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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Arnie123

My ideology that we shouldn't freak out about Muslims because they pose a very insignificant threat to America backed up by statistical findings is dying? Do tell. Don't forget that we are discussing your "theory" here in a thread written to announce that Trump's Muslim ban 2.0 was halted.

clarionproject.org...

I love this and hope it happens more often.

Yes, the discussion in which a biased judge block OUR presidents order and how it will be overturned in the appeals process.

Wow, you have zero critical thinking. Miurders in the US attribute to various circumstances, you don't lump in terrorism into that.

I just did. Deal with it.

Um, no you didn't, how 'bout those apples?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Monger

originally posted by: odzeandennz
This mickey mouse bullsh it need to stop, either let the president and his cabinet run the country and its policies or not at all.

Checks and balances are damned inconvenient, but they were built into the system for a reason.

Trump needs to decalre Hawaii in revolt and punish them. President has th eright to say who can come and go. If i was him i would declare martial law for 90 days and restrict all travel in.

An excellent showing of Trumps cult logic. Why are you guys so TRIGGERED?

If the administration did like you guys want then this country would no longer be one of laws. If Trumps administration isn't worthless they will use the proper legal system without becoming tyrants. To end the ban on the ban it needs to be done in court.

originally posted by: Arnie123
clarionproject.org...

I love this and hope it happens more often.

What does this have to do with anything? You don't have to prove to me that the President's administration is bigoted against Muslims. I already knew that.

Yes, the discussion in which a biased judge block OUR presidents order and how it will be overturned in the appeals process.

You sound so confident that this appeal is going to overturn two judges rulings yet have zero legal arguments for why outside of insults to my critical thinking skills and disparaging remarks towards Muslims (that if brought up in a court of law would only guarantee this EO stays down). You aren't exactly convincing me of this. Though what you ARE convincing me of is that you cannot hold a civil conversation with someone without being a condescending asshole.

a reply to: Arnie123

Scientific Evidence Proves You Can't Stump The Trump.

Can you explain what that even means?

You sound so confident that this appeal is going to overturn two judges rulings yet have zero legal arguments for why outside of insults to my critical thinking skills and disparaging remarks towards Muslims (that if brought up in a court of law would only guarantee this EO stays down). You aren't exactly convincing me of this. Though what you ARE convincing me of is that you cannot hold a civil conversation with someone without being a condescending asshole.

Oh poor baby, triggered? grow some thick skin kiddo. Lets look at another article in response.

www.staradvertiser.com...

"The president, speaking at a rally in Nashville, said his administration would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Step One

“We’re going to win,” he said. “We’re going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

This is the point you fail to realize.

"But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security."

And this is how it will pass the supreme court. Not exactly verbatim, but more or less it will.

I don't want to convince you, you love terrorist odds, I don't, you see the disconnect? I'm American.

originally posted by: Arnie123
Oh poor baby, triggered? grow some thick skin kiddo. Lets look at another article in response.

Not really. Just trying to point out how you undermine your point by being hostile, but hey its the mud pit. Do you. All you are going to do is make me doubt everything you say the more you do it though.

www.staradvertiser.com...

"The president, speaking at a rally in Nashville, said his administration would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Step One

“We’re going to win,” he said. “We’re going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

This is the point you fail to realize.

What? That Trump can say a bunch of stuff and people believe him? No I realize that point very clearly, but you haven't posted a legal argument here. "We're going to win" is just usual Trump bluster. Nothing of note there.

"But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security."

And this is how it will pass the supreme court. Not exactly verbatim, but more or less it will.

Except that doesn't address the point that this EO was held up because of the context surrounding why Trump wrote the ban. If Trump can't clear that up (and he won't), then the EO is done. Just like the first.

I know you are trying to pretend it doesn't, but context matters. And for ONCE, Trump's idiotic rhetoric is going to bite him in the ass.

I don't want to convince you, you love terrorist odds, I don't, you see the disconnect? I'm American.

So am I, though I'm sure that twists your panties up something fierce that someone like me is allowed to have an opinion in this country.

a reply to: Arnie123

“We’re going to win,” he said. “We’re going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

This is the point you fail to realize.

If he was truly concerned about keeping us safe from terrorism, his EO would include countries like Columbia.

The fact that he only included countries with Muslim majorities and not countries with higher rates of terror conviction inside the US, proves that his EO is motivated by religion.

I'm American.

I remember reading that you said the Muslim ban will be glorious. You're not a very good American if you cannot understand the basic underlying principles that make this country what it is and want to ban people based on their personal faith.

a reply to: introvert

The fact that he only included countries with Muslim majorities and not countries with higher rates of terror conviction inside the US, proves that his EO is motivated by religion.

Another lie. The arguments are in the EO. Refute them or continue to make things up.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

The fact that he only included countries with Muslim majorities and not countries with higher rates of terror conviction inside the US, proves that his EO is motivated by religion.

Another lie. The arguments are in the EO. Refute them or continue to make things up.

Perhaps I missed it. Can you quote the part of the EO that explains why Trump targeted those specific countries and not countries with higher US terror conviction rates?

a reply to: introvert

(i) Among other actions, Executive Order 13769 suspended for 90 days the entry of certain aliens from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These are countries that had already been identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States. Specifically, the suspension applied to countries referred to in, or designated under, section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), in which Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program for nationals of, and aliens recently present in, (A) Iraq or Syria, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence. In 2016, the Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern for travel purposes, based on consideration of three statutory factors related to terrorism and national security: "(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States; (II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and (III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists." 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). Additionally, Members of Congress have expressed concerns about screening and vetting procedures following recent terrorist attacks in this country and in Europe.

I must have missed the Muslim ban part. Can you quote the part of the EO that specifies this Muslim ban?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Arnie123

It isn't a fallacy. It's exactly the reason why the EO is being held up right now, and it only took one judge to stop the last EO. We already DO have two judges stopping this EO and there may be a third coming soon as well. You may want to get right with these facts as that is the current state of reality whether you like it or not.

the Judge was not going by the LETTER of the LAW here. A judge is to rule on the letter of th elaw not its spirit or how it was framed by its authors previous comments.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Arnie123

It isn't a fallacy. It's exactly the reason why the EO is being held up right now, and it only took one judge to stop the last EO. We already DO have two judges stopping this EO and there may be a third coming soon as well. You may want to get right with these facts as that is the current state of reality whether you like it or not.

the Judge was not going by the LETTER of the LAW here. A judge is to rule on the letter of th elaw not its spirit or how it was framed by its authors previous comments.

Sure. Whatever you say Mr. Internet Lawyer.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Monger

originally posted by: odzeandennz
This mickey mouse bullsh it need to stop, either let the president and his cabinet run the country and its policies or not at all.

Checks and balances are damned inconvenient, but they were built into the system for a reason.

Trump needs to decalre Hawaii in revolt and punish them. President has th eright to say who can come and go. If i was him i would declare martial law for 90 days and restrict all travel in.

An excellent showing of Trumps cult logic. Why are you guys so TRIGGERED?

If the administration did like you guys want then this country would no longer be one of laws. If Trumps administration isn't worthless they will use the proper legal system without becoming tyrants. To end the ban on the ban it needs to be done in court.

Well ya see here is the thing... He does have Immigration authority on who can come and go in relation to national security. The judge isnt using the proper legal system here. he went by details that were not IN the EO. Follow th e LETTER of the law not the spirit. If its not kosher argue it in the Supreme court but the judge over stepped. And really trump can just ignore his order legally.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Arnie123

It isn't a fallacy. It's exactly the reason why the EO is being held up right now, and it only took one judge to stop the last EO. We already DO have two judges stopping this EO and there may be a third coming soon as well. You may want to get right with these facts as that is the current state of reality whether you like it or not.

the Judge was not going by the LETTER of the LAW here. A judge is to rule on the letter of th elaw not its spirit or how it was framed by its authors previous comments.

So-called judges, likely led by favor and bribery, are being obstructionist and seditious. The law does not matter to them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Arnie123

It isn't a fallacy. It's exactly the reason why the EO is being held up right now, and it only took one judge to stop the last EO. We already DO have two judges stopping this EO and there may be a third coming soon as well. You may want to get right with these facts as that is the current state of reality whether you like it or not.

the Judge was not going by the LETTER of the LAW here. A judge is to rule on the letter of th elaw not its spirit or how it was framed by its authors previous comments.

Sure. Whatever you say Mr. Internet Lawyer.

Deflection because you know I am right.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Arnie123

It isn't a fallacy. It's exactly the reason why the EO is being held up right now, and it only took one judge to stop the last EO. We already DO have two judges stopping this EO and there may be a third coming soon as well. You may want to get right with these facts as that is the current state of reality whether you like it or not.

the Judge was not going by the LETTER of the LAW here. A judge is to rule on the letter of th elaw not its spirit or how it was framed by its authors previous comments.

Sure. Whatever you say Mr. Internet Lawyer.

Deflection because you know I am right.

So where and when did you pass the bar exam?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Arnie123

It isn't a fallacy. It's exactly the reason why the EO is being held up right now, and it only took one judge to stop the last EO. We already DO have two judges stopping this EO and there may be a third coming soon as well. You may want to get right with these facts as that is the current state of reality whether you like it or not.

the Judge was not going by the LETTER of the LAW here. A judge is to rule on the letter of th elaw not its spirit or how it was framed by its authors previous comments.

So-called judges, likely led by favor and bribery, are being obstructionist and seditious. The law does not matter to them.

Got any proof of these slanderous accusations against these judges that you disagree with their rulings? I'm sure you don't and are just being hyperbolic, I just want to point out how you look like a hypocrite making outrageous claims with no baring on reality while holding people you argue against to higher standards.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well that just raises more questions. Why are specific nations designated potential concerns when their rates of US terror convictions are less that other nations that are not considered a threat?

It appears the focus is only on specific nations in specific regions..who happen to have a majority of a specific religion.