sloppy synedoche, or … something.
Just imagine Prior had said that Sessions’ grandchild was born “on California.” Not a big deal, but you’d think, “good grief that’s weird…does he not understand what California is? We say ‘in’ a state, not ‘on’ a state.” This is roughly analogous to where I’m at on the matter.
.
To his credit(?), he expanded on his statement later.
“But I got to tell you – it’s a point worth making that a single sitting judge out of 600, 700 district judges can issue an order stopping a presidential executive order that I believe is fully constitutional, designed to protect the United States of America from terrorist attacks.”
He added, “I was just raising the point of that issue of a single judge taking such a dramatic action and the impact it can have.”
Still doesn’t make him any less of a jackass or any less dangerous to our democracy.
Again-This level of ignorance about how the system works from the Attorney General of the United States?
Well, not really. You’ve intentionally omitted the part where he says what amazes him is the judge can issue an order blocking the president from exercising “what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.” You can disagree with his opinion of the order (plenty of people do), but it’s disingenuous (at best) to suggest he’s rejecting checks and balances. He’s amazed that a judge can enter an order that exceeds the judge’s authority and is wrong. That shouldn’t be a controversial position.
But, even without the part you omitted, some years back another politician observed “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” You, no doubt, were concerned about the rejection of the system of checks and balances evinced by that statement (to say nothing of the odd historical ignorance). But, to me, it’s pretty much the same as the Sessions comment: the speaker thinks that a judicial ruling would be wrong.
I am not a fan of nationwide injunctions, so in that sense I’m biased. But i live in the Eastern District of Virginia. A federal judge of my district (sitting only a few miles from my house) refused to enjoin the immigration order because the plaintiff’s were not likely to prove that it was unconstitutional. What is the law in my district following that order? The order is enjoined. Why? Because a judge thousands of miles away disagreed. That sits funny with me.
That said, I have that problem whether the judge is Hawaii or Maryland (which also entered a similar ruling), and I tend to agree that the implication that Hawaii is different is problematic.
Daily Kos responded:
That’s how the justice system works, and you know it, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. You weren’t objecting too loudly when one judge sitting in Texas blocked then-President Obama’s order expanding overtime eligibility. Or when one judge sitting in Texas blocked Obama’s order requiring companies that wanted big federal contracts to disclose labor law violations. Or when one judge sitting in Texas blocked Obama’s rule allowing transgender students to use the bathroom in school. Shall. I. Go. On?
Nomanisan Island is where Mr. Incredible’s nemesis was hiding out.
Sweet.
There is absolutely no way Sessions can plausibly claim to be “amazed” in any way by this. He has been in law and politics for decades and this is exactly how it works. So either Sessions is lying in order to rule up a certain sector of the Republican base or he has recently been replaced by a doppelgänger from outer space.
Actually, I just got tired of typing, didn’t remember the entirety of the quote, and didn’t feel like scrolling up to either read and remember the rest or cut and paste it. I suppose that was intentional, intentional laziness, that is, but you seem to have read in a motive that did not exist. If I was dishonestly taking it out of context, like when Obama’s “You didn’t build that” was taken out of context, I would have ended with a period, not with an ellipsis.
I am aware that sessions feels that the judiciary has no right to put a check on Trump’s power, but I do disagree. If we want to go the whole quote, with his "designed to protect americans (I am paraphrasing, as I don’t feel like scrolling to get the quote exact), then that part of the claim is simply untrue.
First, the comment was not insulting and degrading to both a state and an entire branch of the government, but was instead a prediction by a highly qualified legal scholar who also happened to be president at the time. This was an argument from knowledge and experience, as opposed to session’s argument coming from incredulity and ad hominem.
In Obama’s case, you had the president making a prediction on how the courts would rule, in Session’s case, you had an AG indicating that the courts had no authority.
Second, how did that end up playing out? Was he right?
What about Lucy? I’ve heard that everyone loves that Isle of Lucy.
I cheerfully concede your right to invent meanings for any and all words you use to yourself. In my world, which I believe is much closer to the real one, the statement was accurate, but you’re free to believe any thing you like about the meaning of any words you wish.