Hawaiian judge blocks Trump's new immigration ban EO: Did the judge say what law(s) it violated?

[skye]

I want to know where does it say "Any judge can overrule a President on matters of National Security and Immigration?


WHERE?

These are all Obama's stooges leftovers wanting to cause trouble for President Trump. Total scum.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Perhaps ALL immigration should be halted. That would put an end to the discrimination argument.

Well, it probably would. And yet doing that -- ending all immigration or discrimination in immigration policy -- isn't anything Trump wants to do.

I don't have a problem with immigration limits/bans that are based on rational analysis of what can reasonably and rationally be shown as correlates to increased domestic safety risks. There's even been plenty of analysis on the immigration matter by the conservative Cato Institute. All Trump needs to do is base his ban around the findings of their studies....but that would be too rational an approach for his supporters who are all about pathos.

And the really sad thing is that Trumpkins are such irrational ideologues that Trump could tell them anything and they would accept it as gospel merely because he's the one saying it. Trump doesn't even realize that if he were to govern using genuine reason, they'd buy it because they aren't going to bother to find out if it's well thought out and the rest of us would buy it because we'd look into it and see that it is rational. Let's be real. Trumpkins are not deeply analytical and critical thinkers; they don't care what he says or does so long as it's labelled as his policy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Full text of the restraining order

Read the damn thing if you want to know on what legal basis the ban was halted.

OT:
Good lord. Here we are talking about halting a halt to immigration.....Just how much more absurd can Trump's actions become?

 

[Avatar4321]

Perhaps ALL immigration should be halted. That would put an end to the discrimination argument.

They may be the prudent and wise move until all the bullshit is halted.

They would still pretend it violated something

 

[skye]

A judge can not overrule a President!!!!

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

I don't have a problem with immigration limits/bans that are based on rational analysis of what can reasonably and rationally be shown as correlates to increased domestic safety risks.

Are you kidding? Are you saying that deep vetting of potential persons immigrating from countries known to have a high terrorist presence is unreasonable? Especially given the high number of terror attacks committed by immigrants/refugees from many of these same countries?

 

[idb]

Wow...so many constitutional lawyers in this thread!

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't have a problem with immigration limits/bans that are based on rational analysis of what can reasonably and rationally be shown as correlates to increased domestic safety risks.

Are you kidding? Are you saying that deep vetting of potential persons immigrating from countries known to have a high terrorist presence is unreasonable? Especially given the high number of terror attacks committed by immigrants/refugees from many of these same countries?

Are you saying that deep vetting of potential persons immigrating from countries known to have a high terrorist presence is unreasonable?

I am more than adequately literate enough to have written that if that were in fact what I intended to say. But that isn't what I wrote, now, is it? I mean what I wrote. Not more and not less.

 

[skye]

With all respect I ask for the third time....... can somebody answer this?


where does it say "Any judge can overrule a President on matters of National Security and Immigration?"

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't have a problem with immigration limits/bans that are based on rational analysis of what can reasonably and rationally be shown as correlates to increased domestic safety risks.

Are you kidding? Are you saying that deep vetting of potential persons immigrating from countries known to have a high terrorist presence is unreasonable? Especially given the high number of terror attacks committed by immigrants/refugees from many of these same countries?

deep vetting of potential persons immigrating from countries known to have a high terrorist presence

I know where most terrorists who've carried out acts in the U.S. have come from and I know that citizens from those countries aren't affected by Trump's ban. I haven't seen anything credible documenting where most terrorists are today. Have you? I've seen plenty of conjecture, but nothing rigorous and rational that asserts what countries have the most present day terrorists.

 

[idb]

With all respect I ask for the third time....... can somebody answer this?


where does it say "Any judge can overrule a President on matters of National Security and Immigration?"

I thought the ruling was based on constitutionality...not national security and immigration.

 

[skye]

With all respect I ask for the third time....... can somebody answer this?


where does it say "Any judge can overrule a President on matters of National Security and Immigration?"

I thought the ruling was based on constitutionality...not national security and immigration.

~~~~~~~~~

 

[idb]

With all respect I ask for the third time....... can somebody answer this?


where does it say "Any judge can overrule a President on matters of National Security and Immigration?"

I thought the ruling was based on constitutionality...not national security and immigration.

~~~~~~~~~

Not the answer you were fishing for then?

 

[skye]

With all respect I ask for the third time....... can somebody answer this?


where does it say "Any judge can overrule a President on matters of National Security and Immigration?"

I thought the ruling was based on constitutionality...not national security and immigration.

~~~~~~~~~

Not the answer you were fishing for then?

It is a joke of an answer.

That's why I laugh.

 

[RodISHI]

Enough is enough charge the seditious attorneys and any others pushing this crap that puts people in the US at risk in their own country. At this point I will not mourn their loss.

"Moderate" Muslim Brotherhood Mourns Terrorist's Death

Despite being on a U.S. terrorism watch list, Abdel Rahman entered the United States in 1990 after obtaining a tourist visa from the U.S. embassy in Sudan. The State Department soon realized the mistake and tried to revoke the visa, but Abdel Rahman successfully fought deportation.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

I don't have a problem with immigration limits/bans that are based on rational analysis of what can reasonably and rationally be shown as correlates to increased domestic safety risks.

Are you kidding? Are you saying that deep vetting of potential persons immigrating from countries known to have a high terrorist presence is unreasonable? Especially given the high number of terror attacks committed by immigrants/refugees from many of these same countries?

Are you saying that deep vetting of potential persons immigrating from countries known to have a high terrorist presence is unreasonable?

I am more than adequately literate enough to have written that if that were in fact what I intended to say. But that isn't what I wrote, now, is it? I mean what I wrote. Not more and not less.

I too am adequately literate, but from the rest of your post you are inferring that the reasons Turmps EO's are neither rational nor reasonable.

You went on after that statement that Trump supporters; Trumpsters, if you will; blindly follow him. While I admit that some are rabid supporters, most of us agree that he is taking the proper steps in an effort to guard against terrorism. Just as you maybe agreed with Obama's kid glove approach to terrorism

So yes. "Are you kidding"

 

[oreo]

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?

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

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.

The judge believes it is just another Muslim ban 2.0 is why he stopped it.

After Trump initially blasted a federal judge in Seattle on Twitter for blocking the original travel ban, and several other federal courts halted its implementation last month, the White House went back to the drawing board for over a month and rewrote the ban -- hoping this one would survive legal scrutiny.

Yet certain statements made by Trump's senior advisers have come back to bite the administration in the court ruling, Watson brought up specific statements made by the President and Stephen Miller, one of his top policy advisers and a reported architect of the original order, in cable news interviews.

Trump made plain his opposition to Islam in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper last year, asserting: "I think Islam hates us."

Cooper asked then-candidate Trump in the interview to clarify if he meant Islam as a whole or just "radical Islam," to which Trump replied, "It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who."

The judge cited this interview as an example of the "religious animus" behind the executive order and quoted Trump telling Cooper: "We can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States."

Likewise, the decision cited an interview Miller had on Fox News following the legal struggles of the first executive order last month, which the legal opponents of the ban have emphasized repeatedly.

In a February interview, Miller downplayed any major differences the new executive order would have from the first and said it would be "responsive to the judicial ruling" holding it up and have "mostly minor technical differences."

"Fundamentally, you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country," Miller added.
"These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order's stated secular purpose," Watson wrote.

"Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims," he added.

and NOW--Executive order 2.0

While Watson signaled that this temporary freeze of the travel ban may not last forever, he nevertheless concluded that the changes made between the first and second versions of the travel ban weren't enough.
Judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

This is the problem with the Trump administration, they've been very vocal with their intent on FOX NEWS and other cable network channels. Trump instead of going to the acting attorney Sally Watts to discuss this order with her, decides to maneuever around her, contacted one of his supporters Rudi Guiliani to help write this executive order, then fired Sally Watts for telling her DOJ to stand down because it was unconstitutional. Then Rudi Guiliani gets on FOX News and literally called his newly written 1st executive order a MUSLIM BAN. Guiliani was a senior adviser to the Trump campaign.

Here is a great article describing this disaster.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

Trump really should have listened to Carly Fiorinia when the first executive order dumped. "Do not write another one."

 

[bripat9643]

You two nitwits haven't been paying attention:

JUDGE SAYS HAWAII CAN CHALLENGE TRUMP'S NEW TRAVEL BAN
BY REUTERS ON 3/8/17

""A federal judge on Wednesday said the state of Hawaii could file an amended complaint against President Donald Trump's new executive order temporarily banning the entry of refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii said the state could add to its initial lawsuit, which had challenged Trump's original ban signed in January. The state is claiming the revised ban signed by the president on Monday violates the U.S. Constitution. It is the first legal challenge to the revised order.

The state of Hawaii will ask the court on Wednesday to put an emergency halt to Trump's new order, according to a court schedule signed by the judge. A hearing is set for March 15, a day before the new ban is to go into effect."""

Judge says Hawaii can challenge Trump's new travel ban

One of the reasons is that it hurt the feelings of Muslims. I didn't know the Constitution banned laws because they hurt someone's feelings.

 

[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?

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

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.

The judge believes it is just another Muslim ban 2.0 is why he stopped it.

After Trump initially blasted a federal judge in Seattle on Twitter for blocking the original travel ban, and several other federal courts halted its implementation last month, the White House went back to the drawing board for over a month and rewrote the ban -- hoping this one would survive legal scrutiny.

Yet certain statements made by Trump's senior advisers have come back to bite the administration in courtI the ruling, Watson brought up specific statements made by the President and Stephen Miller, one of his top policy advisers and a reported architect of the original order, in cable news interviews.

Trump made plain his opposition to Islam in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper last year, asserting: "I think Islam hates us."

Cooper asked then-candidate Trump in the interview to clarify if he meant Islam as a whole or just "radical Islam," to which Trump replied, "It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who."

The judge cited this interview as an example of the "religious animus" behind the executive order and quoted Trump telling Cooper: "We can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States."

Likewise, the decision cited an interview Miller had on Fox News following the legal struggles of the first executive order last month, which the legal opponents of the ban have emphasized repeatedly.
In a February interview, Miller downplayed any major differences the new executive order would have from the first and said it would be "responsive to the judicial ruling" holding it up and have "mostly minor technical differences."

"Fundamentally, you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country," Miller added.
"These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order's stated secular purpose," Watson wrote.

"Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims," he added.

and NOW--Executive order 2.0

While Watson signaled that this temporary freeze of the travel ban may not last forever, he nevertheless concluded that the changes made between the first and second versions of the travel ban weren't enough.

This is the problem with the Trump administration, they've been very vocal with their intent on FOX NEWS and other cable network channels. Trump instead of going to the acting attorney Sally Watts to discuss this order with her, decides to maneuever around her, contacted one of his supporters Rudi Guiliani to help write this executive order, then fired Sally Watts for telling her DOJ to stand down because it was unconstitutional. Then Rudi Guiliani gets on FOX News and literally called his newly written executive order a MUSLIM BAN.

Here is a great article describing this disaster.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

Trump really should have listened to Carly Fiorinia when the first executive order dumped. "Do not write another one."

The idea that the "animus" behind the law determines whether it meets constitutional muster is a novel legal concept dreamed up by douche bags who hate the Constitution.

 

[The Original Tree]

Foreign citizens actually have no Jurisdiction in a domestic court .

None.

They cannot claim the rights of a US citizen.

What The Left has been doing is infiltrating our Judicial System with Activist Constitutionalist Deconstructionists.

These people are also Globalist and believe The US and it's citizens should be beholden to and subjugated by foreign courts.

This is another way Globalists attempt
to dissolve The National Sovereignty of
A Nation and they do it through gradualism one corrupt court decision at a time.

And I read the damn 43 page Brief this so called judge whipped up in an hour.

He did not cite one relative case or precedent that a foreign government or foreign person can Challenge a temporary travel ban and an Executive Order in a US Court.

It was 43 pages of horse shit and nothing but an attempt at subverting our right to National Sovereignty.

The Administration should actually ignore the stay because the stay is unlawful.