Hawaii judge puts Trump's revised travel ban on hold

I'm 100% fine with Hawaii importing terrorists. Obama's home state can become like Germany, we can isolate the problem. It's our mainland we need to be concerned with.

 

What has that got to do with any ban? You have nothing to back up your posts I see.

 

Did that sentence make sense to you when you typed it?

 

I don't think so. For example the Supreme Court of Hawaii can override this Judge, remove him from any judicial practice in the State of Hawaii and then proceed to implement the ban. Then this matter will obviously go to the US Supreme Court if challenged.

 

Man alive. You really know nothing about our judicial system and the difference between state and federal courts, do you?

It is glaringly apparent, and I promise, if you continue this route, you will only expose your ignorance even further.

I recommend some basic reading on the matter.

You can start with the Constitution.

 

And from what I'm seeing, it's Trump who ought to be impeached and who stands a better chance of it at this point.

 

I know the difference, however it is apparent the Supreme Court of the State has "supreme jurisdiction" and is above a local Federal District Court.

"§602-5 Jurisdiction and powers; filing. (a) [Repeal and reenactment on July 1, 2019. L 2016, c 48, §14.] Except as otherwise provided, the supreme court shall have jurisdiction and powers as follows:

(1) To hear and determine all questions of law, or of mixed law and fact, which are properly brought before it by application for a writ of certiorari to the intermediate appellate court or by transfer as provided in this chapter;

(2) To answer, in its discretion, any question of law reserved by a circuit court, the land court, or the tax appeal court, or any question or proposition of law certified to it by a federal district or appellate court if the supreme court shall so provide by rule;

(3) To exercise original jurisdiction in all questions arising under writs directed to courts of inferior jurisdiction and returnable before the supreme court, or if the supreme court consents to receive the case arising under writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel them to fulfill the duties of their offices; and such other original jurisdiction as may be expressly conferred by law;

(4) To issue writs of habeas corpus, or orders to show cause as provided by chapter 660, returnable before the supreme court or a circuit court, and any justice may issue writs of habeas corpus or such orders to show cause, returnable as above stated;

(5) To make or issue any order or writ necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction, and in such case, any justice may issue a writ or an order to show cause returnable before the supreme court; and

(6) To make and award such judgments, decrees, orders and mandates, issue such executions and other processes, and do such other acts and take such other steps as may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers which are or shall be given to it by law or for the promotion of justice in matters pending before it."

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0602/HRS_0602-0005.htm

 

Did you notice the court instead held it discriminates on the basis of nationality. They also make the absurd argument that its a violation of the establishment clause.

 

Yikes. He's still going down this road.

:loco:

Maybe when you get to 9th grade, they'll cover the difference between state and federal courts in sufficient amount where it might be absorbed.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution about Federal District Court judges? Article 3 only refers to ONE United States Supreme Court.

As such these Federal District Courts fall under the Jurisdiction of the State Supreme Courts on matters of the Constitution within the particular State according to the US Constitution.

 

<SMH>

FAQs: Federal Judges | United States Courts
www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges

 

As I said, the US Constitution only refers to ONE Federal Supreme Court. It doesn't define a process to appoint or remove judges.

These Federal District Courts are inferior courts that specialise within particular states, just like land courts, tax courts, family courts etc. These are all inferior to the State Supreme Courts as far as jurisdiction is concerned within the state as the State Supreme Court has the final say on all matters in the State. To challenge a State Supreme Court decision, it goes straight to the US Supreme Court.

This is LAW, arguing the GREY.

 

You are so right.

I try to use common sense without dissolving into downright cruelty, and sometimes I suppose I fail, but I see a lot of these Arabs in my work, and there is something different about them that I have not noticed of immigrants coming from other than the middle east...they are not friendly or pleasant. Clearly, they do not acclimate into our society. They do not act like they like America or Americans, nor want to be here. These are a different kind than what we have seen before.

 

The Constitution provides two basic means for protections of the rights of the person.

One way is by expressly protecting the right(s) such as the 6th Amendment where the rights of the accused are expressly protected ("the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" - http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6.html )

The second way is by prohibiting an action by the government like we see in the 8th Amendment ( "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment8.html ).

The first case addresses the Rights of the Person to prevent the person from being victimized. The second case creates a prohibition against an action by the government where the possible victim is irrelevant.

The "equal protection" clause is a prohibition (i.e, the government "shall not deny") that prevents the actions of government regardless of who might be victimized by the government. It doesn't matter that the person being denied equal protection is outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. There's also the fact that residents and citizens inside of the United States can also be denied equal protection by the prohibitions to family member or others that would be prevented from travel to the United States.

 

LOL ^ This is a kid who self describes himself as a "genius."

 

Do you suppose that it is at all possible the reason why they dont act friendly towards you is because of something you are doing to them?

 

It's all quite reasonable, actually.

"And Watson declared that the government’s assertion of the national security need for the order was “at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.” He pointed to Trump’s own campaign trail comments and public statements by advisers as evidence.

“For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’ ” Watson wrote. “Nor is there anything ‘secret’ about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order. Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: ‘When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ”

Watson also pointed to a recent Fox News appearance by Stephen Miller, in which the president’s senior policy adviser said the new ban would have “mostly minor technical differences” from the previous iteration frozen by the courts, and Americans would see “the same basic policy outcome for the country.”

“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."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d24636-090c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html

Too bad, so sad. Trump is an incompetent would-be dictator tied down by a robust system of checks and balances.

 

From Article 3

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Congress "establish"ed Federal District Courts by statute and they fall under the jurisdiction of THE US Supreme Court. The travel ban was challenged under the US Constitution.

 

Obama set record deportation numbers to your deafening silence, you're playing politics is what is making sense.

 

The only thing that is broken with our immigration system is that we don't enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books and that back in 1965 the Democrats in Congress lied to the American people.

 

Is it really "severely broken"? How?

 

The trouble with taking this issue to the Supreme Court is that if Trump were to lose it would establish a pernicious legal precedent.

IMO they would be better off handling the issue administratively, through the relevant agencies.

 

You were referring specifically to 14th Amendment, and the equal protection clause therein is as follows:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
It's clear that if the person is outside the jurisdiction the equal protection clause does not apply

 

Wow! What horseshit. Thinking he can look into the mind of an individual to determine some alternative motive of the President. He would probably do the same thing if instead of an executive order it had been a statute enacted by Congress being challenged. Just like in the Federal DOMA cases. Friggin judges ignoring the STATED intent of an executive order or statute, and instead they somehow glean these alternative, nefarious motives to discriminate against some group. It really is absurd.

HAD Trump banned Muslim foreigners from traveling to the US in an executive order, THEN the judge might have an argument. He didn't, he banned travel from 5 countries.

 

I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand that the Federal District Court of Hawaii is an inferior court to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.