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

[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.

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 .

I asked for the abstract. got that? why do I need to read something you've interpreted as wrong. please, post the piece that is in violation of a law.

 

[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 .

I asked for the abstract. got that? why do I need to read something you've interpreted as wrong. please, post the piece that is in violation of a law.

I know what you asked for. I'm not giving it to you. The judge didn't write an abstract to his decision and I'm not going to compose one for you. You either read the decision as I did, or stop discussing the matter with me. Your choice.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the judge cited case law requiring him to use context

So I was correct in pointing out that the judiciary branch is taking over the functions of the Executive. Courts make their decisions, often with no legal grounds as in this case. Then they use those decisions as "law" - they even call them "case law" - and decide they can strike down anything a President does, based solely on what they and their judicial cohorts believe. Which often has nothing to do with actual laws passed by Congress and EOs issued by the President to carry out those laws.

My statement stands... and remains unanswered. We have reached the point where judges can block anything a President does, giving no legal grounds at all to back up what they choose to do.

No wonder the usual liberal hysterics don't want to look too closely into what these judges are doing. They like it just fine. And applying scrutiny and truth is likely to cause them to lose what they like, so they don't even try.

 

[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.

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.

The law doesn't say the Trump needs to demonstrate a thing. That's purely a snowflake delusion.

 

[bripat9643]

the judge cited case law requiring him to use context

So I was correct in pointing out that the judiciary branch is taking over the functions of the Executive. Courts make their decisions, often with no legal grounds as in this case. Then they use those decisions as "law" - they even call them "case law" - and decide they can strike down anything a President does, based solely on what they and their judicial cohorts believe. Which often has nothing to do with actual laws passed by Congress and EOs issued by the President to carry out those laws.

My statement stands... and remains unanswered. We have reached the point where judges can block anything a President does, giving no legal grounds at all to back up what they choose to do.

No wonder the usual liberal hysterics don't want to look too closely into what these judges are doing. They like it just fine. And applying scrutiny and truth is likely to cause them to lose what they like, so they don't even try.

Trump should simply ignore the court and impose his travel ban regardless. How are they going to stop him if he does, by throwing a royal hissy fit?

 

[Lakhota]

Among others, Trump violated the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.

 

[bripat9643]

Among others, Trump violated the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.

Wrong, moron. I'll repeat this for the 1000th time: The First Amendment does not protect foreigners who are not residing on U.S. soil.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

Nope. 'Find' means that he has to have some sort of evidence.

When I judge says " The court finds in favor of', it does not mean that the Judge just 'feels like it' or ' arbitrarily chooses'. It means that all evidence points to that conclusion.

Saying that "for whatever reason he chooses.", it effectively makes the President a dictator. I know you'd like that, but hey, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

We don't tolerate dictators here.

 

[bripat9643]

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 .

I asked for the abstract. got that? why do I need to read something you've interpreted as wrong. please, post the piece that is in violation of a law.

I know what you asked for. I'm not giving it to you. The judge didn't write an abstract to his decision and I'm not going to compose one for you. You either read the decision as I did, or stop discussing the matter with me. Your choice.

You obviously can't quote anything that shows Trump's EO is unconstitutional. Neither could the judge. He blathered on for 46 pages about stuff that was totally irrelevant to the constitutionality of the EO.

 

[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.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

Nope. 'Find' means that he has to have some sort of evidence.

Really? Where does the law say that?

When I judge says " The court finds in favor of', it does not mean that the Judge just 'feels like it' or ' arbitrarily chooses'. It means that all evidence points to that conclusion.

In the case of a leftwing judge, it means exactly that: their decisions are arbitrary. They have little relation to the actual laws on the books. However, the president is not a judge. He isn't bound by the same rules as a judge.

Saying that "for whatever reason he chooses.", it effectively makes the President a dictator. I know you'd like that, but hey, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

We don't tolerate dictators here.

Hmmm, no it doesn't. The president can only take the actions permitted by the legislation. It doesn't specify the reason needed to take that action. It leaves it up to him to decide. Judges don't get to overrule everything the president does. That would effectively make them dictators.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

Nope. 'Find' means that he has to have some sort of evidence.

Really? Where does the law say that?

When I judge says " The court finds in favor of', it does not mean that the Judge just 'feels like it' or ' arbitrarily chooses'. It means that all evidence points to that conclusion.

In the case of a leftwing judge, it means exactly that: their decisions are arbitrary. They have little relation to the actual laws on the books. However, the president is not a judge. He isn't bound by the same rules as a judge.

Saying that "for whatever reason he chooses.", it effectively makes the President a dictator. I know you'd like that, but hey, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

We don't tolerate dictators here.

Hmmm, no it doesn't. The president can only take the actions permitted by the legislation. It doesn't specify the reason needed to take that action. It leaves it up to him to decide. Judges don't get to overrule everything the president does. That would effectively make them dictators.

In the words of Tonto:

"Is this horse stupid or is this horse just pretending to be stupid...I can't tell"

Either way it's not worth my time arguing with an idiot, whether you really are that stupid or just just pretending doesn't matter.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

 

[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.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

Nope. 'Find' means that he has to have some sort of evidence.

Really? Where does the law say that?

When I judge says " The court finds in favor of', it does not mean that the Judge just 'feels like it' or ' arbitrarily chooses'. It means that all evidence points to that conclusion.

In the case of a leftwing judge, it means exactly that: their decisions are arbitrary. They have little relation to the actual laws on the books. However, the president is not a judge. He isn't bound by the same rules as a judge.

Saying that "for whatever reason he chooses.", it effectively makes the President a dictator. I know you'd like that, but hey, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

We don't tolerate dictators here.

Hmmm, no it doesn't. The president can only take the actions permitted by the legislation. It doesn't specify the reason needed to take that action. It leaves it up to him to decide. Judges don't get to overrule everything the president does. That would effectively make them dictators.

In the words of Tonto:

"Is this horse stupid or is this horse just pretending to be stupid...I can't tell"

Either way it's not worth my time arguing with an idiot, whether you really are that stupid or just just pretending doesn't matter.

That's ironic considering you are one of the biggest dumbasses in this forum.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Among others, Trump violated the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.

Wrong, moron. I'll repeat this for the 1000th time: The First Amendment does not protect foreigners who are not residing on U.S. soil.

And you're wrong for the 1000th time, moron.

First, the 1st Amendment restricts the power of the US government, which last time I checked, was not a foreigner. Second, the language in the Amendment address freedoms of people, not citizens. If it were meant to only apply to US citizens, they probably would have used the word "citizens". Because words have meaning.

"The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

 

[wjmacguffin]

the judge cited case law requiring him to use context

So I was correct in pointing out that the judiciary branch is taking over the functions of the Executive.

Nope, because once again (and please try to pay attention this time) the executive office is not superior to the US Constitution. The judiciary cannot deal with anything that's not brought to it, whereas the executive office can initiate what it wants, but again again, that branch must still work within the limits set by the constitution. And under our system, the judiciary branch decides what is constitutional, not the president.

A judge cannot say, "Hey, that law's blocked because I don't like it!" Instead, as is this case, they say, "Hey, that law's blocked because it violates the US Constitution; and here's how the law does that; and here are the laws saying it does that; and here are the laws saying I can say all of this."

Courts make their decisions, often with no legal grounds as in this case.

Nope. As you and I have covered before, you refuse to read the court decision. If you did, you'd see all the citations it made to laws and precedent. In a common law system like ours, both are used as legal grounds. You could argue the cited cases and laws do not apply, but that's not what you said. You said there are no grounds. There are, plenty in fact. You just don't like 'em because they go against Dear Leader. Well, tough shit. Welcome to America where courts decide constitutionality and you don't always get everything you want.

Then they use those decisions as "law" - they even call them "case law" - and decide they can strike down anything a President does, based solely on what they and their judicial cohorts believe.

Judges cannot arbitrarily decide if a law is constitutional or not (or an EO in this case). They must back it up by citing previous decisions and laws — just like the Hawaiian judge did in his decision, which I read, and which you refuse to. What's the deal, Sparky? Afraid of it?

Appeals are a thing, so that's how a previous judge's decision can be overturned. It's a check and balance to limit damage done by one biased judge. You remember checks and balances, right? Those are the things you want gone now that Dear Leader is in charge.

My statement stands... and remains unanswered.

Sorry, but you misspelled "I will only listen to people who agree with me 100%."

 

[wjmacguffin]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

The Constitution is not an international document. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from getting Visa's to enter the country. He also cancelled the Iranians Visa's that were currently in the country at the time.

 

[wjmacguffin]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

The Constitution is not an international document. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from getting Visa's to enter the country. He also cancelled the Iranians Visa's that were currently in the country at the time.

Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants

TL;DR: Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants was legal because Iran had showed itself an enemy of the US by holding US citizens hostage, and because it was small in scope and a reaction to a specific event. None of that applies to Trump's EO. Carter also never bragged about banning all Muslims prior to enacting the limited ban. That's why Carter didn't violate the US Constitution like Trump did.

And Trump (unfortunately) is a US citizen, rendering your "it's not an intentional document" null and void.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

The Constitution is not an international document. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from getting Visa's to enter the country. He also cancelled the Iranians Visa's that were currently in the country at the time.

Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants

TL;DR: Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants was legal because Iran had showed itself an enemy of the US by holding US citizens hostage, and because it was small in scope and a reaction to a specific event. None of that applies to Trump's EO. Carter also never bragged about banning all Muslims prior to enacting the limited ban. That's why Carter didn't violate the US Constitution like Trump did.

And Trump (unfortunately) is a US citizen, rendering your "it's not an intentional document" null and void.

I never said the document is 'intentional'. Bragging about banning all Muslims is irrelevant to Trump's Constitutional EO. Unvetted refugees and Muslim immigrants are not Citizens and therefore the Constitution doesn't apply to them. They are a security risk from those countries originally targeted by the non-natural born Citizen president, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarka.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

In spite of the fact he campaigned on banning Muslims? Guess you forgot that.