Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

Do you really think that Trump is only stopping one type of refugee program?

 

A) You are poorly or wrongly informed.

B) The list to which you are referencing also includes Iraq.

C) Obama did not ban travel from everyone originated from those countries. Trump did. Stop trying to pass the buck.

The history where the ruling from the Washington Judge's ruling was appealed to the 9th Circuit and they unanimously agreed with his ruling.

 

Thank you for asking for support. You can find it here:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/70-facially-neutral-classifications.html

Specifically, you can focus on the start of the second paragraph which says: "It is necessary that one claiming harm through the disparate or disproportionate impact of a facially neutral law prove intent or motive to discriminate."

 

I can easily say the same for you.

Okay. Now what?

I'm not "passing the buck" because there is no guilt to be assigned here...except perhaps to Obama for identifying a problem and then being unwilling to do anything about it.

Wow! News flash! The infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking a partisan ideologically driven position when it
comes to a temporary travel ban of Trump's.

Here's some more history for you....the 9th Circuit is one of the most, if not THE most, overturned district in the nation. Doubtlessly this will happen again as the law is not on their side and their arguments are more partisan screeds than rulings on actual law.
Count on it!

 

Did this judge actually cite the law he was ruling on this time? Because last time the 9th Circuit and the the judge prior to them failed spectacularly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

It is the President's job to issue these bans for a multitude of reasons and the reasons cited are clearly under the scope of the law. We have judges that have went beyond their power and job to stop the temporary travel ban.

 

But it's bad for Hawaiian businesses though!

And the law? Oh....right. Well, the ban still will harm the macadamia industry, probably.

 

Trump should tell his private investigators that he sent there over five years ago to come home immediately. Hawaii must have them tied and gagged in some shack somewhere.

 

AMEN!!

I am afraid our Justice system has been over-run by the same sort of folk who infest the media, un-elected self proclaimed 'elites' who think it is their job to poke and prod us into doing exactly as they desire.

 

Just because a judge makes a crap decision and then produces a crap opinion does not make either anything beyond what it is...crap. Good heavens, some idiots think Kelo and Roe are sound law!

 

Waiting for another real judge to finish the process and get on the court at which time it will arrive.

 

Including campaign rhetoric is a never before used precedent. Even the Seattle judge knew better.

What constitutional rights does anyone have that is not from this country and not living in this country with no legal document to enter this country?

 

And was that fellow a Muslim? Then he enacted a 'Muslim Ban' using the same logic as the folk pretending Trumps action is one...

 

There has never been a Presidential candidate express, so publicly, his level of religious animosity and yet win the election. The intent of the lawmakers is very much relevant when determining whether a law violates the Constitution.

Do you believe that this ban only impacts non-US citizens?

 

Only in the minds of someone who does understand logic.

 

Real judge... lol

I just want a real president. Bush, 0bama, freaking Trump.. We're not on a good trajectory here.

 

But the 'judge' sort of ignored the 'law' part of this...The Congress was astoundingly clear when they wrote the applicable law. Why is it incumbent on the President to follow the law when a minor judge can simply ignore it?

 

uh...OK...I'll take that...

 

No let's deal with this EO and ruling. Had Obama issued this ruling then the judges ruling would not apply and it would be constitutional. Sorry that's not how the judiciary works that a judge can declare a law illegal because of what someone thought about it something that is not in the law. Obama never did what the judge based his ruling on so the judge could not make the EO as being unconsitutional.

So you see how absurd that is?

There is no such violation in the EO and the judge did not site one. His ruling is based on Trump said during the campaign not what is in the law. As I said according to the judge had Obama passed that EO it would be constitutional.

 

The thing about 'real' judges is that they feel themselves sort of bound by the reach and limit of the law...they don't make it up.

 

Says who, the judge?

 

He was elected to do this, the judge was not elected to conduct foreign policy and make decisions about national security.

 

has anyone from these nations ever attacked the US on our soil? Where then do you get the rational justification for banning citizens of these nations? Did it come out of Trump's hemorrhoids?

 

The law wasn't ignored. It was interpreted. The problem here was that the President has not made a finding. And then any finding the President makes is subject to judicial review.

I think this second version will get through if the President relents on trying to make the case that his decision is not subject to Judicial review. If he tries arguing that he is above the law the judiciary will find a way to bring him back down.

 

Have to laugh. The judge says because it affects only 9% of Muslims and that the establishment clause never took mathematics into consideration. The judge then goes on to claim it's a Muslim ban based on mathematics, or basically the percentage of Muslims in each of these countries.

 

The plaintiff says it affects him because his mother-in-law would be delayed coming over. LOL.