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

a reply to: daveinats

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

You may be able to win that case in the court of public opinion for what its worth, but that is it.

originally posted by: introvert

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.

the EO didnt mention relgion. Just because the country is majority one religon unless it specifically says it in th eEO its not regious. And remember the first says the feds cannot do anything regarding that subject.

President has th epower to control Entry to the US as well as travel to other places. If they keep this up migh tjust get a worldwide travel ban to all non americans or greencard and visa holders. Trump should just ignore th eorder since he is over that judges power and use the national guard as border guards for 90 days.(within his power)

a reply to: Grimpachi

I got it! Trump shuts down The immigration office and where they make Visa. No travel ban,but no visas or documents to get in would be made while they were shut down would they? Thats a perfect work around.

a reply to: introvert

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.

That's simply untrue. At no point in the EO does it discriminate against Islam. The proof is that Muslims are not impeded from entering the country based on their religion. Those who follow the religion of submission are still able to enter the country.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

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.

the EO didnt mention relgion.

But Trump and all the architects of the EO did...

The legal term is called Animus..

Trump did himself no favors by saying at a rally yesterday that the new EO is just a "watered down" version of the last..

Intent counts in legal proceedings....After all the public statements of "Muslim Ban" it makes the EO legally vulnerable at the least.

Two federal judges have temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's travel ban, both citing Trump's statements about Muslims during the presidential campaign as part of their rulings.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Grimpachi

I got it! Trump shuts down The immigration office and where they make Visa. No travel ban,but no visas or documents to get in would be made while they were shut down would they? Thats a perfect work around.

Such a decree would require an EO or EA, and thus would be challenged and quickly overturned for the same reasons as these two EO's.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

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.

the EO didnt mention relgion.

But Trump and all the architects of the EO did...

The legal term is called Animus..

Trump did himself no favors by saying at a rally yesterday that the new EO is just a "watered down" version of the last..

Intent counts in legal proceedings....After all the public statements of "Muslim Ban" it makes the EO legally vulnerable at the least.

Two federal judges have temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's travel ban, both citing Trump's statements about Muslims during the presidential campaign as part of their rulings.

www.cnn.com...

Yeah. They keep ignoring this even though its been pointed out to them several times in the thread already. I'm sure the response will be, "Well the EO didn't mention religion."

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

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.

Those who follow the religion of submission are still able to enter the country.

Hmmmm....Curious...you used the word "The"?..."The Religion of submission"..

Can you cite a prevalent...or any... religion that does not involve "submission"??

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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.

You chastise other members and dismiss their arguments for not being lawyers and judges, as if that diminishes their arguments. At the same time you take the judges words simply because they are judges, when they need to prove their claims just like anyone else. That's an appeal to authority.

No, the judges are hanging the EO, using specious arguments, dismissing established law, and you are simply repeating what they are saying without making any coherent argument.

I don't think the judge should use Trump's past words to rule. All of us have said stupid things in the past. We should not be held accountable for our past words. People change with time. The EO is meant to prevent terrorists coming into the US posing as refugees where there is inadequate screening. Millions dead in Syria and Iraq. One death in the US would be too many.

a reply to: Indigo5

Hmmmm....Curious...you used the word "The"?..."The Religion of submission"..

Can you cite a prevalent...or any... religion that does not involve "submission"??

I am merely using the english translation of the word "Islam". Can you cite any other religion that is named in a similar manner?

a reply to: allsee4eye

I don't think the judge should use Trump's past words to rule. All of us have said stupid things in the past. We should not be held accountable for our past words. People change with time. The EO is meant to prevent terrorists coming into the US posing as refugees where there is inadequate screening. Millions dead in Syria and Iraq. One death in the US would be too many.

Exactly. The argument is utterly ridiculous.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah. They keep ignoring this even though its been pointed out to them several times in the thread already. I'm sure the response will be, "Well the EO didn't mention religion."

It is a watered down version. The only difference I can see is the exclusion of Iraq.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Except the judges have this thing called "credibility" since they are judges and happen to have dedicated their careers to knowing and interpreting the law. This is opposed to you, some guy on the internet with no formal legal education and likely has just gleamed his opinion off of social media or a conservative news site.

Appeals to authority aren't fallacies when the authority you are appealing to is an actual authority on the subject matter. You can slander these judges all day, but it does nothing to bolster your arguments and they still retain more credibility than you no matter what you say.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The new order does not bar people who already have visas from entering. The first one did. So this Hawaii judge basically says, if 1 billion Muslims want to come to the US, feel free to all come.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From the Hawaii ruling...
time.com...

Mr. Trump was asked: “Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position. Is that correct? And if it is, was it a mistake to have a religious test?” Mr. Trump replied: “The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a[n] extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.” When asked to clarify whether “the Muslim ban still stands,” Mr. Trump said, “It’s called extreme vetting.”

The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decision makers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”

The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.

For instance, there is nothing “veiled ” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”

On February 21, 2017, commenting on the then-upcoming revision to the Executive Order, the President’s Senior Adviser, Stephen Miller, stated, “Fundamentally, [despite “technical” revisions meant to address the Ninth Circuit’s concerns in Washington, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome [as the first].”


These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose.

Add to that Trumps rally yesterday where he touts the new EO as a "Watered down version of the first"...

Politics aside...Trump and his team are idiots...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Grimpachi

I got it! Trump shuts down The immigration office and where they make Visa. No travel ban,but no visas or documents to get in would be made while they were shut down would they? Thats a perfect work around.

Such a decree would require an EO or EA, and thus would be challenged and quickly overturned for the same reasons as these two EO's.

Or just have you repulican controlled congress shut them down. take your pick

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except the judges have this thing called "credibility" since they are judges and happen to have dedicated their careers to knowing and interpreting the law. This is opposed to you, some guy on the internet with no formal legal education and likely has just gleamed his opinion off of social media or a conservative news site.

Appeals to authority aren't fallacies when the authority you are appealing to is an actual authority on the subject matter. You can slander these judges all day, but it does nothing to bolster your arguments and they still retain more credibility than you no matter what you say.

Authorities can be wrong. That's your folly. And you are simply repeating their folly because you have a blind faith in them, or "credibility" as you call it.

a reply to: Indigo5

Exactly. This was all things that I was pretty sure were going to hold up this EO but I wasn't going to call it until I saw a judge ruling as such. Now that two judges have come out ruling similarly along these grounds, it's not looking good for the EO. If these judges think there is an issue here then there isn't much hope of Trump overcoming it since the issue is tied directly to his rhetoric. Something the Donald has no intention of changing.

What Trump can do is get a federal judge from Texas to rule in his favor. That way, 2 conflicting federal judge orders cancel each other, and the EO goes into effect.