Federal judge temporarily halts Trump travel ban nationwide

Malcontent anarchists.

- - - Updated - - -

Your message reflects the war on truth and the extreme desire to rewrite history to suit an agenda or ideology.

 

Calling it a "trick" shows the extent of your reading capacity. If you'd just bothered to read my posts in this currently short thread you'd know I was completely opposed to this, yet you see one post that doesn't fit your flag- waving agenda and you go straight onto attack dog mode like I'm the enemy. Jesus, is it any wonder some of you are so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing marginalised? Anything short of blind adoration and you're off on a rant.

I copied the text from a post on Reddit, by a clearly informed poster, and it was taken from the online code. This looks bad, which sucks but it might be the reality.

 

My message is that you need to pay attention to what courts in Europe actually DO before making sweeping claims that don't even rise to he level of being 'factish'. Your failure to even attempt a defence of what you said suggests that you know you got caught out. Easier to attack the messenger.

 

Well what do you know, a Federal judge unfamiliar with the law, see U.S. Code § 1182.

 

You can also lose the 2018 election and thus enjoy one party filibuster proof rule by Republicans....your political platform of protest, violence....and wearing a vagina on your head in trying to get voters in red states to re-elect Democrats to the House and Senate is interesting. Best of luck to you.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

 

That is for ISSUANCE of visa's. See U.S.Code 1182.

 

Link? Which specific paragraph are you quoting?

Here's the hearing:

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al

 

Somebody needs to sing in King Trump's ear: You can't always get what you want...."

 

This is what activist judges get you and why it's so important that Hillary got kicked to the curb. Hopefully Trump will have eight years to appoint Constitution based judges and get some balance and sanity back in our courts.

 

Yes they do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/adams-is-allowed-48-hour-us-visa-clinton-agrees-visit-despite-dispute-1410627.html

 

OK, I listened to the arguments and the temporary stay which the judge refused to hold off on for review by appeal.

Basically if this judges ruling became a standard the government could not ban travel from any country we are at war with if any state can show financial harm by not allowing warring nations citizens free travel to and from this country.

 

America is awesome!!!

Trump forced to allow travelers from the 7 Muslim nations!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

1965 Immigration Act BANS discrimination based on nationality.

sorry.

 

Nah...You will be singing a different tune when dozen more Americans die in a Muslim terrorist attack in the very near future. This latest stupid ruling is an invitation to all jihadists and terrorists in the world to get backsides to the USA as soon as possible. Liberal idiots and their allies cannot be the door open forever.

 

The 65 law bans discrimination on issuance of visa's not on the Presidents power to limit travel from countries designated by congress and the Obama administration as countries that promote terrorism. The order will be appealed on Monday and we will see if the power given to the President by law will be overturned.

 

The 1965 law bans discrimination based on nationality.

This includes issuing of Visas and any other action that seeks to limit travelers/migrants/refugees based simply on their nationality.

such actions are arbitrary and too vague to be legal.

no one should face discrimination SIMPLY due to their place of birth or citizenship.

 

It's called balance of power. One branch of the federal government is always subdued by the other two.

 

no, Trump will appeal and Appeals Court may supend the Judge's order, or the original judge may suspend his own order.

 

The testimonies were obviously pointless, he already had his findings written down. Why did he bother with the charade of listening to arguments?

That said, both attorneys were crap. The suggestion from the state that the EO is illegal because of "harm to universities" seems barking mad. The defendant couldn't answer the judge about citing examples of terrorist attacks from the seven countries. Oh, and the judge himself got hung up on the "Muslim ban" bollocks, which the State also decided keep banging on.

The statute about "non discrimination on basis of nationality" was barely mentioned. I thought that was the crux, but the overriding issue was the "financial harm to universities" BS. Jesus, wouldn't you know it'd be the loony lefty university system that did this? Why don't they stick to burning down campuses?

As soon as they get this overturned, they should simply revoke any visas granted during this temporary stay. I hope they get on with it.

 

The Seatle judges ruling made no mention of the 1965 law in what his opinion says the grounds were. Here is what he wrote



“The executive order adversely affects the state’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,” Robart wrote, adding that the order also harmed the state’s public universities and tax base. “These harms are significant and ongoing.”

Meanwhile, a contradictory decision came earlier Friday from a federal judge in Massachusetts, who sided with the Trump administration.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton ruled that the president had the authority on national-security grounds to bar citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, according to The Boston Globe.

When it comes to the law and lawyers....opinions are like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, everyone has one.

 

I think this sets a dangerous president, that says that national security is no longer in the hands of the elected president and Congress, but in the hands of unelected officials.

Is this the beginning of the end of America?

 

You should rejoice in this ruling. It sends a signal to the world that America can still be an example of democracy to which other nations should aspire.

This ruling, even if it is reversed later, shows that the American judicial branch is independent of the executive and takes its role seriously. In this case the role is to ensure that the executive branch acts within the limits of its authority. In many countries around the world, a president could ignore the constitution or national laws and get away with it because the judiciary is not sufficiently independent to give any adverse ruling.

This ruling is not the beginning of the end of America. It is an example of how strong the checks and balances are. I am not talking about this specific ruling - I am talking about any court ruling that tells any president, "sorry, you can't do that - you've gone too far".

Because this time it is Trump doing something you like. It could just as easily have been Clinton doing something you don't like, and in that case you would have welcomed the assistance of the courts telling her to stop.

 

was this a Freudian slip?

yes, the President is VERY dangerous.

and by the way, Congress DID speak on this issue in 1965, declaring it illegal to discriminate against immigrants and travelers based on nationality

 

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land and can rule ANY action by President or Congress to be unConstitutional or be in violation of Federal law.

 

Trump said during the election he would do this. The voters were well informed that he was going to do this and still voted for him. The voters were well aware of the lefts view on this, and yet still voted for Trump.

The judgement goes against the rightfully elected president and Congress.

So therefore this decision in both wrong and undemocratic. Just because you support the decision does not make it democratic.

I am guessing your a Muslim yourself and i understand your objections however the people of America have spoken and they don't want Muslims coming into the country as they pose a security threat.