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

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

Because the Judge says it is is a poor answer, unfortunately. And because Trump said something one time doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you cannot refer to the EO itself and recite exactly where it is illegal or unconstitutional, you have nothing.

|___________|

You SAY I have nothing, but as it stands the EO is being held up for the very reasons I said. So in reality YOU are the one with nothing since you are currently arguing with the state of reality.

What you have is a liberal judge over reaching. It will be cleared up soon enough.

Except it is TWO judges in two separate states making the same ruling. Though I like the weak attempt to turn this into a partisan dogfight. Par the course for these things. If something goes against Trump, it's 100% an attempt by "the liberals" to sabotage Trump. Lol. Yeah right.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Guilliani's conversation about how to make this EO work legally is probably going to be the nail in the coffin for it. Plus Trump is killing his legal position when he talks about it at his rallies. Words DO matter and Trump is about to learn the hard way that you can't just say anything and always get away with it.

We'll see. My money is on the Supreme Court restating the President's considerable constitutional powers on immigration.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well there isn't much legal ground currently for that to happen.

Animus

"Animus means a motive or intent to interfere with the exercise of a right; not hostility, ill-will or personal animosity."

Just fyi, intent can be proven with someone's words. Like proudly displaying this on your campaign website:" Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." It's still there too. I just pulled it straight off of the website.

has this been mentioned yet? I am not sure if the info is correct and I don't have time to check right now but I love coincidences, they make ats go around.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump doesn't need any help sabotaging himself from anybody, Have a listen at his campaign for re-election rallies...

...Gee, I wonder who is paying for those?...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

Because the Judge says it is is a poor answer, unfortunately. And because Trump said something one time doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you cannot refer to the EO itself and recite exactly where it is illegal or unconstitutional, you have nothing.

|___________|

You SAY I have nothing, but as it stands the EO is being held up for the very reasons I said. So in reality YOU are the one with nothing since you are currently arguing with the state of reality.

Granted, you have your appeals to authority (at least when it serves you) but that still isn't much considering you are unwilling to show how the EO is unconstitutional, instead referring to Trump's thought crimes.

I wonder if the Supreme Court dismisses these judge's claims, if you will still be of the same opinion?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well there isn't much legal ground currently for that to happen.

Animus

"Animus means a motive or intent to interfere with the exercise of a right; not hostility, ill-will or personal animosity."

Just fyi, intent can be proven with someone's words. Like proudly displaying this on your campaign website:" Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." It's still there too. I just pulled it straight off of the website.

Like I said, we'll see what happens. If I were you I would not get too invested in this judges decision.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

Because the Judge says it is is a poor answer, unfortunately. And because Trump said something one time doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you cannot refer to the EO itself and recite exactly where it is illegal or unconstitutional, you have nothing.

|___________|

You SAY I have nothing, but as it stands the EO is being held up for the very reasons I said. So in reality YOU are the one with nothing since you are currently arguing with the state of reality.

Granted, you have your appeals to authority (at least when it serves you) but that still isn't much considering you are unwilling to show how the EO is unconstitutional, instead referring to Trump's thought crimes.

No. I've told you why I think the EO is unconstitutional. Just because it isn't the answer you want it to be doesn't mean I haven't done it.

I wonder if the Supreme Court dismisses these judge's claims, if you will still be of the same opinion?

If SCOTUS overturns this ruling then I will change my tune.

originally posted by: UKTruth

This will go to the Supreme Court and Trump will win.

Is it my imagination or did you not say the same thing about Trumps first failed EO?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. I've told you why I think the EO is unconstitutional. Just because it isn't the answer you want it to be doesn't mean I haven't done it.

You told me about Trump's words, and the fact that a couple judges halted the EO, not why the EO itself is unconstitutional. Neither of those second-hand opinions prove anything, and there is no amount of chewing gum that could string that logic together to mean an EO is unconstitutional.

If SCOTUS overturns this ruling then I will change my tune.

I wonder if the Judges or the SCOTUS told you the earth was flat if you'd believe them.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

Because the Judge says it is is a poor answer, unfortunately. And because Trump said something one time doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you cannot refer to the EO itself and recite exactly where it is illegal or unconstitutional, you have nothing.

|___________|

You SAY I have nothing, but as it stands the EO is being held up for the very reasons I said. So in reality YOU are the one with nothing since you are currently arguing with the state of reality.

Granted, you have your appeals to authority...

An appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority is not an authority...

An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

In this case a ruling by a Federal APPEALS Court is the precise opposite of that...They are precisely the authority to issue a decision.

Your repetition of "appeal to authority" as if it is fallacious in this scenario seems bizarre at best... Desperate dishonesty at worst..

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You told me about Trump's words, and the fact that a couple judges halted the EO, not why the EO itself is unconstitutional. Neither of those second-hand opinions prove anything, and there is no amount of chewing gum that could string that logic together to mean an EO is unconstitutional.

If you want my exact opinion, go read the judges' statement on the matter.

I wonder if the Judges or the SCOTUS told you the earth was flat if you'd believe them.

Don't be silly. A judge isn't a scientist.

a reply to: Indigo5

I tried to point that out earlier to him and he didn't believe me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you want my exact opinion, go read the judges' statement on the matter.

I don't want your opinion because you do not have one. You have adopted the opinions of others.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

This will go to the Supreme Court and Trump will win.

Is it my imagination or did you not say the same thing about Trumps first failed EO?

This has not been to the Supreme Court as yet.
Just saying you should not get too invested just yet as you may end up looking foolish.

a reply to: Indigo5

In this case a ruling by a Federal APPEALS Court is the precise opposite of that...They are precisely the authority to issue a decision.

Your repetition of "appeal to authority" as if it is fallacious in this scenario seems bizarre at best... Desperate dishonesty at worst..

Then the 5 9th-circuit court judges who support the travel ban outweigh the opinions of the 2 other judges. Your game is tedious at best, obsequious at worst.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
That's because I see no reason to disagree with it. You certainly haven't provided any valid legal arguments for why it isn't valid. You just keep repeating that it is constitutional and the judge is wrong over and over again like doing so will suddenly make that statement more valid and believable.

a reply to: UKTruth

This has not been to the Supreme Court as yet.
Just saying you should not get too invested just yet as you may end up looking foolish.

Trump didn't even petition the Supreme Court to hear the case the first time. The notion that this is justice served is idiotic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's because I see no reason to disagree with it. You certainly haven't provided any valid legal arguments for why it isn't valid. You just keep repeating that it is constitutional and the judge is wrong over and over again like doing so will suddenly make that statement more valid and believable.

I did, but your fingers are in the same place as they were last time.

"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)."

Emphasis added. That's the law right there.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

In this case a ruling by a Federal APPEALS Court is the precise opposite of that...They are precisely the authority to issue a decision.

Your repetition of "appeal to authority" as if it is fallacious in this scenario seems bizarre at best... Desperate dishonesty at worst..

Then the 5 9th-circuit court judges who support the travel ban outweigh the opinions of the 2 other judges. Your game is tedious at best, obsequious at worst.

No they don't. Those 5 judges weren't ruling on a case involving this EO. Therefore their opinion is just as useful as yours. It may be a bit more educated since they are actually lawyers/judges, but that doesn't mean it holds any legal weight in this regard. The only people who outweigh those two judges is SCOTUS if they rule contrary to them.