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

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...

Exactly. It was his personal feelings and emotions dictating his judgement. The ban doesn't include all muslim nations.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

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

It's not about non-citizens have certain rights. It's about the government taking actions directed at people of one religion or another. Trump made it clear that was his intent to focus on Muslims.

Therefore any government action he takes can be argued as being in violation of the Establishment clause.

a reply to: introvert

What a NUT JOB this judge is! In life, you often have starfish in the net, when your target catch are the lobsters. You can't just stop the terrorists from getting on the plane.

originally posted by: Vector99

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...

Exactly. It was his personal feelings and emotions dictating his judgement. The ban doesn't include all muslim nations.

What? It wasn't personal feelings, you have to read that again.

It doesn't have to include the whole of a group by the numbers to be logical.

originally posted by: Vector99

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...

Exactly. It was his personal feelings and emotions dictating his judgement. The ban doesn't include all muslim nations.

Actually, it appears his decision was informed by constitutional principles.

The logical fallacy in your thinking is that it can only be a Muslim ban if all Muslims are affected.

a reply to: introvert

So this ruling is claiming people are coming here to practice their various religions ?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99

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...

Exactly. It was his personal feelings and emotions dictating his judgement. The ban doesn't include all muslim nations.

What? It wasn't personal feelings, you have to read that again.

No I don't. The court determines one thing but declines another.

Personal emotions and feelings interpreting the law, plain and simple.

originally posted by: introvert

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.

If the case fails on merit and he rules in favor of it in spite of that what other reason is there? Judges are supposed to rule on the law, when it appears that the case does not meet that standard then what else is it other than political? You can keep saying nobody has answered but I have twice. The fact that you don't like the answer is not my problem.

ETA: Immigration is within the realm of control of the executive branch. Very simple. This is not a muslim ban it's a ban on a very small percentage of predominantly muslim countries.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99

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...

Exactly. It was his personal feelings and emotions dictating his judgement. The ban doesn't include all muslim nations.

What? It wasn't personal feelings, you have to read that again.

No I don't. The court determines one thing but declines another.

Personal emotions and feelings interpreting the law, plain and simple.

NO, the logical fallacy in that has been pointed out a couple of times.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: introvert

What a NUT JOB this judge is! In life, you often have starfish in the net, when your target catch are the lobsters. You can't just stop the terrorists from getting on the plane.

Not sure what you mean.

Doesn't make much sense.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

So this ruling is claiming people are coming here to practice their various religions ?

You guys really don't know much about the Establishment clause, do you?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

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...

Exactly. It was his personal feelings and emotions dictating his judgement. The ban doesn't include all muslim nations.

Actually, it appears his decision was informed by constitutional principles.

The logical fallacy in your thinking is that it can only be a Muslim ban if all Muslims are affected.

No, the constitutional aspect of it stops at US borders. The judge is trying to interpret constitutional rights beyond said borders. it doesn't work that way.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Teikiatsu

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

It's not about non-citizens have certain rights. It's about the government taking actions directed at people of one religion or another. Trump made it clear that was his intent to focus on Muslims.

Therefore any government action he takes can be argued as being in violation of the Establishment clause.

Neither EO bans muslims because of their religion, so your argument is bogus. His rhetoric does not appear in the EO.

Let me repeat: you cannot legitimately use his previous campaign rhetoric as your argument if that rhetoric is not in the actual EO verbiage.

Do I need to repeat that again?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

If the case fails on merit and he rules in favor of it in spite of that what other reason is there?

You fail right off the start by not considering the merit of their decision based on 1st amendment protections, which forbid the government from taking actions against certain people based on religion. Trump made it clear he wanted a travel ban on Muslims. Therefore it is safe to say this action, just like the last EO, is rooted in anti-Constitutional intent.

Judges are supposed to rule on the law, when it appears that the case does not meet that standard then what else is it other than political?

Who cares how it looks? What we should concern ourselves with is whether or not the decision was in-line with the constitution.

You can keep saying nobody has answered but I have twice. The fact that you don't like the answer is not my problem.

You have yet to provide a logical answer rooted in fact or reason.

I can provide quotes from the Constitution to back-up my claims. I can provide proof that Trump wanted to ban Muslims, exclusively.

All you have is opinion that the ruling was sub-standard.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

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...

Exactly. It was his personal feelings and emotions dictating his judgement. The ban doesn't include all muslim nations.

Actually, it appears his decision was informed by constitutional principles.

The logical fallacy in your thinking is that it can only be a Muslim ban if all Muslims are affected.

No, the constitutional aspect of it stops at US borders. The judge is trying to interpret constitutional rights beyond said borders. it doesn't work that way.

Again, it has nothing to do with borders or rights of non-citizens. I notice all-caps seem to be more effective these days, so let me try this.

THE 1ST AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING ACTIONS DIRECTED AT ONE RELIGION, SPECIFICALLY. ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER.

TRUMP SAID THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED TO DO.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

I guess the only resolution is for the Judge to be impeached...
the higher court can reverse the decision...or else Vacate the decision to ban the EO...

but that Judges act of nullifying the EO should only affect the citizens in that particular Court Jurisdiction ...& not the whole USA

I guess I need to read up on how a Judge in a local city or a concise region has the power & weight of authority to negate a Presidential order...a Supreme court decision that an peer-reviewed EO is legitimate & equitable can be left to the whim of a ideological enemy to be overturned as objectionable (objectionable to whom?) bleeding heart Muslim Jihadi lovers ?


sorry... I just don't get-it
one poster has the right idea... have every friggin' Muslim Refugee, economic hardship case from those 6 countries crawling with terrorist, Jihadi practicing persons come for a 3 day 'Vetting Process' in that Hawiian Court Jurisdiction, only then can those illegals enter the USA as visitors or temp guests.... the Obama Open Borders policy is NO LONGer operational as the previous laws-on-the-books were circumvented by the Obama regime against the safety of the population

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Neither EO bans muslims because of their religion, so your argument is bogus. His rhetoric does not appear in the EO. Let me repeat: you cannot legitimately use his previous campaign rhetoric as your argument if that rhetoric is not in the actual EO verbiage. Do I need to repeat that again?

Sure you can hold his previous rhetoric against him. Do you know what it proves?

Wait for it....intent.

a reply to: introvert

WHAT TRUMP SAID AND WHAT IS ON A LEGAL DOCUMENT ARE IRRELEVANT!

can you hear me now?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: introvert

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.

If the case fails on merit and he rules in favor of it in spite of that what other reason is there? Judges are supposed to rule on the law, when it appears that the case does not meet that standard then what else is it other than political? You can keep saying nobody has answered but I have twice. The fact that you don't like the answer is not my problem.

ETA: Immigration is within the realm of control of the executive branch. Very simple. This is not a muslim ban it's a ban on a very small percentage of predominantly muslim countries.

You just keep saying it is a political decision. Then you say the executive branch has complete control.

The President has only the power over immigration naturalization the constitution gives him. It mainly lies with congress.

All of this can be reviewed by Federal judges.

So back where we started.

Checks and balances.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

WHAT TRUMP SAID AND WHAT IS ON A LEGAL DOCUMENT ARE IRRELEVANT!

can you hear me now?

Not according to the judge. Read this part again.

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.