Trump’s Second Travel Ban Is Blocked by U.S. Judge

[peonyu]

Too bad we dont get to see it on camera, when the news hits him, for the second time..Hot Damn! They may have to put him in artifical coma to save his life from all the winning blood preassure...

They will need to fully explain their reasoning for a denial though. The first EO was obviously chaotic and not put out correctly at all, this one seems to have its ducks in a row and is well parsed, even the burden of issuing visas is placed overseas. It seems the only way to shoot this EO down is on emotional grounds, which the courts are supposed to be above that in the pursuit of fairness, OR trying to claim that foreign people are entitled to due process [i have heard this bandied about and its absurd as only US citizens are entitled to due process].

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Poor drumpfy

 

[cytg111]

They will need to fully explain their reasoning for a denial though. The first EO was obviously chaotic and not put out correctly at all, this one seems to have its ducks in a row and is well parsed, even the burden of issuing visas is placed overseas. It seems the only way to shoot this EO down is on emotional grounds, which the courts are supposed to be above that in the pursuit of fairness, OR trying to claim that foreign people are entitled to due process [i have heard this bandied about and its absurd as only US citizens are entitled to due process].

I too expected it to go through, I mean, second time around they would surely have paved the way... I dont know, its too weird.

 

[peonyu]

I too expected it to go through, I mean, second time around they would surely have paved the way... I dont know, its too weird.

It will be interesting to hear their reasoning. I consider myself pretty fair, and the first EO was obviously flawed, this one does not seem out of line [whether you agree with it is another matter]. If their reasoning is bad and i have a feeling it will be, then it will make people lose more faith in our court system and its pretty low already. Judges are supposed to be fair and to try and keep their emotions [personal opinion etc] out of their ruling...But who knows, maybe they have a legit reason.

 

[dullard]

It will be interesting to hear their reasoning.

Establishment Clause of the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Since this smells like a violation of the establishment clause, and people in the US that are truly harmed by the executive order, there is a temporary hold on this executive order until it is proven that this does not violate the establishment clause and the benefits (if any are proven) outweigh the harms (in this case, lost tourism revenue to the state of Hawaii).

The full hearing may prove that the executive order is okay and the temporary hold could be removed. Or not. But until then, the judge has to rule for the side that is showing evidence that they are harmed and that the constitution may be violated.

 

[peonyu]

Establishment Clause of the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Since this smells like a violation of the establishment clause, and people in the US that are truly harmed by the executive order, there is a temporary hold on this executive order until it is proven that this does not violate the establishment clause and the benefits (if any are proven) outweigh the harms (in this case, lost tourism revenue to the state of Hawaii).

The full hearing may prove that the executive order is okay and the temporary hold could be removed. Or not. But until then, the judge has to rule for the side that is showing evidence that they are harmed and that the constitution may be violated.

The second EO makes no mention of religion and it equally restricts Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Yazidi etc etc so there is no breach of the first amendment happening here. Also i doubt Hawaii gets alot of tourists from any of those listed nations...but i admit i am skeptical of the courts this time. I understand the first hold but this second one seems to be grasping at straws, but ill await their reasoning.

 

[dullard]

The second EO makes no mention of religion and it equally restricts Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Yazidi etc etc so there is no breach of the first amendment happening here. Also i doubt Hawaii gets alot of tourists from any of those listed nations...but i admit i am skeptical of the courts this time. I understand the first hold but this second one seems to be grasping at straws, but ill await their reasoning.

Why is Trump afraid to say "radical Islamic terrorism"?

All kidding aside, technically it does mention religion in Executive Order 13720, Section 1(iv).

This is as much about religion as banning all travel from predominantly black states or predominantly Asian states would be about race. That said, it doesn't at this point need to be proven to be about religion. It only needs to smell like it is about religion. That is why it is just a temporary hold until Trump can prove that is isn't a religious based travel ban.

I personally think that instead of a ban, they just made it nearly impossible to get a Visa, the Trump administration would accomplish the same thing and no one would have legal standing to sue to stop the executive order. The reason that they didn't increase Visa standards and instead put in a ban shows that this is about politics more than safety.

 

[Balt]

I personally think that instead of a ban, they just made it nearly impossible to get a Visa, the Trump administration would accomplish the same thing and no one would have legal standing to sue to stop the executive order. The reason that they didn't increase Visa standards and instead put in a ban shows that this is about politics more than safety.

That might be possible, but I don't know if it could be done through an executive order. There are plenty of grounds to refuse issuance of a visa to someone, but afaik the State Dept. always refers to a section of the law when doing so (e.g., section 214(b) of the INA). I think forcing consular officers to adjudicate in a certain way or trying to raise the bar for visa issuance so high that it's impossible to get might also result in legal challenges.

Obligatory: I am not a lawyer. Not sure if someone would have legal standing in such a scenario. Perhaps a family member?

 

[Jhhnn]

The ruling itself-

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000

It's a long winded bit of legalese & scathing in its conclusions.

 

[Stopsignhank]

I think you all are too young to remember these shocking words.

Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition.

Nixon: Exactly, exactly.

So if the president does anything then, by definition, it is not illegal. That is dictator material right there.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1.html

Which presidential power is being taken away here? Not to even mention the uniform part of the statement.

Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-immigration-law.html?_r=0

As I said there will be Democrat Presidents that will have executive orders challenged by statements they made in the past. That is my real concern.

 

[desura]

Trump is incompetent.

But liberals are also naive.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...hio-state-university-car-knife-attack-n689076

 

[Jhhnn]

The second EO makes no mention of religion and it equally restricts Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Yazidi etc etc so there is no breach of the first amendment happening here. Also i doubt Hawaii gets alot of tourists from any of those listed nations...but i admit i am skeptical of the courts this time. I understand the first hold but this second one seems to be grasping at straws, but ill await their reasoning.

The court correctly identified the second order as the same whore in a different dress.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I was expecting his 2nd EO on immigration to be challenged in the courts. We'll just have to watch it played out.

 

[Jaskalas]

Being serious I'd be surprised if it sticks plus we're entering dangerous waters where courts can undermine executive orders.

A Judge has the combined powers of legislative and executive branch.

1. They decide what the law is, by telling you what it means. (legislative)
   
2. They order people into action or inaction. (executive)

 

[Jaskalas]

Which presidential power is being taken away here?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(f) 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.​

The Judges are repeatedly violating that law.

 

[ivwshane]

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(f) 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.​

The Judges are repeatedly violating that law.

Lol! He hasn't shown any class of people to be detrimental to the interests of the US. In fact, his own actions have shown that there are indeed no imminent threat.

Also, I'm not aware of religion being a category of a class of citizens.

Try again.

 

[fskimospy]

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(f) 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.​

The Judges are repeatedly violating that law.

Can you explain why you think judges are violating that law by finding the president's application of that law unconstitutional? The constitution overrides all statutes after all.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think a basic civics lesson is in order here:

Constitution>Statutes>Executive Orders

Any questions?

 

[Moonbeam]

Can you explain why you think judges are violating that law by finding the president's application of that law unconstitutional? The constitution overrides all statutes after all.

It's hard to explain but it's exactly what I told the judge when he illegally denied my innocent plea for speeding. By the way, could I trouble you to ask you for bail?

 

[Grooveriding]

Trump is getting his lesson that what you say matters. He can't wipe away his promise to have a muslim ban, or the statements of the fanatics he surrounds himself with on the ban issue.

Being a degenerate who lies constantly is starting to come back and bite him in the ass.

 

[ivwshane]

Trump is getting his lesson that what you say matters. He can't wipe away his promise to have a muslim ban, or the statements of the fanatics he surrounds himself with on the ban issue.

Being a degenerate who lies constantly is starting to come back and bite him in the ass.

"Getting a lesson" implies he's learning something...he's not.

 

[HomerJS]

Judge used Mr Big Mouth and his minions words against them. Trump tards have always gloated how they can say shit w/o consequences

 

[Jaskalas]

Can you explain why you think judges are violating that law by finding the president's application of that law unconstitutional? The constitution overrides all statutes after all.

By this Judge's "logic" the Iraq war was a war against Islam.
All it had to be was a Muslim majority country to invoke the establishment clause.

"It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam."
​

The targeting of religion here is a fabrication. As I said they get to make up the law as they go along. Then issue their own executive order.
The "constitution overrides" as you say, but Judges get to make it up as they go along. I'm not disputing that's their right. But the application of such unbridled power is truly remarkable.

 

[ivwshane]

By this Judge's "logic" the Iraq war was a war against Islam.
All it had to be was a Muslim majority country to invoke the establishment clause.

"It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam."
​

The targeting of religion here is a fabrication. As I said they get to make up the law as they go along. Then issue their own executive order.
The "constitution overrides" as you say, but Judges get to make it up as they go along. I'm not disputing that's their right. But the application of such unbridled power is truly remarkable.

Lol wut?