Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Muslim travel ban 2.0 struck down

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

  • #2
    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.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #3
      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

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      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.
                      Except that our sovereignty is not lost one iota from this strike down.
                      Blog: Atheism and the City

                      If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                        Except that our sovereignty is not lost one iota from this strike down.
                        Of course it does, we should be able to decide who or who does not enter this country no matter what criterion we use.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                          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.
                          I'm figuring it will be approved by a 6-2 majority or 7-2 if Neil Gorsuch is confirmed by then.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                            I knew the previous version would be struck down, because it made exceptions for minority religions.
                            Time to amend the first amendment to only protect Christian denominations. That would solve just about every bit of all this idiocy.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was reading about this on Reddit, and, of course, you have to flip to "controversial" in order to get discussion that's more neutral, and isn't far-left leaning, and I found this interesting post by a guy called patroclus2stronk who claimed to be a lawyer. I don't know if any of what he said is accurate, or that he is who he claims he is, but I thought he had some interesting insights into the subject.

                              I'm an attorney and I believe it to be constitutional. I would be willing to place a large bet that when SCOTUS grants certoriari it's going to be held constitutional. I could go on a long explanation as to why, but I don't think it would serve a purpose since you already stated that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.


                              After a bunch of downvotes, name calling, and lots of immaturity, someone asked, "I'd like to hear your explanation as to why it is legal."

                              It's interesting while simultaneously baffling that its legality can be proven by the improper court ruling itself.
                              The court found the order to be unconstitutional because of the President's words spoken prior to the order itself; in other words collateral evidence. Using collateral evidence isn't necessarily problematic in itself, but the reason the court erred in this case is due to it conceding that but for Trump's discriminatory statements towards Islam, this order would be constitutional. In the thousands of SCOTUS opinions I have read, not once have I seen a such strange reasoning by the court.

                              To elaborate, the court essentially said that this is Constitutional on its face, but because Trump is doing this to discriminate against Muslims, it's actually unconstitutional. That's not how Constitutionality of an executive order works. That reasoning is actually used (properly) by the court in Title IX cases; and it's called pretext. This means an employer (in at title IX case) has made a policy that is facially non-discriminatory, but because it has a disparate impact on a particular group of people; coupled with other evidence of intent to discriminate, the policy is impermissible. A prime example is a case where an employer banned 'dreadlocks' from the workplace, and a black employee challenged this as a title IX violation under the disparate impact rule. The plaintiff lost because, although it had a disparate impact on African Americans, any person of any race/ethnicity could have dreadlocks--the mere fact that black people have it more often is not enough to constitute discrimination under the 'pretext' doctrine.

                              Coming back to this order: the court is establishing new precedent by applying the pretext doctrine (they do not mention this phrase but it is what they are applying) to an executive order on immigration.
                              The simplest way I can explain that the order is Constitutional is because the Court itself concedes that it is. In other words, the court has, in effect, made a ruling that a president can issue this exact order if they don't, prior to the ruling, make statements that show a discriminatory intent in creating the immigration ban. So, if in 2020, Joe Smith wins the presidency, and never makes a statement that could be considered discriminatory in a later court proceeding, then this order would be permissible...That is beyond insane and unprecedented.


                              Someone replies, "First, thanks for the civil response. I don't quite agree with your point of view, but your response strengthened my belief in that the EOs are illegal. Intent is a very important thing to the law. We know what his real intention was with this ban because he told us what it was while he was campaigning. How do you expect the court not to establish precedent?"

                              Patroclus2stronk replies,

                              There is no issue with establishing precedent, it has a vital purpose. Additionally intent matters in many areas of law, but not in this particular scenario because, as I stated above, the order itself is constitutional, as conceded by the court, but not when Trump makes it because of what he said. That is irrational. The Court is saying that this order is Constitutional if a president doesn't reveal discriminatory intent ahead of time...Moreover, they don't address or show contemplation of what would happen if 'Joe Smith' in 2020 writes this order; they find it Constitutional, and thereafter Joe Smith says "keep all them Muslims out of my country!" ... If this happens, the Court is [bleeped] because it has no jurisdiction or power to retry the case...In other words look at the sequence i'm proposing versus the one that happened here:
                              1. Real Life a. "Damn you Muslims, ban em' all" (i'm exaggerating a bit to lighten the mood). b. Writes executive order. c. Court finds that the order would be permissible, but for the statements against Muslims.
                              2. My example a. President Joe Smith says nothing, literally is a mute and doesn't write anything down either (prior to the executive order). b. Executive order is issued (same as Trump's) c. Court finds it Constitutional (since he didn't say anything showing discriminatory intent) d. Smith magically no longer suffers from the mute spell, and subsequently shouts everyday in public "[Bleep] yes, all them Muslims can't come here now, HAHA!"


                              Guess what, both Trump and Smith have been [bleep bleeps], but, in the second scenario, the Court, nor anyone else, cannot do jack [bleep]. What's been found Constitutional is Constitutional. The principal of Res Judicata would bar SCOTUS from retrying the case because of Smith's statements.


                              *bleeped out offensive language
                              Last edited by Adrift; 03-16-2017, 12:39 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              14 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                              32 responses
                              173 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post oxmixmudd  
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                              24 responses
                              102 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                              52 responses
                              269 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                              77 responses
                              379 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X