Federal Judge Sides With Trump In A Challenge To The New Travel Ban Executive Order

“[T]he issue is not whether [the executive order] is wise,” US District Judge Anthony Trenga writes, but instead “whether [it] falls within the bounds of the President’s statutory [and constitutional] authority.”

Finally , a decent ruling.Up to now the courts have been playing around with worries about economics,things said on the campaign trail , it isn't 'fair'...The bottom line ,based on law and precedent is the POTUS has this authority.


Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/politics/virginia-federal-judge-revised-travel-ban/index.html

 

You forgot the source. Here's one. CNN, the lefty's have to believe it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/politics/virginia-federal-judge-revised-travel-ban/index.html

 

Some judges in the Ninth Circuit Appeals court were willing to file a minority opinion in support of Trump if the Court would have heard the case en banc.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circ...plinters-over-trump-travel-ban-rehearing.html

 

I always thought it was likely that Trump would get some judges who would agree with his position. At this point, it stands 2-1 against in regards to the newest travel ban. If Trump wants to get this executive order in place, he will need to rely on the appeal process.

Or he could just use that same time to actually implement policies that would supposedly improve the security process.

 

CNN is fake news, isn't it?

Oh, that's right. CNN is only fake news when it reports on something that doesn't fit into your agenda. Nevermind.

 

Oh, a wise ass. Do you want me to explain sarcasm to you?

 

He better hurry up! I just looked out my window and saw terrorists from all 6 of those countries walking down my street.

Quick! Somebody build a wall!

 

You wouldn't know if you did, as there is no reliable vetting from any of them = The Point.

 

Victory.....Trump!.



But Virginia-based US District Judge Anthony Trenga was not persuaded that Trump's past statements automatically mean the revised executive order is unlawful, especially given the changes it made from the first version.


"This court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent," Trenga explained. "And while the President and his advisers have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 (the first executive order) that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2 (the revised ban) the court cannot conclude for the purposes of the motion that these statements, together with the President's past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority."

The practical effect of Trenga's decision is limited at this point because the travel ban is already frozen nationwide, but it adds another judicial voice in support of the legality of the executive order as it makes its way through further proceedings in federal appellate courts.....snip~


http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/politi...ed-travel-ban/

 

Good , correct decision. Any judge who blocks should lose his or her job.

 

Good Lord....."vetting...vetting...they must be vetted......NONE OF THEM ARE VETTED !!!!!"

I weep for this country.

EVERY person entering the country is VETTED. Most of them take 18-24 months of VETTING!!!!!!

But "vetting" is such BS. Pleas explain "extreme vetting".

How do you vet a lone wolf ? How do you vet someone who lives in a third world country with little to no record keeping ? How do you vet someone who keeps their life a secret ?

Your so stuck on "vetting" people you cant understand that you cant vet someone with nothing to vet.

There are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world, and ISIS numbers range from 20,000 to 10,000 (depending on what country counts them). That means 0.006% of them are "radicalized".

 

So you don't care if they have legal standing ?

 

It is from CNN, isn't that fake news.

 

Gone and out , 1 way ticket.

 

The countries in the travel ban do not have US embassies. The US can't vet anyone from those countries.

 

This is the correct decision. The judges who disagree should be impeached by congress. It is time to start removing activist judges from the bench.

 

They dont

 

the fact so many judges on both sides of the spectrum rule based on their emotions instead of the law is proof many judges need to be kicked out of office for violating their oath to the Constitution !

 

That's right.

Judge Sides With Trump, Says Travel Ban Neither Discriminatory Nor Unconstitutional

Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

 

The US cant vet ANYONE who doesn't want them to know.

What does a US embassy have to do with being able to vet an individual ? Vetting relies on the host country having the proper records, and most don't have those.

Explain how you vet a lone wolf ? Or someone who was "radicalized" ?

 

Your legal degree is from where ?

 

Your appeal to authority is inherently a weak argument. I can examine wording effectively to know. This judge acted based on law. Not feeling. Kudos to him.

 

He acted on his interpretation of the law. Because you don't like/agree the decision doesn't mean it was emotional.

Have you read the full opinion ?

 

The Embassy issues travel visas.

You are arguing the POTUS' position for him. In those countries there isn't even anyone to verify the person is actually who he says he is.