Trump travel ban: Appeals court casts skeptical eye at revised order

[Orange Joe]

By faster that would imply that people of the Muslim faith were slower. Which would mean they weren't actually "banned" right?

No faster means. They didn't have to go through the normal 20 step process used for refugees.



How about at least acknowledging you were wrong about other religions being banned too?

[Kiri]

Is this still going on? I thought Trump only needed 90 days from the first EO in order to come up with the new vetting stuff. Or did they put the work on the vetting stuff on hold so they could concentrate on the legal fight to implement a ban that would let them focus on the new vetting stuff?

[Edge-]

Because if a few people feel they have been reversed discriminated against and they win their day in court this could mean that those few that were affected actually affected an even larger group.

1. In what context? These rulings seem very specific in their scope, and would not fit your run-of-the-mill discrimination case.

2. There would need to be similar circumstances in terms of those issuing whatever "reversed discrimination" making repeated public comments that colored their intent as Trump had, if we're entertaining this hilariously ludicrous hypothetical.

Case in point when a young lady with a high GPA sued a University because she did not get accepted. Even though others got accepted with lower GPAs. The reason the people with lower GPAs got accepted? They were minorities. And the University is required to have certain amount of diversity. She was discriminated against because she was white.

Have any of those lawsuits succeeded? I know they pop up from time to time, but I can't think of any that have succeeded (or even really failed, I've never followed too closely).

https://www.propublica.org/article/a...tion-case-is-r

Though it looks like the SCOTUS upheld a ruling that allowed universities to take race into account so...we both just wasted time for nothing?

[Draco-Onis]

By faster that would imply that people of the Muslim faith were slower. Which would mean they weren't actually "banned" right?

They were still banned but special exemptions were made for Christians which is why the order had to be revised, it was not reviewed properly before issuance.

[Kaleredar]

Shame they dont put Egypt, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia on the list or else I would think its an actual attempt.

Business ties are too strong to those countries.

Remember, they're not potential terrorists IF they're paying your corporations big dollars.

[Garnier Fructis]

As the court ruled, it doesn't have to affect every member of a group to be discrimination against that group.

It's the same line of thinking behind 'I have a black friend, how can I be racist?'

[Kaleredar]

Is this still going on? I thought Trump only needed 90 days from the first EO in order to come up with the new vetting stuff. Or did they put the work on the vetting stuff on hold so they could concentrate on the legal fight to implement a ban that would let them focus on the new vetting stuff?

I think it's a token gesture of "kicking the can down the road" to convince the Trumpkins that he's doing something about the "scary muslims" while all he actually does is play golf.

[xChurch]

Well, at least the good thing about Trump doing so many unprecedented things is that the Judiciary will now have tons of new precedents to set.

[Machismo]

Considering they said they needed 90-120 days to re-vamp the system, they should be about finished by now. Or was that timetable complete bullshit, and the intent was to always make it much longer? It looks like they lied, again.

On a side note, I hope the courts continue to block the ban. It's sad when courts support freedom more than an administration does.

- - - Updated - - -

which I disagree with.

Personally, I think this was a case of judicial activism legislating from the bench. I hope that the appeals court and the USSC sees it the same way.

It's the role of courts to rule on the constitutionality of legislation and executive actions. This falls completely within their scope of duties. As you quoted from the article, they are addressing constitutional relevance.

[Poopymonster]

So true man, that's totally it. When do you suspect America is going to start enforcing the freedoms and rights granted by the Constitution on the entire world?

Working on it, one Freedom bombing at a time

[Allybeboba]

No. Trump labeled it a Muslim Travel ban when he banned Muslims and let in the "minority" religions from those countries. AKA Christians.

Couldn't tell you if he labeled it a "Muslim Ban" without looking it to tell you the truth.
I just remember him specifically saying "it is not a Muslim Ban, it is a travel ban".

Surely someone on here can fine the ENTIRE, not out of context paragraph, where he specifically stated this was a Muslim ban.

Reagan did the same damn thing in the 80's when he issued a travel ban from countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Nicaragua etc. His ban wasn't called a "Catholic ban".

[Taneras]

Working on it, one Freedom bombing at a time

Just gotta get more Trump supporters on board, many were upset that he hit Syria with all those rockets.

[Wyrt]

Couldn't tell you if he labeled it a "Muslim Ban" without looking it to tell you the truth.
I just remember him specifically saying "it is not a Muslim Ban, it is a travel ban".

Surely someone on here can fine the ENTIRE, not out of context paragraph, where he specifically stated this was a Muslim ban.

Reagan did the same damn thing in the 80's when he issued a travel ban from countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Nicaragua etc. His ban wasn't called a "Catholic ban".

Because Reagan didn't run a campaign on banning Catholics.

Keep feigning ignorance though.

[Machismo]

Couldn't tell you if he labeled it a "Muslim Ban" without looking it to tell you the truth.
I just remember him specifically saying "it is not a Muslim Ban, it is a travel ban".

Surely someone on here can fine the ENTIRE, not out of context paragraph, where he specifically stated this was a Muslim ban.

Reagan did the same damn thing in the 80's when he issued a travel ban from countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Nicaragua etc. His ban wasn't called a "Catholic ban".

Remember when defining marriage between a man and a woman wasn't a ban on gay marriage? Yeah, that was actually the argument that conservatives tried to make. You are doing the same thing.

[Theinquisition]

Care to explain your expertise in the area of constitutional law? I am more likely to defer to the judges here than a former soldier who aced his stats exam the other day...

LOL

Thanks for the kudos, just got accepted into graduate school, GPA was high enough to avoid the GRE thanks to that class.

I've never claimed to be an expert on constitutional law, but I do read a lot and there are plenty of people out there who are much more well versed on the topic that agree.

We've had this argument before and I'm not going to go over the same 100 points I made before, so i'll leave it at this. I believe judicial review should be done on "WRITTEN LAW" not subjective interpretations of past statements.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you're not very smurt. Let's use an example of a group that you aren't filled with an irrational hatred for.

Christians from Europe, south America, and the middle east are barred entry to America. By your logic it's not discriminatory because I left out asia. And just for funnies let's pretend Asia is the actual area of the world that had a radical group of Christians with a penchant for violence. That's the Trump ban in a nutshell. Uses an illegal religious test and even completely misses it's target which actually makes it look more suspiciously discriminatory.

I've come to accept that legislating from the bench only applies to any judicial action you disagree with and not what the term actually means.

This doesn't really apply.

The ban is on countries that don't have the proper background data infrastructure for us to definitively verify that a refugee application isn't a criminal or associated with extremist groups. Honestly, do you think the Somolian version of the DOJ has a comprehensive database of it's citizens, there past criminality and ideological ties?

- - - Updated - - -

Just because it doesn't ban all Muslims, doesn't mean it isn't a Muslim ban as it only bans Muslims from these countries he is trying to stop travel from. He is still letting in Christians from these countries. So yes, it is a fucking Muslim ban.

Can a Muslim from Qatar visit the U.S., yes or no?

[Machismo]

LOL

Thanks for the kudos, just got accepted into graduate school, GPA was high enough to avoid the GRE thanks to that class.

I've never claimed to be an expert on constitutional law, but I do read a lot and there are plenty of people out there who are much more well versed on the topic that agree.

We've had this argument before and I'm not going to go over the same 100 points I made before, so i'll leave it at this. I believe judicial review should be done on "WRITTEN LAW" not subjective interpretations of past statements.

- - - Updated - - -



This doesn't really apply.

The ban is on countries that don't have the proper background data infrastructure for us to definitively verify that a refugee application isn't a criminal or associated with extremist groups. Honestly, do you think the Somolian version of the DOJ has a comprehensive database of it's citizens, there past criminality and ideological ties?

And the administration said they would need 90-120 days to fix the issue. They should be about done by now.

If that's the case, why did they suddenly take Iraq off the list? It's because they were lying about the reasons.

[Theinquisition]

Well, it doesn't matter what your opinion on the matter is.

Lol, didn't say it did.

just because I have an opinion you don't agree with, doesn't mean im not allowed to have one.

You're just as bad as those ANTIFA dickheads attacking old men in wheelchairs because they are right of lenin aren't ya.

- - - Updated - - -

And the administration said they would need 90-120 days to fix the issue. They should be about done by now.

If that's the case, why did they suddenly take Iraq off the list? It's because they were lying about the reasons.

Well I know the Iraqi government heavily petitioned the U.s. gov't to be taken off the list. I didn't say I agreed with the decision.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering they said they needed 90-120 days to re-vamp the system, they should be about finished by now. Or was that timetable complete bullshit, and the intent was to always make it much longer? It looks like they lied, again.

On a side note, I hope the courts continue to block the ban. It's sad when courts support freedom more than an administration does.

- - - Updated - - -



It's the role of courts to rule on the constitutionality of legislation and executive actions. This falls completely within their scope of duties. As you quoted from the article, they are addressing constitutional relevance.

Freedom for whom exactly? Someone from Syria who has never been to the U.S. and isn't in the U.S.?

sorry, I believe our national security comes before any made up subjective morality to allow someone to come into the country because "feelings"

[Machismo]

Lol, didn't say it did.

just because I have an opinion you don't agree with, doesn't mean im not allowed to have one.

You're just as bad as those ANTIFA dickheads attacking old men in wheelchairs because they are right of lenin aren't ya.

- - - Updated - - -



Well I know the Iraqi government heavily petitioned the U.s. gov't to be taken off the list. I didn't say I agreed with the decision.

- - - Updated - - -



Freedom for whom exactly? Someone from Syria who has never been to the U.S. and isn't in the U.S.?

sorry, I believe our national security comes before any made up subjective morality to allow someone to come into the country because "feelings"

Then taking them off the list shows that the reasoning behind it is complete bullshit. That's the point. It's not based on some security measure, it's arbitrary and political.

Wanting to take away someone else's freedoms to travel here, just because you are afraid of what a small percentage may do... is no different than wanting to ban guns, because some asshats shoot people. It's a desire to take away the freedoms of innocent people in order to feel more safe. Yeah, I'll take freedom over nationalism and sovereignty any day of the week.

[Taneras]

Then taking them off the list shows that the reasoning behind it is complete bullshit.

In and of itself? No. Perhaps new intelligence data showed Iraq not to pose the same sort of threat to our security as the others so they were removed. That is a possibility.

[Machismo]

In and of itself? No. Perhaps new intelligence data showed Iraq not to pose the same sort of threat to our security as the others so they were removed. That is a possibility.

Nope, it was all about politics. They lobbied the administration to be taken off the list. They didn't make changes, their name just disappeared off the list.