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

[Soggy in NOLA]

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 .

Who's favoring a religion? Are you illiterate?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

TRANSLATION: I don't dare actually examine what the judge said and what it means for his role in the judiciary, because I might find that he's as wrong as Little-Acorn says. And I just can't bear that, so I'll just smear Acorn instead, and hope somebody believes me.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"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.’”

TRANSLATION: "Trump used the words "Muslim ban" during the usual overheated-rhetoric days of the Presidential campaign, and then wrote a law that does nothing of the kind, and in fact leaves most Muslims in the world free to enter the U.S. But we suspect that Trump will soon start banning Muslims from Malaysia, China, India etc., even though the actual law he wrote gives him no power to do anything of the kind. Therefore we must deny him the law he wrote that bans people from six known terrorist-infested countries, so that he won't target countries not even mentioned in that law. In other words, we will hand down a ruling on his campaign rhetoric, not on the law he wrote."

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I mean, who cares? This is all about partisan politics now. Stuff the law, stuff the constitution. When Obama came to pick a Supreme Court justice the Republicans said "fuck you" so now the Democrats are saying "fuck you".

Unless of course you want to change this partisan politics nonsense and change the way people vote to stop two parties controlling everything and acting like this....

 

[Little-Acorn]

I mean, who cares? This is all about partisan politics now. Stuff the law, stuff the constitution. When Obama came to pick a Supreme Court justice the Republicans said "fuck you" so now the Democrats are saying "fuck you".
Unless of course you want to change this partisan politics nonsense and change the way people vote to stop two parties controlling everything and acting like this...

TRANSLATION: Uh-oh, I can't refute what Acorn said, or even answer the questions he pointedly asks. I can't even defend the judge's obviously-irrelevant "justification". So I'd better change the subject in a hurry, curse and swear a little. Umm... hey! Republicans filibustered a Supreme Court nominee! Now we'll filibuster a Supreme Court nominee back! Oh, and everything is partisan politics! Yaah! Yaah! (There, that should do it.)


Back to the subject:
Have we reached a point where a judge can simply throw out anything a President does, without any relevant legal grounds to do it? Are judges now the head of the Executive Branch?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I mean, who cares? This is all about partisan politics now. Stuff the law, stuff the constitution. When Obama came to pick a Supreme Court justice the Republicans said "fuck you" so now the Democrats are saying "fuck you".
Unless of course you want to change this partisan politics nonsense and change the way people vote to stop two parties controlling everything and acting like this...

TRANSLATION: Uh-oh, I can't refute what Acorn said, or even answer the questions he pointedly asks. I can't even defend the judge's obviously-irrelevant "justification". So I'd better change the subject in a hurry, curse and swear a little. Umm... hey! Republicans filibustered a Supreme Court nominee! Now we'll filibuster a Supreme Court nominee back! Oh, and everything is partisan politics! Yaah! Yaah! (There, that should do it.)


Back to the subject:
Have we reached a point where a judge can simply throw out anything a President does, without any relevant legal grounds to do it? Are judges now the head of the Executive Branch?

I wasn't attempting to refute what you said. I was making the point that all this is part of a wider partisan war where you do what you can to win and who cares about the laws, morals, ethics etc.

Then I suggested a solution to this.....

 

[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.

I mean, who cares? This is all about partisan politics now. Stuff the law, stuff the constitution. When Obama came to pick a Supreme Court justice the Republicans said "fuck you" so now the Democrats are saying "fuck you".

Unless of course you want to change this partisan politics nonsense and change the way people vote to stop two parties controlling everything and acting like this....

So you admit these judges are nothing more than partisan political hacks.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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.

TRANSLATION: I don't dare actually examine what the judge said and what it means for his role in the judiciary, because I might find that he's as wrong as Little-Acorn says. And I just can't bear that, so I'll just smear Acorn instead, and hope somebody believes me.

I actually read the 60-something pages of the decision. Kinda hard to say I "don't dare examine" when I read it. You clearly didn't, probably because it's hard and stuff.

I will normally back an educated, experienced person's analysis and citations over an uneducated, inexperienced person's unsupported opinion. Mind you, I'm NOT saying experts are always correct. They can be wrong, and the uneducated can be right. That's why I read the decision.

Again, you seem to confuse what you say with what is real. Try reading the decision and quoting the laws and court cases referenced by the judge in making his decision.

 

[wjmacguffin]

"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.’”

TRANSLATION: "Trump used the words "Muslim ban" during the usual overheated-rhetoric days of the Presidential campaign, and then wrote a law that does nothing of the kind, and in fact leaves most Muslims in the world free to enter the U.S. But we suspect that Trump will soon start banning Muslims from Malaysia, China, India etc., even though the actual law he wrote gives him no power to do anything of the kind. Therefore we must deny him the law he wrote that bans people from six known terrorist-infested countries, so that he won't target countries not even mentioned in that law. In other words, we will hand down a ruling on his campaign rhetoric, not on the law he wrote."

If you took the time to read the decision (which I doubt you ever will), you'd read how the judge cited case law requiring him to use context in deciding if the EO violated the Establishment Clause. You'd also read how it's not just Trump's words nor about "overheated" rhetoric. The Trump administration made it clear they were going to ban Muslims, and then wrote an EO that targets Muslim-majority nations. That's like saying "I'm going to ban Jews" and then banning immigration from Israel but saying "Hey, it's not about Jews but about the country of Israel!" In other words, this judge (as others) called Trump on his bullshit.

Also, an EO is not a law. I know you love everything about Trump, but try not to conflate him with Congress.

 

[bripat9643]

"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.’”

TRANSLATION: "Trump used the words "Muslim ban" during the usual overheated-rhetoric days of the Presidential campaign, and then wrote a law that does nothing of the kind, and in fact leaves most Muslims in the world free to enter the U.S. But we suspect that Trump will soon start banning Muslims from Malaysia, China, India etc., even though the actual law he wrote gives him no power to do anything of the kind. Therefore we must deny him the law he wrote that bans people from six known terrorist-infested countries, so that he won't target countries not even mentioned in that law. In other words, we will hand down a ruling on his campaign rhetoric, not on the law he wrote."

If you took the time to read the decision (which I doubt you ever will), you'd read how the judge cited case law requiring him to use context in deciding if the EO violated the Establishment Clause. You'd also read how it's not just Trump's words nor about "overheated" rhetoric. The Trump administration made it clear they were going to ban Muslims, and then wrote an EO that targets Muslim-majority nations. That's like saying "I'm going to ban Jews" and then banning immigration from Israel but saying "Hey, it's not about Jews but about the country of Israel!" In other words, this judge (as others) called Trump on his bullshit.

Also, an EO is not a law. I know you love everything about Trump, but try not to conflate him with Congress.

I'm calling you and the judge on your bullshit. Even if it was about banning Muslims, nothing in the Constitution prevents that. The Bill of Rights does not protect foreigners residing on foreign soil, and the Constitution gives Congress absolute authority to control immigration. It therefore doesn't matter what Trump's motive is, and it isn't up to the judge to second guess his reasoning.

 

[jc456]

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?

well I can't see what you're linking. So why don't you just pull the abstract out that you believe counts as a violation.

 

[jc456]

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 wasn't in the EO, so he blocked it on something not there. He admitted it. said it was inference from a campaign speech in 2015. It isn't in the EO.

 

[jc456]

"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.’”

TRANSLATION: "Trump used the words "Muslim ban" during the usual overheated-rhetoric days of the Presidential campaign, and then wrote a law that does nothing of the kind, and in fact leaves most Muslims in the world free to enter the U.S. But we suspect that Trump will soon start banning Muslims from Malaysia, China, India etc., even though the actual law he wrote gives him no power to do anything of the kind. Therefore we must deny him the law he wrote that bans people from six known terrorist-infested countries, so that he won't target countries not even mentioned in that law. In other words, we will hand down a ruling on his campaign rhetoric, not on the law he wrote."

If you took the time to read the decision (which I doubt you ever will), you'd read how the judge cited case law requiring him to use context in deciding if the EO violated the Establishment Clause. You'd also read how it's not just Trump's words nor about "overheated" rhetoric. The Trump administration made it clear they were going to ban Muslims, and then wrote an EO that targets Muslim-majority nations. That's like saying "I'm going to ban Jews" and then banning immigration from Israel but saying "Hey, it's not about Jews but about the country of Israel!" In other words, this judge (as others) called Trump on his bullshit.

Also, an EO is not a law. I know you love everything about Trump, but try not to conflate him with Congress.

I'm calling you and the judge on your bullshit. Even if it was about banning Muslims, nothing in the Constitution prevents that. The Bill of Rights does not protect foreigners residing on foreign soil, and the Constitution gives Congress absolute authority to control immigration. It therefore doesn't matter what Trump's motive is, and it isn't up to the judge to second guess his reasoning.

but that isn't in the EO. just isn't.

 

[bripat9643]

"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.’”

TRANSLATION: "Trump used the words "Muslim ban" during the usual overheated-rhetoric days of the Presidential campaign, and then wrote a law that does nothing of the kind, and in fact leaves most Muslims in the world free to enter the U.S. But we suspect that Trump will soon start banning Muslims from Malaysia, China, India etc., even though the actual law he wrote gives him no power to do anything of the kind. Therefore we must deny him the law he wrote that bans people from six known terrorist-infested countries, so that he won't target countries not even mentioned in that law. In other words, we will hand down a ruling on his campaign rhetoric, not on the law he wrote."

If you took the time to read the decision (which I doubt you ever will), you'd read how the judge cited case law requiring him to use context in deciding if the EO violated the Establishment Clause. You'd also read how it's not just Trump's words nor about "overheated" rhetoric. The Trump administration made it clear they were going to ban Muslims, and then wrote an EO that targets Muslim-majority nations. That's like saying "I'm going to ban Jews" and then banning immigration from Israel but saying "Hey, it's not about Jews but about the country of Israel!" In other words, this judge (as others) called Trump on his bullshit.

Also, an EO is not a law. I know you love everything about Trump, but try not to conflate him with Congress.

I'm calling you and the judge on your bullshit. Even if it was about banning Muslims, nothing in the Constitution prevents that. The Bill of Rights does not protect foreigners residing on foreign soil, and the Constitution gives Congress absolute authority to control immigration. It therefore doesn't matter what Trump's motive is, and it isn't up to the judge to second guess his reasoning.

but that isn't in the EO. just isn't.

Of course it isn't. The judge doesn't have a case based on what's actually in the EO, so he basis it stuff that is totally inapplicable.

 

[jc456]

"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.’”

TRANSLATION: "Trump used the words "Muslim ban" during the usual overheated-rhetoric days of the Presidential campaign, and then wrote a law that does nothing of the kind, and in fact leaves most Muslims in the world free to enter the U.S. But we suspect that Trump will soon start banning Muslims from Malaysia, China, India etc., even though the actual law he wrote gives him no power to do anything of the kind. Therefore we must deny him the law he wrote that bans people from six known terrorist-infested countries, so that he won't target countries not even mentioned in that law. In other words, we will hand down a ruling on his campaign rhetoric, not on the law he wrote."

If you took the time to read the decision (which I doubt you ever will), you'd read how the judge cited case law requiring him to use context in deciding if the EO violated the Establishment Clause. You'd also read how it's not just Trump's words nor about "overheated" rhetoric. The Trump administration made it clear they were going to ban Muslims, and then wrote an EO that targets Muslim-majority nations. That's like saying "I'm going to ban Jews" and then banning immigration from Israel but saying "Hey, it's not about Jews but about the country of Israel!" In other words, this judge (as others) called Trump on his bullshit.

Also, an EO is not a law. I know you love everything about Trump, but try not to conflate him with Congress.

I'm calling you and the judge on your bullshit. Even if it was about banning Muslims, nothing in the Constitution prevents that. The Bill of Rights does not protect foreigners residing on foreign soil, and the Constitution gives Congress absolute authority to control immigration. It therefore doesn't matter what Trump's motive is, and it isn't up to the judge to second guess his reasoning.

but that isn't in the EO. just isn't.

Of course it isn't. The judge doesn't have a case based on what's actually in the EO, so he basis it stuff that is totally inapplicable.

it is amazing. I want him disbarred. Especially if he was in contact with obummer. he is but a civilian, and discussions of security issues are not allowed.

 

[Richard-H]

8 U.S. Code 1182 says:
"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 key is the legal definition of the word 'finds'.

'finds' does NOT mean 'arbitrarily chooses'. It means that the President must have a valid reason, and living up to a campaign promise does not constitute a valid reason.

The President must show some evidence that the aliens 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'.

This finding must be based of facts, not on paranoid delusions or moronic personal beliefs.

The government has failed to show the court any valid reason to believe that these aliens 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States', so the EO is illegal. It does not satisfy the conditions required for 8 U.S. Code 1182.

 

[bripat9643]

8 U.S. Code 1182 says:
"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 key is the legal definition of the word 'finds'.

'finds' does NOT mean 'arbitrarily chooses'. It means that the President must have a valid reason, and living up to a campaign promise does not constitute a valid reason.

The President must show some evidence that the aliens 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'.

This finding must be based of facts, not on paranoid delusions or moronic personal beliefs.

The government has failed to show the court any valid reason to believe that these aliens 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States', so the EO is illegal. It does not satisfy the conditions required for 8 U.S. Code 1182.

In practical terms "finds" means "for whatever reason he chooses." The law doesn't specify who is allowed to 2nd guess him, especially unelected judges.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

1. The Establishment clause does not cover immigration.

2. Foreigners do not have the right to immigrate to or visit the USA.

3. All precedent, 100% of it, is on Trumps side here.

4. This idiot judge will be overturned as he should be, and then hopefully impeached as all activist judges should be..

 

[JimBowie1958]

8 U.S. Code 1182 says:
"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 key is the legal definition of the word 'finds'.

'finds' does NOT mean 'arbitrarily chooses'. It means that the President must have a valid reason, and living up to a campaign promise does not constitute a valid reason.

The President must show some evidence that the aliens 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'.

This finding must be based of facts, not on paranoid delusions or moronic personal beliefs.

The government has failed to show the court any valid reason to believe that these aliens 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States', so the EO is illegal. It does not satisfy the conditions required for 8 U.S. Code 1182.

And Trump has provided that evidence, doofus, by the complete lack of a government in these six nations to properly vet their visa holders or they have openly declared terrorist intentions against the USA.

Just because you cover your eyes and ears and chant "He will not divide us!" does not mean that the Reality you live in is any less real or any less about to kick you right in your ass.

 

[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?

well I can't see what you're linking. So why don't you just pull the abstract out that you believe counts as a violation.

I'm patient enough to wait for your to get to a computer that can read the judge's decision. Here's a different link to it: Full text: Hawaii's ruling on Trump's new travel ban - CNNPolitics.com .