Federal Judge in Hawaii Has blocked Travel Ban Hours before it is to Take Effect

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Right so why judge them by stating that if we don't let in their family they will likely become attackers?

I didn't judge anyone. I said that making someone feel picked on because of where they come from would likely piss them off. Alienate them. That's not a judgement, that's a fact of human nature.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Right so why judge them by stating that if we don't let in their family they will likely become attackers?

I didn't judge anyone. I said that making someone feel picked on because of where they come from would likely piss them off. Alienate them. That's not a judgement, that's a fact of human nature.

So why is it imperative that we not piss these people off? Why should we care? Shouldn't our security be paramount? Shouldn't our security be more important than people's feelings?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: yuppa
This judge needs to be blocked when his re certification comes up from practicing law. this one was properly written and reviwed. it was totally compliant.

Ok how about this. All immigration is shut down for 5 yrs. only green card holders and tourist allowwed. Its time to play dirty.

US District Judges don't have any "certifications" come up. They are appointed by a President with the consent of the Senate. And your plan would block Albert Einstein, Robert J. Oppenheimer (who designed the bomb that won WWII), Leo Szilard (who wrote the letter to FDR that started the Manhatten Project), half the guys at Microsoft, Google and Apple.

We're Jews, the persecuted people's around that time, afforded the same luxury as the fleeing Germans?

Well, actually, Einstein and Szilard WERE Jewish. And I made one mistake - Oppenheimer was not an immagrant, though his parents were. But your attempted point is valid. The Jews were the victims of the same hind of mindless bigotry to which Muslims are now the victims.

For the "not a Muslim ban" crowd, you all have short memories. Straight from Donald's own website:

Muslim ban proposal

December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on

Is that what happened? No. But it's what he wanted.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
For the "not a Muslim ban" crowd, you all have short memories. Straight from Donald's own website:

Muslim ban proposal

December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on

Is that what happened? No. But it's what he wanted.

So because that is what he said he wanted 2015, during one of the most asinine election cycles I history, our current president can never carry out one of his duties as president no mater how he goes about it in 2017?

We could go to war with Iran (for example) and we could come to find that they are sending a suicide bomber to our county once a week (for example) claiming to be a refuge and the President would not be able to do the logical thing and deny them entry because in 2015 he called for a Muslim ban?

That doesn't make sense.

I don't know if this current EO is constitutional, I'm not a constitutional scollor, but it seem seams the right thing to duo is judge it by its contents not based on what the president said in 2015. That's just stupid and even dangerous.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: LordAhriman
For the "not a Muslim ban" crowd, you all have short memories. Straight from Donald's own website:

Muslim ban proposal

December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on

Is that what happened? No. But it's what he wanted.

So because that is what he said he wanted 2015, during one of the most asinine election cycles I history, our current president can never carry out one of his duties as president no mater how he goes about it in 2017?

We could go to war with Iran (for example) and we could come to find that they are sending a suicide bomber to our county once a week (for example) claiming to be a refuge and the President would not be able to do the logical thing and deny them entry because in 2015 he called for a Muslim ban?

That doesn't make sense.

I don't know if this current EO is constitutional, I'm not a constitutional scollor, but it seem seams the right thing to duo is judge it by its contents not based on what the president said in 2015. That's just stupid and even dangerous.

It is unconstitutional, because it's a law based on religion. The 1st amendment doesn't only apply to Christianity.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: LordAhriman
For the "not a Muslim ban" crowd, you all have short memories. Straight from Donald's own website:

Muslim ban proposal

December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on

Is that what happened? No. But it's what he wanted.

So because that is what he said he wanted 2015, during one of the most asinine election cycles I history, our current president can never carry out one of his duties as president no mater how he goes about it in 2017?

We could go to war with Iran (for example) and we could come to find that they are sending a suicide bomber to our county once a week (for example) claiming to be a refuge and the President would not be able to do the logical thing and deny them entry because in 2015 he called for a Muslim ban?

That doesn't make sense.

I don't know if this current EO is constitutional, I'm not a constitutional scollor, but it seem seams the right thing to duo is judge it by its contents not based on what the president said in 2015. That's just stupid and even dangerous.

It is unconstitutional, because it's a law based on religion. The 1st amendment doesn't only apply to Christianity.

If ture, and such can be established by examining the EO itself, than I don't have a problem with that argument and the EO should be blocked.

However If the only way to establish the validity of that accusation is to take into account what was said 2 years ago ... that's just stupid and even dangerous.

a reply to: reldra

Well I guess if a terrorist fly's in,nukes Hawaii the citizens can thank him,part of being the person in charge is using good judgement,because he has several others fate in his hands,a vertual pissing contest to prove a point is lighting a bomb,because some dares you,how on earth can anyone construe this as a good thing? someone wanting failure is who

Do not stoop to the petty attempts of the left my fellow brothers and sisters!! This is necessary for them as the unhinge continue to fall apart.

Scientific Evidence Proves You Can't Stump The Trump.

From a Washington Post Article,

"The White House may yet be vindicated. An appeals court might decide that the judge in Honolulu erred in his assessment of the new, more narrowly drawn travel ban. Or the Supreme Court could eventually intervene on his behalf."

Let's reflect at this second attempt,

"Now, their second attempt, which was drafted with more care and was vetted with experts throughout the agencies, has been called into question as well."

There is an extreme situation around the world and these petty and naive views only serve obstruct our progress. Is treasonous. Thank god for appeals, this one shouldn't take too long. Notice these cites were at the end of the article, they don't want to sensationalize these particular small tidbits. Anyways, good laugh.

References:
www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Arnie123

Pssssst. Just a heads up. A Maryland jugdge has also blocked this bill.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: reldra

Well I guess if a terrorist fly's in,nukes Hawaii the citizens can thank him,part of being the person in charge is using good judgement,because he has several others fate in his hands,a vertual pissing contest to prove a point is lighting a bomb,because some dares you,how on earth can anyone construe this as a good thing? someone wanting failure is who

Because you can easily smuggle nukes onto a commercial airline. Lol

a reply to: reldra

Oh...One of the people who understands that most of the claims Trump made were straight up nonsense, like the "more extreme vetting" stupidity...

He still makes stupid noises like when he was campaigning, he just does his babbling with his "inside voice" now.

...And he hasn't done a goddamned thing since he's been in office yet but make stupid noises like a middle schooler...

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: reldra

Well I guess if a terrorist fly's in,nukes Hawaii the citizens can thank him,part of being the person in charge is using good judgement,because he has several others fate in his hands,a vertual pissing contest to prove a point is lighting a bomb,because some dares you,how on earth can anyone construe this as a good thing? someone wanting failure is who

Holy hyperbole Batman!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Pssssst. Just a heads up. We have appeals courts, oh noes.

a reply to: Arnie123

How did that work out for Trump last time?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

By have him re-evaluate his EO, which he did and at the discretion and advice of various departments throughout the government, as cited in my article I posted.

I'll extend the olive branch and say his initial proposal was rushed.

This time, however, re worked it and sought approval and gained nods. This is why the EO will pass this time through the appeals process and ultimately, he can get the Surpreme Court to side with him as well.

This is a no brainer and was to be expected. Where dealing with a real administration here, not some puppet show we went through these last eight years.

All of you who think that marginalizing a group somehow does anyone any good are obviously spending way too much time on your "dumb phone" and watching way too much "dumb TV".

Marginalizing people more often than not causes a certain percentage of them to lash out, to retaliate against those who oppress them or refuse them sanctuary.

Think much?.

a reply to: Arnie123

Except it's not being held up for those reasons. It's being held up due to the context surrounding the EO. Namely, Trump's own words about banning Muslims on the campaign trail and then again asking Guiliani how to get legal cover for his Muslim ban.

This is a no brainer and was to be expected. Where dealing with a real administration here, not some puppet show we went through these last eight years.

Lol. A "real" administration that was soooo overconfident of its power that it rushed out an EO without considering its legal implications thinking they were above the law. Not to mention said administration also pursues frivolous conspiracy theories invented out of thin air. Yeah "real administration" is what I TOTALLY think of when I think of the Trump admin.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

You're a fool to think you aren't influenced by mass media like the rest of us denizens. So out of fear of radical islamic terror, you'll happily let everyone in, 'cause of fear...and our dumb phones and dumb tv's. lol wow, smh.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a fallacy and only interpreted by a few judges, these are petty attempts to block his order. If this was the case as outlined by you, then we would have multiple judges, double digits, if this was the case. Sadly it is not, therefore you'll see my expectations fold out.

Yes, overconfident in thinking nobody would be that dumb to block an essentially justified move. Of course, I advocate the legal process here. You know for a fact that if ONE terrorist incident happens in the US, that'll be all she wrote.