Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Muslim travel ban 2.0 struck down

  1. #1
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,024
    Amen (Given)
    1683
    Amen (Received)
    1056

    Muslim travel ban 2.0 struck down

    A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide order blocking President Trump's revised travel ban Executive Order.

    Excerpts from ruling:
    Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim....

    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—
    In March 2016, Mr. Trump said, during an interview, “I think Islam hates us.” Mr. Trump was asked, “Is there a war between the West and radical Islam, or between the West and Islam itself?” He replied: “It’s very hard to separate. Because you don’t know who’s who.”
    ... In that same interview, Mr. Trump stated: “But there’s a tremendous hatred. And we have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful. And we can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States. . . [a]nd of people that are not Muslim.”....

    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
    Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”
    ....These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose. Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, “secondary to a religious objective” of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.

    i.e. The court didn't buy the government's claims that "this isn't a Muslim ban" and struck it down for being a Muslim ban.

  2. #2
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,382
    Amen (Given)
    1166
    Amen (Received)
    1902
    Given that it's not a muslim ban it's one of the most outrageous pieces of judicial activism since roe vs wade. looks like the globalists really will strip people of sovereignity by any means necessary.

  3. Amen Jedidiah, Meh Gerbil amen'd this post.
  4. #3
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    28,818
    Amen (Given)
    655
    Amen (Received)
    11468
    If it was a Muslim ban then Muslims would be banned but they aren't. It is a restriction on those who are from certain countries that the Obama Administration had targeted for closer scrutiny and it does not matter what their faith is.

    I'm always still in trouble again

  5. #4
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,024
    Amen (Given)
    1683
    Amen (Received)
    1056
    Trump and his people seem to be so dumb they can't even formulate a Muslim travel ban right.

    As I've said before, the ways to do it legally are:
    A) Trump should instruct the appropriate cabinet member to issue instructions within the immigration department to require a higher standard of English among immigrants. If Trump wants to do this publicly (to take credit / brag / stir up controversy), he could issue an executive order doing it.
    B) Get the Republican congress to repeal the 1960s law that stops immigration authorities discriminating by country. Then instruct the immigration department to favor immigrants from nations that are "culturally similar to America" (which is what the policy was before the 1960s law banning it).

    I know that Trump and his peeps are totally incompetent and couldn't find a legal way out of a paper-bag, but it's really not that hard to keep the Muslims out in a way that the courts won't strike down.

  6. #5
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,382
    Amen (Given)
    1166
    Amen (Received)
    1902
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Trump and his people seem to be so dumb they can't even formulate a Muslim travel ban right.

    As I've said before, the ways to do it legally are:
    A) Trump should instruct the appropriate cabinet member to issue instructions within the immigration department to require a higher standard of English among immigrants. If Trump wants to do this publicly (to take credit / brag / stir up controversy), he could issue an executive order doing it.
    B) Get the Republican congress to repeal the 1960s law that stops immigration authorities discriminating by country. Then instruct the immigration department to favor immigrants from nations that are "culturally similar to America" (which is what the policy was before the 1960s law banning it).

    I know that Trump and his peeps are totally incompetent and couldn't find a legal way out of a paper-bag, but it's really not that hard to keep the Muslims out in a way that the courts won't strike down.
    What are you blabbing about, the courts would stop both measures for the same reason they stopped this one: accuse Trump of having ulterior motives and block them based on those motives. There is absolutely nothing in either of your suggestions (or anything Trump does really) that would stop them because this has nothing to do with muslims and everything to ensure the demographic change goes on uninterrupted. And like with roe vs wade they will invent the flimsiest reasons to do so.

  7. #6
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,225
    Amen (Given)
    3026
    Amen (Received)
    2763
    Trump should ignore these rulngs based on the fact that they don't cite legal precedent and that no laws have been broken. This is pure judicial activism. Our Founding Fathers never intended the courts to serve as a dictatorship.

  8. #7
    tWebber Yttrium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Western USA
    Faith
    N/A
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,356
    Amen (Given)
    259
    Amen (Received)
    627
    I knew the previous version would be struck down, because it made exceptions for minority religions. It was a ban on everybody except non-Muslims from seven countries, which effectively made it a ban on Muslims from those countries. The new order doesn't include the exceptions, and also makes it clear that people with green cards and pre-existing visas can still enter, so I think it has a much better chance of getting a pass from the Supreme Court.
    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

  9. #8
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,889
    Amen (Given)
    2239
    Amen (Received)
    13607
    so this judge basically is saying that no matter what the order says, he knows Trump's "real motives" and so he will strike down anyway. Based on mind reading. He even alludes to it in his own order trying to bring it up and dismiss it before anyone else can. Trouble is, mind reading is exactly what he is doing and what he can't do. The decision has to stand or fall on the way it is worded, not what the judge thinks is the motive behind it. I think that without a solid legal reason, the judge's decision will be overturned.

  10. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  11. #9
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,194
    Amen (Given)
    6176
    Amen (Received)
    6399
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    so this judge basically is saying that no matter what the order says, he knows Trump's "real motives" and so he will strike down anyway. Based on mind reading. He even alludes to it in his own order trying to bring it up and dismiss it before anyone else can. Trouble is, mind reading is exactly what he is doing and what he can't do. The decision has to stand or fall on the way it is worded, not what the judge thinks is the motive behind it. I think that without a solid legal reason, the judge's decision will be overturned.
    He's an Obama nominee. Of course he reacted the way he did...

    I find it funny his answer before the Senate at his confirmation hearing:

    Source: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/012313QFRs-Watson.pdf

    Under what circumstances do you believe it appropriate for a federal court to declare a statute enacted by Congress unconstitutional?

    Response: Statutes should not be held unconstitutional unless they clearly violate the Constitution, based on United States Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, and cannot be reasonably interpreted as constitutional, or are enacted without authority.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So, that, and his other answers in the interview, were a lie.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  12. Amen Darth Executor amen'd this post.
  13. #10
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,889
    Amen (Given)
    2239
    Amen (Received)
    13607
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    He's an Obama nominee. Of course he reacted the way he did...

    I find it funny his answer before the Senate at his confirmation hearing:

    Source: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/012313QFRs-Watson.pdf

    Under what circumstances do you believe it appropriate for a federal court to declare a statute enacted by Congress unconstitutional?

    Response: Statutes should not be held unconstitutional unless they clearly violate the Constitution, based on United States Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, and cannot be reasonably interpreted as constitutional, or are enacted without authority.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So, that, and his other answers in the interview, were a lie.
    I find it funny how liberals like to play at being in agreement with the constitution and the law until they are not getting their way, then anything goes and law be damned. Not even a pretense at being legal. Just deny the executive order based on what you think the guy "really means" - and by a judge in Hawaii no less? What the hell does he even have to do with it? Just some random federal judge can deny an executive order that he has no part in at all, on a whim?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •