Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

The United States constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.

 

No it doesn't. Stop making crap up!

 

There is no requirement that the word "ban" imply that it is permanent.

As for the fact that this ban doesn't apply to all Muslim majority countries (btw, it is 6 not , is like saying that "A Muslim ban can't be a Muslim ban because it is really shitty at being a Muslim ban."

 

Listen, I get that you believe saying the word "plenary" and "immigration" suddenly make your argument fool-proof. You are wrong. There are multiple district court and appellate court judges who disagree with your simplistic logic.

 

Ahhhhhhh, Liberal Federal judges, distorting the laws they swore to uphold and spitting on the Constitution every chance they get!

 

I fail to see why those two legal arguments make the Hawaii case a joke.

 

That's your problem. If you can't see that their legal argument is complete nonsense then you don't understand anything about politics. The only thing we can ascertain is that the U.S federal courts have been politicised. Some judges act more like political activists.

 

The judge admitted he did not look at the merits, but on what Trump said during the campaign. He should be fired for failure to uphold the laws and honor the Constitution. Judges rule with impunity and have no one watching them.

 

I don't know why no federal judges from the south refute the EO or did not defend it.

 

Are you? There is absolutely nothing in the Trump order that would justify this activism by a leftist judge.
The fact that part of his judicial rationale is that it would hurt Hawaiian tourism demonstrates what a laughable bit of partisan
warfare the blocking of the ban really is.

 

Nice to see the fat, idiot clown getting put in his place again. Although, a dummy like trump probably had very little to do with the language of the muslim ban. This has Bannon all over it.

 

Well when it comes before the court you preside over you can say it's fine. Will trump run and rewrite it again or try to defend it?

 

Your anger and insults notwithstanding, there is nothing in the ban that would legally trigger it's blockage. I look forward to this matter being
reversed by a higher court.

 

Well, where are the factual numbers of how many tourists go to Hawaii from those countries and how many people from those countries does Hawaii recruit and did the judge even bother to ask?

 

DOA

The Latest: Judge: Trump has power to ban foreign travelers...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-15-21-48-42

 

Not with this EO. Lol

 

So some conservative judge disagrees, and?

 

This judge is nuts. Congress needs to step in. The law is clear, Trump is right and it may be time for Congress to exercise it's constitutionally-granted authority to strip the jurisdiction of the courts on this matter.

 

Lol good luck on that. Why not let trump fire any judge who tells him no?

 

This Obama stooge Judge Watson screwed up when he made this statement.

"The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry," Watson writes, referencing then-candidate Trump's call for "a complete shutdown" of Muslim immigration and recent comments by Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller that the new order would result in "the same basic policy outcome for the country" as the first, now revoked, order.

"These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose," Watson wrote. "Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude…that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims."

As a matter of law, this judge should only be looking at the AO, not what Trump or anyone else said while he was campaigning.

Within the four corners of the document, which denotes that in ascertaining the legal significance and consequences of the document, the parties and the court can only examine its language and all matters encompassed within it. Extraneous information concerning the document that does not appear in it—within its four corners—cannot be evaluated.

This needs to go to the supreme court as a matter of principal if nothing else.

 

He would love that!

Today Trump is accusing the judge of being a Muslim from Kenya.

 

Trump should stop all immigration until congress can do it right.

 

How many immigrants have engaged in terror attacks?

In fact most were radicalized here in the US; on the internet. So why not just shut down the internet if it's really such a threat?

Where is the evidence of a failed vetting procedure? Trump says it is a mess but where is the evidence beyond his big fat mouth full of lies?

What is the current vetting procedure and explain how it is lacking.

 

Yes he does, and there is precedent too, the Irish, the Chinese, The French at one point too.

 

No he doesn't. The Supreme Court said so. Presidential powers have limitations and he is subject to the Constitution just like everyone else. .