Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[cubby]

No, she said she didn't think it was lawful.
That's not the same thing.

It is precisely the same thing.

And also not a matter of semantics, because DOJ protocol is not to determine whether or not something is lawful, but rather, whether or not they can think of an argument for it.

This statement is NOT correct. You do not know what DOJ protocol is, whatsoever. Please don't make something up.

[ControlWarrior]

I wouldn't pray for any miracles; more than likely they just won't hear the case.

- - - Updated - - -



The law is what the judiciary says it is, in this case.

You lost. Get over it.

I'm fairly certain it will be put back into place.

[Deleted]

The law is clear, the president has full authority to exercise his power in this way. Again, the wording is the only thing they can attack.

Yes, the law is clear, that's why the courts refused all the appeals.

[ControlWarrior]

Yes, the law is clear, that's why the courts refused all the appeals.

Again, activist ruling by an activist court.

[ranzino]

I wanted to be in the courtroom when the White House presented this... defense and see the ''are you shitting me right now?'' look on the judge's face. Contarily to popular belief, judges can be very expressive if they feel like you're wasting their time.

Also, half the fun of these events is watching Trump's twitter tantrums. President Cartman indeed.

Nice image, but the hearing was done by phone.
If you can spare slightly over an hour ( 30 mins per plaintiff and defendant):

[cubby]

Hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so hold your horses.

It's unconstitutional because the 9th Circuit said it was. It will remain unconstitutional up until, and only if, the SCOTUS decides to weigh in.

- - - Updated - - -

The law is clear, the president has full authority to exercise his power in this way. Again, the wording is the only thing they can attack.

And I'm sure you were just as open to Presidential power when Obama was lifting immigration restrictions in the same manner than Trump is trying to restrict them.

/snort

[Elegiac]

I'm fairly certain it will be put back into place.

The fact that the stay was issued by a Bush era appointee is not promising for you, mate.

Nor is the fact that SCOTUS is split 4-4.

[ControlWarrior]

It's unconstitutional because the 9th Circuit said it was. It will remain unconstitutional up until, and only if, the SCOTUS decides to weigh in.

Unless they reissue the EO, I expect the Court to take this up soon.

[Breccia]

The wording was the only thing holding this back.

I'm not sure you can say "only". The wording was surely part, but the intent was also specifically addressed.

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).

I suck at legalese, but I'm fairly sure that bolded line is pretty important, too. It looks, to me, like they're saying things Trump said can be taken into consideration about the intent.

[ControlWarrior]

The fact that the stay was issued by a Bush era appointee is not promising for you, mate.

Nor is the fact that SCOTUS is split 4-4.

4-4? How about Neil? He should be confirmed by the time they rule.

[Deleted]

Again, activist ruling by an activist court.

Again, a ruling by a court. A 3-0 ruling.

[ControlWarrior]

Again, a ruling by a court. A 3-0 ruling.

And everyone can disagree with their interpretation and reasoning for doing so.

[cubby]

Unless they reissue the EO, I expect the Court to take this up soon.

You're welcome to your obviously uninformed opinion. Although, I will point out you didn't know how constitutionality worked until I corrected you.

That being said, it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes it up. Is Trump asking for an expedited hearing? Lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, activist ruling by an activist court.

That phrase is intellectually worthless btw. It was created by people who don't like it when their illegal and unconstitutional laws are repudiated.

[ControlWarrior]

You're welcome to your obviously uninformed opinion. Although, I will point out you didn't know how constitutionality worked until I corrected you.

That being said, it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes it up. Is Trump asking for an expedited hearing? Lol.

The Court's schedule is slower than most, as you undoubtedly know. They will likely take it up, its a pressing issue.

[Elegiac]

4-4? How about Neil? He should be confirmed by the time they rule.

Fat chance in hell any SCOTUS judge will be confirmed before the next judicial recess.

[Deleted]

And everyone can disagree with their interpretation and reasoning for doing so.

Yet, it's how the judicial checks of the executive power works.

[ControlWarrior]

You're welcome to your obviously uninformed opinion. Although, I will point out you didn't know how constitutionality worked until I corrected you.

That being said, it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes it up. Is Trump asking for an expedited hearing? Lol.

- - - Updated - - -



That phrase is intellectually worthless btw. It was created by people who don't like it when their illegal and unconstitutional laws are repudiated.

I also think their wrong, so...

[cubby]

The Court's schedule is slower than most, as you undoubtedly know. They will likely take it up, its a pressing issue.

Or the ruling is so obviously correct that they won't even grant it certiorari.

[Elegiac]

The Court's schedule is slower than most, as you undoubtedly know. They will likely take it up, its a pressing issue.

What makes it a pressing issue?

Did Fox News make you scared of the terrorists, friendo?

[ControlWarrior]

Yet, it's how the judicial checks of the executive power works.

Yes, please tell me again about something I've studied for years.