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

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: reldra

well i could had kept my original remark as F_ _ K but that was not nice.

Would have been better than your suggestion of Hawaii under martial law.

We did that once.

Do you have any idea when and why Hawaii was placed under martial law? I'll give you a hint, it began December 7, 1941.

Can you think of anything else significant about that date?

And you have the nerve to call others uneducated.

SMH.

a reply to: reldra

See my above response.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: reldra

They are both public servants charged with carrying out government policy - your opinions about her 'religious fanaticism' are are no different than opinions about 'political fanaticism'. Your other opinion about her mother is likewise also completely irrelevant in relation to the topic - refusing to carry out government policy.

The county clerk in that case has a lot less power than a Federal judge. There is no comparison. She was to carry out the law a judge can interpret the law then a motion is brought before them.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
If you don't like the ban, fine, but to lie and claim it is a Muslim ban is just pure propaganda. If it were a Muslim ban, why doesn't it include the vast majority of Muslims in the world then? It is a ban based on countries with dangerous conditions, countries that the Obama regime chose.

They take into consideration the things he said during the campaign, affirmed by his friend Rudy. They are arguing that all that was before he became President, but I'm not sure they can put that genie back in the bottle.

Yeah, the judge used that excuse to block the travel thing.

Even tho there was nothing in the EO like that.

The judge went out of bounds of the EO to make the call.

Which is not his call. His job is to review the order itself.

Hope he gets his soon.

a reply to: Vector99


Of course I know why. Hawaiians nor the palace being placed in barbed wire had anything to do with it.

originally posted by: Ohanka
More treasonous obstructionism.

Dump all the "refugees" in Hawaii.

And make all flights from those terrorist havens stop-over in Hawaii for a few hours...heh heh.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: reldra

They are both public servants charged with carrying out government policy - your opinions about her 'religious fanaticism' are are no different than opinions about 'political fanaticism'. Your other opinion about her mother is likewise also completely irrelevant in relation to the topic - refusing to carry out government policy.

The county clerk in that case has a lot less power than a Federal judge. There is no comparison. She was to carry out the law a judge can interpret the law then a motion is brought before them.

Again, the amount of power they have, the rank they hold, the money they make is IRRELEVANT - in it's most basic and fundamental position, they are both public servants generating income via taxpayers - they are both required to follow the law and carry out government policy.

Here's the clincher - the Judge, and she knows it, should have followed the E.O..UNDER PROTEST, which she has the right to do and this would have shown everyone that she was not being political but moral. Unfortunately for the Judge, she is playing politics and it's obvious.

Under Protest, just like military commanders etc

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
If you don't like the ban, fine, but to lie and claim it is a Muslim ban is just pure propaganda. If it were a Muslim ban, why doesn't it include the vast majority of Muslims in the world then? It is a ban based on countries with dangerous conditions, countries that the Obama regime chose.

They take into consideration the things he said during the campaign, affirmed by his friend Rudy. They are arguing that all that was before he became President, but I'm not sure they can put that genie back in the bottle.

Yeah, the judge used that excuse to block the travel thing.

Even tho there was nothing in the EO like that.

The judge went out of bounds of the EO to make the call.

Which is not his call. His job is to review the order itself.

Hope he gets his soon.

The judge reviewed it and blocked it. I am sure other judges will do the same with future attempts.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Again, the amount of power they have, the rank they hold, the money they make is IRRELEVANT

The money they make sure, but no one brought that up.


The rest is highly relevant seeing as Kim Davis wasn't there to interpret the law...
That he already been done, by Judges.



This is really not comparable.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: reldra

They are both public servants charged with carrying out government policy - your opinions about her 'religious fanaticism' are are no different than opinions about 'political fanaticism'. Your other opinion about her mother is likewise also completely irrelevant in relation to the topic - refusing to carry out government policy.

The county clerk in that case has a lot less power than a Federal judge. There is no comparison. She was to carry out the law a judge can interpret the law then a motion is brought before them.

Again, the amount of power they have, the rank they hold, the money they make is IRRELEVANT - in it's most basic and fundamental position, they are both public servants generating income via taxpayers - they are both required to follow the law and carry out government policy.

Here's the clincher - the Judge, and she knows it, should have followed the E.O..UNDER PROTEST, which she has the right to do and this would have shown everyone that she was not being political but moral. Unfortunately for the Judge, she is playing politics and it's obvious.

Under Protest, just like military commanders etc

You don't seem to know the difference between a Federal judge and a County Clerk.

A county clerk follows the law given. I live in a smaller village. When I want a copy of my birth certificate, I go there and state that. They ask me for ID. Maybe 2 forms. I look on their website first. It may be the actual County Clerk that does this. She will ask me for $10 in cash, check or a money order. She then goes and retrieves a copy and stamps it, usually with a raised seal.

If I want to marry, a man or a woman- I go to the same place and ask for marriage license paperwork. The clerk or an assistant will tell me how it is to be filled out and 2 adult witnesses need to sign at the ceremony. In NY, one should be a religious sort of person or a notary public. The only person it cannot be is a ship captain. I must also sign to the fact that I am not already married. When I return with the paperwork duly signed and a fee, probably about $50, the clerk stamps it, with a raised stamp, makes a copy for the village records and gives me my copy.

The County Clerk you mention was not doing her job.

A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.

I hope President Trump insults the hell out of this Hawaii judge during his 9pm (ET) interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. What would be a good one liner, for irritating the liberal idiots at CNN the most tomorrow?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: reldra

They are both public servants charged with carrying out government policy - your opinions about her 'religious fanaticism' are are no different than opinions about 'political fanaticism'. Your other opinion about her mother is likewise also completely irrelevant in relation to the topic - refusing to carry out government policy.

The county clerk in that case has a lot less power than a Federal judge. There is no comparison. She was to carry out the law a judge can interpret the law then a motion is brought before them.

Again, the amount of power they have, the rank they hold, the money they make is IRRELEVANT - in it's most basic and fundamental position, they are both public servants generating income via taxpayers - they are both required to follow the law and carry out government policy.

Here's the clincher - the Judge, and she knows it, should have followed the E.O..UNDER PROTEST, which she has the right to do and this would have shown everyone that she was not being political but moral. Unfortunately for the Judge, she is playing politics and it's obvious.

Under Protest, just like military commanders etc

You don't seem to know the difference between a Federal judge and a County Clerk.

and you seem to think that there should be multiple sets of rules, depending upon personal opinions.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
If you don't like the ban, fine, but to lie and claim it is a Muslim ban is just pure propaganda. If it were a Muslim ban, why doesn't it include the vast majority of Muslims in the world then? It is a ban based on countries with dangerous conditions, countries that the Obama regime chose.

They take into consideration the things he said during the campaign, affirmed by his friend Rudy. They are arguing that all that was before he became President, but I'm not sure they can put that genie back in the bottle.

Yeah, the judge used that excuse to block the travel thing.

Even tho there was nothing in the EO like that.

The judge went out of bounds of the EO to make the call.

Which is not his call. His job is to review the order itself.

Hope he gets his soon.

The judge reviewed it and blocked it. I am sure other judges will do the same with future attempts.

It was blocked based off what Trump was supposed to have said to Rudy.

It wasn't blocked because of what was in it.

Judges decision was total BS.

originally posted by: carewemust
I hope President Trump insults the hell out of this Hawaii judge during his 9pm (ET) interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. What would be a good one liner, for irritating the liberal idiots at CNN the most tomorrow?

I think the "liberal idiots" will be too busy laughing at Trump losing, again.

"You're gonna be so tired or winning..."


So far he's 2-0 down.

originally posted by: carewemust
I hope President Trump insults the hell out of this Hawaii judge during his 9pm (ET) interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. What would be a good one liner, for irritating the liberal idiots at CNN the most tomorrow?

NEVER MIND! I see that the Trump-Carlson interview was recorded earlier today. Fox is now using the same media trick as the liberal guys, to make it seem as if it's LIVE tonight.

If it WAS a Muslim ban (which it isn't) I'd be all for it.

Worse than nazis, by a loooong shot

originally posted by: carewemust
I hope President Trump insults the hell out of this Hawaii judge during his 9pm (ET) interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. What would be a good one liner, for irritating the liberal idiots at CNN the most tomorrow?

Call her a muckaluckin pineapple head?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: reldra

They are both public servants charged with carrying out government policy - your opinions about her 'religious fanaticism' are are no different than opinions about 'political fanaticism'. Your other opinion about her mother is likewise also completely irrelevant in relation to the topic - refusing to carry out government policy.

The county clerk in that case has a lot less power than a Federal judge. There is no comparison. She was to carry out the law a judge can interpret the law then a motion is brought before them.

Again, the amount of power they have, the rank they hold, the money they make is IRRELEVANT - in it's most basic and fundamental position, they are both public servants generating income via taxpayers - they are both required to follow the law and carry out government policy.

Here's the clincher - the Judge, and she knows it, should have followed the E.O..UNDER PROTEST, which she has the right to do and this would have shown everyone that she was not being political but moral. Unfortunately for the Judge, she is playing politics and it's obvious.

Under Protest, just like military commanders etc

You don't seem to know the difference between a Federal judge and a County Clerk.

and you seem to think that there should be multiple sets of rules, depending upon personal opinions.

There rules depending on the job someone is doing. A county Clerk does one job and a Federal judge does another.

A county clerk follows the law given. I live in a smaller village. When I want a copy of my birth certificate, I go there and state that. They ask me for ID. Maybe 2 forms. I look on their website first. It may be the actual County Clerk that does this. She will ask me for $10 in cash, check or a money order. She then goes and retrieves a copy and stamps it, usually with a raised seal.

If I want to marry, a man or a woman- I go to the same place and ask for marriage license paperwork. The clerk or an assistant will tell me how it is to be filled out and 2 adult witnesses need to sign at the ceremony. In NY, one should be a religious sort of person or a notary public. The only person it cannot be is a ship captain. I must also sign to the fact that I am not already married. When I return with the paperwork duly signed and a fee, probably about $50, the clerk stamps it, with a raised stamp, makes a copy for the village records and gives me my copy.

A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is orthey can block it.

The county clerk you mention was appointed, had a high school education and is meant to keep, file and sign records as necessary.

a reply to: reldra

A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.

Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra

A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.

Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.

You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.