It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's put in place so that the lawsuit against the EO can continue but the EO cannot be implemented.
There is also a thread about it. I've seen the list. I wonder why the Government did not offer it as evidence.
There is a list of 72 terrorists from those countries. This is an easy google.
So it was a mess, like many have said. Maybe he'll get it right next time.
He doesn't have the power to disregard habeus corpus and there are other procedures that weren't accounted for in the EO.
originally posted by: Phage
Which case did the TRO (which was ruled upon by Robart who sits on the 9th, and the 9th) specify?
originally posted by: Phage There is also a thread about it. I've seen the list. I wonder why the Government did not offer it as evidence.
originally posted by: Phage So it was a mess, like many have said. Maybe he'll get it right next time.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Phage
I am sure that the judge will be invited to the presidents national security briefings and will seat in congress to help make and change laws.
What a joke this judges are becoming.
A joke because her rulings or opinions do not coincide with your political bias?
I would think we'd invite checks and balances to keep our elected officials from abusing power or acting without just cause.
Seems to me that process is now considered a liberal bias.
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Sillyolme
One of the reasons the travel ban was unconstitutional was because it gave priority to Christians and violated the Establishment Clause.
I don't see "Christians" (or "Muslims" either) referred to in the EO...
Maybe it's not there.
EO in question
The executive order, of course, does not say in express terms that it is favoring Christians and disfavoring Muslims. But Trump is the signatory, and he has said so explicitly. Moreover, even absent that evidence of Trump’s invidious intent, the order on its face favors refugees from “minority religions” over those from “majority religions” in any given country. That distinction independently violates the principle of denominational neutrality, even if in some countries it means we will be privileging Christians and in other countries Muslims.
The law struck down in Larson v. Valente did not name any particular denominations, but it simply imposed differential registration and reporting requirements on religions that received more than half of their total contributions from members and those that did not. Even though the law did not single out a specific religion by name, it failed to treat all denominations the same and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.
secondly why didnt Judge Robart research before using his personal opinion to justify his incorrect and unconstitutional ruling?
In the document, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said there is evidence that the president’s travel ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments and would cause “irreparable injury” to Virginia residents, Virginia institutions and persons connected to those persons and institutions.
This is where you should begin to get angry. After the court found it likely that Trump’s executive order violated constitutional rights of people who have no constitutional rights, it put those make-believe “rights” ahead of the country’s national security, and your right to be safe in your home, workplace, and place of worship. The court put the rights of the following people ahead of your safety:
Two visiting scholars (one without a visa) who wanted to spend time at Washington State University;
Three “prospective employees” of the University of Washington who had no visas; and
Two medicine and science interns without visas.
Yes, the court found that the make-believe “rights” of seven people (only one of which actually had a visa, and none of which were in the country) trump your right to live free and without fear. Their “rights” trump the national security interests of the U.S. government and its 300 million citizens. This is 100 percent wrong.
When presented with the fact that all seven countries Trump’s executive order affected were labeled “countries of concern” by the Obama administration (more than 60 terrorism-related arrests have occurred since 9/11 involving citizens of these countries), the court essentially said it didn’t care. Unless it was presented with something really juicy, like intelligence it has no authority to view, it would give no deference to the government’s argument that national security concerns must be taken into account. It’s a shameful and sad outcome.