This judge made a decision which supported the Establishment Clause as traditionally followed and Trump clearly demonstrated his intent to violate it by his policy of discrimination against Muslims. Doesn't matter who is injured or where they reside, the action itself is not Constitutional.
While I disagreed with the first block, since it was done (and upheld) by judges spanning the political spectrum, I view that as legitimate. In this case, all we have so far is a lib judge who in his ruling gets on his political soapbox to deliver a political "rebuke" of Trump -- in other words, an activist hack. No good judges have looked at it yet.
There is nothing in the EO about religion at all. Going by this logic means you can't apply any kind of restrictions to immigration or travel from any countries because if they happen to be majority <insert group here> you'd have discrimination of that group. That's obvious BS. There's no way you can logically claim this is discrimination against a group when there is no reference to that group in the EO and the EO doesn't apply to just that group, it applies equally to all groups.
Gotta love it. That's the same sort of coy dishonesty Repubs applied to illegal voter suppression in NC. I mean, the law didn't say black people, did it? Of course not, but we all know who they were talking about.
Gotta love it. That's the same sort of coy dishonesty Repubs applied to illegal voter suppression in NC. I mean, the law didn't say black people, did it? Of course not, but we all know who they were talking about.
There is nothing in the EO about religion at all. Going by this logic means you can't apply any kind of restrictions to immigration or travel from any countries because if they happen to be majority <insert group here> you'd have discrimination of that group. That's obvious BS. There's no way you can logically claim this is discrimination against a group when there is no reference to that group in the EO and the EO doesn't apply to just that group, it applies equally to all groups.
Absolutely noting in Article II mentions immigration. Please show me where it does: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
You missed the part where judge used his lackeys public statements of intent. Remember Miller, Guliani?There is nothing in the EO about religion at all. Going by this logic means you can't apply any kind of restrictions to immigration or travel from any countries because if they happen to be majority <insert group here> you'd have discrimination of that group. That's obvious BS. There's no way you can logically claim this is discrimination against a group when there is no reference to that group in the EO and the EO doesn't apply to just that group, it applies equally to all groups.
Absolutely noting in Article II mentions immigration. Please show me where it does:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html
Instead the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is Congress in Article 1 with the power over immigration. That said, Congress has decided with laws to give some of that decision making to the president. But that actual power always belongs to Congress. The president's decision making on immigration is not protected by the Constitution and can be removed at any time with a different law.
From your own link regarding the laws that give the president some immigration decision making: "But another part of the law forbids discrimination “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence,”"
So the laws that you correctly claim gives the president some immigration decision making capability also limits the president to not use place of birth or residence in that decision. So which is it, do you agree with the laws or not?
Lol. Thank you for so clearly pointing out what a brain dead partisan you are. You value the quality of judicial opinions based on the party affiliation of who appointed them.
There's no longer any need to pay even the slightest bit of attention to anything else you say about legal matters anymore as you just gave up the game. Thanks for letting me know!
So you don't think the President referring to the action as a Muslim ban, and asking for advice on how to achieve a Muslim ban, and suggesting that Muslims should be banned from entering the US, constitute sufficient indication of his intentions?
Trump demonstrated unconstitutional intent. Even if Trump had primary control over immigration (and he doesn't), there is no principle of law which permits the means to that end to violate the Constitution.
Once again, misrepresent and argue against your misrepresentation. Doesn't that shtick get old after a while for ya? If you're naive enough to think ideology doesn't influence judicial review, that's up to you. Obviously wrong and silly, but you are entitled to your opinion. In this case, the only judge that has weighed in is a libbie hack (based on his own writing). When and if someone who is not a partisan hack reviews the case we can draw conclusions.
Trump demonstrated unconstitutional intent. Even if Trump had primary control over immigration (and he doesn't), there is no principle of law which permits the means to that end to violate the Constitution.
The weakness of the security rationale for both the original order and the new one makes it more likely that discrimination against Muslims is the true motive behind it. Under the standard legal framework for analyzing such cases, once evidence of discriminatory intent is proven, the government has the burden of showing that it would have adopted the same policy even in the absence of improper motivation. That burden will be extremely difficult to meet in this case.
No good judges have looked at it yet.
So based on those comments and your logic, it would be essentially impossible for any regulations to be created that affects countries that have significant muslim populations. Even though the regulations have nothing in them about religion, affect people of all religions, do not affect other countries with similar religious makeup etc etc, it's all irrelevant, you can never make regulations that impact certain countries anymore. Plainly absurd.
So the actual regulations or EO's have nothing about religion nor any exemptions based on religions or specific targeting of religions. You're saying they are automatically still unconstitutional simply because of comments made prior. Does that mean no regulation could ever be constitutional again as it relates to countries with significant muslim populations?
So based on those comments and your logic, it would be essentially impossible for any regulations to be created that affects countries that have significant muslim populations. Even though the regulations have nothing in them about religion, affect people of all religions, do not affect other countries with similar religious makeup etc etc, it's all irrelevant, you can never make regulations that impact certain countries anymore. Plainly absurd.
lol. I'm serious when I said that we can all freely ignore everything you say about the law from now on because now we know you view judicial rulings as legitimate or not based on ideological grounds instead of legal ones.
For people who aren't insane and consumed by partisanship there's no point in even discussing it with you because we're living in two different worlds.
You're perfectly welcome to live in this twisted ideological bubble, it just means that it's a waste of time for the rest of us to converse with you as you're unreachable by rational argument. Hope you get better someday.
When you publically state you want a religion ban. Then your peeps publically say I want a religion ban without it looking like a religion ban.So the actual regulations or EO's have nothing about religion nor any exemptions based on religions or specific targeting of religions. You're saying they are automatically still unconstitutional simply because of comments made prior. Does that mean no regulation could ever be constitutional again as it relates to countries with significant muslim populations?
Before we get on to that question, are you going to concede that Trump's intentions are actually pretty damn obvious? Because I'm pretty damn sure that you would otherwise try to push what I'd call Schrodinger's Muslim Ban.
Could someone (else) explain to me why Trump supporters want to bend over backwards to claim that this isn't a Muslim ban?
Yet again, you misrepresent, and then argue with the misrepresentation. Congrats, at least you are consistent!
So.... that doesn't apply to you then?
I'm perfectly fine, thanks! What's funny is the guy who lives in the impenetrable lefty echo chamber bubble accusing others of living in ideological bubbles. Mirror mirror on the wall.....
Before we get on to that question, are you going to concede that Trump's intentions are actually pretty damn obvious? Because I'm pretty damn sure that you would otherwise try to push what I'd call Schrodinger's Muslim Ban.
---
Could someone (else) explain to me why Trump supporters want to bend over backwards to claim that this isn't a Muslim ban? If they felt that Trump's repeated advocacy of banning Muslims was wrong/offensive, then surely they wouldn't have voted for him; therefore they support the notion of a Muslim ban.