Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

People seem to forget that any ban would be temporary. Travelers might have to reschedule their trips. Quite a burden.

 

If you want to make an argument for increased screening or vigilance when dealing with a war zone or a failed state, I can understand that argument. What I fail to see is a rational for a complete shutdown of everyone entering from the entire country when a) the entire country is neither failed nor a war zone b) the complete shutdown of travel is disruptive and does almost nothing to ensure any increased safety and c) the fact that a country is a war zone or failed does not mean that every individual from those countries is also a risk to the citizens of the United States.

The evidence of risk just does not measure up to the harm imposed by this ban. How many individuals from those six countries have killed any American citizens on US soil in the last 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

 

The POTUS is acting in response to atrocities committed. This ban is narrowly tailored to specific countries. The travel ban is not in any way connected to any remarks, but a legal document. As such, the wording is important and not any remarks made.

And it's temporary.

So as you have been taught, you are wrong again.

 

No one is forgetting that the ban here could be temporary (remember though that the President explicitly retains the authority to extend the ban however long and to whatever other countries).

What you also seem to forgetting is that individuals could choose to never reschedule their travel plans or they could die in the time period imposed by the ban.

That is not a mere inconvenience.

 

What atrocities committed? Narrowly tailored because it targets every citizen from six countries? It is absolutely connected to multiple remarks by the President and his surrogates.

And the "temporary" aspect of the ban can be extended indefinitely.

 

Or they could die in transit. You're really making a strong case here.

 

President Carter didn't just ban entry, he order the expulsion of some 50,000 Iranians legally on US soil. He rounded them up and kicked them out.

Cheers

 

I think you are confused. The point was whether the President was acting within his power. The harm principle was to establish a State as the proper plaintiff (ie "standing").
Of course a judge can't just go in and overrule a law. He only judges who is right in law between two competing positions .

I agree with them on the proviso he made the appropriate finding. I believe the argument that was upheld, on the basis that the EO was racist, was incorrect in law, and now that the fuzziness has been eradicated in the revised version, it should not be argued. But who am I to judge ?

They won't officially rule on such a basis, but they will change the weight they evidence or arguments in coming up with their judgement. The rational of course must always be logical. I suspect Trump's attitude killed the first EO. They found a reason to shelve him.

 

Read up on ISIS atrocities. The document is what is important, unless judges now judge political beliefs.

Now you're arguing the POTUS does have the power to extend any ban, but not to impose one in the first place. Well done.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...umps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

No, he required that the 50,000 show up to immigration. Of those, 430 were deported and 5,000 left voluntarily.

As for the Visas, President Carter - roughly five months after the start of the hostage crisis - issued a new rule that prevented the issuance of new Iranian Visas, "except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires."

Again, these actions were in direct reaction (and a slow escalation of reactions) to an ongoing national security situation with that country specifically. There is no such analogous event that Trump can or has pointed to in reference to these six countries.

Oh, and again, there is no analogous situation between Trump's anti-islamic comments to anything that Carter said.

 

No, I am saying that the Presidential Order makes it clear that he retains that authority. Solid reading comprehension there.

And what do the atrocities committed by ISIS have to do with every citizen from those six countries?

The document is important, but it is not sacrosanct. If I tell you that I want to pass a law that bans African Americans from their access to the court system and then I pass a law that does not mention African Americans, it is still unconstitutional because the facially neutral law was passed with an explicitly discriminatory intent.

 

And how do you imagine this "immediate" removal would look like?

 

It would not have mattered if Carter had called them dirty, filthy ****ing Muslim ayatollahs. The court overstepped their authority here. The judicial order will be overturned.

 

Speaking of reading comprehension, the law is very clear about what travel restrictions the POTUS can impose. Nothing about hardship or foreign citizen rights. He has the power to impose them as he sees fit. Nothing about atrocities committed. Nothing about any of your arguments.

The court is concerned with the document. Unless you think any court should pass judgment depending on the POTUS political beliefs.

 

Yes. Yes it would.

When you analyze a facially neutral law for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause or the Establishment Clause, you review for both a discriminatory intent and a discriminatory effect.

 

If those political beliefs are explicit and discriminatory, hell yes, I think the court should pass judgment.

And there are two laws which appear to conflict on this situation. The law that they cite was amended to prevent discrimination solely on the basis on country of origin.

 

The travel restrictions allotted the POTUS do not mention political beliefs. Perhaps you're confused.

 

We'll see, won't we?

 

When a facially neutral law is passed and it is being reviewed by the judiciary for potential discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause or the Establishment Clause, the courts will review the law for a discriminatory intent and for a discriminatory effect.

Is that more or less confusing for you?

 

Uncool! I just spit coffee all over my monitors.

I'm curious if anyone really believes that trump has even a shred of intelligence.

 

Yep. Judges don't use someones words to help determine if a law has been violated or anything like that.
For someone who claims they're a lawyer, you seem to get a lot of things wrong.

 

Those clauses are not caveats mentioned in the law covering a POTUS travel ban.

 

It's you who is wrong.

 

I find it interesting that no one is really defending the EO. That should speak volumes. All the trumpists are concerned with is scoring a point in a pissing match. Here's the thing, decisions made by the president should be for the good of the nation and not to establish who the big dog is.

 

A) Multiple judges literally just did that, so the history is on my side.

B) I provided you with a direct citation that is unrelated to, "liberal lolz," as evidence for the standard.

C) If you want to disagree with me on this point, you will need to cite to some evidence beyond, "Well I know that the judges just did that, but they are wrong."