Am I the only one who thinks that this article provides virtually no new knowledge?
Also, am I the only one who’s appalled that TPM is running these goddamn “Malia Obama’s new car and apartment are disgusting” ads?
Websites have very little control over the ads that appear on their sites. They subscribe to ad server services that serve up ads based on algorithms that crunch data from cookies. If a service serves up truly repulsive ads or trojan horses infested with malware, the service can be dropped, and I think there may be some negotiating room regarding acceptable content parameters, but the ads themselves are pretty random from the perspective of everyone but the AI that drives them.
Unfortunately, the AI’s job is to make the best fit it can between the site it serves ads to and the ads it has to serve them. Which is how these ads end up here. They aren’t necessarily ads we really want to click on. They’re just the ones it think people here are most likely to click on among those it has. Because the ads have the tag “Obama” and we all talk about Obama a lot so therefore we’re bound to be more interested in these ads than ads about penis enhancement or scammy iPad games.
The bigger mystery to me is why ad companies manipulate the content of their ads to get them served to people who are never going to click on them.
I’m confused…WHAT does the ruling say?
You won’t believe what Josh Marshall looks like now!!! (16 pictures)
I’m 75 years old. Must be dementia. I can’t figure out why the Supreme Court is making rulings until the lower courts overturns it. WTF?
This article is a little clearer about what they did and didn’t do: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342735-supreme-court-denies-doj-request-to-clarify-travel-ban
Scanned it. Ostensibly, it’s a very narrow technical application of the equity principles governing preliminary injunctions. It’s stuff that it’s very hard for the lay press to get its head around and harder still to convey to lay people generally.
Basically, SCOTUS said people with some connection to the US–relatives, job offers, etc.–have enough of a stake in US religious freedom principles to show they’ll be harmed if the EO is enforced against them pending resolution of the action on the merits. But they say people with no prior connection to the US can’t show that harm and thus are not entitled to have enforcement of the EO stayed pending resolution on the merits. They included people with a firm offer of assistance and residence from a refugee agency among those who don’t have enough of a connection to the US. That’s the part they overruled the Hawaii court on.
I say “ostensibly,” because there’s an opinion purportedly concurring in part and dissenting in part that is actually a dissent authored by Thomas with Alito and Gorsuch concurring. And that alone tells you more than any of the news stories do.
Also in play here is that the law governing preliminary injunctions (which technically isn’t “law” because injunctions are an equitable rather than legal remedy and there’s a whole English legal historical rabbit hole there you do not want to be dragged down now) has been receiving an unusual amount of SCOTUS attention and revision in recent years.
And here I thought the Supremes were just kicking it down the road for some one else to take responsibility for it.
Thanks for the in-depth.
They’re not ruling on the merits. They’re ruling on whether the lower courts erred by enjoining enforcement of the EO pending resolution on the merits by those lower courts. And their answer is “yes” as to some people who’ll be barred from entry, but “no” as to others.
This appears to be the AP feed.
Agreed that the article doesn’t provide much info. That’s very surprising considering it’s the AP. They may have some automated article writer stuff going on.
Click “next” for the 2d picture! Click "next for the 3d picture! …
Much clearer, thank you. I couldn’t tell from the TPM article what was permitted and what wasn’t.
Not much:
http://lyldenlawnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Hawaii-order-7-19.pdf
The Government’s motion seeking clarification of our order
of June 26, 2017, is denied. The District Court order modifying
the preliminary injunction with respect to refugees covered by a
formal assurance is stayed pending resolution of the Government’s
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would
have stayed the District Court order in its entirety.
you’re reading the June 26th order. Today’s order is much shorter:
http://lyldenlawnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Hawaii-order-7-19.pdf
The Government’s motion seeking clarification of our order
of June 26, 2017, is denied. The District Court order modifying
the preliminary injunction with respect to refugees covered by a
formal assurance is stayed pending resolution of the Government’s
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would
have stayed the District Court order in its entirety.
In essence, if you are a grandparent, aunt, uncle, in-law, you’re allowed to apply. Refugees are still in limbo.
Nope you’re not the only one. Ironically, those trashy ads and the un-closable, un-stoppable, auto-play video ads (mobile site) are what’s keeping me from Prime. I get the contradiction - hey just pay for Prime and all of that goes away! But I’m not going to support a site that heaps that trash on its visitors.
They can choose their ad network, and there are plenty to choose from including at least one liberal-blog-specific network. There are plenty of sites that show me ads that are unobjectionable, if not necessarily anything I’d click on. I get a lot of tractor/farm supply type ads from some sites, due to geography. But my point is that plenty of sites I frequent are able to serve up ads that are just selling something. Other sites, like TPM, serve up clickbait trash and autoplay videos. Choice of ad network makes a big difference and, IMO, TPM has chosen poorly.
Hey @boldster, not subscribing to PRIME because you don’t like the ads that you wouldn’t see if you were subscribing to PRIME is about as lame as it gets. If you don’t want to see the ads and you don’t want to subscribe to PRIME, then how about you don’t come to the site and avoid the ads? Oh, that’s right, then you wouldn’t get any benefit from TPM for free. Mooch much?