Hawaii judge puts Trump's revised travel ban on hold

Surely after Gorsich...Sp? gets in, it would at least be a 5 to 4 to uphold the ban. If im wrong, this judiciary is in worse shape than I thought.

 

Unfortunately this is incorrect. The Federal District Courts only have territorial jurisdiction over their state with the Supreme Jurisdiction within the territory invested in the State's Supreme Court. The next level above the State Supreme Court is the US Supreme Court.

 

Why does Shiva_TD oppose things that are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL and support things that are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

By all means, show us where in the text of the EO it states "Muslims are banned" and then explain to us why other Muslim-majority nations failed to get included in this "Muslim ban"...

 

And what makes you think G will get in before the current SC decides to rule on this? IMO Trump better go slow on this one or he will be handing it over to a bunch of sententious idiots laced with even worse Obama plants.

 

Such as offering them free education, free housing, free social security, building mosques for them etc...and eventually they repay the society by committing a terrorist attack against indigenous population. Perhaps you need to research a bit more and see what's written in their rebellious books and what is taught by their religious leaders. Being ignorant doesn't help. They're taught from the early age to hate anyone who is not like so that explains their unfriendliness.

 

A relevant portion from the Court's order.

A review of the historical background here makes plain why the Government wishes to focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context. The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor. For example— (here they cite a Trump quote about the West being at war with Islam, that we shouldn't let these people in)

The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. 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.” [...] Nor is there anything “secret” about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order (here they cite Giuliani's statement about Trump asking him to do a Muslim ban "legally")

 

Wait..you provided them with free education, housing, etc? Because something tells me you did no such thing and that your personal interactions with individuals that you believe were "taught from the early age to hate anyone who is not like so" would make it quite clear your own animosity towards them.

 

I made no reference as to the district courts territory so you still need to tell me what I was wrong about

 

When reviewing a law for anti-discrimination, you review both the intent of the law and the impact of the law. Here we have multiple, varied, and explicit examples of discriminatory intent by the individuals who created this law.

Just like a law that banned African Americans from their access to the court systems would be unconstitutional even though it did not say "African Americans," this law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against Muslims even though it doesn't say "Muslims are banned."

Also, as an aside, if you have to use the word "clearly," then your argument is probably not so clear.

 

Intent is irrelevant. Their religion is irrelevant.

What does the law say?

 

Ok. So if I passed a law with the intent of banning African Americans from using the court system, but I did not say African Americans, would the law be unconstitutional?

 

For CITIZENS. Plenary power grants congress and the executive branch the authority to restrict any and all classes of alien, non-US citizens from coming to the US.

The 9th Circuit is going to get a Constitutional enema real soon.

 

No, but you could pass a law banning Somali citizens from using the US court system.

In fact, that's already how it works.

 

Yes, yes. I know. Just say "Plenary power" and the legal argument is irrefutable.

 

Ok, so you admit that the intent of the person passing the law matters.

 

IF Trump had banned foreign Muslims from traveling to the US, the judge would have had a legitimate argument. He didn't.

 

Non US Citizens have no rights other than certain protections under the Bill of Rights. We don't even have to pay for their lawyers. Immigration law is administrative law, not criminal law, therefore the standards are much lower.

You should know that being a lawyer and stuff.

Well if you were being honest, which you're not, and quoted the rest of what I said (I think there's a rule about that here, by the way), you would realize again that there are vast differences between a US citizen and a non-US citizen.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

Non US citizens do NOT have the right to enter the US, nor does the judicial branch have the authority to override the executive and legislative branches on immigration issues.

SCOTUS has already ruled on that, as well.

You sure you went to law school?

 

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

 

Actually, even then it would be legal.

The President has the authority to bar any alien, or class of aliens, from entering the US.

 

There are zero Muslims which would be banned from entering the country due to this travel ban?

 

Show me where it doesn't.

 

No, he does not. The President does not have the authority to violate the Establishment Clause (which is what would happen if he banned Muslims from entering the country).

 

It also bans Hindu, Christian and any other religion from those countries, so you lose the argument again.

It's not our fault those countries don't allow religions other than Islam. They don't sound very multicultural.

 

US Universities and US Corporations often rely on foreign born individuals to either work for them or to pay for their services. Depriving those businesses of their economic activity is a harm to US entities.

 

Wrong. That's not a "establishing a religion"/ religion protected area.

Additionally, if religious actions and/or beliefs are a threat to the constitution, for example a religion that practiced human sacrifice or cannibalism, could absolutely be banned.

The primary job of the federal government is to protect the borders, and the Constitution. When something threatens that, regardless of it being a religion, or a group, it can be blocked from entry.