i said all along that the way to beat the travel ban is to argue that it's ineffective in it's stated purpose, not that it discriminates due to religion. the president gets a lot of discretion; you have to basically prove he's acting irrationally, and so you must do so by taking his claim of needing the ban for national security seriously and then proceed to demonstrate that the ban does not in any way actually do this. they went after him with the wrong legal tactic last time and ultimately lost; this time, they're doing this right and should win.

they could stop the wall that way, too. again: if you want to challenge the president in court, you have to take what he says seriously to start off with. so, the wall is intended to stop migrants from entering without prior approval. a strong legal case can be made that this will not actually work, that it is in truth simply an irrational policy. the law can be struck down on review if you win this case. i'm not sure who gets standing in such a case, though.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-travel-ban-partially-lifted-1.4464042

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

this is consistent! sometimes, i wonder if this shadow government is actually a computer, because the surreality of the predictability defies common sense.

they take what is almost boolean logic past the point of human reason. is it game theory, then, perhaps?

if you want to understand what the shadow government is actually doing, it is easy - they leave a trail behind them. just look to where the establishment blames russia.

absolutely consistent; as though they want it documented, even.

https://www.rt.com/usa/413745-franken-resignation-russiagate-conspiracy/

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i have to admit that i was in favour of stricter guidelines for large dogs, but i can accept the criticism that any government's attempts to legislate this by targetting pit bulls, specifically, is likely to be ineffective. if what the new city council is suggesting is that they aim to broaden the restrictions not just to pit bulls but to all large dogs, then i would openly support that amendment.

my pushback was against the idea of abolishing measures taken to ensure that more safety precautions are taken around these animals, as i do think that they are needed. but, if the idea is to broaden them, i am in full agreement.

i guess what the previous city council did was kind of bureaucratic; it recognized that a problem with dogs exists, it looked at a list of statistics and it took specific action against the leading cause. that must have been meant as a first step, though, in order to ease in broader action - or reverse course in a public backlash.

it really seems as though the criticism, then, was that the law wasn't comprehensive enough, as it only focused on a specific breed. if so, that's a fair criticism - and the previous city council should probably recognize it as such.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-pit-bull-ban-1.4458038

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.