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

[usmbguest5318]

Send the judge an email and ask him not me.

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

I know what I read in Judge Watson's decision. I know that insofar as you've asked the questions you have, you haven't thoroughly read that decision. I know too that I cannot read Judge Watson's mind, and to the best of my knowledge, he's not posting his thoughts on USMB; thus you need to ask him why he didn't frame his decision as you asked.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It has been pointed out to you douche bags 1000 times that the Bill of Rights does not protect foreigners residing on foreign soil

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's total Bulls hit, douche bag.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

Until then, how many of these terrorist scum will have infiltrated our country?

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

**** that, this asshat is messing with the safety and security of every American citizen.

He has zero rights and zero legal grounds to do that.

It's time to start to start stringing traitors up, seriously. Apparently they have forgotten what the USA is about.

It's about freedom and protecting our own.

I was way more free as a kid than kids are nowadays.

They have smartphones. I had a .22

 

[Marion Morrison]

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?

No, no they can't. I say string the next two that do it up for being traitors and call it a day and go from there.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

Actually, he will probably be nominated for the Supreme Court when we have another democrat president.

Unless he gets caught on tape with underage hookers or something like that, he is pretty much untouchable.

 

[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.

Actually, he will probably be nominated for the Supreme Court when we have another democrat president.

Unless he gets caught on tape with underage hookers or something like that, he is pretty much untouchable.

No.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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.

As the judge explained, any reasonable person would connect Trump's EO with Trump's words vowing to ban Muslims for being Muslim. If terrorism was the key factor, then the gov't could have showed evidence that terrorism is more likely from those countries specifically. They did not last time, and this EO is functionally identical and has been admitted as such by the Trump administration.

So no, I'm not saying Islam is responsible for terrorism. I'm saying the judge cited the 1st Amendment because Trump made it clear himself (as did his surrogates) that this was based on his view of Islam. Did you even read the judge's report?

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

That's one of the main reasons he won the election, to do just that.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

Actually, he will probably be nominated for the Supreme Court when we have another democrat president.

Unless he gets caught on tape with underage hookers or something like that, he is pretty much untouchable.

No.

Just watch! Nothing is happening to this judge.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

As the judge explained, any reasonable person would connect Trump's EO with Trump's words vowing to ban Muslims for being Muslim. If terrorism was the key factor, then the gov't could have showed evidence that terrorism is more likely from those countries specifically. They did not last time, and this EO is functionally identical and has been admitted as such by the Trump administration.

So no, I'm not saying Islam is responsible for terrorism. I'm saying the judge cited the 1st Amendment because Trump made it clear himself (as did his surrogates) that this was based on his view of Islam. Did you even read the judge's report?

Don't need to. Time to question his loyalty to America.

In detail.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As the judge explained, any reasonable person would connect Trump's EO with Trump's words vowing to ban Muslims for being Muslim.

As I thought. The judge did not block it because of anything in the EO, even the EO was the only thing that became law.

He blocked it simply because he didn't like it.

I predict a short and unhappy career for this judge.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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.

This judge cited the US Constitution. That's as big of a legal ground as you can get. But I get it. That calls your view of the US constitution into question because it's not doing what you want. Like other far-right conservatives I've met, you love the Constitution except when you don't.

My apologies for taking you talking point too far. When you said, "Next up: Judge disbarred. You don't get to overrule the president like that, no," it sounded like you were saying the judge needs to be disbarred for overruling the president like he did. Because that's what you said. But I'm guessing what you meant was that this judge should be disbarred for doing what you feel is legally wrong.

Yes, I get civics. The executive office has broad powers to implement and even interpret laws passed by Congress. But the US Constitution is not a Congressional law. Even Trump has to abide by it.

Now, if you'd like to debate whether the Establishment Clause, I'm open to hearing why not like other poster did. But in the matter of the President having wide powers, you're wrong because those powers are limited by the US Constitution.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's a silent coup

 

[Little-Acorn]

This judge cited the US Constitution. That's as big of a legal ground as you can get.

Already dealt with, and debunked, in Post #10. Please try to keep up.

 

[Timmy]

God How many times do we have to go over this!

I'll keep it simple . The gov can't favor or target a specific religion . 1st amendment .

We know trump wanted to target muslims , BECAUSE HES SAID SO MANY TIMES !

Just cause a law may seem ok on its face , doesn't mean it can't be unconstitutional because of the real purpose of the law . See the history of Jim Crow .

 

[wjmacguffin]

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?

Again, nope. I have a feeling this will fall on deaf ears and you're one of the people who worship Trump as the Second Coming, but I'll try one more time.

The judge said that the Establishment Clause applies because, and pay attention because this next part requires some thinking, because Trump already made it clear that this ban was based on religion. To quote the report:

"It is undisputed that the Executive Order does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion, or for or against religion versus non-religion .... It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam .... There is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.[]” SAC ¶ 38, Ex. 6 (Press Release, Donald J. Trump for President, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7, 2015), available at SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP)). Nor is there anything “secret” about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order: Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”

Sorry, but any judge may use the context surrounding a law's purpose to judge it constitutionality. And the context in which both EOs were made is clearly to target Muslims, not even terrorists.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

This judge cited the US Constitution. That's as big of a legal ground as you can get. But I get it. That calls your view of the US constitution into question because it's not doing what you want. Like other far-right conservatives I've met, you love the Constitution except when you don't.

My apologies for taking you talking point too far. When you said, "Next up: Judge disbarred. You don't get to overrule the president like that, no," it sounded like you were saying the judge needs to be disbarred for overruling the president like he did. Because that's what you said. But I'm guessing what you meant was that this judge should be disbarred for doing what you feel is legally wrong.

Yes, I get civics. The executive office has broad powers to implement and even interpret laws passed by Congress. But the US Constitution is not a Congressional law. Even Trump has to abide by it.

Now, if you'd like to debate whether the Establishment Clause, I'm open to hearing why not like other poster did. But in the matter of the President having wide powers, you're wrong because those powers are limited by the US Constitution.

While it's true the judge did cite the first ammendment, he is full of shit. Altought the eo does affect some muslims, it affects people of other religions from those countries. The eo is not about religion specifically. Using the judges logic, Trump is disqualified from making any kind of eo that may affect a muslim because he once said that we need to ban muslims from entering the country while he was in campaign mode. That was a statement he quickly backtracked from.

 

[wjmacguffin]

This judge cited the US Constitution. That's as big of a legal ground as you can get.

Already dealt with, and debunked, in Post #10. Please try to keep up.

It's cute that you think saying something makes that something true. How's the 3rd grade going for you this year?

If I had to choose between the legal interpretation of an educated judge or a man that calls himself Little Acorn, I'm comfortable with sticking with the judge.