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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

Even more so when another judge has ruled Trump's EO lawful (the first one).

According to the news, 5 9th-circuit judges have voiced their support for the first EO, but their arguments will be dismissed because they are not ruling on the very cases they are speaking against. This is the level of absurdity we are dealing with.

I am seeing more and more legal people questioning the judges orders to stop Trump's ban and suggesting they are ripe for reversal.
I think Gorsuch's hearing is next week, after which I fully expect an expedited decision on this.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

Even more so when another judge has ruled Trump's EO lawful (the first one).

According to the news, 5 9th-circuit judges have voiced their support for the first EO, but their arguments will be dismissed because they are not ruling on the very cases they are speaking against. This is the level of absurdity we are dealing with.

Again...The way the court system works is someone presents a case before a Judge and the court rules on the case..

It does not work where...Someone presents a case in front of the Judge and he checks twitter to see what other people think.

Your disappointment that 5 judges that Trump convinced to say something doesn't carry legal weight is comical..

This was the lead author in that non-relevant opinion

While serving in the Bush administration as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, he signed the controversial "Torture Memos" in August 2002.

These authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used in the systematic torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp beginning in 2002 and at the Abu Ghraib facility following the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003.
...

Human Rights Watch and The New York Times Editorial board have called for the prosecution of Bybee "for conspiracy to torture as well as other crimes."

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is also comical...

a reply to: Indigo5

I have posted links and excerpts to the Judges ruling and explained repeatedly in my own words why I believe their ruling was sound.

If you were able to debate whether "these judges (are) right or wrong ", you would be doing that by now, rather than intentionally running in rhetorical circles.

I already did. One, it's not a Muslim ban. Two, the president has the authority, by law, to enact the travel ban as he sees fit. I'm not sure repeating these will make them sit long enough in your mind given your propensity for fallacy.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

Even more so when another judge has ruled Trump's EO lawful (the first one).

According to the news, 5 9th-circuit judges have voiced their support for the first EO, but their arguments will be dismissed because they are not ruling on the very cases they are speaking against. This is the level of absurdity we are dealing with.

Again...The way the court system works is someone presents a case before a Judge and the court rules on the case..

It does not work where...Someone presents a case in front of the Judge and he checks twitter to see what other people think.

Your disappointment that 5 judges that Trump convinced to say something doesn't carry legal weight is comical..

This was the lead author in that non-relevant opinion

While serving in the Bush administration as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, he signed the controversial "Torture Memos" in August 2002.

These authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used in the systematic torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp beginning in 2002 and at the Abu Ghraib facility following the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003.
...

Human Rights Watch and The New York Times Editorial board have called for the prosecution of Bybee "for conspiracy to torture as well as other crimes."

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is also comical...

So only the opinions of liberal judges counts. Gotcha.

originally posted by: UKTruth

I think Gorsuch's hearing is next week, after which I fully expect an expedited decision on this.

We can only hope! Trump's new appointee to the Supreme Court ruling against him in his first big case will be the cherry on the embarrassment sunday for Trump!

Alas...I think Sessions will bail on this before risking that massive embarrassment..But we will see.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

Even more so when another judge has ruled Trump's EO lawful (the first one).

According to the news, 5 9th-circuit judges have voiced their support for the first EO, but their arguments will be dismissed because they are not ruling on the very cases they are speaking against. This is the level of absurdity we are dealing with.

Again...The way the court system works is someone presents a case before a Judge and the court rules on the case..

It does not work where...Someone presents a case in front of the Judge and he checks twitter to see what other people think.

Your disappointment that 5 judges that Trump convinced to say something doesn't carry legal weight is comical..

This was the lead author in that non-relevant opinion

While serving in the Bush administration as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, he signed the controversial "Torture Memos" in August 2002.

These authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used in the systematic torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp beginning in 2002 and at the Abu Ghraib facility following the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003.
...

Human Rights Watch and The New York Times Editorial board have called for the prosecution of Bybee "for conspiracy to torture as well as other crimes."

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is also comical...

I'm already aware of that. But again, thanks for the civics 101 lesson.

a reply to: Indigo5

I imagine trump ran this by him as well before making a new EO. so he might surprise you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

I have posted links and excerpts to the Judges ruling and explained repeatedly in my own words why I believe their ruling was sound.

If you were able to debate whether "these judges (are) right or wrong ", you would be doing that by now, rather than intentionally running in rhetorical circles.

I already did. One, it's not a Muslim ban. Two, the president has the authority

An argument with all the substance of Cartman from Southpark....

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

I think Gorsuch's hearing is next week, after which I fully expect an expedited decision on this.

We can only hope! Trump's new appointee to the Supreme Court ruling against him in his first big case will be the cherry on the embarrassment sunday for Trump!

Alas...I think Sessions will bail on this before risking that massive embarrassment..But we will see.

Really doubt it will happen like that.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Indigo5

I imagine trump ran this by him as well before making a new EO. so he might surprise you.

Gorsuch calls Trump's judge attacks 'demoralizing' and 'disheartening'
www.politico.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

An argument with all the substance of Cartman from Southpark....

Yet they thoroughly refute yours, which are more like Meg from family guy.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

I think Gorsuch's hearing is next week, after which I fully expect an expedited decision on this.

We can only hope! Trump's new appointee to the Supreme Court ruling against him in his first big case will be the cherry on the embarrassment sunday for Trump!

Alas...I think Sessions will bail on this before risking that massive embarrassment..But we will see.

Really doubt it will happen like that.

Again..too many people imagining Gorsuch to rule in a partisan way.

But Judge Gorsuch is also more of a Jeffersonian than a Hamiltonian. He believes in strictly construing limits on federal and presidential power in order to protect liberty.

www.npr.org...

Gorsuch is all about restraining Federal Power and is very sensitive to over-reach.

This is good for conservatives who want less regulation...BAD for a president who has attacked the Judicial branch "so called judge" ...with a constitutionally questionable EO...Trump's whole argument is "I have the authority!".."The Judicial Branch can not question my EO!"...Not something that a Justice Gorsuch will respond well to.

a reply to: Indigo5

Judge in Massachusetts ruled in favor of the orginal EO, what makes you think SCOTUS won't?

www.zerohedge.com...

Gorton wrote there is a rational reason for the Trump administration’s policies. The federal Immigration and Naturalization Act gives the president broad power over immigration.

“The order provides a reasonably conceivable state of facts (which concerns national security and) that could provide a rational basis for the classification,” he wrote. “Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions.”

ORDER

For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6).

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

Judge in Massachusetts ruled in favor of the orginal EO, what makes you think SCOTUS won't?

And since then 6 plus judges, including Federal Appeals Courts have ruled against it..

Latching on to the exception and pretending it is the rule is not a rational way to examine the situation.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

Even more so when another judge has ruled Trump's EO lawful (the first one).

According to the news, 5 9th-circuit judges have voiced their support for the first EO, but their arguments will be dismissed because they are not ruling on the very cases they are speaking against. This is the level of absurdity we are dealing with.

Again...The way the court system works is someone presents a case before a Judge and the court rules on the case..

It does not work where...Someone presents a case in front of the Judge and he checks twitter to see what other people think.

Your disappointment that 5 judges that Trump convinced to say something doesn't carry legal weight is comical..

This was the lead author in that non-relevant opinion

While serving in the Bush administration as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, he signed the controversial "Torture Memos" in August 2002.

These authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used in the systematic torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp beginning in 2002 and at the Abu Ghraib facility following the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003.
...

Human Rights Watch and The New York Times Editorial board have called for the prosecution of Bybee "for conspiracy to torture as well as other crimes."

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is also comical...

So only the opinions of liberal judges counts. Gotcha.

What makes you say that?

Bush-appointed judge halts Trump travel ban nationwide
thehill.com...

The president has the power to bar foreigners from coming to America. Whether he is using that power righteously or abusing that power, that depends on how judges see it if he is sued.

a reply to: Indigo5

And since then 6 plus judges, including Federal Appeals Courts have ruled against it..

Latching on to the exception and pretending it is the rule is not a rational way to examine the situation.

I'm saying this seems to be open to interpretation for some reason, even though the president clearly has authority over immigration.
I'm saying that I doubt that SCOTUS will rule against it.
Just my opinion, could be wrong.
Won't know till it happens, but I'd bet money that I'm not wrong (in fact have lol)

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

Even more so when another judge has ruled Trump's EO lawful (the first one).

According to the news, 5 9th-circuit judges have voiced their support for the first EO, but their arguments will be dismissed because they are not ruling on the very cases they are speaking against. This is the level of absurdity we are dealing with.

Again...The way the court system works is someone presents a case before a Judge and the court rules on the case..

It does not work where...Someone presents a case in front of the Judge and he checks twitter to see what other people think.

Your disappointment that 5 judges that Trump convinced to say something doesn't carry legal weight is comical..

This was the lead author in that non-relevant opinion

While serving in the Bush administration as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, he signed the controversial "Torture Memos" in August 2002.

These authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used in the systematic torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp beginning in 2002 and at the Abu Ghraib facility following the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003.
...

Human Rights Watch and The New York Times Editorial board have called for the prosecution of Bybee "for conspiracy to torture as well as other crimes."

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is also comical...

So only the opinions of liberal judges counts. Gotcha.

What makes you say that?

Bush-appointed judge halts Trump travel ban nationwide
thehill.com...

Your dismissal earlier of 5 judges that you called 'partisan'. Perhaps only judges that don't say what you want are partisan?

a reply to: reldra

I guess the fact that Obama went to Hawaii almost 48 hours before the judge made the decision and was within 5 minutes of the judges house has nothing to do with it... Or the fact that this judge was appointed by Obama...but it is just "coincidence" huh?...

Obama pays surprise visit to Honolulu

I guess it also has nothing to do with the fact that Obama, Holder, and their paid thugs are trying to control what President Trump can do as "they try to save Obama's legacy"...

First time a former President made it his full time job to try to stop the President that was elected...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: reldra

I guess the fact that Obama went to Hawaii almost 48 hours before the judge made the decision and was within 5 minutes of the judges house has nothing to do with it... Or the fact that this judge was appointed by Obama...but it is just "coincidence" huh?...

Obama pays surprise visit to Honolulu

I guess it also has nothing to do with the fact that Obama, Holder, and their paid thugs are trying to control what President Trump can do as "they try to save Obama's legacy"...

First time a former President made it his full time job to try to stop the President that was elected...

The Deep State activity, which now clearly extends to the Judiciary shows just how badly Obama destroyed the country. It may take years to restore America to former glory.