Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Jastall]

The Law states without doubt that this is Trumps right. If you dont like it take it up with Congress.
Trump has the right to restrict immigration. That is the law. It is not the law for the judge to say that he cannot act within his powers because he thinks hes a bigot which is exactly what he did here. The Judge is creating law by saying he has more power than the President on the issue.

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

Do you know what your Constitution is, and what it has to say about discrimination?

Because that pesky 1st Amendment trumps anything written in any law book of the US. Not to mention your notion of judges ''creating law'' when they reject an unconstitutional EO is blatantly false to anyone who attended a civics class in High School, let alone studied law. Were judges also ''creating law'' when they rejected a few of Obama's EOs?

[Breccia]

I already said they let that drop.

You kept linking the same thing over and over and over and over and over as if it was incontrovertible. Then you said the WH just let the first one drop anyhow because reasons.

These two statements are at odds. They cannot both be true at the same time.

If you cannot come up with a reason why your claim that Trump has such obvious, unbreakable law on his side in the second case, but somehow not the first, then what you're demonstrating is a lack of understanding of the law. Which is a common problem amongst people who didn't go to law school. Just like not knowing calculus is a common problem amongst people who didn't take calculus classes.

Or, you're claiming that Trump had such obvious, unbreakable law on his side, and still gave up and wrote a new Muslim Ban anyhow. Which means you're claiming Trump and his team -- including lawyers and politicians -- are incapable of following such obvious, unbreakable law when it is on their side.

Pick one. Good luck with that.

[Allerius]

Again it doesn't have to be when you already stated the intent of the ban long before enforcing said ban.

You can't call it a ban without first establishing why it's a ban. That's just a tautological fallacy.

No longer relevant. He did, multiple times, in public, during his campaign. The person you were quoting directly referred to such.

When did Trump specifically call this EO a muslim ban?

Well someone didn't read the decision. The ruling specifically calls this specific argument "fundamentally flawed".

The only thing that's fundamentally flawed is trying to read intent. The argument you can attack group x without attacking all of group x is true, but that doesn't make the EO a muslim ban.

Trump specifically called it a Muslim Ban, multiple times, in public. The people who don't know are willfully ignorant. That's not a logical fallacy. That's evidence. Evidence that, in fact, was used in court, in this context, and won.

Since he called this EO a muslim ban in public multiple times I'm sure you have a source, right?

[PACOX]

Let's take a look at the law for a second...

Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182 Section F



Well... that is pretty clear. Congress invested the President with the power to prevent aliens from entering the U.S. for any reason and for any length of time he deems necessary. Any reason for any length of time. Let that sink in lefties. You will be graded on it later.

So what about the 9th Circuit's argument about Trump's EO violating the First Amendment? Well the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't protect non-resident aliens. If it did we wouldn't be drone striking them now would we?

End of story: The 9th Circuit, the most overturned Circuit, will be overturned again.

Except is not unconditional. A very important part that you or Donnie' s administration seem to not understand. Or is the entire federal judiciary conspiring against Donnie?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

End of story: The 9th Circuit, the most overturned Circuit, will be overturned again.

Funny...I seem to remember hearing that the last time this happened too.

[Breccia]

Because maybe he isn't such a bad guy and is willing to work with the Left, but no the Left refuses to work with Trump at any cost. Or maybe because it would take a lot longer going through the courts and faster to just write a new one?

1) You could try to make the argument he was trying to work with the left by refusing to proceed with such clear law on his side. Then, you could watch his rally today, when he says he wanted to take it all the way to the SCOTUS in its original form, and realize you were a dumbass for thinking this.

2) The claim Okto is making, is that the law is obvious and unbreakable. You're suggesting that, even with obvious, unbreakable law on his side, he still gave up anyway because it was easier and faster. Um, okay. So, he's a spineless lazy coward? What you're suggesting isn't really a redeeming feature of anyone in any job. "Well he broke this contract which he signed right here in black and white, but I'm going to let him keep half of the money he stole anyhow". Seriously, do you even buy this argument yourself?

[Wyrt]

Funny...I seem to remember hearing that the last time this happened too.

It's also funny how they scream about the 9th circuit being liberal and getting overturned while ignoring that SOCTUS has been conservative biased for years. Apparently 1 bias is bad and the other is good.

[Jtbrig7390]

This for sure will end up in SCOTUS. It should be a unanimous decision but Im guessing the 2 biggest idiots, Ginsburg and 'The Wise Latina' will go off the rails even though they really should recuse themselves period.

So anyone who disagree's with you is a idiot? I think a judge knows more about the law then you do champ.

[The Penguin]

This is a case of political zealots not looking at the evidence and ruling based upon their political beliefs instead of doing what the law dictates it to be. This is why judicial malpractice needs to exist. In the same way an Attorney is required to do all he can for a Client, and can be disbarred for failing to do his professional duty, so too should judges who clearly are ruling based upon their personal beliefs and not what the law dictates, be removed from the bench. I'm sick of the same morons holding up shit because their borderline nazi-mentality told them they must resist Trump, rather than do what the Supreme Court already and repeatedly said otherwise on.

It'll go to the Supreme Court. It will be upheld and that will be the end of it.

It'd be nice though if the political tools who opposed it should have to pay back the Tax-Payer money wasted by being ideologues and removed from their posts. A disagreement or logically driven ruling is one thing. Permitting one's personal views to overrule the laws of the land are quite the other. It'd be like a Judge ruling that X person will be put to death because the Defendant is a Witch and Witches shall not be suffered to live. /sarcasm

We should not be surprised with this sort of frivolity though, because that's what political ideologues do. That's why Rachel Maddow ended her career and broke the law by releasing Trump's Tax returns. She should go to jail both for violating the law, and for wasting our time with such a ridiculous story. The only thing newsworthy is that Trump pays his Taxes. ..Like every other citizen does.

[Jtbrig7390]

Weird how this judge in Hawaii that blocked the Executive Order graduated Harvard with Obama, and just yesterday Obama was seen in Hawaii. Very odd coincidence.

Very odd coincidence that at the same time on the other side of the planet someone took a shit as well...

Half Life 3 confirmed maybe.

Conspiracy Theories are against the rules here champ.

[ovm33]

Funny, that didn't happen the last time. <snip>The WH gave up and wrote an entirely new Muslim Ban.

Why didn't he take the first one to scotus? Would love to see him try again with this one.

I'm not in the White House but can only hazard a guess that the Original EO wasn't meant to bar Visa holders, Iraqi sympathizers, etc. Just a guess.

Again, the courts said otherwise, which means this claim of yours is definitively wrong. As wrong as if you'd claimed that 2 plus 2 was "banana".

The judge was wrong. The law has been linked. It's clear and easay to understand. The fact that non-resident aliens are not protected by the constitution is well known. The judge is wrong. The judge is the one saying 2+2=banana. It's really not complicated. Think for yourself instead of parroting the talking points.

The President can stop immigration from anywhere for any reason as stated in the law. (2) This includes religion because non-resident aliens are not protected under the Constitution. (2) The ban is legal. (4)

2+2=4.

[Breccia]

You can't call it a ban without first establishing why it's a ban. That's just a tautological fallacy.

Can you call it a “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"? Because that's what Trump said he wanted.

[Jtbrig7390]

The judge was wrong. The law has been linked. It's clear and easay to understand.

And yet you seem to have a hard time understanding it and how our system works.

for any reason as stated in the law

Not if its unconstitutional, Seeing how the constitution is above it.

Kinda why Ohio can't pass a law saying all guns are banned and people are not allowed to own any Because that is unconstitutional.

[Breccia]

I'm not in the White House but can only hazard a guess that the Original EO wasn't meant to bar Visa holders, Iraqi sympathizers, etc. Just a guess.

Maybe not, but that's not the context of what was quoted. I was asking Okto for a difference between what he linked over and over and over and over and over and how that applied the first time -- the time that was blocked, the WH gave up, and wrote a new one. Okto was claiming that Trump had obvious, unbreakable law on his side, but gave up and wrote a new ban anyhow. He has yet to respond effectively.

Also, "Iraqi sympathizers"?

[Allerius]

Can you call it a “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"? Because that's what Trump said he wanted.

Actually you can't, at all, because this only affects <10% of muslims worldwide. It completely fails at the stated objective. Furthermore, that source isn't saying that he will release an EO on march 14 (or whenever he did) to achieve this goal. In fact he has signed many EOs since then, are they all about banning all muslims from the US?

[ovm33]

And yet you seem to have a hard time understanding it and how our system works.

Not if its unconstitutional, Seeing how the constitution is above it.

Kinda why Ohio can't pass a law saying all guns are banned Because that is unconstitutional.

Ohio can't pass that law because it effects Americans - which the Constitution protects. The Constitution DOES NOT PROTECT non-resident aliens. Do you people understand that? Trump could come right out and say he is banning them for being Muslim and it would not change anything.

Also, "Iraqi sympathizers"?

Translator's, informants, guides, etc. sympathizer is a common term for such people. They sympathize with American goals is another way to put it.

[Breccia]

judges who clearly are ruling based upon their personal beliefs and not what the law dictates

The decision from the second attempt uses one of the same things cited in the first case. The WH gave up on that first case, so that decision, that precedent, remains legally valid.

Maybe another court will interpret it differently, but you will not be able to say this current ruling is "not what the law dictates". The first ban was blocked for a few reasons -- over 20 pages worth -- and this was one of them. There is precedent in this specific context. Nobody's getting fired for this.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually you can't, at all, because this only affects <10% of muslims worldwide.

Well someone still hasn't read the actual decision. Where this very specific argument was directly referenced as "fundamentally flawed".

- - - Updated - - -

The Constitution DOES NOT PROTECT non-resident aliens. Do you people understand that?

I don't think you can back that up.

[Gref]

Very odd coincidence that at the same time on the other side of the planet someone took a shit as well...

Half Life 3 confirmed maybe.

Conspiracy Theories are against the rules here champ.

If there was a like button here, I would spam click in zillion times. lol fucking well said sir.

[Adam Jensen]

Sure, if you really wanted to create a constitutional crisis. Cause that's what you're suggesting he do here.

Then do it. If he wants to load the impeachment cannon and point it at himself, why should I stop him?

[Brubear]

I'm not in the White House but can only hazard a guess that the Original EO wasn't meant to bar Visa holders, Iraqi sympathizers, etc. Just a guess.



The judge was wrong. The law has been linked. It's clear and easay to understand. The fact that non-resident aliens are not protected by the constitution is well known. The judge is wrong. The judge is the one saying 2+2=banana. It's really not complicated. Think for yourself instead of parroting the talking points.

The President can stop immigration from anywhere for any reason as stated in the law. (2) This includes religion because non-resident aliens are not protected under the Constitution. (2) The ban is legal. (4)

2+2=4.

Since you're such a law expert, please explain how this judge was wrong. Explain any prior cases they may have cited as precedent, and any other laws or parts of the Constitution (I believe the 1st amendment was used) were incorrectly applied.

Perhaps you can even list some other cases to set a precedent on how your interpretation of that law is correct?

I mean, since you're such an expert on law, this should be easy.

Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe just because something is a law doesn't mean that it's unconditional and there aren't restrictions and exceptions, perhaps established by prior cases or, dare I say it, other laws, amendments, or statutes that act as qualifiers to other laws? I mean, murder and manslaughter are illegal in the US (18 U.S. Code § 111 and 18 U.S. Code § 1112) but I've read stories about people killing someone else and not going to jail. Clearly, though, the judges were just activists who let their feelings get in the way, just as you are saying happened here.