Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Allerius]

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not first amendment: President can't make executive order X.

Also the logic that since Trump called for y during his campaign means that all his EO are based on y is spurious at best. Trump's making a fool of activist judges from the 9th until Gorsuch gets appointed and the SC hears the case.

[May90]

As Trevor Noah said: "Checks and balances, biatch!" I guess Trump expected he would actually be an emperor, when he was running? Tough luck!

[Orbitus]

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not first amendment: President can't make executive order X.

Also the logic that since Trump called for y during his campaign means that all his EO are based on y is spurious at best. Trump's making a fool of activist judges from the 9th until Gorsuch gets appointed and the SC hears the case.

Sorry, but I will listen to a Harvard educated judge over someone that doesn't know law. Everyone that isn't a Trump knob gobbler knows that this was entirely about trying to ban Islam. Especially since they they have put provisions in these to allow "minority religions" through. Which in these countries, would be Christianity.

[May90]

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not first amendment: President can't make executive order X.

Also the logic that since Trump called for y during his campaign means that all his EO are based on y is spurious at best. Trump's making a fool of activist judges from the 9th until Gorsuch gets appointed and the SC hears the case.

President can make executive orders, and Congress or the Supreme Court can override them. This is how separation of powers works, my friend.

[Breccia]

Everyone that isn't a Trump knob gobbler knows that this was entirely about trying to ban Islam.

Especially Trump. Who called this a Muslim Ban. Multiple times. In public. That's why the court ruled against him.

[Orange Joe]

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not first amendment: President can't make executive order X.

Also the logic that since Trump called for y during his campaign means that all his EO are based on y is spurious at best. Trump's making a fool of activist judges from the 9th until Gorsuch gets appointed and the SC hears the case.

Not one person is saying this. What people are saying is that calling it a Muslim ban up to the point you put it in place isn't going to magically make it not a Muslim ban.

You can deny it all you want, but there is no question to Trump intents with this ban. Especially so when you don't even base it on actual threats.

[daenerys]

Sorry, but I will listen to a Harvard educated judge over someone that doesn't know law. Everyone that isn't a Trump knob gobbler knows that this was entirely about trying to ban Islam. Especially since they they have put provisions in these to allow "minority religions" through. Which in these countries, would be Christianity.

If this was about trying to ban Islam, why is it only covering 6 countries, and only about what 5-10% of all Muslims, if that? The countries banned being countries named by Obama as the top leaders in terrorism. If he really wanted to ban Islam He'd do more than just a relatively small number of Islam countries.

Also Judges are supposed to judge laws based on whats in the law as constitutional or not, not what someone said a year ago.

Also given that the 9th circuit has an 80% overturn rate when taken to the US supreme court, having them put down something is far from meaning it's unconstitutional, they're the most activist court in the country.

- - - Updated - - -

You can deny it all you want, but there is no question to Trump intents with this ban. Especially so when you don't even base it on actual threats.

Except it is based on actual threats, these are countries specifically called out during the Obama administration as the most terror risk countries. They aren't countries picked randomly or just because they're predominately Islam.

[May90]

Except it is based on actual threats, these are countries specifically called out during the Obama administration as the most terror risk countries. They aren't countries picked randomly or just because they're predominately Islam.

More people die on the West yearly to shark attacks, then to terrorists from these countries. These threats are very-very low on the list of priorities, and they are WAY below the threats nationalistic rhetoric carries.

[Breccia]

If this was about trying to ban Islam, why is it only covering 6 countries, and only about what 5-10% of all Muslims, if that?

The court directly addressed that. They called it "fundamentally flawed".

I will say that the court had a pretty solid rebuttal toward what has been one of my staple arguments that it was never a Muslim ban, I.e, out of the 50 or so countries that are predominately Muslim, only 7 are banned. Therefore, this does not constitute a Muslim ban.

The court wrote:

“The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

I disagree that there existed any animus, but I respect the underpinnings of the argument.

[Yuyn]

Also given that the 9th circuit has an 80% overturn rate when taken to the US supreme court, having them put down something is far from meaning it's unconstitutional, they're the most activist court in the country.

That statistic is solely a consequence of how your appeals court system works.

The Supreme Court can decline to hear a case, meaning the lower court decision stands. If they even take on a case, it means there's a better-than-even chance of overturning the decision of the lower court -- if they all generally agree on the lower court decision, it just won't even be heard.

[Jtbrig7390]

Except it is based on actual threats, these are countries specifically called out during the Obama administration as the most terror risk countries. They aren't countries picked randomly or just because they're predominately Islam.

You do realize that static's show no one from these country's have attacked us right? As a matter of fact the ones that did.....Isn't on his list. Also the attacks we have had are from people who have been here well before even 9/11 happen.

The threat chance from these country's are lower then the chance of my neighbor killing you.

[Barnabas]

You do realize the states aren't contesting the ban over the "rights" of non citizens?

They most certainly are. If you already have a visa then the ban doesn't apply to you. This is for new ones. The states first amendment claim is a big issue. It's the one I'm asking for an interpretation on. The second is two overlapping federal immigration laws that gives the president the authority to keep “any class of aliens” out of the country, and another that forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing immigrant visas. These are the two issues that need clarification on interpretation because it's a big deal.

[Orange Joe]

Except it is based on actual threats, these are countries specifically called out during the Obama administration as the most terror risk countries. They aren't countries picked randomly or just because they're predominately Islam.

Sorry don't know how to change image size.



- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that static's show no one from these country's have attacked us right? As a matter of fact the ones that did.....Isn't on his list. Also the attacks we have had are from people who have been here well before even 9/11 happen.

The threat chance from these country's are lower then the chance of my neighbor killing you.

Correct. We have not had 1 attack from any country on the list.

[Miztickow]

I look forward to Trump's impotent rage on this matter.

He's already started in his latest rally.

[Oktoberfest]

This EO was crafted specifically to win at SCOTUS level. The 9th circuit is a judicial farce btw.

These judges really have no standing tbh. They are allowing personal bias to influence rulings and should be impeached. They are not allowed to create law which is what they are in fact doing. Jefferson warned against this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12

[Wyrt]

He's already started in his latest rally.

Somewhat unfortunate he had a rally right when the news broken. Having his unfiltered rage tweets would have been more entertaining.

- - - Updated - - -

This EO was crafted specifically to win at SCOTUS level. The 9th circuit is a judicial farce btw.

These judges really have no standing tbh. They are allowing personal bias to influence rulings and should be impeached. They are not allowed to create law which is what they are in fact doing. Jefferson warned against this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...2/subchapter-I

Striking down an EO≠creating a law.

[Sky High]

This EO was crafted specifically to win at SCOTUS level. The 9th circuit is a judicial farce btw.

These judges really have no standing tbh. They are allowing personal bias to influence rulings and should be impeached. They are not allowed to create law which is what they are in fact doing. Jefferson warned against this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...2/subchapter-I

I could have sworn the point of the courts wasn't to create laws but to check the legality of them, which is what they're doing here.

[Orange Joe]

This EO was crafted specifically to win at SCOTUS level. The 9th circuit is a judicial farce btw.

These judges really have no standing tbh. They are allowing personal bias to influence rulings and should be impeached. They are not allowed to create law which is what they are in fact doing. Jefferson warned against this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...2/subchapter-I

What law is this judge trying to create?

[Binaris]

Somewhat unfortunate he had a rally right when the news broken. Having his unfiltered rage tweets would have been more entertaining.

Why the fuck is this waste of flesh still having rallys. Between his campaigning *for what?* and his vacations, when does he ever do his fucking job. Clearly he is just signing shit put in from of him and will be the scapegoat when it really its the fan.

[Wyrt]

Why the fuck is this waste of flesh still having rallys. Between his campaigning *for what?* and his vacations, when does he ever do his fucking job. Clearly he is just signing shit put in from of him and will be the scapegoat when it really its the fan.

Pretty sure it's so he can masturbate thinking about how many people love him.