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

[oreo]

Time for President Trump to do 1 of 2 things. 1. Ignore this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling and advance it OR have a false flag attack performed in the US preferably a very liberal area and make sure it can be traced right back to the countries he wants banned from coming here.

Hate to tell you this but Trump can't TRUMP the Judicial branch of this country--LOL

 

[bripat9643]

Time for President Trump to do 1 of 2 things. 1. Ignore this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling and advance it OR have a false flag attack performed in the US preferably a very liberal area and make sure it can be traced right back to the countries he wants banned from coming here.

Hate to tell you this but Trump can't TRUMP the Judicial branch of this country--LOL

The leftwing judges Obama appointed simply ignore the law. Their decisions have no relation with the law.

 

[oreo]

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.

It has nothing to do with being a citizen, is has everything to do with the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

The Federal District Court Judge sees this as a MUSLIM BAN--because of Trump and his coherts big mouths. That campaigned and get on T.V. specifically FOX NEWS and kept referring to his executive order as a MUSLIM BAN. Trump himself raised eyebrows and is cited by the judge in the lower article in comments he made himself on CNN.

A little reading really won't HURT. You don't need to have it regurgitated to you by a right wing talk show host tomorrow morning, that will purposefully leave out critical information to suite your flavor.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.
Judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

Apparently these District Court judges watched Trump's campaign and actually do pay attention to the NEWS, and comments coming out of senior Trump campaign advisers.

And that is why this 2nd executive order flopped again.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

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.

You are correct. However, what the judge claimed as grounds to block did not apply.

The First Amendment: (The Establishment Clause)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Explain to us how they judge managed to morph this into grounds to suppress Trump's executive order. Better yet, explain how it would apply to non-Americans in a foreign country.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It has nothing to do with being a citizen, is has everything to do with the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

The Federal District Court Judge sees this as a MUSLIM BAN--because of Trump and his coherts big mouths. That campaigned and get on T.V. specifically FOX NEWS and keep referring to his executive order as a MUSLIM BAN.

A little reading really won't HURT.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.
Judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

Apparently these District Court judges watched Trump's campaign and actually do pay attention to the NEWS.

The First Amendment doesn't apply to foreigners who aren't on American soil. There is absolutely no constitutional issue, but that won't stop a leftwing judge from claiming there is.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Why even have a hearing? Too obvious he'd already ruled...one stupid judge

That would certainly appear to be the case

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It has nothing to do with being a citizen, is has everything to do with the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

The Federal District Court Judge sees this as a MUSLIM BAN--because of Trump and his coherts big mouths. That campaigned and get on T.V. specifically FOX NEWS and kept referring to his executive order as a MUSLIM BAN. Trump himself raised eyebrows and is cited by the judge in the lower article in comments he made himself on CNN.

A little reading really won't HURT.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.
Judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

Apparently these District Court judges watched Trump's campaign and actually do pay attention to the NEWS, and comments coming out of senior Trump campaign advisers.

Apparently you are an imbecile who doesn't know the first thing about the Constitution. We attack Muslims every day with drones, bombs and machine guns. Is the war on terror "unconstitutional?"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The judge was on television saying the proposed law was good. He just doesn't like Trump personally. He's an obama appointee. It's pretty much a slam dunk for the Supreme Court.

 

[oreo]

Time for President Trump to do 1 of 2 things. 1. Ignore this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling and advance it OR have a false flag attack performed in the US preferably a very liberal area and make sure it can be traced right back to the countries he wants banned from coming here.

Hate to tell you this but Trump can't TRUMP the Judicial branch of this country--LOL

The leftwing judges Obama appointed simply ignore the law. Their decisions have no relation with the law.

Not true
Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Travel Ban Nationwide

You people really need to get brave enough to drag yourselves out of this right wing media bubble you insist on living in. It's really affecting your information and dragging down your I.Q levels.

 

[oreo]

The judge was on television saying the proposed law was good. He just doesn't like Trump personally. He's an obama appointee. It's pretty much a slam dunk for the Supreme Court.

Have you got a link to that. What was the Judge that stated that? Or are you just watching FOX NEWS?

A little reading won't hurt you one bit.
Hawaii judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Time for President Trump to do 1 of 2 things. 1. Ignore this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling and advance it OR have a false flag attack performed in the US preferably a very liberal area and make sure it can be traced right back to the countries he wants banned from coming here.

Hate to tell you this but Trump can't TRUMP the Judicial branch of this country--LOL

The leftwing judges Obama appointed simply ignore the law. Their decisions have no relation with the law.

Not true
Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Travel Ban Nationwide

You people really need to get brave enough to drag yourselves out of this right wing media bubble you insist on living in. It's really affecting your information and dragging down your I.Q levels.

That was the first limitation in early February. Is it moving too fast for you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Reading the opinion. I expect better. I'm unimpressed.

Even the argument for standing seems like a stretch.

As for the actual analysis of the establishment clause, its seriously shoddy.

There is a three test prong for the establishment clause establishes in Lemon Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

The judge declared that the executive order failed the first prong by not having a primary secular purpose. Which in and of itself is absurd because national security and immigration regulation are both primary secular purposes.

And because in his opinion it failed the first prong he states that the court doesn't even need to address the other prongs.

No one can seriously expect an honest review from a higher court to uphold this decision

 

[oreo]

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.

It has nothing to do with being a citizen, is has everything to do with the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

The Federal District Court Judge sees this as a MUSLIM BAN--because of Trump and his coherts big mouths. That campaigned and get on T.V. specifically FOX NEWS and kept referring to his executive order as a MUSLIM BAN. Trump himself raised eyebrows and is cited by the judge in the lower article in comments he made himself on CNN.

A little reading really won't HURT.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.
Judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

Apparently these District Court judges watched Trump's campaign and actually do pay attention to the NEWS, and comments coming out of senior Trump campaign advisers.

Apparently you are an imbecile who doesn't know the first thing about the Constitution. We attack Muslims every day with drones, bombs and machine guns. Is the war on terror "unconstitutional?"

CAN YOU READ--then maybe you'll figure out why his second executive order flopped again, or are you just going to continue to blather on about anything with your middle finger stuck in the air.

It's one thing to be stupid about something, but it's quite a different thing when you're insisting on remaining stupid.
Hawaii judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Apparently that is not a primary secular purpose

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

It has nothing to do with being a citizen, is has everything to do with the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the U.S. Constitution.

the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Explain to us how a temporary moratorium on immigration violated ANY portion of the Establishment Clause. If you cant do that, then explain to us how it applies to non-citizens in a foreign country.

Apparently these District Court judges watched Trump's campaign and actually do pay attention to the NEWS, and comments coming out of senior Trump campaign advisers.

I doesnt matter what anybody said. What matters is what was presented to the court, or are these judges violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

All the judge, did while grasping at straws, was apply non-applicable laws to non-citizens on foreign soil. A fail on all counts. If the 9th Circus Court of Appeals has even a modicum of competancy they will strck down the lower court's decision. But I won't hold my breath for the most overturned court in the land.

 

[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.

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"

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.

I'm not convinced of your literacy for you've mistaken the difference between infer and imply. It's you, if anyone, who made the inference about what I wrote.

the reasons Turmps EO's are neither rational nor reasonable.

They are. Look at the countries from which he's banned immigration and then look at the countries of which terrorists have been citizens and thus from which they migrated.

Note: The image above is from the original ban. The new ban removed Iraq.​

So as I wrote before, if someone has published credible analysis, and not pure conjecture, that shows that there is a current basis for thinking that the countries that have previously produced the greatest quantities of terrorists are (1) not the countries that continue to do so and (2) to be found in the countries named in the ban, then fine, but I haven't seen any such rigorous analysis. I have seen plenty of analysis from the conservative Cato Institute that shows the irrationality and deleterious effects of Trump's current and proposed immigration policy actions.

I ask that you please read that content before responding to me. I'm weary of repeating the same objective data to which you offer no credible refutation or rebuttal.

most of us agree that he is taking the proper steps in an effort to guard against terrorism.

Well, of course you do....I said as much already. We agree that Trumpkins agree with Trump's actions.

you maybe agreed with Obama's kid glove approach to terrorism

To be perfectly honest, I think the risk of domestic terrorism is so low that it doesn't much matter to me what a POTUS does to counter it so long as whatever they do doesn't cost much, isn't bigoted, and doesn't get in the way of people just going about their daily lives.

​

Frankly, I think the matter of domestic terrorism is more a sensational thing than it is a real thing about which I or anyone else needs to concern themselves as goes their personal safety. Let's get real here. We all are more likely to die from a lightening strike than from a terrorist attack. Does that stop people from going out in the rain? No. Some people have calculated the risk of dying in a terrorist attack (the risk of death in an event/action is different from the risk of being killed by a specific class of individual as noted in the table above) at 1:20M; that's about the same as being killed by one's furniture. Moreover, I'm not Muslim, and that alone makes my risk of being involved in a terrorist attack even lower than it is if one includes all people -- Muslims and non-Muslims -- in calculating that risk.

So given the actual rather than sensationalised risks involved, when it comes to what is rational to do about terrorism, one must ask, if reducing the risk of Americans' dying from terrorist attacks in the U.S. is going to be something on which we spend our efforts and treasure, then just how much more should we spend on reducing the risk of all those other things that have far greater higher likelihoods of being the cause of our countrymen's unplanned deaths?

You see, what's rational in my mind is worrying about an acting to prevent or minimize those things that actually are high risk dangers, not spending money and time dealing with the low risk but highly sensational events that probably won't become realities even if we do nothing. That the news spends days on end talking about a "fantastical" event like a bomb attack in a Parisian or Orlandan bar is fine for the news network's ratings; it's a curiosity that befuddles us, so, okay, fine, they cover it intensively, but an anomaly all it is. It's poses far less real cause for concern than does a circus sideshow act.

 

[usmbguest5318]

given the high number of terror attacks committed by immigrants/refugees from many of these same countries?

Do you know what is the number of attacks committed by individuals from the banned countries? If you'd read the content at the links I've been providing, you'd know that it's zero! Those are the problems:

• Trumpkins won't read legitimate studies that show what the facts are in all their gory detail, and
• Trump doesn't read them either and he yet enacts policy without having read them.

Truly, after Trump's ban was first put on hold, I figured he was holding off on revising and reissuing it in the hope that someone from one of the banned countries would get into the U.S. and commit a terrorist act, or that he'd at least find someone from one of those countries who could be shown clearly to be planning one. Even that hasn't yet happened.

 

[Billo_Really]

Republicans can feel safe in knowing that terrorists aren't going to target their empty land. And I'm sure that among those are many that hope terrorists target our cities.

You put a terrorist in the White House who is targeting the entire country, our system of government and your sorry ass as well.

At least I don't assume the position...

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

given the high number of terror attacks committed by immigrants/refugees from many of these same countries?

Do you know what is the number of attacks committed by individuals from the banned countries? If you'd read the content at the links I've been providing, you'd know that it's zero! That's the problem.

Truly, after Trump's ban was first put on hold, I figured he was holding off on revising and reissuing it in the hope that someone from one of the banned countries would get into the U.S. and commit a terrorist act, or that he'd at least find someone from one of those countries who could be shown clearly to be planning one Even that hasn't yet happened.

Ok, you win. Do you feel better now or were you about to head to your safe space?

 

[usmbguest5318]

given the high number of terror attacks committed by immigrants/refugees from many of these same countries?

Do you know what is the number of attacks committed by individuals from the banned countries? If you'd read the content at the links I've been providing, you'd know that it's zero! That's the problem.

Truly, after Trump's ban was first put on hold, I figured he was holding off on revising and reissuing it in the hope that someone from one of the banned countries would get into the U.S. and commit a terrorist act, or that he'd at least find someone from one of those countries who could be shown clearly to be planning one Even that hasn't yet happened.

Ok, you win. Do you feel better now or were you about to head to your safe space?

I feel neither better nor worse, and I have no safe space.