Did the Hawaiian judge who blocked Trump's latest EO, ever point out which law(s) it violated?

[Little-Acorn]

Or did he simply say, "That causes too many problems here at home, so I'm invalidating it"?

Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

P.S. The ruling was 43 pages. Yet it was released less than two hours after the hearing. That guy must have been a hellacious typist.

Or... had he already made his decision, before the hearing even began?

**NOTE** This thread isn't about immigration, it's about judges trying to strike down Presidential Executive Orders with no apparent legal grounds to do so. Please don't move it to a forum that almost nobody reads.

---------------------------------

News from The Associated Press

Mar 15, 7:13 PM EDT

The Latest: Judge who put ban on hold was nominated by Obama

The Latest on legal challenges to the Trump administration's revised travel ban (all times Pacific unless noted):

4:10 p.m.

The judge in Hawaii who put President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson got his nod in 2012 and is currently the only Native Hawaiian judge serving on the federal bench and the fourth in U.S. history.

He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1991.

His 43-page decision Wednesday was released less than two hours after the hearing ended.

 

[depotoo]

Obama handed the ruling to him...

Or did he simply say, "That causes too many problems here at home, so I'm invalidating it"?

Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

P.S. The ruling was 43 pages. Yet it was released less than two hours after the hearing. That guy must have been a hellacious typist.

Or... had he already made his decision, before the hearing even began?

**NOTE** This thread isn't about immigration, it's about judges trying to strike down Presidential Executive Orders with no apparent legal grounds to do so. Please don't move it to a forum that almost nobody reads.

---------------------------------

News from The Associated Press

Mar 15, 7:13 PM EDT

The Latest: Judge who put ban on hold was nominated by Obama

The Latest on legal challenges to the Trump administration's revised travel ban (all times Pacific unless noted):

4:10 p.m.

The judge in Hawaii who put President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson got his nod in 2012 and is currently the only Native Hawaiian judge serving on the federal bench and the fourth in U.S. history.

He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1991.

His 43-page decision Wednesday was released less than two hours after the hearing ended.

 

[MarathonMike]

Or did he say "I'm not getting any younger. Now's my chance for 15 minutes of fame and dammit I'm grabbing it."

 

[miketx]

Obozo visited the judge and then, the ruling.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Next up: Judge disbarred.

You don't get to overrule the president like that, no.

Say goodbye to your career and hello to being disgraced and disbarred.

His integrity is -1 at this point.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Read the text of the decision and you'll know what was pointed out.

This is now the second time the decision was linked to for you and you apparently still haven't read it seeing as you are asking the same question as you posed here: Hawaiian judge blocks Trump's new immigration ban EO: Did the judge say what law(s) it violated?

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[wjmacguffin]

Or did he simply say, "That causes too many problems here at home, so I'm invalidating it"?

Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

P.S. The ruling was 43 pages. Yet it was released less than two hours after the hearing. That guy must have been a hellacious typist.

Or... had he already made his decision, before the hearing even began?

**NOTE** This thread isn't about immigration, it's about judges trying to strike down Presidential Executive Orders with no apparent legal grounds to do so. Please don't move it to a forum that almost nobody reads.

---------------------------------

News from The Associated Press

Mar 15, 7:13 PM EDT

The Latest: Judge who put ban on hold was nominated by Obama

The Latest on legal challenges to the Trump administration's revised travel ban (all times Pacific unless noted):

4:10 p.m.

The judge in Hawaii who put President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson got his nod in 2012 and is currently the only Native Hawaiian judge serving on the federal bench and the fourth in U.S. history.

He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1991.

His 43-page decision Wednesday was released less than two hours after the hearing ended.

No, the judge did not block the order simply because he felt like it. The judge cited the Establishment Clause. That's part of the 1st Amendment. That's part of the US Constitution. And yes, even the President of the United States has to abide by that. You know, just like how conservatives are always screaming that liberals and Democrats violate? I mean, there's more to the constitution than guns.

So there is a very clear legal ground to block a presidential executive order. Remember those? They're what conservatives have been attacking Obama for years over, saying he's ignore the balance of our government and making laws when that's the purview of Congress.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Next up: Judge disbarred.

You don't get to overrule the president like that, no.

Say goodbye to your career and hello to being disgraced and disbarred.

His integrity is -1 at this point.

Yes, judges damn well *can* overrule a president like that. It's called a check and balance. But it's nice to see how you feel a president can do what he wants and everyone must obey. I'm sure you felt the exact same thing when Obama was president.

Your fascism score went up by 5 points today. Congrats!

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, the judge did not block the order simply because he felt like it. The judge cited the Establishment Clause. That's part of the 1st Amendment. That's part of the US Constitution. And yes, even the President of the United States has to abide by that. You know, just like how conservatives are always screaming that liberals and Democrats violate? I mean, there's more to the constitution than guns.

So there is a very clear legal ground to block a presidential executive order. Remember those? They're what conservatives have been attacking Obama for years over, saying he's ignore the balance of our government and making laws when that's the purview of Congress.

Umm, the Establishment Clause refers to religion.

And Trump's EO had nothing to do with religion. It was directed at terrorism. Or are you now trying to tell us that a certain religion is responsible for terrorism?

As I suspected, the judge made no reference to any law that Trump's EO was violating. He simply decided he didn't personally like it, so he blocked it. And then made irrelevant excuses.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, judges damn well *can* overrule a president like that.

Not without legal grounds. And this judge has shown none.

But it's nice to see how you feel a president can do what he wants and everyone must obey.

Have you noticed that, when a liberal loses an argument, he immediately starts lying about what a conservative said?

In this matter, a President can do what Congress passes laws saying he can do. As Congress did in this matter, giving the President wide powers to decide who can come into the U.S. and who can't.

It's called a check and balance.

Your accuracy score would have dropped to zero today, if it hadn't already started there.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The judge cited the Establishment Clause.

He did cite that clause. I bid you read the paragraphs beginning with the paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 30 in the decision. The man was literally scathing in his analysis. It's really just one legal precedent, historic fact and hanging of Trump by the petard of his own words after another. It's well worth reading.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The judge cited the Establishment Clause.

He did cite that clause.

Why didn't he cite the clause that says we'll have two bodies in the Legislature: a Senate and a House of Representatives? That has just as much relevance to the case as the Establishment Clause: namely NONE.

The judge cited no relevant grounds at all, for blocking President Trump's EO. Apparently he did it simply because he thought it was icky and mean.

Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Next up: Judge disbarred.

You don't get to overrule the president like that, no.

Say goodbye to your career and hello to being disgraced and disbarred.

His integrity is -1 at this point.

Particularly when the POTUS is well within his Constitutional rights, no...obligations. These fools legislating from the bench need to be unseated.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The judge cited the Establishment Clause.

He did cite that clause.

Why didn't he cite the clause that says we'll have two bodies in the Legislature: a Senate and a House of Representatives? That has just as much relevance to the case as the Establishment Clause: namely NONE.

The judge cited no relevant grounds at all, for blocking President Trump's EO. Apparently he did it simply because he thought it was icky and mean.

Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

Why didn't he cite the clause that says we'll have two bodies in the Legislature: a Senate and a House of Representatives?

Send the judge an email and ask him not me.

The judge cited no relevant grounds at all, for blocking President Trump's EO.

Hell, why are you even asking? You seem to be holding yourself out as a legal scholar and highly informed attorney. It seems as though you should be on the team writing the brief for the appeal to the Circuit court.

 

[Rambunctious]

This is going to keep happening the entrenched liberals in our government are not going to give President Trump an inch. I think Trump should spend the next four years replacing as many of these anti constitutional globalist liberals as he can. Forget about everything else and take our government back. Put it all on the back burner and start the firings. You're fired you pecker wood liberals.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hopefully this all gets cleared up at the Supreme's AFTER Trump's SCOTUS nominee takes his seat.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Send the judge an email and ask him not me.

Thanks for admitting you don't know what you're talking about here.

Back to the subject:
Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

 

[Fang]

The judge already said if it was anyone but Trump the EO would pass. That should be enough a higher court to overturn this gross over reach.

 

[Rambunctious]

Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

No they can not and this guy in HI will be over ruled eventually.