Federal Judge Rules Against Blocking Travel Ban EO

[Stop Pretending]

Try harder to derail the thread. The travel ban will continue and you will just have to deal with it. Sorry.

Is reading hard for you?

[Machismo]

I love when people who post articles don't bother to read them. The OP is quite literally arguing against himself, and losing.

[Belize]

Actually he does have that ability under executive order, stop spreading false information.

Clearly the Courts disagree with your, oh so ill informed, opinion.

As it turns out, EOs still have to obey U.S. laws and the Constitution. But I'm not even sure why I'm answering an obvious shitposter....

[HumbleDuck]

Uh, if that were true the courts couldn't block his orders. Basic logic, get some.

But the block is lifted and he created 10 million jobs and the national debt is down by a hundred thousand trillion and he loves trucks and bad dudes are afraid of him and his hair is made of gold!

[drakensoul]

He's your president and you need to just accept it. Grow up.

Did you just knee-jerk post an article without reading because it made you so happy to think that maybe you were right and TRUMP WINS THE BAN!!!, including in the title..

And then tell me to grow up for saying you're shitposting and should read? Trump has been president for a while now, sorry you haven't moved on from the election but this is all old news. What does you not reading have to do with Trump being president?

TRUMP WINS!!! YOU LOSE!!!!! YOU LOSE!!! HAHAHAAHAHAH!!! YOU LOSE!!!

Oh we're back to second grade shit, okay... I'll leave you in your sandbox then. You'll grow up in time, one hopes.

Or get banned again. I'm guessing this is what you got banned for the first time, no? Trolling? That is what you're doing.

[GGA1759]

I just saw Daily Caller and skip reading anything else.

[Deleted]

[

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday against blocking President Trump’s executive order that called for temporarily stopping the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugee admittance overall.

The decision against the injunction comes after federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order nationwide. The ruling in Maryland is set to be heard before an appeals court in May. These two past decisions keep the order at bay.
Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
The Hawaiian federal judge who knocked down the executive order cited past statements from Trump on the campaign trail talking about a “Muslim ban.” Judge Trenga, however, wrote, “In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.'”

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said in a statement, “The Department of Justice is pleased with the ruling. As the Court correctly explains, the President’s Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/ju...ck-travel-ban/

I guess your main account got banned. Who were you then?

[Deleted]

I love when people who post articles don't bother to read them. The OP is quite literally arguing against himself, and losing.

If you lose to yourself in an argument, does that mean you won or lost?

[Zeek Daniels]

Him being President does not give him unilateral ability to enact policy by fiat, nor does it excuse blatantly -bad- policy such as these muslim bans.

If it was a muslim ban then why arent all muslims banned? Do you even read what you write? Its not a muslim ban period. Plenty of other religious groups in those countries would be banned as well. Its a country block. Not a muslim ban. A muslim ban would ban all muslim immigration, which is totally not the case. So stop buying what the media is selling and calling it a muslim ban. Because not only is it factually incorrect, its morally incorrect.

[Elegiac]

If it was a muslim ban then why arent all muslims banned? Do you even read what you write? Its not a muslim ban period. Plenty of other religious groups in those countries would be banned as well. Its a country block. Not a muslim ban. A muslim ban would ban all muslim immigration, which is totally not the case. So stop buying what the media is selling and calling it a muslim ban. Because not only is it factually incorrect, its morally incorrect.

Yes, Trump's lawyers said exactly the same thing. Do you know why neither I nor the judiciary believes it?

Because in every other venue outside the Executive Order itself, what Trump and his cronies have been saying clearly demonstrates its intention as a ban targeted specifically against Muslims. That is the major reason it is being blocked, because here on the west coast we can spot a fraud.

[drakensoul]

If it was a muslim ban then why arent all muslims banned? Do you even read what you write? Its not a muslim ban period. Plenty of other religious groups in those countries would be banned as well. Its a country block. Not a muslim ban. A muslim ban would ban all muslim immigration, which is totally not the case. So stop buying what the media is selling and calling it a muslim ban. Because not only is it factually incorrect, its morally incorrect.

This was all debated in court. There are several decisions for you to choose from and read which all address your post.

Something need not target every member of a group to be targeting said group. If you become a serial killer and murder women, the fact that you haven't killed every woman in existence doesn't mean you aren't targeting women. The fact that you killed one man in 70 women likewise doesn't alter the fact that you are targeting women.

The determinate factor is the motive. Feel free to refer to the judgements if you want a legally espoused explanation of Trump's motive. Or watch Fox News re-runs.

Must be herd mentality -- a bunch of people say something stupid and nonsensical and it becomes believable? I don't know. You're on the wrong side of morality and fact here. Take off the shit colored glasses.

[StayTuned]

West coast best coast. Your Muslim ban is still blocked.

Could Christians from the banned countries enter the US?

[Spectral]

Uh-huh. You DO know that motivations for bans like this are fair game in court right? As such Trump's previous statements that he wants to ban Muslims from coming into the country, specifically those from these countries, are fair game. As such, it's not Constitutional thanks to our First Amendment.

Ah yes, as we all know, plainly written in the First Amendment is that if you had an inkling of malice towards the Prophet while drafting a law, it immediately becomes unconstitutional, even if there's nothing in the language of the law that would be

This line of thinking would allow staggering judicial activism in which judges could happily invalidate just about any law at all based on their reasonable suspicion that the motives of the individual making the law were not pure.

- - - Updated - - -

The constitution is what the judiciary says it is.

That is what Anthony Kennedy tells me and surely such a stance isn't self-serving on the part of the judiciary.

I'm far too much of a simpleton to fully grasp the legal expertise required to just make shit up as one goes along instead of bothering to lean on the actual texts in question though.

[Elegiac]

Ah yes, as we all know, plainly written in the First Amendment is that if you had an inkling of malice towards the Prophet while drafting a law, it immediately becomes unconstitutional, even if there's nothing in the language of the law that would be

This line of thinking would allow staggering judicial activism in which judges could happily invalidate just about any law at all based on their reasonable suspicion that the motives of the individual making the law were not pure.

You'll note that what the court invalidated was not a law.

[Spectral]

Sure, but there are thousands of forums why sign up at a gaming forum?

I play WoW. I used to post primarily in warlock forums way back when I first started because I was a pretty competitive raiding warlock. The Gen-OT turned out to be pretty fun though.

[Paranoid Android]

If the ban had focus and a good intent, I would be fine with it. Problem is this bigoted moron mentioned Muslim ban throughout the campaign. You then look at the countries and so many holes in why picked. From none of the countries have we had an attack from a national to the obvious that countries we kiss ass and especially now The Cheeto in Chief has financial ties are not on ban list. Then add that this will be used more as an attack on religion and radicalize more than it will probably help.

[Elegiac]

That is what Anthony Kennedy tells me and surely such a stance isn't self-serving on the part of the judiciary.

I'm far too much of a simpleton to fully grasp the legal expertise required to just make shit up as one goes along instead of bothering to lean on the actual texts in question though.

Honestly, it's always been the case. The Constitution as is is simply too vague a document to grasp the broad array of things that governments of all tiers and branches are involved in, so some level of legal positivism is necessary. It's not always a good thing, vis a vis Dred Scott, but barring a more rationalised constitutional structure it's just how it is.

If we're looking at an originalist perspective I daresay the EO's run afoul of the demonstrated intent of the religious test clause.

[Paranoid Android]

I play WoW. I used to post primarily in warlock forums way back when I first started because I was a pretty competitive raiding warlock. The Gen-OT turned out to be pretty fun though.

One thing we have in common, since that is basically my path to Gen-OT.

[Spectral]

You'll note that what the court invalidated was not a law.

True enough, it was the sort of executive fiat that's entirely par for the course at this point. This doesn't change my point one jot - any sufficiently motivated justice can easily find an unconstitutional motive in nearly any executive order. If one reads the Constitution is a sufficiently broad fashion and is willing to engage in sufficient navel gazing nonsense that is. A justice simply reading the text of the Constitution would have a pretty hard time coming up with a good reason that this violates anything in there, but luckily, our justices are far more sophisticated than that.

[drakensoul]

Ah yes, as we all know, plainly written in the First Amendment is that if you had an inkling of malice towards the Prophet while drafting a law, it immediately becomes unconstitutional, even if there's nothing in the language of the law that would be

This line of thinking would allow staggering judicial activism in which judges could happily invalidate just about any law at all based on their reasonable suspicion that the motives of the individual making the law were not pure.

- - - Updated - - -


That is what Anthony Kennedy tells me and surely such a stance isn't self-serving on the part of the judiciary.

I'm far too much of a simpleton to fully grasp the legal expertise required to just make shit up as one goes along instead of bothering to lean on the actual texts in question though.

Like with anything in life there is a continuum of truth. And judgments aren't made algorithmically black-or-white, but the gray area is debated and considered by those making the rulings. Sometimes they'll rule in a way you or I don't agree with, and it's easy to start screaming "activism!!!!" when you feel you've been wronged.

But motive matters. Taking it to an absurd level and saying that over-considering motive could mean activism, while correct, is a non-starter. The Trump administration didn't just have "an inkling of malice;" it was quite clear, stated various times by various people.. it was even one of the go-to rallying cries for him at his rally. Implying that it was a small one-off comment taken out of context and used to activistically block his law is disingenuous.

Motive can be a scapegoat, or it can be the whole shebang. Usually it's somewhere in the middle, and I think it was pertinent this time.