It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge in Hawaii Has blocked Travel Ban Hours before it is to Take Effect

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It doesn't matter what his intent was, what words he used, or how he went about explaining it, most especially when nothing of the sort happened. The EO is legal, constitutional, prudent, and dare I say compassionate.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

And again, Trump said ALL. So if his words are to be used as intent, then his words must be used as intent. Trump's intent was to ban ALL muslims, not SOME.

The judge...sigh for the umpteenth time, made a decision based upon personal feelings. His exclusive judgement of using trump's words as intent was based upon his own interpretation of his words instead of his actual words.

I'll bet this doesn't get upheld in appeals court, then again who knows with that circus.


His interpretation. Not feelings. Judges have to interpret the law and the constitution and a person's intent all the time.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It doesn't matter what his intent was, what words he used, or how he went about explaining it, most especially when nothing of the sort happened. The EO is legal, constitutional, prudent, and dare I say compassionate.


The EO is none of those things. You don't even live here and use an emotional word like compassionate about it. That is just a little strange.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy



First amendment applies to who, again?

Please tell me it applies to non US citizens or green card holders in another country because that's what the judge was saying.


It applies to what the US government is allowed to do in it's actions.

Hate to say this, but you guys really have a problem understanding basic constitutional principles.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.


Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.


Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.


He stated a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the country.

Exactly how does this EO achieve that when SEVERAL muslim nations are not included in it?

Intent would HAVE to include ALL muslim nations.


Logical fallacy. Read what the judge had to say on that sort of horrible argument.


The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.

Trump's own words are used for intent here. Trump said ALL. So yes to use his words as intent would HAVE to include ALL. The judge made a decision based upon personal feelings plain and simple.


Let me quote the judge again:


The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.


Doesn't matter if he said all. He explicitly stated his intent and his intent is to focus on Muslims. The 1st amendment applies to government actions, whether the intent is to target all, or just those from certain regions, or the individual.



Does the EO specifically mention muslims?

1st amendment doesn't cover foreign nationals in their own country.

The judge can stuff his mathematical exercise where the sun don't shine.

Stupid haole.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The judge actually can make a decision based upon trump's words, but he's not allowed to cherry-pick them for cause of intent. The judge used the words muslim and ban, but left out ALL. Therefore it's clear his judgement was based solely upon personal feelings, and not actual US law.

the ban as proposed does not reflect Trump's words, therefore his words cannot be used as intent.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

The ban effects the world. I agree that said was strange, but everyone should care.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

And again, Trump said ALL. So if his words are to be used as intent, then his words must be used as intent. Trump's intent was to ban ALL muslims, not SOME.

The judge...sigh for the umpteenth time, made a decision based upon personal feelings. His exclusive judgement of using trump's words as intent was based upon his own interpretation of his words instead of his actual words.

I'll bet this doesn't get upheld in appeals court, then again who knows with that circus.


Hear Trump's words for yourself.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I read it. Judges are supposed to interpret and wonder if a judge should 'close their eyes to historical context'. He decided not to. Like the prior judge. It is CONTEXT and INTENT. Not feelings.

As for watching Tucker Carlson, not even if I was paid.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

How long till Gorsuch is sworn in?
This needs to go to SCOTUS



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

And again, Trump said ALL. So if his words are to be used as intent, then his words must be used as intent. Trump's intent was to ban ALL muslims, not SOME.

The judge...sigh for the umpteenth time, made a decision based upon personal feelings. His exclusive judgement of using trump's words as intent was based upon his own interpretation of his words instead of his actual words.

I'll bet this doesn't get upheld in appeals court, then again who knows with that circus.


His interpretation. Not feelings. Judges have to interpret the law and the constitution and a person's intent all the time.

He judged off of his words, but cherry-picked them. Trump said ALL. his intent would be ALL. THAT is not up for interpretation by the judge, but you're too dense and in denial to see that.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


the ban as proposed does not reflect Trump's words


That's cos he is a liar.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The judge actually can make a decision based upon trump's words, but he's not allowed to cherry-pick them for cause of intent. The judge used the words muslim and ban, but left out ALL. Therefore it's clear his judgement was based solely upon personal feelings, and not actual US law.

the ban as proposed does not reflect Trump's words, therefore his words cannot be used as intent.


Cherry pick? The judge can just choose an entire orchard. Trump says nutty things.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy



1st amendment doesn't cover foreign nationals in their own country.


The 1st amendment covers any action the US government undertakes.

The US government cannot take any action that discriminates against any particular religion, whether it's US citizens or foreign nationals.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The judge actually can make a decision based upon trump's words, but he's not allowed to cherry-pick them for cause of intent. The judge used the words muslim and ban, but left out ALL. Therefore it's clear his judgement was based solely upon personal feelings, and not actual US law.

the ban as proposed does not reflect Trump's words, therefore his words cannot be used as intent.


Cherry pick? The judge can just choose an entire orchard. Trump says nutty things.

Doesn't matter, trump called for ALL (total and complete shutdown, aka the same as ALL) muslims to be banned, this does not do that. AGAIN, and I seriously don't know why I keep repeating myself, but this EO does NOT shut down ALL muslim immigration or entry to the US.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It doesn't matter what his intent was, what words he used, or how he went about explaining it, most especially when nothing of the sort happened. The EO is legal, constitutional, prudent, and dare I say compassionate.


It does matter when he stated he wanted to ban Muslims and his EO is directed at Muslim-majority countries.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Anyone find it interesting that Obama happened to be reported in Hawaii today? Just coincidentally.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The judge actually can make a decision based upon trump's words, but he's not allowed to cherry-pick them for cause of intent. The judge used the words muslim and ban, but left out ALL. Therefore it's clear his judgement was based solely upon personal feelings, and not actual US law.

the ban as proposed does not reflect Trump's words, therefore his words cannot be used as intent.


Cherry pick? The judge can just choose an entire orchard. Trump says nutty things.

Doesn't matter, trump called for ALL (total and complete shutdown, aka the same as ALL) muslims to be banned, this does not do that. AGAIN, and I seriously don't know why I keep repeating myself, but this EO does NOT shut down ALL muslim immigration or entry to the US.


He realized it wouldn't fly, but the intent was there. Therefore, you get the judge's statement on mathematics of the whole on the establishment clause.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I read it. Judges are supposed to interpret and wonder if a judge should 'close their eyes to historical context'. He decided not to. Like the prior judge. It is CONTEXT and INTENT. Not feelings.

As for watching Tucker Carlson, not even if I was paid.




BS, they judge what is put in front of them.

He should have had some self respect and been honest enough to just say he hates Trump and not try mask it with this BS overreach of his authority.

Hey, $38 mil in fed taxes paid in 2005! How bout them apples, eh?





top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join