Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

But the President has to act within the bounds of the authority he has been granted. Elected / unelected has nothing to do with it. Or, to look at it another way, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Elected politicians are susceptible to doing unconstitutional things if they are popular. An appointed judiciary with no fear of political consequences act as the safeguard to make sure that the president exercises his authority within the bounds of the constitution and the law.

Think checks and balances. Think separation of powers.

As to this particular EO I am personally ambivalent. Whether it survives or is set aside, I will not be personally affected. It won't prevent me from coming and going to the US, and it won't make me (or anyone) any safer or less safe. It is entirely a political symbol. If the president wants to do it and it is constitutional / legal, I'm OK with it. If it is not constitutional / legal, I'm OK with the courts saying so.

As to the decision of the courts - I don't really care which result they come to either way. As to the fact that the courts CAN make a ruling on the legality of an EO - I celebrate the fact. It is one of the great features of the American political and legal system. Every American should be extremely proud of the fact that the courts can rein in the excessive acts of a president, be he Republican or Democrat.

 

Someone please explain to me how people who aren't physically in the jurisdiction of the us are protected by our constitution. I remember the Amanda Knox case, where Italy tried her again after finding her not guilty, which would violate our constitution's fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy. IF it didn't apply in her case (and she's a US citizen!), how could it apply to foreigners in a foreign land? I think, wherever you are, THAT country's constitution would apply to you. Where's my logic going wrong? Or is the judge wrong?

 

Or alternatively, couldn't we just send all refugees to Hawaii?

 

"Over the course of the primary and general elections, the Trump campaign raised about $340 million. That included $66 million that the billionaire businessman contributed from his own pocket. The Clinton campaign, which maintained a longer and more concerted fundraising focus, brought in about $581 million."

http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-campaign-spending/

Corporate donations:

http://www.investopedia.com/article...-10-corporate-contributors-trump-campaign.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/article...0-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp

 

Did you read that article? First of all, it's from 2015. Secondly, it has nothing to do with this travel ban.

 

The liberal stance on this issue is WHEN something happens on our soil, or IF something happens. WHEN Americans are killed by a bad character that snuck in here under the guise of our vetting process , THEN we will call it a bad vetting process and THEN we will address it.

Trump is trying to get ahead of that. Err on the side of caution.

I know which side I want to be on in the event something happens, and so does Trump.
The rest of you are going to look like clowns, and I have no idea how you are going to defend it.
But I'm sure you will come up with something. May Karma be on duty.

 

I think that's an excellent idea. Its funny how Liberals and Democrats MOST in favor of saving all the refugees, don't want them settled anywhere NEAR them. If that isn't proof enough of their TRUE feelings, what else is? Neither Hawaii or Maryland have accepted any. Strange huh?

 

Do you recognize that there are two seminingly contradictory laws on this point?

 

Hardly that was EXACTLY the point Judges are NOT elected.

 

Please tell me you understand the analysis here. When you look at a facially neutral law, i.e. a law that is not discriminatory per se on its face, then you look at BOTH the intent behind the law AND the effect of the law.

If Obama had passed this law, then you would, arguably, have zero evidence of a discriminatory intent and thus would need to look at the potentially discriminatory effect of the law. If you found none there as well, then the law survives.

Trump and his surrogates presents a **** load of evidence of discriminatory intent.

Please tell you see why there is a difference in the analysis there.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what I am answering here and I don't know which of my posts you are quoting.

 

And why is that a LOL moment for you? Do you really believe that preventing family and friends from visiting does not constitute a harm for American citizens?

 

What lie am I toting? And what source are you referencing? The one about whether judges look for discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect when reviewing a facially neutral law?

 

American citizens are free to travel where they will.

 

Those caveats are not written into the law. And if they are, when will Jimmy Carter be imprisoned for denying Iranians their US Constitutional rights?

 

No I meant exactly what I said.

Correct the court has no jurisdiction over this matter and even this judge could not cite the constitutional or statutory basis for his ruling.

And now in a remarkable steps other judges have had eniugh and are voicing their unsolicited opinons to but a stop to it.

Republican-appointed judges on 9th Circuit voice support for Trump travel ban

Five judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have broken ranks with their colleagues and voiced support for the legality of President Trump’s original travel ban.

The judges, all Republican appointees, said Wednesday they disagreed with the three-judge appeals panel that struck down the initial ban on travel from seven Muslim majority nations the administration said have terrorism problems and an inability to help the U.S. vet incoming immigrants.

"Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President's decision was well within the powers of the presidency," the judges stated in an unsolicited filing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rcuit-voice-support-for-trump-travel-ban.html

I have been in court many times and again if this judge rules on the basis of what you statedbhe shiuld be immediately removed from the bench.

 

So your argument is that there is no harm because American citizens can just spend their own money to go visit another country? Isn't the American citizen, in that scenario, literally going to spend more money and isn't that a monetary harm?

And what about American businesses and universities? Can they just travel freely to adjust to this ban?

 

Please stop. You really are out of your league on this one.

 

Please stop. You're out of your element here.

 

There are 29 judges in the 9th Circuit court of appeals. So you are one third of the way to a simple majority of the judges for that one circuit.

 

Soon to be cut in half. Clowns in robes.

 

Please tell me why those situations are not examples of a harm to American citizens.

 

After you tell me why Jimmy Carter isn't in prison for his arbitrary and illegal banning of Iranians.

 

Important point: Not just visiting, but visiting from war zones and failed states.

An inconvenience without a doubt! But one acceptable in the face of credible concerns for the safety of American Citizens. Real world here, a US Citizen's safety, freadom from fear and right to quiet enjoyment at home trumps the heartache of a foreign - national on foreign soil every damn time.

Cheers

 

Ok, fine.

Jimmy Carter did not act arbitrarily, but in response to a hostage crisis and political coup that occurred in Iran before the ban was put in place. Jimmy Carter also did not make public remarks and statements that could very reasonably be construed as religious animus. Finally, the ban was narrowly tailored to achieve a rational policy goal.

So, in terms of the proper legal analysis. There was a clear rationale or justification for the ban, there was no contemporaneous evidence of discriminatory intent, and there was no (or very little) evidence of a discriminatory effect.

Finally, and this is just an obvious point but I will make it anyways, if the courts struck down the ban, that would not result in Jimmy Carter going to Prison (just like the striking down of the current ban does not subject Trump to prison).