Hawaii judge puts Trump's revised travel ban on hold

Here, this should help:

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Sup.Ct.1952): "[A]ny policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference."

Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914). For example, Congress exercised its plenary authority in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) that facilitated the removal of non-citizens. IIRIRA appears to show that the legislative branch wields the full measure of the federal plenary power over immigration.

 

Some people really are gluttons for punishment.

Do you know why US District Judges are called Article III judges?

 

No, they weren't - the ignored the explicit wording in the law which states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

As immigration law expert Hans van Spakovsky pointed out earlier, Congress has given the president of the United States “very broad discretion” when it comes to immigration.

Again, the president has very broad discretion here. His finding can be based on the previous administration's threat assessments, a government's sponsorship of terrorism, the ability of those countries to vet people, etc.. More importantly, Congress did not grant the judiciary the power to make those findings - it granted the president that power.

 

Additionally, this list of countries was approved by a Congress under the former President, so any claims of bias from President Trump (which is irrelevant anyway) are completely destroyed.

Brace yourself 9th circuit.

 

Like so many other right wingers who lap up the law on Mark Levin or Hannity, they have no understanding of case law and that it has been over 220 years since the constitution was ratified, ample time for plenty of cases to be judged by various courts into the legality of legislation, lower court rulings or actions by the POTUS. Thank you for being a sane, rational and informed poster in this thread.

 

The Obama rule does not apply as a basis for this total ban. You might look it up.

 

It does in the sense that Congress, who has authority over immigration, collectively decided that these countries were an immigration problem before Trump was even president.

This justifies executive action, given to the president by Congress through law, and shows that post-election bias couldn't be applied. That last argument is irrelevant, but it does serve to address those judges claiming this list is based on Trumps bias towards Muslims.

Obama chose not to act, and ironically, the problem SCOTUS had with Obama was that he was refusing to do the minimum required by law when it comes to enforcing immigration law.

 

Thank you, I appreciate that. Always good when rational debate happens.

I'd point out though that the left has quite a large problem with evaluating law and precedent, and being ruled by their emotions. We effectively have lower federal courts ruling against established SCOTUS decisions. That is a pretty big problem.

 

You really are a piece of work:

1. You claimed that it is written in the US Constitution that a Federal District Court judge could only be removed by congress. This is WRONG.

2. The Federal District Courts don't have "exclusive" jurisdiction on civil claims/cases pertaining to the US Constitution.

3. The Federal District Courts don't have "Supreme" territory jurisdiction within their states.

Now despite whatever process you believe to be legal for the removal of a Federal judge, I would like to see where it is written in LAW that ONLY Congress can remove them. I think there is a reasonable case for a state Supreme Court to have the power to remove any judge that practices and operates within their "supreme jurisdiction" whether they operate in a Federal District Court or not.

 

LOL. No, It's not. READ THE ****ING CONSTITUTION.

READ THE ****ING CONSTITUTION. Or some basic facts. Goll dang. Is your whole stint here to show how uneducated you are?

Cause it appears that's what's happening, and even your fellow cons are laughing at you. Not good.

READ THE ****ING CONSTITUTION.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

We all noticed in all this : You never actually answered the question:
Do you know why US District Judges are called Article III judges?

 

If the best you can do is swear and throw a tantrum, then this discussion is pointless. Unfortunately it is your erratic behaviour that people would be laughing at. I only made a point that it may be possible for a State Supreme Court to reprimand/remove a Federal District Court judge from judicial practice in their State as the State Supreme Court holds supreme jurisdiction within the territory. Then you went on an excessive, erratic, abusive and somewhat uneducated rant about the US Constitution saying this and saying that.

Provide me the Legal Statute that says ONLY Congress can remove a Federal District Court judge?

 

Federal District Courts do not have "EXCLUSIVE" jurisdiction on civil matters pertaining to the US Constitution within their territory. In other words the State Supreme Courts can overrule these Federal District Courts within their supreme jurisdictions which can then only be challenged in the US Supreme Court. This is the way I read it.

 

But they're not abusing it, they're following it to the letter. I mean, doesn't the Koran mention something about destroying non-believers?

 

And this is the general miss-understanding and error which the "Islam haters" spread around in teamwork with the Islamist scum.

Problem no. 1:
The translation into other languages or even the interpretation of words into another language is always plagued with errors... and the Christian bible is full of such examples too. So in Koran we have same problem... 1 example: Jihad! For anyone here only "the holy war against unbelievers and other religions" in Islam, right? Beeep! Wrong! It means also peaceful missionary too. Also is clearly told when a Jihad as war is reason with which circumstances and who is allowed to call for Jihad! Alone this is disgraced by the Islamist again and again ... because for example was by Koran Osama Bin laden allowed to call for Jihad, but he did!

Problem no. 2:
There are again and again examples shown where the Koran tells to do violence. Aside that here problem no. 1 is often given too, these parts are always taken out of their context and this is always bad! If the complete context and rest of the text is shown too, these things become often an other meaning!

Problem no. 3:
I can really puke when I read then, too, how peaceful the Christian religion and the bible is. Sure, newer history shows no religious war of Christians in name of religion against whomever ... at least rarely. But! Aside many Christian radicals who show in parts total arrogance and ignorance and also sometimes violence against others (i.e. opponents of abortion), the bible is full of violence too.
Yes, I know ... all these deep Christian believers tell now that this is mostly in old testament and not in new testament, but really: SO WHAT?
Since when is the old testament not part of Christian religion please? It was since ever and it was taken to back uncountable things in religion as source, but if then something turns out to be uncomfortable, then it is excluded suddenly! I call this behavior total hypocrisy!

 

And it is the 'blinkered view' of the anti-semites that call a 90 day temporary stay of immigration from 7 countries who hold 7% of the worlds Muslim population a 'Muslim ban'. You and the other traitors aren't fooling anyone.

 

Arh, so anyone that is against the ban is anti-semetic and a traitor! Are you a joke?

 

If anyone still needs proof of the "threat" then they must be sleeping!

 

Not that you would know, because you have probably never studied at an "IVY" league university! I am not the first to suggest that State Supreme Courts remove Judges from the Federal District Court. I actually was unaware that this has been proposed before. (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-to-remove-a-federal-judge)

So in your crude, offensive and abrasive words: FUK OFF U MORON!

 

And these people being against ban are all suspicious lefties, liberals, communists, socialists, Hippies and in short no real Americans (if being US citizens) of course too!

And if an evil foreigner as me tells this and shows pure facts that show how stupid and useless the BS ban is in reality, then I earn the usual **** storm about how evil the situation in my country Germany is with all these many refugees who do every 3 minutes a new crime and rape like a pack Mongols through our cities and only these smart righty Americans know the real truth how situation is several thousands miles away from Germany!

 

And if making a ban and saying it is necessary to prevent against a terror threat, why the hack is he then not making a damned ban against these countries from where the terrorists are coming please?

He puts Iran on list and sure, Iran and US are since 1979 hostile, but what the hack does he want to prevent here of suddenly existing new terror threat from Iran?
Any Iranian agent who wants to make a terror act in the USA is for sure so smart to travel with Iranian passport into the USA or has any problem to travel inside the USA with this ban. Does anyone really believe that Iranian secret service is only a pack of moron which is able to survive 40 years of US CIA & Co. + Mossad actions to eliminate them?
And the only real terrorist group which is aside these Shiite Yemen rebels backed by Iran and who is enemy of the USA since 1980's is not even sitting in Iran but in Lebanon ... the Hezbollah!

So again... no one is sleeping, but if Trumps attention is to prevent the for sure existing threat of terror with this ban, why the hack is he not banning countries form where terrorists are coming, but anyone from right these countries can travel same way as before? Answer this please!

 

Which countries are that you have an issue with? Please name them. Then we can talk.

 

If it were up to me, I would ban the whole of the ME. Screw those savage bastards still living in the dark ages and who want to bring the rest of us down with them. I would like nothing more than if the USA was to wash it's hands of that entire region of the world. It's nothing but trouble for us.

 

Tunisia
Algeria
Morocco
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Oman
Egypt
Lebanon
Philippines (yes, they have a very evil Muslim terrorist faction!)
Saudi Arabia
Qatar


These are countries not on ban list but from where many terrorists are coming from since 9/11 up to today!

 

Sure, but Rome wasn't built in a day!

 

I asked which countries you have a problem with being on that ban list and not which ones you have a problem with not being on the list.