Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[Shadowferal]

Well, looks like after all the to-do with Agent Orange calling out judges, the Senate (under McConnell who may have ruled out the "nuclear" option...that may change) is parting ways from Trump on several things, and it looks like Gorsuch (Trump's Supreme Court pick) will need 60 votes to get approval.

[Zeek Daniels]

And it's the job of Congress and the Judiciary to provide balance. And no amount of crying about it will change that, no matter how many tears shed or diapers changed that the toddler-in chief uses up.

Its also the job of the Judges to know whats constitutional and what isnt, and the power of the president to stop immigration if he deems it a threat is within the power given to him by the constitution.

Theres really no point in you guys arguing against this. Its been shown to have happened with past presidents, you dont have a leg to stand on and neither do these two states who blocked the order. Its going to go through the judiciary process because thats all they got. Buying time trying to make trump look like an idiot because the media is gonna cover this part of the story but when it does get overturned its gonna get barely any airtime and the judges wont be ridiculed for such behavior.

[Shadowferal]

Its also the job of the Judges to know whats constitutional and what isnt, and the power of the president to stop immigration if he deems it a threat is within the power given to him by the constitution.

So stop bitching about the Judiciary doing its job.

[Belize]

Well, looks like after all the to-do with Agent Orange calling out judges, the Senate (under McConnell who may have ruled out the "nuclear" option...that may change) is parting ways from Trump on several things, and it looks like Gorsuch (Trump's Supreme Court pick) will need 60 votes to get approval.

McConnell might not have the most rigid spine ever, but he's not stupid.
He knows pulling the "Nuclear Option" would permanently damage the GOP.

[Zeek Daniels]

So stop bitching about the Judiciary doing its job.

Its not its job to ignore the constitution claiming somthing is unconstitutional knowing full well its constitutional just to make a political statement. Notice how only Two states did this and only 1 judge in Washington state? Its not like all 50 states are blocking this. Anyone with any sort of degree on Law and the constitution has said its perfectly within the presidents power. This is just a block because they are trying to hold the president up.

[Orbitus]

Its not its job to ignore the constitution claiming somthing is unconstitutional knowing full well its constitutional just to make a political statement. Notice how only Two states did this and only 1 judge in Washington state? Its not like all 50 states are blocking this. Anyone with any sort of degree on Law and the constitution has said its perfectly within the presidents power. This is just a block because they are trying to hold the president up.

That is your opinion, I will go with a judge over someone who doesn't know shit about law.

[Shadowferal]

Its not its job to ignore the constitution claiming somthing is unconstitutional knowing full well its constitutional just to make a political statement. Notice how only Two states did this and only 1 judge in Washington state? Its not like all 50 states are blocking this. Anyone with any sort of degree on Law and the constitution has said its perfectly within the presidents power. This is just a block because they are trying to hold the president up.

Are you really that ignorant?
If a federal judge puts a stop to shenanigans then to continue with such is considered illegal until a judge...judges differently.
Check and balance...stop thinking that one EO can over-rule it. The constitution is still in play. Even congress is beginning to give the Executive Branch the hairy eyeball. (a super-majority can still amend the US Constitution. Something the Executive Branch had better wake up on)

That's why the DHS said fuck this EO after the judge made his ruling.

[PACOX]

Struck down twice.

Do we need a third?

[Shadowferal]

It's all part of the 14 Amendment...the various clauses and subclauses...have to follow that.

- - - Updated - - -

Struck down twice.

Do we need a third?

Actually it was struck down at least four times.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

....obviously there are those that think it is subpar

Well, since no one on American soil has died in a terrorist attack by anyone from those banned countries for over 40 years...I'd say that the vetting is working pretty good as is.

Coincidentally, I'm sure, Trump has no business dealings with any of the seven banned countries.

[ranzino]

Struck down twice.

Do we need a third?

To be honest: the appeal was denied in its emergency motion only.
States of Washington and Minnesota ( 9th circuit is not meant for Minnesota, but Judge Robart's ruling in Seattle is appealed) are now asked for their arguments and the Trump side too. Case is to be continued, deadline for arguments is monday 3:00 pm PST.

Dunno how fast the court holds a hearing then and delivers a verdict. Could be an interesting start of the new week ? Will Trump drag it to SCOTUS ?

for the curious:
PDF of the denial order of emergency motion here
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/17-35105.pdf

[Shadowferal]

Dunno how fast the court holds a hearing then and delivers a verdict. Could be an interesting start of the new week ? Will Trump drag it to SCOTUS ?

That wouldn't be a good idea...Trump has already shown he has little respect for the Judiciary.

[Breccia]

Struck down twice.

Do we need a third?

Mitch McConnell said Congress would most likely not step in if the travel ban was overturned.

He said so on CNN, shown here.

[Torgent]

Well she probably did the right thing for her political career and you'll have a difficult time finding someone who can make an argument against that.

However, when taking a job in the White House, especially as a department head, you may hold feelings towards the Constitution independent of your employment, but the fact remains that the Attorney General derives their power as an extension of the Presidency, not independent of it, and when the President says something is Constitutional it is your duty to represent him or resign.

For specifics on the concept at hand here-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

ROFL just shut the fuck up. That's not how any of this works. The President has literally 0 authority to say "This is constitutional". Members of the judiciary do. She was right, Trump was wrong. Stop being butthurt that Trumpy was shown to be incredibly wrong and has been a huge failure.

[Zeek Daniels]

That is your opinion, I will go with a judge over someone who doesn't know shit about law.

I dont have to know shit about law to read the constitution. I also have heard many lawyers speak on this subject. The judge can block it because he has the power to do so. Its kinda like using a filibuster when you know your going to lose anyway. Hes not doing this because he thinks its unconstitutional, its because someone told him to find a way to block this so Trump looks bad.

The fact that you cant point to the constitution and show me where Trump doesnt have this power, The fact that not one person has show how this violates the US constitution means it doesnt. The FACT that plenty of Presidents in the past have used this very same power and not one Peep from the judiciary proves that this is nothing more than dirty politics. The Elite want trump to look like a fool and you guys are falling for it.

Read the article about presidential powers regarding closing borders, its been linked many times. The judge will get overruled when this plays out. The only way to block this is to amend the constitution and thats not happening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/15/donald-trumps-almost-true-claim-that-the-president-has-power-to-ban-any-class-of-persons/?utm_term=.7449adf45b4f

I think people need to read that article and see what the supreme court has ruled regarding this very issue.

[Hashtronaut]

It's called immigration laws. Parts of the constitution include how aliens are treated and what rights they have if they wish citizenship or asylum.

- - - Updated - - -



In terms of effectiveness? Statistically, it's working fine. This ban isn't being implemented for U.S. safety, it's done to appease the "scared" citizens.

Uhhhhh...no

[Shadowferal]

Mitch McConnell said Congress would most likely not step in if the travel ban was overturned.

He said so on CNN, shown here.

*nods*


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said President Donald Trump isn't likely to get his travel ban implemented by Congress if courts strike it down.

"I don't know that that's necessary," McConnell told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" Sunday. "I mean, the courts are going to decide whether the executive order the President issued is valid or not, and we all follow court orders."
-------------------

Sounds like he was sending Trump a message.

[ranzino]

That wouldn't be a good idea...Trump has already shown he has little respect for the Judiciary.

Will 9th circuit remember Trump's twitter rants ? Oh, you are so much not prepared, Donald. Poor legal counsels...
Ok, judges are professionals

[Hashtronaut]

Well, since no one on American soil has died in a terrorist attack by anyone from those banned countries for over 40 years...I'd say that the vetting is working pretty good as is.

Coincidentally, I'm sure, Trump has no business dealings with any of the seven banned countries.

Well frankly I'd need a source to agree with you, otherwise that's just a random factoid by some random internet canadian.
Also adjusting conditions in anticipation/prevention isn't stupid. Why wait until an issue happens to fix it?

[Shadowferal]

Well frankly I'd need a source to agree with you, otherwise that's just a random factoid by some random internet canadian.
Also adjusting conditions in anticipation/prevention isn't stupid. Why wait until an issue happens to fix it?

You mean like allowing the mentally ill to buy guns?