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

[bripat9643]

We know it wasn't a nightmare for useless ticks on the ass of society like you.

That was harsh. I always treated you with respect.

That may be the case. It's difficult for me to keep track of which lefties in here have some degree of honor and good manners as opposed to the rest who are irremediable douche bags.

 

[Billo_Really]

That may be the case. It's difficult for me to keep track of which lefties in here have some degree of honor and good manners as opposed to the rest who are irremediable douche bags.

I was just fuckin' with ya. I'm probably the worst of the worst.

 

[The Original Tree]

Courts get things wrong all of the time. This is why we should not be beholden to Judges especially these days when they make political decisions instead of lawful ones.

Look at The Dread Scott Decision.
Look how Democrats used the poll tax, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws and used our Court System and Crooked Lying Judges to defend Evil Corrupt Laws.

Don't dare lecture anyone here on the law as if an attorney has some kind of moral superiority over anyone else.

Attorneys are just professional liars with an fancy piece of paper to prove you can't trust one Phucking word that comes out of their mouths.

A Crooked and Evil Judge renders Crooked and Evil Judgements and a Good Judge makes Lawful Judgements.

And this above all is why The Left is so stark raving mad and foaming at the mouth Angry they lost.

They were hoping for 8 more years to Saturate our Jusicial System with wicked men and Evil Judges so they could use our own Courts against us so as to deprive us of our rights like they had done to The Black Man for so many decades!

Phuck Liberals Straight To Hell!

All of them!

Lying Scheming Plotting Son Of A Bitches!

Apparently it violates the establishment clause. Yet no one knows what church it establishes

Oh for ***** sake, THIS again?!

That's not the sole application of the establishment clause! It means government can't discriminate on basis of religion! And that moron #45 just went out in public and said YET AGAIN that his purpose is to exclude MUSLIMS.

Read a book already!

I understand our current education system neglects educating the people about the constitution. And I understand you are unable to answer the question because there is no answer. That is no excuse for and uncivil response.

The constitution restrains government in two areas. I'll try to make this as simple as possible. The two areas are the establishment clause, which prevents the government from forcing a religious viewpoint and in some situations religious activities onto people, and the free exercise clause which prevents government from stopping you from practicing your religion.

This executive order doesn't force a religious viewpoint onto anyone. It doesn't mention religion. It doesn't prevent anyone from practicing their religion.

Neither clause is in play.

And for future reference if there was a law that targeting a certain religious group, it would be a free exercise issue and not an establishment clause issue.

This ruling should be overturned immediately.

Listen, really - you are embarrassing yourself.

I really actually do have a law degree, and a law license, and years of practicing in our courts and writing briefs based on Constitutional arguments.

You likely didn't take an American Government course beyond the high school level which you might have spent passing notes to the cute girl you wanted to shag. No offense, but you are WAY out of your league and really saying dumb things about judicial review and Constitutionality.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

If it hadn't been for Trump's public comments on T.V. along with public statements with several Senior members of his campaign, there probably wouldn't have been a problem with the 1st executive order.

Rewriting it--presents the same problem because of those prior statements and that is why this Judge has bombed on it again.

Reading doesn't hurt--because the JUDGE will explain it to you that issued the bomb on the first executive order, and why it's flopped again.
Hawaii judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

I read the judges decision. He said that national security and immigration regulation are not primary secular purposes. That's absurd

Any President's primary responsibility is to protect this country and can use executive orders to do it. That's not an issue. Obama did it by banning anyone coming into this country from Iraq for 6 months.

The problem is that Trump and members of his campaign continually referred (verbally) to it as a MUSLIM ban.

"The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

"If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country. But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese." (here Guiliani actually describes how it was done on FOX News, and what the pretense was about.)
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

So if you want to blame anyone--blame FOX NEWS & Rudi Guiliani, and the Presidential tweets, and all the others that surround Trump who have continually referred to this as a Muslim ban.

This is the problem when Presidents and their campaign advisers are always on the news making comments like this that these District Court Judges are WATCHING--and if they're not watching, you can be assured that immigration lawyers will bring these video tapes into court to make certain the Judge watches them.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM

What people have said about the law isn't relevant. Judges aren't supposed to rule based on people's opinions. They are supposed to rule based on the fact.

Here's a fact: The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to control immigration. The Bill of rights applies only to people on American soil. It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil.

That's all that needs to be said about the matter.

And the judge explicitly stated that his ruling was based on the fact that there is no primary secular purpose for it. No honest person can look at it and agree. That was the full extent of his analysis. The name of the executive order by itself provides a primary secular purpose. The reasoning being this is absolutely ridiculous

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

"The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Nobody has explained how having a temporary moratorium on immigrants is establishing a religion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Time for President Trump to do 1 of 2 things. 1. Ignore this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling and advance it

I begin to understand President Andrew Jackson's sentiments when the Marshall Court made a ruling he didn't like.

From Wikipedia:
President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" This derives from Jackson's comments on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate".

The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard. Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, has the judge yet told us what law(s) Trump's new EO supposedly violated?

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?

 

[oreo]

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.

If it hadn't been for Trump's public comments on T.V. along with public statements with several Senior members of his campaign, there probably wouldn't have been a problem with the 1st executive order.

Rewriting it--presents the same problem because of those prior statements and that is why this Judge has bombed on it again.

Reading doesn't hurt--because the JUDGE will explain it to you that issued the bomb on the first executive order, and why it's flopped again.
Hawaii judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

I read the judges decision. He said that national security and immigration regulation are not primary secular purposes. That's absurd

Any President's primary responsibility is to protect this country and can use executive orders to do it. That's not an issue. Obama did it by banning anyone coming into this country from Iraq for 6 months.

The problem is that Trump and members of his campaign continually referred (verbally) to it as a MUSLIM ban.

"The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

"If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country. But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese." (here Guiliani actually describes how it was done on FOX News, and what the pretense was about.)
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

So if you want to blame anyone--blame FOX NEWS & Rudi Guiliani, and the Presidential tweets, and all the others that surround Trump who have continually referred to this as a Muslim ban.

This is the problem when Presidents and their campaign advisers are always on the news making comments like this that these District Court Judges are WATCHING--and if they're not watching, you can be assured that immigration lawyers will bring these video tapes into court to make certain the Judge watches them.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM

What people have said about the law isn't relevant. Judges aren't supposed to rule based on people's opinions. They are supposed to rule based on the fact.

Here's a fact: The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to control immigration. The Bill of rights applies only to people on American soil. It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil.

That's all that needs to be said about the matter.

Well apparently District Court Judges do think it matters what people say. Especially when Rudi Guiliani got on FOX News and made this statement. In it he describes to a tea what it was about --with the INTENT to ban Muslims.

"If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country. But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese." (here Guiliani actually describes how it was done on FOX News, and what the pretense was about.)
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

And this District Court Judge explains why he tossed it out. Again because Trump and Company are too vocal about what their INTENT was.
Trump admin to appeal travel ban rulings 'soon' - CNNPolitics.com

 

[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?

It is a joke of an answer.

That's why I laugh.

Did the judge base his rejection of the ban on its constitutionality?

 

[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.

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.

Not being a lawyer I'll just let the judge explain it himself;

Full text: Hawaii's ruling on Trump's new travel ban - CNNPolitics.com

 

[beagle9]

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

. Not just one stupid judge, but rather one of many it seems now.... You see my friend here is the deal, it's just all a power play that's going on here.

Who has messed this country up worse than anyother ? The judges have that's who.


If they can win against this President, then they would effectively make him a slave to their authority. Anything he does, they will figure that he will have to go through them to get it done afterwards. All the left will have to do is contest anything the President comes up with, and then get it sent to a liberal judge or judges for a ruling that will protect the leftist agenda. They are attempting to make the President a lame duck, so is he falling for it or should he start fighting back by enforcing the Constitution upon them ?? If they defy the Constitution, then bring them before the court as well.

 

[beagle9]

Using so called political rehtoric speak that was created by the left upon what Donald Trump supposedly said as is being interpreted by this leftist judge wrongfully is ridiculous.., He (the judge) is doing so in order to justify his blocking the EO, and he is basing his idiotic decisions on what Trump spoke about during the campaign in which was miss-interpreted by the left on purpose, and it is flat outright ridiculous what is going on here.... Trump was miss-interpreted by the left who then formed a bold face lie about what Trump said during the campaign, and did so for political and agenda purposes. It is so obvious as to what is going on here...

 

[Marion Morrison]

That judge needs impeached. Be lucky if not brought up on charges of "Aiding and abetting the enemy"


Enough's enough!

No Federal Judge has jurisidiction over the president of the US.

No.

These type of judges need to be routed ASAP. It's bad for everybody. (That's a US citizen)

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

If it hadn't been for Trump's public comments on T.V. along with public statements with several Senior members of his campaign, there probably wouldn't have been a problem with the 1st executive order.

Rewriting it--presents the same problem because of those prior statements and that is why this Judge has bombed on it again.

Reading doesn't hurt--because the JUDGE will explain it to you that issued the bomb on the first executive order, and why it's flopped again.
Hawaii judge blocks new travel ban; Trump calls it 'judicial overreach' - CNNPolitics.com

I read the judges decision. He said that national security and immigration regulation are not primary secular purposes. That's absurd

Any President's primary responsibility is to protect this country and can use executive orders to do it. That's not an issue. Obama did it by banning anyone coming into this country from Iraq for 6 months.

The problem is that Trump and members of his campaign continually referred (verbally) to it as a MUSLIM ban.

"The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

"If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country. But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese." (here Guiliani actually describes how it was done on FOX News, and what the pretense was about.)
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

So if you want to blame anyone--blame FOX NEWS & Rudi Guiliani, and the Presidential tweets, and all the others that surround Trump who have continually referred to this as a Muslim ban.

This is the problem when Presidents and their campaign advisers are always on the news making comments like this that these District Court Judges are WATCHING--and if they're not watching, you can be assured that immigration lawyers will bring these video tapes into court to make certain the Judge watches them.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM

What people have said about the law isn't relevant. Judges aren't supposed to rule based on people's opinions. They are supposed to rule based on the fact.

Here's a fact: The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to control immigration. The Bill of rights applies only to people on American soil. It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil.

That's all that needs to be said about the matter.

Well apparently District Court Judges do think it matters what people say. Especially when Rudi Guiliani got on FOX News and made this statement. In it he describes to a tea what it was about --with the INTENT to ban Muslims.

"If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country. But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese." (here Guiliani actually describes how it was done on FOX News, and what the pretense was about.)
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

And this District Court Judge explains why he tossed it out. Again because Trump and Company are too vocal about what their INTENT was.
Trump admin to appeal travel ban rulings 'soon' - CNNPolitics.com

Those judges should be impeached and disbarred. What third parties say about the law is irrelevant. Only the actual text of the law is relevant.

It's truly said how stupid and gullible leftwingers are.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Did the judge base his rejection of the ban on its constitutionality?

No.

 

[idb]

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.

Did the judge base his rejection of the ban on its constitutionality?

No.

"Judge Theodore Chuang issued the order early Thursday, saying the ACLU and other groups were likely to prevail on their arguments that the ban was unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of religion."

"...Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination."

"The groups argued that the underlying rationale of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, making it unconstitutional. Chuang granted a preliminary injunction nationwide basis."

News from The Associated Press

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Watson needs to be impeached, removed from the bench, and disbarred. He is an embarrassment to the judicial branch. Time for these open hacks to be reeled in.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well apparently District Court Judges do think it matters what people say. Especially when Rudi Guiliani got on FOX News and made this statement. In it he describes to a tea what it was about --with the INTENT to ban Muslims.

The problem is they don't give a **** about the law, and ONLY care about what the party wants.

Watson should be impeached, removed, and disbarred. He brings shame to the entire concept of a nation of laws.

 

[beagle9]

~~~~~~~~~

Not the answer you were fishing for then?

It is a joke of an answer.

That's why I laugh.

Did the judge base his rejection of the ban on its constitutionality?

No.

"Judge Theodore Chuang issued the order early Thursday, saying the ACLU and other groups were likely to prevail on their arguments that the ban was unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of religion."

"...Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination."

"The groups argued that the underlying rationale of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, making it unconstitutional. Chuang granted a preliminary injunction nationwide basis."

News from The Associated Press

. It's all BULLCRAP... The ACLU is a leftist agenda left leaning aid and abetting entity and/or lawyer group. They are not suitable to judge anything fairly or represent anything fairly because of their biases. The leftist judge also can't fairly adjudicate the case due to his fears or biases based upon his loyalties to the left in which he has made clear in his statements.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Founding Fathers gave way too much power to The Bench so much so the Bench believes it can Legislate. More Power should have been given to the States.

Yeah, then that Chicago gun ban could have held up.

lol

"Court is where Policy is made" - Justice Sonia Sotomayor. LAY! (Laugh at Yourself).