Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

a reply to: Macenroe82

And you will be just as wrong if you say it..better or otherwise.
Lot's of info been posted.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: gortex

This rogue judge will be the next swamp creature looking for employment.

You clearly don't understand the law or the Constitution. He/she is doing their job.

Wrong.

Their job is to uphold the laws of the land.

Not to rule based on emotions.

No [SNIP] The judges don't uphold the law, they interpret the law.

The executive is the branch that upholds the law.

That's Trump's job.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Anybody got the actual court order from today?

Apparently not. And tongue waggers say it's not crap until it's in writing for review.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Phage

Is that so?

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking U.S. President Donald Trump's recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

3 of those are covered under existing statues under the state department.

The remaining 4 are covering by the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.

This has to do with visa holders. Restrictions on who gets visas is another thing entirely.

a reply to: kosmicjack

While it may not be enforceable until signed, there isn't much "review" involved.

a reply to: Phage

Well, the petitioner must have standing, as detailed in the specific arguments made. If it's not available to read, how does anyone know?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: loam

How can a state have standing on immigration issues?

A federal judge has standing in presidential actions.

There is a difference between standing and a court's jurisdiction. Standing relates to the parties.

What I don't understand is how a state can have standing to sue on behalf of foreign nations not present in the US.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Like I said. There is a difference between standing and jurisdiction.

a reply to: kosmicjack

You can read the motion here:
www.documentcloud.org...

a reply to: loam

I presume they are petitioning on behalf of the H1B using Tech companies. In which case, why does their monetary investment in a non-citizen supersede national security?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neo96

You may want to see which "low level political hack" blocked Obama's immigration EO.

The dreamers EO related to people physically within the US. They were the parties.

a reply to: loam

The claim was that federal judges do not have the authority to block an EO.
The claim was false.

a reply to: kosmicjack

We are going to have to wait for the written order.

I think it is extraordinary the judge gave the state standing on any grounds to address visas issued to foreign nationals outside the US.

a reply to: Phage

I didn't make that claim, and you addressed my post.

ME:

How can a state have standing on immigration issues?

YOU:

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: loam
A federal judge has standing in presidential actions.

As I have said, standing and jurisdiction are not the same thing.

Courts don't have standing....they have jurisdiction.

Only parties can have standing.

Another pro trump judge just ordered something

a reply to: loam

The EO goes beyond visas.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

You obviously don't understand the standing issue. A state only has standing to sue on behalf of its citizens (little 'c'). To my knowledge no federal court has ever ruled that a state can sue on behalf of non-citizens not physically within the state. That is something completely new.

If that is the case, States can now sue for all kinds of foreign policy issues.

The motion is meaningless. Of course they will argue the permissibility of their action. What really matters is the judge's written ruling on the standing issue.

I'll wait to see what his ruling is there.

a reply to: loam

The judge issued the restraining order based upon the motion. I suppose you will have to wait for the written order before issuing your personal judgement upon it.

a reply to: Phage

As will you.

a reply to: loam

I didn't make that claim, and you addressed my post.

You can see in your quoted section that I was not addressing your post.