Federal judge temporarily halts Trump travel ban nationwide

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/03/p...rump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/index.html

Washington (CNN)A federal judge temporarily halted President Donald Trump's immigration executive order effective nationwide Friday, a significant setback for the controversial travel ban.

Federal Judge James Robart, who presides in Washington state and was appointed by former President George W. Bush, orally granted the temporary restraining order. There was no written order immediately available.

Trump's executive order that he signed last week suspended immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, the US refugee program for 120 days and indefinitely halted Syrian refugees from entering the US.

"This is exactly what we were looking for," Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told CNN's Anderson Cooper shortly after Robart's order, adding that "we have a bucket of Constitutional claims."

Ferguson added that he was prepared to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

This suit was brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota against the travel ban enacted by Trump's executive order.

A Customs and Border Patrol spokesman told CNN the agency will review the order and comply with all court orders.

There was no immediate response from the Trump administration.

"We only challenged the parts that are actually affecting people immediately, which are the parts about refugees and the parts about targeting these seven countries ... the parts that have getting so much attention and have been causing such immediate harm to people, stranding them oversees and such, are enjoined right away," Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell told reporters.

Meanwhile, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, called the restraining order "a tremendous victory for the state of Washington."

Earlier Friday, a federal judge in Boston declined to renew a temporary restraining order affecting Massachusetts that prohibited the detention or removal of foreign travelers legally authorized to come to the US.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer immediately hailed Robart's order.

"This ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for all of us who believe this un-American executive order will not make us safer," Schumer said in a statement. "President Trump should heed this ruling and he ought to back off and repeal the executive order once and for all."

...

 

Blimey, they can do that? Just put a "halt" on an executive order? And the Trump admin stay silent?

 

They're silent...for now. I'm sure lawyers are reviewing how they came to that flimsy judgment. What this ruling really did, was set up the epic showdown in the SCOTUS. Putting even more onus on the Senate as to confirm Judge Gorsuch.

 

I don't think confirming a SC judge is much compensation for willy nilly turning over an executive order. It's pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing outrageous to be able to do this. There'll be a flood of immigration now from these places, knowing that they have a window to get in which might close, ie. it renders the executive order worthless. That's insane. What's the point of a President if he can't act?

 

I hope he does not repeal it, if he has a case, and if this resistance to the order is purely political, or has ulteriour motives driving it.

It does not pass the sniff test for me, for in a national security concern for a president not to be able to do what trump did sounds just a little bit fishy. I want any president to be able to do something like this, given the situation and circumstances. The President has traditionally had most of his power in foreign affairs, in concern with other countries and not that much by himself domestically.

 

wont stand.

fun to watch how these judges are getting so creative though. Even the liberal judges are going coo coo.

sounds like someone got a nice payout.

 

Such was the problem when the Founders instituted the Courts. In reality, there can only be a political state or a judicial state, there cannot be both of these. The Judge who made this ruling even stated, that while he respected the 'separation' of the judicial and political, he felt it in his duty to violate that separation. But without that understanding of the separation, the Courts exist as a de-facto Head over the States, which cannot be held to be acceptable and revive the old confrontation that slavery was once founded upon.

 

This seems relevant:

This has to be judicial hot air. If it's not, the whole thing is a farce.

 

If the court injunction is based on the court's assumption that the ban is religous based, how does the court explain the other countries where muslims live that weren't specified in the EO?

 

It's not.

So it seems the EO was illegal. Which I think is bullsh*t, but there you go. You actually can't issue a ban based on nationality.

If I was a US Trump supporter who'd voted for Trump in part because of his immigration stance, right now I'd be seriously fu*ked off.

 

The US has so many laws that they run afoul of each other. This law effectively makes any control measures weak and impossible to enforce. Which is kind of why we're at where we're at right now. The US is fundamentally screwed. But I already knew that.

 

An EO has to be within the law. If it does not conform with existing laws it doesn't stand. There is a reason for that - it stops Presidents becoming dictators. If they want to go beyond the scope of an existing law Congress has to pass a law. Again, it stops Presidents using their power without limit. Judicial oversight is a crucial & fundamental check on the power of legislatures.

This simply halts the order until there can be a proper hearing. Far from being insane, it is extremely sensible. EOs are regularly overturned in court. Happened to Obama too. We are yet to find out if this one will be.

As for a 'flood' of migrants, suspending the EO won't change the speed with which visa applications are processed. There will be no 'flood', though I expect some media outlets relying on 'alternative facts' to claim otherwise.

 

As expected they can turndown the EO,
but the executive office could make the vetting procedure more stricter as per jurisdiction.

 

America, the greatest country in the world, where a little Federal judge in Seattle can block the President's illegal immigration order!!!!

 

So a federal judge appointed by W Bush, brother of terrorists who come to this country is "an act love", publicly announced that any terrorists and criminals who want to come to the USA from the heartland of Islamic radical terrorism have an open door to the USA and can not be even temporarily delayed.

Nothing, ever, in the US Constitution ever gave federal judges any authority to order any other branch of government to do or not do. This was a power entirely made up and a past Supreme Court declaring themselves lifelong dictators for life.

 

For those who hate democratic process and a constitutional government your view is correct.

Try quoting any word in the Constitution giving such power to federal courts.

 

The President is not above the law.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he ordered that anyone issued a Visa by the US State Department shall be allowed into the USA.

You really think the USA issues Visas to terrorists and criminals?

LOL!!!!

 

Why isn't the text of the order online?

- - - Updated - - -

You trick of quoting only one section of that Statute has already been debunked in detail citing other relevant sections of the entire statute.

 

it is online.

its illegal and was overturned tonight by a judge nominated by Republican President George W. Bush

 

So the separation of powers and the rule of law still matter. Still want that military coup?

 

not yet, not needed yet.

we can still impeach.

or remove him via the 25th Amendment.

 

Federal courts are not given such power in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution. It says nothing about the Supreme Court having one iota of power over the president or Congress. When the Supreme Court ruled that the President, Congress, everyone and everything is all inferior to them and that the Supreme Court was declaring itself an absolute dictatorial oligarchy for life, Jefferson ranted against this as absolutely unconstitutional. Jefferson stated the ONLY reason a court system was established was to hear civil suits and criminal cases. (The Marberry Case).

Ironically, over 100 years earlier there was a popular uprising against dictatorial judges, which is why you don't read of judges in the UK or Europe taking power over the elected representatives of the people. Judges were viewed as dictatorial tyrants and an affront to freedom. Courts were only for civil suits and criminal cases.

To the contrary much of American history and events have been totally made by and controlled by federal courts in exact contrary to the other branches of government. For example, the Supreme Court blocked laws against slavery and declared that blacks basically are non-human in terms of legal rights - to those who claim the federal courts are the champions of civil and human rights.

Try to find any language in the Constitution giving any federal court authority or power over Congress or the President and you can't because it does not exist. The author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson was vehement that the constitution does not give or allow federal courts any such power.

 

Lol ... OK, man.

 

Who's we?

 

You don't read much, do you? No one who had been paying even a tiny little bit of attention to Europe & the UK over the past 12 months (or past few decades for that matter) would even consider making a statement that factually incorrect. Go away. Do some reading. Come back when you have informed yourself.

Good lad.