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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't the mudpit, so don't do you.

Here's the law referred to in the EO.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)."

originally posted by: introvert
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.

The EO makes special concessions for persecuted religious minorities, including Muslims. The Sunni Muslims in Iran, for example.

"(iv) Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances."

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I must have missed the Muslim ban part. Can you quote the part of the EO that specifies this Muslim ban?

It doesn't say anything about Muslims. We know it is concerning Muslims based on Trump's words and the actions he is taking in this EO, which focus on specific countries that do not include non-Muslim majority countries with higher rates of US terror convictions.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't the mudpit, so don't do you.

Here's the law referred to in the EO.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)."

And? What's your point you are making?

a reply to: introvert

The consider terror throughout Europe as well.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

Its called basic civics and reading laws this item pertains to. Once again deflection.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't the mudpit, so don't do you.

Here's the law referred to in the EO.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)."

And? What's your point you are making?

It's the law. Now who is upholding it? Trump or the judges?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

Its called basic civics and reading laws this item pertains to. Once again deflection.

Really? Those two judges seem to disagree. I think I trust them more than some random dude on the internet who is pissed off because Trump isn't getting his way. Again.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't the mudpit, so don't do you.

Here's the law referred to in the EO.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)."

And? What's your point you are making?

It's the law. Now who is upholding it? Trump or the judges?

Trick question. Judges don't uphold the law; they merely interpret it and rule on constitutionality.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I must have missed the Muslim ban part. Can you quote the part of the EO that specifies this Muslim ban?

It doesn't say anything about a Muslims. We know it is concerning Muslims based on Trump's words and the actions he is taking in this EO, which focus on specific countries that do not include non-Muslim majority countries with higher rates of US terror convictions.

Oh so you are talking code words huh? the Eo didnt mention relgious practices. the Judge did not rule on the LETTER of the law which TRUMPS the SPIRIT.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So who is interpreting the law correctly? Trump or the judges?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So who is interpreting the law correctly? Trump or the judges?

Another trick question. The Executive Branch doesn't interpret the law. It enforces it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

Its called basic civics and reading laws this item pertains to. Once again deflection.

Really? Those two judges seem to disagree. I think I trust them more than some random dude on the internet who is pissed off because Trump isn't getting his way. Again.

trusting a judge is like trusting a wolf to not kill a sheep. PLenty of crooked judges and to blindly trust them is arrogant and stupid.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So who is interpreting the law correctly? Trump or the judges?

Another trick question. The Executive Branch doesn't interpret the law. It enforces it.

It's not a trick question. You're just giving trick answers. Where does the EO deviate from the law or constitution? Or will you again appeal to authority?

Why does it have to be about religion? Sure Iran and Iraq are highly religious Shia dominated societies with Ayatollahs, but Syria is pretty secular.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So who is interpreting the law correctly? Trump or the judges?

Another trick question. The Executive Branch doesn't interpret the law. It enforces it.

It's not a trick question. You're just giving trick answers. Where does the EO deviate from the law or constitution? Or will you again appeal to authority?

How is correcting your poorly constructed civics questions an appeal to authority?

In any case, as I've said already this EO is being held up because of the context surrounding it not the actual text within. Trump's own words are hanging this EO, and he isn't helping his case when he goes to rallies and says that he'd prefer the original EO to this one.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The EO makes special concessions for persecuted religious minorities, including Muslims. The Sunni Muslims in Iran, for example.

I know. The EO makes special concessions.

That is unconstitutional in my opinion because the ability of the individual to gain access to the US is dependent upon their religion or sect within a certain religion.

If you are wanting to come to the US but happen to be part of the majority religion (mainly Islam), you are discriminated against.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The EO makes special concessions for persecuted religious minorities, including Muslims. The Sunni Muslims in Iran, for example.

I know. The EO makes special concessions.

That is unconstitutional in my opinion because the ability of the individual to gain access to the US is dependent upon their religion.

That was th eold one that made concessions. this one spelled out what it was. IF you believe the Constitution should be followed correctly then you should also agree the letter of the law takes precedence over the feelings of a butthurt judge with a inferiority complex.

So, when another bombing or killing happens, and they came in under this time frame...charge the judge with accessory to murder.

What we need is a 2017 version of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Yes, it was unpopular...with the liberal trash and communists. But it drove them under ground for 70 years!

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The EO makes special concessions for persecuted religious minorities, including Muslims. The Sunni Muslims in Iran, for example.

I know. The EO makes special concessions.

That is unconstitutional in my opinion because the ability of the individual to gain access to the US is dependent upon their religion.

That was th eold one that made concessions. this one spelled out what it was. IF you believe the Constitution should be followed correctly then you should also agree the letter of the law takes precedence over the feelings of a butthurt judge with a inferiority complex.

You're just making a fool of yourself.

If we want to follow the constitution, no person would be allowed in or barred from entry based on their religion. Whether they are the majority or not.