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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

Of course they can be wrong, and if SCOTUS overturns these decisions then that may be the case, but that is a bridge I will cross at the time. Until then, their credibility trumps your credibility.

a reply to: Indigo5

Animus or not the Law specifically states what it does and the judge did not rule on it correctly. Many laws have animus if you want to get technical. almost the entire constitution does.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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 "watered down" version of an EO that was found by Federal Courts to likely be unconstitutional...And on sufficient grounds where Trump bloviated he would fight it, but then scampered back to the drawing board instead?..

A watered down Unconstitutional EO is still Unconstitutional.....that legal inconvenience hasn't penetrated the orange menaces skull yet.

There's nothing illegal about the president barring people of a religion from coming to the US. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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.

Constitutionality disagreements isn't a zero-sum game. The only way to "cancel out" these ruling is for the SCOTUS to overturn them.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
There's nothing illegal about the president barring people of a religion from coming to the US. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it.

Well except the 1st Amendment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The first amendment says American citizens have the freedom to pursue the faith of their choice. It does not apply to foreign citizens.

a reply to: Indigo5

A "watered down" version of an EO that was found by Federal Courts to likely be unconstitutional...And on sufficient grounds where Trump bloviated he would fight it, but then scampered back to the drawing board instead?..

A watered down Unconstitutional EO is still Unconstitutional.....that legal inconvenience hasn't penetrated the orange menaces skull yet.

It would be a waste of time to fight it in court. It’s a smart move.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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.

uhh..No...Not the way our Judicial system is designed..

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The first amendment says American citizens have the freedom to pursue the faith of their choice. It does not apply to foreign citizens.

Actually the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone since the Constitution exists to restrict government's ability to infringe rights. It doesn't actually grant them.

And the words in the first Amendment are clear as day. If you agree that the Second should be interpreted as read, then "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." should be clear as day to you.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
There's nothing illegal about the president barring people of a religion from coming to the US. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it.

Without entering into a debate that will obviously lead no where...

I am fascinated by the thinking mechanisms that afford you the ability to just say random stuff at odds with reality as if they are simple facts..

How does that work?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The first amendment says American citizens have the freedom to pursue the faith of their choice. It does not apply to foreign citizens.

Actually the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone since the Constitution exists to restrict government's ability to infringe rights. It doesn't actually grant them.

A simple concept so often lost on people...

The constitution does not "grant" rights...It protects rights "endowed by our creator" from being infringed upon by government.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone since the Constitution exists to restrict government's ability to infringe rights. It doesn't actually grant them.

It only applies within jurisdiction. It doesn't apply in Yemen or Iran.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone since the Constitution exists to restrict government's ability to infringe rights. It doesn't actually grant them.

It only applies within jurisdiction. It doesn't apply in Yemen or Iran.

Which so many are failing to grasp. Ok tel the airlines no more passengers from those countries.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone since the Constitution exists to restrict government's ability to infringe rights. It doesn't actually grant them.

It only applies within jurisdiction. It doesn't apply in Yemen or Iran.

Well people entering the country is within the US' jurisdiction so your point here is moot.

a reply to: yuppa

Which so many are failing to grasp. Ok tel the airlines no more passengers from those countries.

We're just guys on the internet, not lawyers remember. We cannot point out the obvious, nor will they listen when we do.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well people entering the country is within the US' jurisdiction so your point here is moot.

The order is not unconstitutional, so your point is moot.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Except two federal judges disagree with you and their words hold more weight than yours. You can say otherwise all day, but that doesn't change the current situation the EO finds itself in.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except two federal judges disagree with you and their words hold more weight than yours. You can say otherwise all day, but that doesn't change the current situation the EO finds itself in.

There are over 3000 federal judges. Are the rest wrong for not opposing it?

I'm sorry but 3000 judges is far more weight than 2, since we're playing the appeal to authority game.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action:
(1) violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Count I);
(2) violation of the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause on the basis of religion, national origin, nationality, or alienage (Count II);
(3) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment based upon substantive due process rights (Count III); (4) violation of the procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment (Count IV);
(5) violation of the INA due to discrimination on the basis of nationality, and exceeding the President’s authority under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) (Count V);
(6) substantially burdening the exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 200bb-1(a) (Count VI);
(7) substantive violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A)–(C), through violations of the Constitution, INA, and RFRA (Count VII); and (8) procedural violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(D) (Count VIII).

Where you get confused is around standing...

The plaintiff must not only show the unconstitutionality of the EO, but also must have standing...demonstrated deleterious impact of the EO to the state or plaintiff..

So theoretically a law can be found unconstitutional, but never be sufficiently challenged in US Court by someone with standing.

So..Correct...a Yemeni citizen not in the USA and without citizenship could not challenge and unconstitutional law..Even if the courts found the law unconstitutional...because they would not have standing.

BUT...the state of Hawaii and other states CAN challenge it if they can show the negative impact on the State or it's Citizens.

From Tourism, to University attendance to Professorships and a lot of other stuff...Hawaii made a sufficient argument that the EO would effect their citizens negatively..

Standing is explained on page 15 of the ruling
www.scribd.com...