Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yeah, who could ever confuse Trump's intent with this travel ban? I mean all he talks about his Muslim this and Islam that. Then people try to claim the travel ban isn't motivated by religion. Probably because their feels tell them it just has to happen.

I know you people aren't dumb, you're VERY hard working smart Americans who are going to be millionaires someday thanks to Trump's... something (maybe not his wealth) trickling down on you, so why are you acting like you aren't really all that keen on applications of logic here?

[mvaliz]

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?

Who determines if it's according to law?

That's right - Judges.

Still not getting it?

[Noxx79]

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?

The judges ruled he was likely violating the constitution. Still not getting it? Trump is not a king. He is subject to the rule of law. I know you trumpets want to give up your free will and live under the heel of a god-king, but in America, the president is bound by the constitution.

[Dmitro]

Who determines if it's according to law?

That's right - Judges.

Still not getting it?

they can only determine that its against the law if its acutally against the law.
Both bans on bans didnt mention a single fucking law thats been broken by Trump.
All they have is " ehh we feeel ehh its looks like" .

still not getting it?

[Cthulhu 2020]

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?

In this case, his EO was blocked because the judge did have reason to believe it went against the first amendment, and so far that's holding up.

Don't like it? Tough shit, it's the law.

[Gorgodeus]

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.

Go study up, because you are clueless. The Constitution applies to anyone under US jurisdiction. When someone tries to enter the US from another country, they are at that moment under US jurisdiction.

[mvaliz]

they can only determine that its against the law if its acutally against the law.
Both bans on bans didnt mention a single fucking law thats been broken by Trump.
All they have is " ehh we feeel ehh its looks like" .

still not getting it?

Go back and Read Endus' post. What he did goes against the law.

I get it, and you deliberately don't wish to get it - it's the fucking law to not discriminate based on a religion, and he broke it. I can't put it simpler.

/end of discussion

[Dmitro]

In this case, his EO was blocked because the judge did have reason to believe it went against the first amendment, and so far that's holding up.

Don't like it? Tough shit, it's the law.

again the judge didnt mention a single law or the part of the first ammendment that was directly broken by Trump, but yet he BELIEVES.
pathetic.

[Orange Joe]

they can only determine that its against the law if its acutally against the law.
Both bans on bans didnt mention a single fucking law thats been broken by Trump.
All they have is " ehh we feeel ehh its looks like" .

still not getting it?

Both bans violated the 1st amendment. Because as much as he now wants to not call it a Muslim ban. Up until he put it in place, he called it a Muslim ban. You don't get to say. "I'm going to ban Muslims" Then say I'm not banning Muslims when enforcing a ban.

[Dmitro]

Go back and Read Endus' post. What he did goes against the law.

I get it, and you deliberately don't wish to get it - it's the fucking law to not discriminate based on a religion, and he broke it. I can't put it simpler.

/end of discussion

The judges are probably as retarded as you are, seeing religious discrimination in the EO that never mentioned any religion at all.
Again, what you suggest or believe is not whats according to the law and provable facts, so the judges have no judiciary reasons to ban this EO

Laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

Both bans violated the 1st amendment. Because as much as he now wants to not call it a Muslim ban. Up until he put it in place, he called it a Muslim ban. You don't get to say. "I'm going to ban Muslims" Then say I'm not banning Muslims when enforcing a ban.

in his EO the term muslim was mention 0 times.
MUSLIM BAN!

[Orange Joe]

in his EO the term muslim was mention 0 times.
MUSLIM BAN!

It doesn't have to mention it in the text when he himself has stated it's a Muslim ban.

[mage21]

Presidential candidates from now on better make sure they speak perfectly on the campaign trail, because there's no more "clarification" or "walking back" anything once you say it, no adjusting your position. Once you state a position out loud, that's permanently your position, set in stone.

Try and revise your position if you want, the courts will know exactly what your real position is. Should make for more entertaining presidential races.

[Kujako]

It doesn't have to mention it in the text when he himself has stated it's a Muslim ban.

But we know anything he says is a lie...

[Cthulhu 2020]

they can only determine that its against the law if its acutally against the law.
Both bans on bans didnt mention a single fucking law thats been broken by Trump.
All they have is " ehh we feeel ehh its looks like" .

still not getting it?

The irony here is that the authority on determining lawfulness of Trump's actions is in the hands of the judicial branch. And the one who's basing everything on what he thinks and feels and not what's the law is... you, Trump, and everyone else blindly defending it.

And here's the big clincher about the travel ban that has been talked about for AWHILE now, if Trump wants it to stick, he's going to need to demonstrate that the countries he's banning travel from pose an existential threat to the United States. Not some "I think" or "I feel" bullshit like you seem to think is all it takes. The travel ban would stick if there was demonstrable evidence of an existential threat, and Trump and all of his advisers know this. Rather than wasting time trying to demonstrate some kind of real and present threat (since they know there isn't one) he just keeps trying to ram EO's through and hope one sticks, rather than go by the law itself.

[Blur4stuff]

The EO doesn't mention muslims

Seen this argument a lot. It reminds me of a little kid sticking his finger half an inch from the face of another kid and saying, "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

[Kujako]

Presidential candidates from now on better make sure they speak perfectly on the campaign trail, because there's no more "clarification" or "walking back" anything once you say it, no adjusting your position. Once you state a position out loud, that's permanently your position, set in stone.

Try and revise your position if you want, the courts will know exactly what your real position is. Should make for more entertaining presidential races.

Or dont run on a platform of disregarding the Constitution.

[Breccia]

They didn't even read the EO, or cite the relevant statute. .

You don't believe the first part. Only an idiot would actually believe that the judges, plural, making a ruling on an E.O. would not read it.

You're right about the second part, the part where you parroted a Spicer talking point. Of course, they didn't need to. They cited, in their decision, what led them to the decision, which included
a) the First Amendment
b) Trump's proven statements and actions which directly refer to discrimination based on religion.

The full ruling is here. Read the 43-page decision to your heart's content to find other things that aren't in there.

[Noxx79]

The judges are probably as retarded as you are, seeing religious discrimination in the EO that never mentioned any religion at all.
Again, what you suggest or believe is not whats according to the law and provable facts, so the judges have no judiciary reasons to ban this EO

Laughable.

- - - Updated - - -



in his EO the term muslim was mention 0 times.
MUSLIM BAN!

Yup! Muslim ban. Or should we not believe anything trump sAys? I'll agree with you on that, but it's laughable you're dendinghim.

[Endus]

The judges are probably as retarded as you are, seeing religious discrimination in the EO that never mentioned any religion at all.
Again, what you suggest or believe is not whats according to the law and provable facts, so the judges have no judiciary reasons to ban this EO

Laughable.

Except that they did have judiciary reasons.

You just want to pretend that your fantasies are reality, and not admit to that. That's not an argument, it's willful self-delusion.

[Noxx79]

Presidential candidates from now on better make sure they speak perfectly on the campaign trail, because there's no more "clarification" or "walking back" anything once you say it, no adjusting your position. Once you state a position out loud, that's permanently your position, set in stone.

Try and revise your position if you want, the courts will know exactly what your real position is. Should make for more entertaining presidential races.

When you blatantly advocate an unconstitutional position, mention a specific unconstitutional act, and try to follow through on it? Yup. Again, you're trying to make a slippery slope when there is none.