Apple CEO Cook speaks out publicly against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’

“Apple Inc. has’t been particularly outspoken on President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, outside of sending an internal memo about it to employees that was later leaked to the press, but Tim Cook broke the seal on Wednesday,” Jennifer Booton reports for MarketWatch.

“The Apple chief executive told students in Scotland he’s against the Trump administration’s travel ban from seven Middle Eastern and African countries, though he stopped short of calling Apple an activist,” Booton reports. “‘I do not support the immigration ban,’ Cook said in a town hall meeting at the University of Glasgow, where he was honored Wednesday with an honorary degree.”

“Cook walked back the company’s role as an activist when pressed later by a student, saying he doesn’t view Apple or himself as an activist because the word tends to have a negative connotation,” Booton reports. “‘A lot of people hear that word and they think about sort of a professional activist. And that’s not we are, and that’s not what I am,’ he said.”

“Cook nevertheless expressed the importance of speaking up when necessary, and pointed as an example to the company’s role standing up to the FBI when it was pressed to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist who shot dead 14 people in 2015,” Booton reports. “Cook has taken a far more nuanced approach to the travel ban. Prior to Wednesday’s comments, Cook had only referenced the ban in an internal memo to employees a day after the order was signed…”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As always — but, regarding Apple, even more now — God forbid any Islamic terrorist attack takes place in the U.S. now, lest Apple et al. be blamed.

Some people have said that I shouldn’t get involved politically because probably half our customers are Republicans… so I’m going to just stay away from all that political stuff.Apple CEO Steve Jobs, August 25, 2004

SEE ALSO:
Apple joins fight against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 6, 2017
Apple, Google, others draft joint letter regarding President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 2, 2017
Apple mulls legal options against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’’ – February 1, 2017
President Donald Trump’s next immigration policy to target what Silicon Valley fears most – January 31, 2017
President Trump’s travel ban stirs little outcry beyond Silicon Valley – January 30, 2017
Tim Cook: Apple does not support President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – January 30, 2017
Tech industry frets over possible H-1B visa program changes under President Trump – January 28, 2017
President Trump eyes an H-1B visa aimed at ‘best and brightest’ – January 27, 2017
Silicon Valley uncertain after Donald Trump wins U.S. presidency – November 10, 2016
Silicon Valley donated 60 times more to Clinton than to Trump – November 7, 2016
99% of Silicon Valley’s political dollars are going to Hillary Clinton – October 25, 2016

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

175 Comments

    1. Agreed Vince – Tim has said enough and we all support his remarks on this very important issue – now get back to acting like a CEO and stay focused – I’m starting to agree that Tim should be replaced at Apple – he is way too easily distracted and is showing in his execution !!

      1. No, we all most certainly do not support Cook’s remarks on this issue. Cook is trying to save his H1-B slaves, that’s what Cook is trying to do, by conflating this issue with what’s coming next in order to confuse the easily- or perpetually-confused.

        For Silicon Valley and Apple’s Tim Cook, it’s all about H-1B visas and cheap labor.

        American companies and their shareholders, in general, want skilled labor as CHEAPLY as possible. That’s a main reason why Tim Cook, Apple and other tech firms backed the loser Clinton – they wanted unlimited H-1Bs to continue, so they can pay Ajeet from India half what they’d have to pay Tom from Tulsa who can’t find a job after graduating from college and has to live in his parents basement because Apple got Ajeet from India to do it on the CHEAP.

        H1-B visas for skilled workers DO NOT EQUAL uneducated illegal aliens streaming across the southern border intent on cashing in on American taxpayer’s largesse while setting up shop in the domestic drug trade and/or other crimes (gangs, rape, robbery, etc.).

        Trump is for upholding the laws already on the books designed to protect our borders and our nation’s sovereignty.

        The Trump campaign’s policy:

        Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program’s lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

        Requirement to hire American workers first. Too many visas, like the H-1B, have no such requirement. In the year 2015, with 92 million Americans outside the workforce and incomes collapsing, we need companies to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed. Petitions for workers should be mailed to the unemployment office, not USCIS.

        End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.

        Jobs program for inner city youth. The J-1 visa jobs program for foreign youth will be terminated and replaced with a resume bank for inner city youth provided to all corporate subscribers to the J-1 visa program.

        Refugee program for American children. Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses. Use the monies saved on expensive refugee programs to help place American children without parents in safer homes and communities, and to improve community safety in high crime neighborhoods in the United States.

        Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women’s plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.

        1. Fwhatever, you should stop repeating your posts. I have seen this one a dozen times by now. The fact is that Donnie is acting like a damn dictator and you are praising him for stuff for which you castigated Obama. Trump failed to prepare the agencies to deal with his unilateral ban and he has failed to prove that immediate action was necessary at all. He could have worked the improvements to the vetting processes and phased them in when he was ready. Instead, he went for the dictator drama. How you do something is often as important as what you do.

          1. 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

            Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

            Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

            1. Try responding to what he said – Trump is doing stuff for which you spent the last eight years ripping the crap out of Obama for doing. In fact, Trump is doing more of it than Obama ever did. You and most like you ranted, raged and raved about Obama’s use of executive powers. You labeled him a dictator, a fake King, lawless, a traitor and far worse. You care little about Democracy (which is the system our government uses to run the federal government versus how elect our president) and find the above behavior perfectly acceptable so long as it is in pursuit of your ideological goals.

              As most everyone with a brain already knew, there is no difference between the two political schools. Each side just likes different sauce on their pile of poop. However, your side is much more willing to through democracy out the window in pursuit of its goals and social agenda.

              You copy and paste made be accurate, but the courts obviously have determined that the underlying reasons for the band do not fall within his permissible powers. So quote away and leave the underlying facts out so you can irrefutably make you case.
              Those you oppose will continue to fight and oppose exactly as they should. THAT is what America and its freedom is really about. Trump is proving we must preserve and protect the 2nd Amendment at all costs since it is our only means of protection from government run amok.

              You are no idiot, but you certainly are a bully who thinks he can use his articulative skills to crush those he disagrees with. You aren’t remotely close to Botty’s level. In fatc, you just come across like a Botty groupie who needs a great deal of training.

            2. Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by President Trump’s Vetting Order

              The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

              Somalia: 20
              Yemen: 19
              Iraq: 19
              Syria: 7
              Iran: 4
              Libya: 2
              Sudan: 1
              Total: 72

              According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

              Source: The Center for Immigration Studies, February 11, 2017

        2. I wanted to let everyone know that botty has come out of the closet. According to his own words (I quote them directly):

          “I’m Anastasia, Lost Princess of Czar Nicholas II.” — botty

          Yet another Russian connection…

      1. Moron,

        You do know that the Ninth Circus isn’t the end of the road, don’t you? The Democrats better PRAY that nothing happens during this illegal, obstructionist idiocy.

          1. Your name is very true, so I’ll lay it out clearly for the amateurs and the terminally stupid:

            1. Invoke the “Nuclear Option”
            2. Gorsuch confirmed (thanks, Dingy Harry!)
            3. Even if Supreme Court splits on party lines (which they shouldn’t as the law clearly supports the President), the ban is reinstated 5-4
            4. The Democrats have no power whatsoever to stop anything and, best of all, it’s all their fault
            5. Trumped.

            1. Except Gorsuch wouldn’t be confirmed in time for the court to take this up for this session. So it will be a 4-4 ruling at best, hence the lower court stands. And as I stated below, with the article 2 & 3 implications, it’s entirely possible that Roberts and Kennedy will join the 4 left leaning justices as they have on quite a few cases last several years. Also, Alito could easily rule against it because of enumerated powers… learn the law. If the law clearly sided with the president as you seem to think, then the right leaning judge on the 9th circuit would have ruled in the governments favor, and during the arguments the other night he was very hard on the Washington state solicitor general, but in the end he stated that the government already has sufficient rules in place, and couldn’t find undue burden or harm on the government.

            2. No, the EO was for 90 days. And a new justice would not be allowed to rule on a case brought during their confirmation period, as it would be deemed prejudicial. Gorsuch wouldn’t be allowed to rule on the case until the next calendar which begins in September. Assuming the government wants this resolved quickly, by doubling down on the national security argument by definition it must be brought before the EO expires and the new justice takes their seat.

            3. Correct, however then it will be challenged again, and defeated on prejudicial and intent grounds. If it’s defeated in court, then the legislative body has to enact a law in accordance with the constitution. This isn’t that difficult to understand.

            4. Republicans aren’t go to go nuclear just to support an EO that many of them have issues with.

              Gorsuch will be confirmed without going nuclear, but it will take a while.

              It will also take a while for SCOTUS to hear the case (if they even do).

              This will raise the question of “If this is a temporary ban until a better vetting system can be put in place, then what progress have you made to date in developing such a system” and we know what the answer to that will be.

              Also, the case really hinges on standing given Robert’s history and that he’s the one who the case will first go to after D9. If there’s standing, Roberts is going against the ban, and it won’t matter even if Gorsuch was immediately confirmed.

            5. Exactly. What screening system do they have in mind?

              Many of us have seen the movie “Selma.” There is a scene when a black woman tries to register and comes up against a so-called literacy test that was intentionally impossible to pass (“Name all 57 county judges in Alabama”).

              The only screening system for immigrants that would be significantly more effective than the one already in place is just like that—it will eliminate virtually everyone from entry.

              That is, to all intents and purposes, a ban on immigration from those seven countries (and, remember, on refugees from any country). If that flies, the Administration can add another seven countries, then add even more until only Northern Europeans are eligible for entry.

              I suppose that those of you who are under 60 or so can’t remember the society portrayed in “Selma.” Reproducing it will not Make America Great Again. As it happens, most Federal judges do have either a memory or a sense of history.

              If I looked hard enough, I bet I could find a quote from some political figure in Alabama or Mississippi in 1965 to the effect of “It isn’t a ban on Negro voters. It is simply a temporary pause to allow us to develop procedures so that only Negros who truly accept our values will be allowed the privilege of the ballot.”

            6. Yes, yes and yes again. I’ll repeat what KMel said above:

              1. Trump failed to prepare the agencies to deal with his unilateral ban
              2. He failed to prove that immediate action was necessary

              You guys who think that Gorsuch will swing a SCOTUS ruling in Trump’s favor may have your hopes misplaced.

              Trump is better off going back and devising a new better thought out plan. Otherwise, it’ll just be a sad continuation of the amature show.

            7. If the GOP invokes the so-called “nuclear option” then they had best be prepared for mutually assured destruction. Because I and many others are tired of the GOP’s dictatorial practices. You did it with Bushie and now you are doing it with Donnie. And we are not going to put up with your bully tactics. The GOP has been pushing this country towards anarchy and widespread rebellion since 2000.

            8. “And we are not going to put up with your bully tactics…”

              So, what are you gonna do about it, Melvin? Your team has lost The White House, The Senate, The House, The Supreme Court, The Governorships and The State Houses…you have no power at all.

              The only thing you have left is Sorosian mercenary thugs destroying property, blocking traffic and attacking innocent people so they can get on “The News” every night for the sheep.

              You got nothin’, Melvin, you’re impotent.

            9. You might want to iCal this as the date that botvinnik first threatened to use armed force to suppress the exercise of the First Amendment. My guess is that it will not be the last.

        1. Sure, Registered Voter. Just like your hero Donnie you want to be certain to redirect blame before something happens. Guess what…Donnie is President now and absolutely everything bad is his fault. Yep…you reap what you fscking sow, and you sowed it deeply for eight years. Karma is a bitch.

          1. Actually, something has happened: a mosque shot up in Quebec City and another burned down in Victoria, Texas. Where is all the outrage from the White House and MDN about those acts of terrorism?

            The horrible thing is that when there is another outrage by a home-grown US-citizen lone wolf who has been radicalized into taking sides against the Trump Crusade, the Crusaders will claim that it could have been stopped with this crazy irrational ban on allowing people who have already received “extreme vetting” into the country. That wouldn’t be true, but as another government official once observed, “What is truth?”

      2. This whole thing is silly and being blown out of proportion by the media and the dems who can’t handle they lost an election. This ban is only on 7 Muslim countries, so it is not a Muslim ban, only the ones where there is a risk of terrorism. 2nd this list of countries came from the Obama administration, does the shame stream media ever report that? And president Obama limited travel 6 times during his time as president, does the media report that? President Obama, Bush and Clinton all did this at one time or another when they were President, this is so much ado about nothing.

        1. none of this is actually correct. The list wasn’t by Obama; it was by the congress, during Obama’s time. His choice was to veto it, in which case all the conservatives would have jumped at his throat for “endangering the security of the country”.

          None of those other presidents signed executive orders to ban travel into US. They went through the congress.

            1. You are incorrect and pedrag is correct. Newsmax is not a credible source for any information, and should not be treated as such. These are the “Obama is a gay Muslim” people… you can believe whatever you like, it doesn’t make it true. Here are the facts of the situation

              There are very significant differences between the 2011 restrictions and the 2017 executive order.

              The most important is that 2011 was a increased vetting and not an actual ban. Refugees continued to arrive and be processed throughout the period. References here and in this question.

              There are other significant differences also:

              The 2011 restrictions applied only to one kind of immigration – refugee claimants. The 2017 order applied to almost all kinds of visitors and immigrants – tourists, business visitors, family visitors, work visas, permanent residents.
              The 2011 restrictions was to visas in progress – i.e. those who had not yet been approved for their visas. The 2017 order prevented even those whose visas had already been approved from entering.
              The 2011 restrictions did not apply to those legally resident in the US. The 2017 order prevented even those legally resident in the US and who happened to be visiting abroad from returning, in some cases separating them from their families.
              The 2011 restrictions did not affect those with dual nationalities that would normally be permitted to visit the US. The 2017 order prevented even those legally allowed to visit the US without a visa if they happened to also hold the nationality of a banned country.
              The 2011 restrictions was in response to specific intelligence information specific to one country. The 2017 order has claimed no such specific information.

        1. You’re are so scared and afraid it’s pathetic, girly boy and you call the alternatives snowflakes….?? Hahahahah…
          The terorists are gonnna get you daughter and wife and the sky is falling…..run you little maniac, run!

        2. Your neighbor might already be a christian-white power-ultra nationalist ready to go off to his college and kill 20-30 young people with his legally bought machine-guns… Are you aware of it? The greatest danger is ALREADY living in America!

    2. Ok Tim, you keep blabbering away. WHY are you against the order…

      Oh right, you’re not in the business of public service, have effectively no security clearance, and couldn’t possibly know much of the ongoing national security threats to the US.

      Just shut up already and focus on Apple.

      1. You do understand, I suppose, that Apple is a multinational corporation that is profoundly affected by the immigration and trade policies of not only the United States, but of all the other countries where it does business. Their business depends on the ability to move components and finished products across borders without punitive tariffs or regulations, and the ability to hire the best-qualified applicants for jobs and deploy them wherever they are needed. It is not a corner store that can survive while only hiring American workers, buying only American inventory, and selling only to Americans.

        The Administration’s immigration and trade policies directly affect the company, which makes it the business of the company’s CEO. Don’t assume he is ignorant about any of the matters you mention just because he has not reached the same policy choices that you would make. When you run one of the largest companies in the world, you can do what you like.

    3. The simple fact is that none of the seven countries have produced countries that have killed Americans, while other countries that actually do are not on his list.
      So the whole thing is insanely stupid and incompetent.
      Or is it as straightforward as the fact that he has hotels in Saudi Arabia and the other terrorist producing countries?

        1. We’ll see, son.

          Just like you thought Hillary would coast to victory, you have no understanding of the reality of the situation.

          In the meantime, before the Supreme Court overturns this lastes ninth circus travesty, you Dem/Lib/Progs should pray that nothing happens or you’ll never even be able to get elected Dog Catcher.

          1. Not that I’m advocating this, but if DHS simply “missed” a major terrorist attack on San Francisco during this legally-baseless stupidity by left-wing activist judges, it would take care of a couple of problems the U.S. faces: Take out a bunch of anti-American leftist nutjobs and also guarantee the end of the Democrat Party forever in one fell swoop. Again, Not that I’m advocating this, of course. 🙂

            1. Your suggestion is chilling, “Innocent Bystander,” because I could see the GOP employing that very tactic. You do understand that we are all U.S. citizens and that we have the same rights as you under the Constitution that you like to thump (when it suits you).

              Honestly, you are pathetic scum.

            1. A few years ago, Pete Sampras beat Joseph Schmoe in a professional tennis match 3 sets to 1.

              Set 1: Sampras won 6 games to 5
              Set 2: Schmoe won 6-0
              Set 3: Sampras won 6 games to 5
              Set 4: Sampras won 6 games to 5

              After the fact, Schmoe fans like “breeze” and “applecynic” ran around claiming that Joe Schmoe won because he won 21 games to Sampras’ 18.

              For the Dem/Lib/Prog fools: Set 2 = California, where Sampras simply conserved energy and did not bother to compete because it was not necessary to win the match.

            2. Does not change the FACT that he received almost 3 million fewer votes than his opponent and that 54%, of those that voted, voted against him.

              Yes, he was duly elected as per the Constitution in the Electoral College, but this is not a mandate except in his and his followers minds.

              The distinction stands. He’s an Electoral President only, no majority, no plurality, just the EC and that’s a sufficient asterisk. 1 of 5!

              I truly hope he runs in 4 years. One way or another.

            3. One more time: In California, candidate Trump simply conserved energy and did not bother to compete because it was not necessary to win the match.

              As for electoral votes, President Trump won 304 vs. 227 for the loser. President Trump won 29% more electoral votes than the loser, an exceedingly clear mandate, even before you factor in that voters also handed President Trump’s party control of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and the future of the U.S. Supreme Court for decades.

            4. Not only one more time, as many as it takes.

              Yes, the EC elects the President. There is NOT a 1 to 1 correspondence between the EC and the voter because the vast majority are winner take all in delegates. So, being I know that you’re intelligent, I can only conclude that you’re dishonest by quoting ridiculous and meaningless figures such as EC majorities.

              Meanwhile you keep quoting about California:

              CT Clinton 54.57% Trump 40.93%
              NY Clinton 58.4% Trump 36.15% (His home state)
              NJ Clinton 54.99% Trump 41.00%
              Mass Clinton 60.01% Trump 32.81%
              Ill Clinton 55.83% Trump 38.76%

              To go along with my hero…
              CA Clinton 61.73% Trump 31.62%

              Real people real votes. Are you going to dismiss these states from the Union too?

              You’re not fooling anyone!

            5. Not to pile on too much, but dude, your argument is nonsense and you know it. Clinton didn’t campaign in California either and she killed him there. He lost his own home manhattan voting precint by 91-9. As a New Yorker, I’d like to explain to you why that is…. (I have said this to you before)

              We know the man, we know how many times he’s run companies into the ground, and what a loudmouth bombastic piece of trash he is. We’re sick of his nonsense, and if we could kick him the fuck out we would. Anyone who spends any time with him feels the same unless they are as insane as he is. He is exhausting, he is petulant, he’s a cry baby, he’s a silver spooned moron who barley got out of Penn with a C average, didn’t actually graduate from Wharton (he took two classes there), he is a massive liar about literally everything. Sure he’s entertaining in small doses, but that’s it. He is a con artist who inherited 200 million dollars, or 40 in 1972 money, has never been able to sustain a business without help from his father or fathers friends, the genovese family or various other criminal enablers like Roy Cohn… and he hits women, a lot. There are countless page six stories about his abuse of wives and various female companions. His nonsense about never doing drugs is also bullshit. In the late 80’s to mid 90’s when he owned the plaza hotel, he used to block off the top floor for days long coke filled binges with hookers and underage girls. He raped at least a dozen women of age, and a 14 year old in 1993. He is scum.

              All of the fantasy land bullshit you believe about basically anyone on the other side of the aisle, he’s actually done this shit.

              That’s why he lost as bad as he did in the city, not policy, all of that. You can believe what you want, but you’re a moron for believing anything this assclown Joffrey says.

          2. Considering it was 3-0 ruling with even the conservative judge on the court, a bush appointee, ruling against it your argument doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on. If taken to the Supreme Court, and it goes 4-4, then the existing ruling stands. But I suspect that Roberts, and Kennedy will join Kagen, Ginsburg, Sotomeyor, and Breyer. And given the article 2 & 3 implications Alito might join as well. The issue at hand is that the government doesn’t really have a solid argument given the process involved, and the sloppiness of the policy. Also, you do understand that our court system has its own checks and balances yes? Where the 9th circuit is left of center, the 11th is right of center. Do you understand the separation of powers, and the concepts of the constitution? If the governemnt gets smacked down in court, that’s the end of it. Have congress write a law with bipartisan consent which addresses the issue, like it’s supposed to work. I have a sneaking suspicion that if this were the previous president, you’d be cheering this ruling and calling him some sort of racial epithet in process. Either learn how the governemnt works, learn to accept court rulings whether you like them or not, or stop providing options that are clearly not your own or based on any factual understanding of civic construction or legal knowledge.

            1. Just because you don’t have the intellectual capacity to argue my points since you don’t understand the law or the government, doesn’t mean you dismiss it. You need to immerse yourself in the constitution and actually study. Yet again you revert to bullying language instead of actually knowing enough to properly debate like an adult.

            2. Do you know how many votes it would take in congress to do that? It would require a constitutional amendment to change article 3. Which would require a 2/3 vote in both houses and ratification by 2/3 of the states. And could still be challenged in court to the Supreme Court, which most definitely over turn it, for being unconstitutional. Article 3 states:

              The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at Stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

              This does not give the president or the congress the ability to disband the court, only establish. The president also cannot remove or fire justices for any reason except for high crimes and misdemeanors like treason, and that is handled by congress. They are life time appointments for a reason, to be as a political as possible. As a conservative which you surely identify yourself, you must by definition take a literalist or originalist view of the constitution, therefore it’s not a living document by your own ideology, which would make you a liberal by definition (who generally believe that constitution is a living document). But if you’re simply suggesting that you didn’t get your way and the president should be able to do whatever he/she wants because you agree with said president, and the president should have complete power? That by definition is authoritarian thinking and action, which you once again have demonstrated that you identify with.

            3. Memes involving photoshop are not evidence, nor is it relevant to the discussion. To use my son’s language… you’re a tool. And again you lack any basic understanding of the law, so you have to resort to sophomoric stunts.

            4. You learned to use google, good for you. I doubt you understand what that provision means, or that it doesn’t overrule article 3. Also none of these judges did anything wrong which would necessitate a complaint, no prosecutor would bring a case. Disagreeing with a ruling is not the same thing as malfeasance or as you put it a “rogue” court. Again, the purpose of the courts is to be independent of the other branches, and there is an appeals process. If it gets to the us Supreme Court and is deemed to have standing by the Chief Justice in this case (as correctly pointed out above by kevicosuave) , then they take the case and rule. But if no standing then the decision of the lower court stands. You can’t file a complaint against a justice becaus toy don’t like their decisions, that’s not a valid use of the provision you cited nor would it even pass a cursory exam by a first year law student.

            5. I’d like to point out your fundamental misunderstanding of how the circuit courts work, but I simply don’t have enough space to write it all here. So I will attach the study conducted by the American bar association explaining how incorrect your analysis is if you can understand it. And how you don’t seem to look past surface statistics and how they’re being massaged to sway your deluded and misinformed opinion:

              http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

            6. Multiple people live in my house, including my 27 year old son. I am not much of a tech person but as I understand it individual device ip adresses aren’t visible, only the connections ip. I will gladly attach a map of my location for you. We also subscribe to tunnel bear, so I’m not sure how that would effect it. It still remains you’re incapable of defending anything with information.

            7. An independent judiciary is the foundation of our republic and western rule of law to begin with, when you start trying to mess with that, regardless of your leanings, it upends the apple cart. This goes all the way back to Magna Carta, and any time in history when the judiciary does not act independently of a sovereign or elected leader, an authoritarian state emerges. Representative democracy (constitutional republic) is messy, but it’s the best form of government that we’ve devised. When you don’t get your way, you don’t whine about it and act out by calling out judges, or wishing for people in San Fransico to be killed as some of you have insanely suggested, you accept the ruling and take it to the highest appeal you can, then if they say no? Write some legislation with both parties involved that addresses the problem without the same issues, then if that’s upheld in court you’re good to go.

            8. “The point is that the judiciary enjoys this power at the executive branch’s pleasure. As soon as the latter says, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, “The courts have made their decision; now let them enforce it,” that power goes bye-bye. The judiciary is reminded of its impotence.

              So it isn’t just that the courts lack the sword or purse, the possession and exercise of which could simply amount to might making right. They also have no constitutional claim to judicial supremacy. In fact, the power is a violation of everything for which America stands.

              Jefferson explained why in 1820, writing that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” This is where we are now, and have long been – suicide-pact territory.”

            9. You are seeing it on this forum. The radical GOP elements and radical Trump supporters want to destroy the basic fabric of this country (and utterly violate the Consitution) by killing the free press and manipulating the judiciary.

              Since when is disagreeing with the President ‘malfeasance,’ botty? Only when that POTUS is Dictator Donnie.

              Against my better judgment I hoped that Donnie would rise above his crassness. But he has made it clear that he is even worse than his election persona.

              Not My President. Not when he is acting like this. Now he is bullying Nordstroms and Conway is illegally promoting Ivank’s business…just like we expected.

            10. Where in the United States Constitution is it suggested that the Executive Branch is supreme over the other two branches? The judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be lawfully created. The judges of the Article III courts hold office for life (barring impeachment)

              Judicial power is not vested in the President. He cannot decide contested cases. He cannot remove judges because he disagrees with them. He cannot disobey them, consistent with his oath to uphold the Constitution. Sure, he can quote Andrew Jackson and act like a dictator, but not for long in the face of an aroused citizenry.

              You may disagree with the notion that the President is not vested with the sole sovereign power of the United States. Tough. You may disagree with the idea of judicial review, but that has been the law of the land for over 200 years. Absent a revolution or coup d’etat, it will continue to be the law of the land long after you and I are both dead.

            11. I pointed this out to him, quoted article three and explained how it actually works. He then started calling me a fake American citizen which I do not understand and some word draghead. He is diminished intellectually and doesn’t know how to support arguments because on some level he has to know that he’s incorrect. He then posted some crazy bill a legislator proposed to disband the circuit court in question. Legislators can propose anything they want, the president can sign anything he or she wants, it doesn’t mean the Supreme Court or any court challenge would uphold it. And in that case it most certainly would knock it down.

            12. 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

              Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

              Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

            13. That is an increibly misleading use of that information, and also reinforces that you do not understand how article 3 works. Yes, Jefferson and Adams had a fundamental disagreement over the alien and sedition acts, when Jefferson won he did what a majority (that is a very important distinction) of the population wanted. Secondly, the president cannot remove any federal judge without complete impeachment proceedings in the house and conviction by ⅔ of the senate. Here is the entire history of judge Pickerings impeachment proceedings:

              On February 4, 1803, the House received a report from President Jefferson regarding the conduct of Judge Pickering of the District of New Hampshire.[5] A select committee was appointed to investigate the matter and submitted its report to the House on February 18.[6] On March 2, the House passed a resolution impeaching Judge Pickering.[7]

              On October 20, the House appointed a select committee to draft articles of impeachment. 13 Annals of Cong. 380 (1803). The select committee submitted four articles of impeachment to the House on December 27,[8] and on December 30, articles were formally adopted.[9]

              The Senate began the impeachment trial against Judge Pickering on January 4, 1804.[10] On March 12, 1804, the Senate convicted Judge Pickering on all four articles and removed him from office.[11]

              You continue to demonstrate a complete lack of historical and legal knowledge with regards to how the constitution functions. And don’t seem to know that the president is limited legally and not above either congressional or judicial review.

            14. And here is Samuel Chase, which you cite, which had the effect of reaffirming the independence of the judiciary. I can’t understand why you would reference something that destroys your argument?

              On January 5, 1804, a resolution was introduced appointing a select committee to investigate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.[12] The resolution was approved on January 7, 1804.[13] The select committee recommended impeachment in a report submitted to the House on March 6, 1804. Id. at 1093. On March 13, 1804, the report was approved and a select committee was appointed to draft the impeachment articles.[14]

              The House adopted the select committee’s eight articles on March 26, 1804,[15] one of which involved Chase’s handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase’s adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed to his “intemperate and inflammatory … peculiarly indecent and unbecoming … highly unwarrantable … highly indecent” remarks while “charging” or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. The Democratic-Republican-controlled United States Senate began the impeachment trial of Chase in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding.

              All the counts involved Chase’s work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. (In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century.) The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase’s defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Democratic-Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

              The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805, and he returned to his duties on the court. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.[16]

              The acquittal of Chase — by lopsided margins on several of the counts — is believed to have helped ensure that an independent federal judiciary would survive partisan challenge. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book, Grand Inquests, some people expressed opinions at the time of Chase’s trial that the Senate had absolute latitude in convicting a jurist it found unfit, but the acquittal set an unofficial precedent that judges would not be impeached based on their performance on the bench. All judges impeached since Chase have been accused of outright criminality.

            15. Because in the United States, we practice a common law system which traces its roots to the Middle Ages i. England, specifically 1215 with the introduction of Magna Carta. Case law is the more correct term as it is more commonly referred to, and how most would understand it.

              Western law is based in roman law, hence the us le of Latin for conceptual terms and basic rights, but common law traces to the Magna Carta.

            16. So, Trump will just sign a new order, differently written, that does the SAME THING, or STRONGER.

              The Democrats just pounded the final nail in their coffin.

            17. That’s a completely irrelevant set of words, regardless of who is in control of the legislative and executive branch, the system is in charge of them. It’s the system of government that keeps everything in check, i.e. The constitution of the United States. Checks and balances. The founders didn’t want a king, or an autocrat, they wanted collaboration. The judicial branch is controlled by no one except itself, judges may have ideologies, but quite often rule against their political affiliation as evidence by the conservative judge on the 9th circuit. Article 3. Learn it.

            18. Born in Madison Wisconsin 1955, attended Ohio State university, then Yale law. Practicing attorney for 34 years, prosecutor for 10, defense 24. Parents from Minnesota and Iowa respectively. I’m as American as Apple pie and baseball. Raised Protestant, wife is From Virginia. Love the Green Bay packers, and I do wear a cheese head on game day.

            19. Seeing as how you are incapable of refuting anything I’ve said or demonstrated with any understanding of the law, or the English language. you could very well believe you’re Anastasia since you have a diminished enough intellectual capacity to not be firing on all cylinders, or in other worlds: deluded magical thinking which is a trait shared by most narcissists and mentally ill adults which you continue to demonstrate that you are. Maybe some risperdal would help you.

            20. Can someone explain to me what draghead means? I assumed he was referring to cheese head, but I am at a loss. Is this slang here? Or is this person even worse than I gleaned from my brief interaction.

            21. Then you’ll get into the issue of intent. That and possession are 9/10 of the law to start with, since he’s made public comments saying he wanted to ban muslims, and his top advisor said as recently as January 28th, 2017 that “he came to me and asked how to do it legally”, it shows clear intent of a discriminatory practice with the absence of a threat, given that the government already has enhanced measures in place. No matter what new EO he signs, unless it is explicitly worded and devoid of the same rhetoric attached to it, it will suffer from the same initial problem and there’s also precedent to consider.

            22. I step away for one day, and all hell breaks loose! Packer fan, I have a feeling that our resident lunatic (botvinnik) has been confusing you with someone else, and the presumably derogatory epithet he’s been using at you was in his misguided belief that I had somehow been posting under a pseudonym…

              You make articulate, reasonable, respectful, intelligent and well-argued points everywhere. So far, I have yet to see ANYTHING from botvinnik (as well as the other guy, F14T16) that holds any water at all.

              It is quite difficult to argue anything with verifiable facts, if your only source information is alt-right….

            23. Thank you for the explanation, and now I see where the anagram comes from. I still don’t understand the fake American issue nor does he not know how to read an IP address properly, or know that VPN’s exist.

            24. I have been engaging him for a while over the past months. At one point, I made it clear that I’m not an American (no horse in his political race), which he often likes to invoke when he has nothing to argue with (which is often, as you may have noticed yesterday).

              I don’t think he even comprehended your explanations about IP address or VPN…

            25. This thread is f’ing hilarious. I’ve been on vacation the past 6 days and come back to read this insane nonsense. Pedrag, as always, excellent work. I buttressed your argument above with someone who quoted newsmax. Packer fan, pay no attention to botvinnick, he is incapable of having a rational discussion and when even when he’s proven wrong, repeadetly, he will never admit it. He’I’ll simply change the subject, cherry pick some quote he doesn’t understand, or dent he ever said it if it’s something he actually said.

              I will say this for him though, he has never called me a gay slur or any derogatory term like other hateful people on here have. (I am a gay man) other than idiot, which he uses when he’s got little else to argue with, he’s relatively fun to jab with on occasion when he’s on his meds. All that being said, there’s no point trying to present factual information to him, because he will dismiss it. He’s either messing with everyone, which would be plausible and he does do that on occasion , or he’s just not as bright as he thinks he is. Either way take his name calling as a badge of honor, once you’ve gotten him to that point your other sensible people will back you up. Don’t get discouraged! (FYI I gave up a week ago because I was exasperated with him over a certain discussion, but feel much better now)

              Ps: pedrag, before I left I set my server at home to broadcast the photos I wanted shown and pointed a post to the link, it doesn’t seem to work. Should I be hosting them on a website instead?

            26. I can’t remember seeing that attrmpt, but when i need to embed a photo, i find one that I can open on the webite directly (right-click on pic, then, if site allows, open photo in new tab). I take the URL of that photo and paste here as text, and it embeds.

      1. Agreed. The security of our nation is at risk. Our Imperial Clown 🤡 is seeing to that.

        The US cannot be defeated by any outside entity. If it falls, it will fall from within, lead by those seeking ever tighter control and power through fear mongering.

  1. If little Timmy wants to be a politician, then please do it. He is destroying Apple with his neglect and ostracizing half of the population. Focus on Apple’s products and leave the politics to politicians – or become one yourself and leave Apple alone! I want supreme Apple products, not a political gasbag.

  2. Imagine if some Islamic terrorists from Libya, Syria Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and/or Somalia — all places where Apple is heavily recruiting high tech engineering talent (Bwahahahaha!) — hit San Francisco in such a way as to affect one or more of these leftist kook left coast judges on a personal level while they dick around with the security of the United States on a matter where the President CLEARLY has the power to order exactly what he ordered.

    That would be something to behold.

    1. You lot keep claiming that the President CLEARLY has this power, yet in this particular case four judges disagree with you. Two of those four were appointed by Republican presidents, and a third can reasonably be expected to have outlived his political connections, since he has been on the bench for nearly forty years. A clear majority of the other federal judges around the country who have considered the Executive Order have agreed that it should be stayed.

      The President may ultimately be held right about his position, but he is not CLEARLY right or he wouldn’t keep losing in court.

      All you guys calling for a false-flag attack to implicate non-radical Muslim immigrants in terrorism deserve to be the targets. My guess is that you won’t blame President Trump if people are killed by home-grown terrorists who are radicalized in response to a perceived government campaign against Islam, or if people are killed by hate crimes against Muslims.

      1. CLEARLY:

        8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

        Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

        Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

        1. And that section is only the 1182d in the 8th volume of the U.S. Code. There are many other laws on the books, including some that all these judges found relevant to their decision. Oddly enough, most of them—and most Americans—believe that the U.S. Constitution “trumps” an assertion of sovereign authority by a single branch of government.

          As I have been saying from the first, President Trump could easily have written a policy that was both more effective and more lawful in fighting terrorism. He should have done that rather than create this chaotic mess. So far, most of the courts have been agreeing with me. They may be wrong, but they are not CLEARLY wrong.

  3. Pipeline Tim needs to STFU with his political/sexual/religious beliefs and concentrate on running Apple!
    The pipeline caretaker can’t even visualise new consumer and professional product directions for Apple to pursue
    He needs to get Apple back to producing new, innovative, “never seen before products that people never knew they needed” products!
    The Apple Watch WASN’T IT, TIM!!!!!
    IF Cook is incapable of doing THAT, then either bring in a new CEO who can OR hire someone with some goram Apple product vision that CAN perform that role, at least, better than Tim Cook!
    How many more derivitive SJ years products and “ho-hum” product updates is Apple going to continue to keep milking and making for the mext 5-10 years!
    Are we really going to have 5-10 more years of iMacs?
    iPhone 15, 15s, 15 SE?
    iPod Touch 10, 10 SE
    iPad Pro or iPad 15th gen?
    iPad Mini 10?
    REALLY?????
    COME ON, TIM!
    Stay out of the political arena and run the effin’ that you were “GIVEN”, NOT “ELECTED” to run take your stock options, get the frack out of the CEO seat and let someone who actually CAN concentrate on running Apple and producing exciting, never before seen products, again!
    Same goes for Sir Jonathan Ive. If you don’t want to design groundbreaking Apple products any longer, get out and make room for someone younger and full of new Apple products ideas to persue and design.
    Apple is resting on its cash horde like Smaug the Dragon from the Hobbit!

    1. The brutal truth is that the Executive Order is more likely to inspire Islamic terrorists than to control them.

      You may disagree with that, and you are entitled to your opinion. So am I. So is Tim Cook, particularly when he speaks up about a government policy that directly affects his company.

  4. Tim Cook needs to focus on Apple and let Trump and the US Gov’t do their thing. Anyone against Trump’s executive order concerning the temporary immigration ban needs to stop the reading into the fake news surrounding it and get with the program.

  5. An interesting aside for all you Islamic suicide bombers out there:
    Ironically, when you blow yourself up with TNT, your body parts will be saturated with glycerine and gelatine…both of whose manufacture are derived from pigs. Gonna make it kinda tough to get to those virgins covered in pig entrails. That’s a big no-no in Allah-Land.

    1. Wow, that’s amazing research. Who knew trinitrotoluene wasn’t kosher? That could stop orthodox Jews from becoming suicide bombers—a good thing, because there are already way too many frustrated young Muslim men desperate to get beyond the veil.

      1. Next up, botty gives us a list of ingredients coming from pork that were used in the manufacturing of all those iWMD (Imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction) that were found in Iraq because there was no one Protecting the World from Foreign Terrorist Exit from your temporary country of residence.

      1. Military and industrial manufacturers rely on the pig for a range of uses.

        Roughly 300 million pounds of glycerin is used industrially in America, in the form of urethane foams and alkyd resins, and compounds to make TNT, Nitro, bullets, high explosive bombs, rocket launchers, and other weapons. For example, pig bone gelatin is used to help transport gunpowder or cordite into the bullet.

            1. Pay attention (loving slap across the face) YOU CANNOT MAKE TNT FROM GLYCERIN!!! THERE IS NO GLYCERIN IN TNT!

              There IS glycerin use in the making of NITROGLYCERIN. Now, stay away from sharp objects and the remote control.

            2. “Ironically, when you blow yourself up with TNT, your body parts will be saturated with glycerine and gelatine…” – Botty

              Slap across the other cheek! ANd a noogie for name calling, want to go for a wedgie?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.