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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

The branch of government tasked with deciding the same disagrees with you.

a reply to: Indigo5

The branch of government tasked with deciding the same disagrees with you.

Which branch would that be?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

That argument has to be embarrassing for you...Where to start with that thinking? If 3000 judges had been presented with 3000 of the same cases?...Actually strike that...Yes...Stick with THAT argument...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

The branch of government tasked with deciding the same disagrees with you.

Which branch would that be?

Maybe you can review civics 101...

a reply to: Indigo5

That argument has to be embarrassing for you...Where to start with that thinking? If 3000 judges had been presented with 3000 of the same cases?...Actually strike that...Yes...Stick with THAT argument...

I'm arguing the merits of the travel ban, while you are arguing why I should listen to the judges, they very ones you keep repeating. Nothing could be more circular.

a reply to: Indigo5

Maybe you can review civics 101...

Not an argument. Go ahead and find some more favourable articles to pad it a little bit.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

Maybe you can review civics 101...

Not an argument. Go ahead and find some more favourable articles to pad it a little bit.

Favorable articles?

Like the text of the Federal ruling on the EO?

I see you have gone full-BS mode...I will say what I said with the LAST EO...I will let the Federal Courts explain it to you over the next couple weeks.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

Maybe you can review civics 101...

Not an argument. Go ahead and find some more favourable articles to pad it a little bit.

Favorable articles?

Like the text of the Federal ruling on the EO?

I see you have gone full-BS mode...I will say what I said with the LAST EO...I will let the Federal Courts explain it to you over the next couple weeks.

No, like CNN. Not once have you cited the EO and disproved nor refuted any of its arguments, relying solely on the words and opinions of others to formulate your conclusions. But that's the going rate, anyways.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

The branch of government tasked with deciding the same disagrees with you.

Which branch would that be?

Maybe you can review civics 101...

Deflection, how about you answer his question? or...does googling civics 101 not reveal that?

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

The branch of government tasked with deciding the same disagrees with you.

Which branch would that be?

Maybe you can review civics 101...

Deflection, how about you answer his question? or...does googling civics 101 not reveal that?

Someone not aware of the branches of government is either ignorant of that which they speak or trolling..Neither warrants a response. Same goes for you. Not my job to educate you or to entertain desperate trolls unable to make legitimate arguments.

a reply to: Indigo5

Someone not aware of the branches of government is either ignorant of that which they speak or trolling..Neither warrants a response. Same goes for you. Not my job to educate you or to entertain desperate trolls unable to make legitimate arguments.

I wouldn't conflate googling speed with knowledge, nor repeating the concerns of judges as an argument.

To those who appeal to authority, and repeat the claims of the judges as sacrosanct and credible, now 5 judges of the 9th circuit dispute the conclusions of your authorities, thereby rendering your arguments ridiculous. This is why we don't appeal to authority.

Five judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have broken ranks with their colleagues and voiced support for the legality of President Trump’s original travel ban.

Republican-appointe d judges on 9th Circuit voice support for Trump travel ban - Fox News

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
To those who appeal to authority, and repeat the claims of the judges as sacrosanct and credible, now 5 judges of the 9th circuit dispute the conclusions of your authorities, thereby rendering your arguments ridiculous. This is why we don't appeal to authority.

Five judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have broken ranks with their colleagues and voiced support for the legality of President Trump’s original travel ban.

Republican-appointe d judges on 9th Circuit voice support for Trump travel ban - Fox News

5 Republican Appointed judges amongst the 29 on the Ninth Circuit court issuing a statement, and not being in a position to rule on the case is hardly convincing of anything..

Have you googled the opinion of Judge Judy yet?...Because she has as much authority as these judges do on this case.

a reply to: Indigo5

5 Republican Appointed judges amongst the 29 on the Ninth Circuit court issuing a statement, and not being in a position to rule on the case is hardly convincing of anything..

Have you googled the opinion of Judge Judy yet?...Because she has as much authority as these judges do on this case.

I see we are selective about the authorities we appeal to. Again, that's to be expected.

Either way the point was (which you avoided) your appeals to authority are fallacious and a sign of irrationality. If you will not hear their arguments, once again appealing to authority, then right and wrong does not matter to you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Five judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have broken ranks with their colleagues and voiced support for the legality of President Trump’s original travel ban.

Republican-appointe d judges on 9th Circuit voice support for Trump travel ban - Fox News

And the Judge that was quoted in your Fox article?

"The panel's errors are many and obvious" and the decision "stands contrary to well-established separation-of-powers principles," wrote Judge Jay Bybee in a 26-page filing.

This guy...

While serving in the Bush administration as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, he signed the controversial "Torture Memos" in August 2002.

These authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used in the systematic torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp beginning in 2002 and at the Abu Ghraib facility following the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003.
...

Human Rights Watch and The New York Times Editorial board have called for the prosecution of Bybee "for conspiracy to torture as well as other crimes."

en.wikipedia.org...

Hilarious...

Trump found himself some real winners to speak up on his behalf..

a reply to: Indigo5

And you cannot argue the merits of his claims, only who said it. Bravo. Circular, fallacious, and irrational. I'm beginning to see a pattern.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

And you cannot argue the merits of his claims, only who said it. Bravo. Circular, fallacious, and irrational. I'm beginning to see a pattern.

What merits?

a reply to: Indigo5

What merits?

Or faults. But that would involve reasonable argument instead of fallacy.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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?

Which of those 3000 federal judges has seen a case pertaining to this EO?

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

Only if they've actually reviewed a case brought before them concerning this EO.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
To those who appeal to authority, and repeat the claims of the judges as sacrosanct and credible, now 5 judges of the 9th circuit dispute the conclusions of your authorities, thereby rendering your arguments ridiculous. This is why we don't appeal to authority.

Five judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have broken ranks with their colleagues and voiced support for the legality of President Trump’s original travel ban.

Republican-appointe d judges on 9th Circuit voice support for Trump travel ban - Fox News

"Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President's decision was well within the powers of the presidency," the judges stated in an unsolicited filing.

This means that they weren't actually reviewing a case pertaining to the EO and were just offering their opinion. Since they are judges it holds weight as far as opinions go, but it holds zero legal weight since this opinion isn't attached to any ruling. See this further down the article:

The comments do not impact the move by the federal judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday. Another federal judge in Maryland also issued an injunction against the travel ban, which critics say is a thinly veiled ban on Muslim immigration.