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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

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.


This will be a good test to see what kind of choreography was involved.
A response with Tucker Carlson on Fox News should give us more details of about Trumps true intentions for that plan.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

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?


Why would you want Trump to act like an idiot on national television more???? I thought you liked him.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: introvert

I'm making the statement because the case he ruled on seemed to have no merit. I guess even though I agree with the ban being stupid it isn't enough and I also need to go full anti-Trump. Not going to happen. I like rule of law free of political bias.


There is no indication of any political bias in their decision.

No one has yet to answer the question as to what leads them to believe their decision was political.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 212(f), states:


"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."


So the President has the power to, and is even EXPECTED to, discriminate based on nationality.

This judge needs to be impeached.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Did I use those buzzwords? NO, I didn't. The judge himself said it was a movement against Islam. It isn't. He interpreted the way his feelings and emotions dictated.

Why isn't Indonesia on the list if it's a muslim ban?

Why isn't Turkey on the list if it's a muslim ban?

Why isn't pakistan on the list if it's a muslim ban?

Why isn't Bangladesh on the lis if it's a muslim ban?

I could go on, but I think everyone else but you gets it.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.


Neither were constitutional. They are written poorly. Maybe Trump's Best People can try again.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra

Did I use those buzzwords? NO, I didn't. The judge himself said it was a movement against Islam.


That wasn't his only reason. But it certainly looks like a movement against Islam, even if ALL countries with a majority of Muslims aren't included. Trump would lose too much business.

Your post said it was a political decision. It follows the buzzwords. Did I not say sounds like? If you had used them I certainly would have quoted it.
edit on 15-3-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

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?


Why would you want Trump to act like an idiot on national television more???? I thought you liked him.


I do! One person's idiot is another person's hero. You're old enough to know that, Reldra.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.


Neither were constitutional. They are written poorly. Maybe Trump's Best People can try again.


The ruling by the judge indicates that their ruling is based on 1st amendment protections.

Perhaps Trump's comments during the campaign have ruined his chances of enacting an effective travel ban, because he openly stated he wanted to ban Muslims. That's the same argument made last time, I believe, and it stood up.

Shot himself in the foot?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra

Did I use those buzzwords? NO, I didn't. The judge himself said it was a movement against Islam.


That wasn't his only reason. But it certainly looks like a movement against Islam, even if ALL countries with a majority of Muslims aren't included. Trump would lose too much business.

Your post said it was a political decision. It follows the buzzwords. Did I not say sounds like? If you had used them I certainly would have quoted it.

Ahh, there it is, the CNN parroted speculation.

It's not a muslim ban. Grow up.

Also, no, my post did NOT say it was a political decision.
edit on 15-3-2017 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Hoepfully this gross judicial over-reach and abuse will lead to the dismantling and rebuilding from a clean slate of the entire 9th district court.

Even Dershowitz says this will be an easy win for the Trump administration if it goes to the suoreme court.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: reldra

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?


Why would you want Trump to act like an idiot on national television more???? I thought you liked him.


I do! One person's idiot is another person's hero. You're old enough to know that, Reldra.


I do. The way you answered the question was...a little funny. But never mind.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No.

The pathetic ruling cites alleged economic harm to the Hawaii tourism industry.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.


Neither were constitutional. They are written poorly. Maybe Trump's Best People can try again.


The ruling by the judge indicates that their ruling is based on 1st amendment protections.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where do non-citizens have immigration protection in this amendment?


Perhaps Trump's comments during the campaign have ruined his chances of enacting an effective travel ban, because he openly stated he wanted to ban Muslims. That's the same argument made last time, I believe, and it stood up.


And where in either EO does it say 'ban Muslims' ?


Shot himself in the foot?


No. It does show the judge's decision is political.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Angola has a REAL Muslim ban in place. Reldra "Angola is racist"



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

The judge also said this:


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.


www.vox.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.


Neither were constitutional. They are written poorly. Maybe Trump's Best People can try again.


The ruling by the judge indicates that their ruling is based on 1st amendment protections.

Perhaps Trump's comments during the campaign have ruined his chances of enacting an effective travel ban, because he openly stated he wanted to ban Muslims. That's the same argument made last time, I believe, and it stood up.

Shot himself in the foot?


Possibly. I think he has gone and shot himself in the foot about 100 times. It will become impossible for him to move an inch, soon.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: reldra

The judge also said this:


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.


www.vox.com...


That certainly makes sense. It doesn't have to have all Muslim majority countries to be a Muslim Ban.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: introvert

No.

The pathetic ruling cites alleged economic harm to the Hawaii tourism industry.



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.



But the text of Watson’s order makes it pretty clear that he thinks the order violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause.


www.vox.com...




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join