Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Kujako]

Yeah, didn't Trump, along with all the Republicans at the time, give Obama crap for giving a withdraw date from Afghanistan?

The withdraw date set by Bush Jr? Why yes, yes they did.

[Deleted]

lol now #BoycottHawaii is trending on Twitter.

Funniest part is that most native Hawaiians are basically "Oh dang, what a shame."

Goes to show Trumpettes are worse than SJWs in their triggeredness.

Blame Hawaii, not the administration too daft to patch together a working EO/sufficiently daft to come up with such an idiotic concept in the first place.

[KrazyK923]

Blame Hawaii, not the administration too daft to patch together a working EO/sufficiently daft to come up with such an idiotic concept in the first place.

Its always everybody else's fault when their dumbassery gets shot down.

Its almost like the checks and balance system is working overtime right now.

[Kaganfindel]

This is all really starting to look like a campaign to build public support for new laws that limit the ability of the Judicial Branch to keep the other two Branches in check.

[mvaliz]

lol now #BoycottHawaii is trending on Twitter.

Funniest part is that most native Hawaiians are basically "Oh dang, what a shame."

Goes to show Trumpettes are worse than SJWs in their triggeredness.

Good - that puts Hawaii as an official escape point when the Trumpocalypse happens!

[Endus]

It's because some no name judge from Hawaii (appointed by Obama), can interfere with national orders. This is judicial overreach, and I cannot wait for the SCOTUS to end this stupidity.

1> Who appointed a given judge is completely irrelevant to anything.
2> Of course judges can "interefere with national orders". They're the Judicial Branch. That's literally part of their job, when said orders run afoul of the law. As was the case here.

And while you didn't specifically refer to this, the Judicial Branch overrules both Congress and the Executive when it comes to interpreting the law. The lowest judges have greater authority in this matter than the President or any member or agency in Congress. That's how the three branches and the separation of powers works. Congress makes law. The Judiciary interprets it. And the Executive directs applications, within the restrictions of both the Legislative and Judicial branches. No branch of government rules the others, particularly not the Executive, which is arguably the weakest of the three.

What first amendment rights? How was anyone, especially a US citizen even affected by this ruling?

This keeps cropping up for some reason.

The Constitution doesn't apply just to US citizens. It also doesn't apply just within the US borders. The Constitution protects all people who are under American jurisdiction in some way, at least in terms of the USA's actions in that regard.

Some particular elements of the Constitution, like voting rights, apply only to citizens, but those sections specifically refer to this. For instance, the 15th Amendment;

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Emphasis mine. So the 15th only applies to citizens, because it states it only applies to citizens. Any passage not so limited applies to everyone, citizen or not.

And the "under US jurisdiction" is an important distinction, because it means that when evaluating visa applications, for instance, that visa consideration is under US jurisdiction, even if the individual themselves otherwise is not; the Constitution applies to that process and that individual's rights in that regard.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Whoever that Dimocrat "judge" is should be impeached.

Time and time again you're demonstrated yourself as a staunch and unflinching, proud fascist @Healing Rain. After all, fascists don't care for checks and balances or any democratic process. They tend to have a disdain for separation of powers, whereby the power of government is split not just among people but among different agencies so that no one person or organization has too much power. This separation of powers is at the core, the heart of what makes a democracy actually work. And it is the bane of fascists, who want to see their own agenda fulfilled in full without delay, interruption, or hindrance.

So I definitely commend your passion and dedication to showing your true self on an anonymous internet forum, in front of many nations whose governments are specifically designed to prevent the unilateral rulership that fascists are so attached to, especially since fascism has been frowned upon for so long, and is only just now bubbling to the surface in the rise of populism in the west.

And you would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids constitutional amendments.

[mage21]

So now that the courts can use Trump's statements about Islam as basis for rejecting executive action, I wonder if this prevents Trump from any military action in predominately Muslim countries? I wonder if states could sue to stop any action by Trump that would negatively affect predominately Muslim countries. Maybe trade deals would always have to be favorable for those countries with no downsides, because if there existed any downsides, this would be Trump's anti-Muslim intention at it again.

It'll be interesting to see how far the courts can take this.

[Jastall]

So now that the courts can use Trump's statements about Islam as basis for rejecting executive action, I wonder if this prevents Trump from any military action in predominately Muslim countries? I wonder if states could sue to stop any action by Trump that would negatively affect predominately Muslim countries. Maybe trade deals would always have to be favorable for those countries with no downsides, because if there existed any downsides, this would be Trump's anti-Muslim intention at it again.

It'll be interesting to see how far the courts can take this.

Military actions aren't laws, especially since there are no declarations of war. The Courts can only review legislation (if my memory doesn't fail me), so they don't really have a say if the US military predominantly targets Muslim countries, unless he wants to institute an EO that forces the DoD to attack one Muslim country a year or something stupid like that.

[Noxx79]

So now that the courts can use Trump's statements about Islam as basis for rejecting executive action, I wonder if this prevents Trump from any military action in predominately Muslim countries? I wonder if states could sue to stop any action by Trump that would negatively affect predominately Muslim countries. Maybe trade deals would always have to be favorable for those countries with no downsides, because if there existed any downsides, this would be Trump's anti-Muslim intention at it again.

It'll be interesting to see how far the courts can take this.

It's not trumps "statements about Islam" in the general. It's the specific "I'm going to do a Muslim ban". It's really not hard. There's no slippery slope here.

[mage21]

Military actions aren't laws, especially since there are no declarations of war. The Courts can only review legislation (if my memory doesn't fail me), so they don't really have a say if the US military predominantly targets Muslim countries, unless he wants to institute an EO that forces the DoD to attack one Muslim country a year or something stupid like that.

Yeah but if Trump wants to engage militarily with a predominately Muslim country, and Trump has an anti-Muslim motivation in the minds of the courts based on his previous statements, couldn't they argue that it violates the establishment clause?

[dextersmith]

Hawaii took away his presidential hard on.

[Gorgodeus]

If he took it to SCOTUS he would prevail. There is some politicking in dropping that.

Btw, Im not linking this for the fuck of it either. IT IS THE ACTUAL LAW

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

Read and weep

As has already been pointed out to you in another thread where you keep linking the same old shit, the US has laws in place that prevent discriminating against immigrants based on religion. Period. You pathetic attempt to say otherwise is getting old.

[Deleted]

Obviously Hawaii is a great place to go for vacation.

[Noxx79]

Yeah but if Trump wants to engage militarily with a predominately Muslim country, and Trump has an anti-Muslim motivation in the minds of the courts based on his previous statements, couldn't they argue that it violates the establishment clause?

Has trump said he wants to invade other countries because they're Muslim? Because trump has said he wants to do a Muslim ban. You're trying to make a slippery slope when there is none.

[Jastall]

Yeah but if Trump wants to engage militarily with a predominately Muslim country, and Trump has an anti-Muslim motivation in the minds of the courts based on his previous statements, couldn't they argue that it violates the establishment clause?

Doubtful. The Court's point here is that the White House argues the EO isn't discriminatory while simultaneously hyping it up as anti-Muslim to its base, and the Court called bullshit on that. They're not judging Trump for anti-Muslim declarations, they're judging that this EO in particular is discriminatory, and supporting their assertions (among other arguments) with the fact the administration itself presented it as such.

[mage21]

Has trump said he wants to invade other countries because they're Muslim? Because trump has said he wants to do a Muslim ban. You're trying to make a slippery slope when there is none.

No I'm just saying, even if there was no smoking gun ("I want airstrikes in Yemen because they're Muslim!"), I wonder if the courts could be successful in arguing that "based on Trump's anti-Muslim statements", his intent is religiously motivated, and therefore a violation.

I'm sure a team dedicated enough could put together quite a collection of Trump statements and tweets to make the case. Heck, his travel ban being blocked on religious discrimination grounds itself could be brought up that he's got an anti-Muslim agenda.

[Dmitro]

Lol , the entire reasoning for the block is " ehhmm i feel ehhmm i believe ... ehmm we have all evidence to say...."
Pure ideology, how are these people even got to work in a law sphere?

[Noxx79]

Lol , the entire reasoning for the block is " ehhmm i feel ehhmm i believe ... ehmm we have all evidence to say...."
Pure ideology, how are these people even got to work in a law sphere?

Well the entire reason for the ban is: eeh I feel, eeeh I believe, pure ideology. And did you really just equate "we have evidence" with ideology? Damn you trumpets are sad.

[Dmitro]

Well the entire reason for the ban is: eeh I feel, eeeh I believe, pure ideology. And did you really just equate "we have evidence" with ideology? Damn you trumpets are sad.

the thing is that the president can do whatever he pleases to do as long as its according to law, he doesnt need a judiciary reasoning, while the judges do.

Still not getting?