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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's because I see no reason to disagree with it. You certainly haven't provided any valid legal arguments for why it isn't valid. You just keep repeating that it is constitutional and the judge is wrong over and over again like doing so will suddenly make that statement more valid and believable.

I did, but your fingers are in the same place as they were last time.

"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." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)."

Emphasis added. That's the law right there.

I was more looking for a rebuttal of the animus argument the prosecution is using. Not the standard attempt to legitimize the EO that was used for his first attempt as well. You know something that would show you are up-to-date with the legal proceedings of how this case is being handled?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No they don't. Those 5 judges weren't ruling on a case involving this EO. Therefore their opinion is just as useful as yours. It may be a bit more educated since they are actually lawyers/judges, but that doesn't mean it holds any legal weight in this regard. The only people who outweigh those two judges is SCOTUS if they rule contrary to them.

It is entirely circular that some 9th-circuit judges are correct because they put a halt on the EO, but the ones that are supportive and didn't put a halt on it are incorrect. That's absurd. Once again, it's not about who or what has the power or "legal weight", it's about what is true or false, and you are wedded to the latter.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was more looking for a rebuttal of the animus argument the prosecution is using. Not the standard attempt to legitimize the EO that was used for his first attempt as well. You know something that would show you are up-to-date with the legal proceedings of how this case is being handled?

So that law is null and void? It does not pertain to the situation?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

This has not been to the Supreme Court as yet.
Just saying you should not get too invested just yet as you may end up looking foolish.

Trump didn't even petition the Supreme Court to hear the case the first time. The notion that this is justice served is idiotic.

Indeed. A liberal judge has abused his power in order to stop Trump performing his constitutional role as President. I think Trump will now take this to the Supreme Court and this liberal judge will be struck down.

Gorsuch will be confirmed soon and then Trump can move to put the activists in their place. This is precisely why it was so important for Trump to win, so the judical system can be saved from ideologues.

a reply to: UKTruth

Indeed. A liberal judge has abused his power in order to stop Trump performing his constitutional role as President. I think Trump will now take this to the Supreme Court and this liberal judge will be struck down.

Gorsuch will be confirmed soon and then Trump can move to put the activists in their place.

To the extent that the judges are referring to their feelings and not the law makes them unfit for that duty anyways.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

In this case a ruling by a Federal APPEALS Court is the precise opposite of that...They are precisely the authority to issue a decision.

Your repetition of "appeal to authority" as if it is fallacious in this scenario seems bizarre at best... Desperate dishonesty at worst..

Then the 5 9th-circuit court judges who support the travel ban outweigh the opinions of the 2 other judges. Your game is tedious at best, obsequious at worst.

Oh...And what about Judge Judy's opinion?...Hers is as relevant as the 5 Justices issuing unsolicited and legally irrelevant opinions on cases they have not heard nor ruled on.

The way our court system works is that Federal Appeals Courts hear Federal Appeals..

They ruled on the case.

Everybody else simply has an opinion...Former Bush Attorneys who signed off on torture included...

a reply to: Indigo5

Oh...And what about Judge Judy's opinion?...Hers is as relevant as the 5 Justices issuing unsolicited and legally irrelevant opinions on cases they have not heard nor ruled on.

They way our court system works is that Federal Appeals Courts hear Federal Appeals..

They ruled on the case.

Everybody else simply has an opinion...Former Bush AGs who signed off on torture included...

Thank you for that, but that wasn't my point.

It's simple. Can a judge be wrong?

a reply to: UKTruth

Well said.

Gorsuch will be confirmed soon and then Trump can move to put the activists in their place. This is precisely why it was so important for Trump to win, so the judical system can be saved from ideologues.

originally posted by: Jerseymilker
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

It gets old, it's one of Obama's guys. So this Judge can't think for himself heh? WOW. Maybe the Judge has valid reasons for blocking it. New York State, Oregon, Massachusetts and Washington State is also joining in on legal action. But hey they are all Obama men right?

He will just ignore the judge he has no jurisdiction over th matter

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

This will go to the Supreme Court and Trump will win.

Is it my imagination or did you not say the same thing about Trumps first failed EO?

This has not been to the Supreme Court as yet
.

My suspicion, just like with the first EO...It is all ego with Trump and no backbone.

Know where the Hawaii decision is appealed to? The 9th circuit again..Sessions might request a full panel of the 29 Justices in the Ninth Circuit...but he will still get his unconstitutional ass handed to him.

After that they can try and take it to SCOTUS, but even with Gorsach...There is a high risk that SCOTUS will slap it down as well....reasons which are complicated, but conservatives are thinking this will be a partisan ruling if it gets to SCOTUS, when in reality it won't be.

For those reasons...I think Sessions will stop at the 9th Circuit and not appeal SCOTUS and risk the embarrassment.

I don't think Sessions would even appeal this unless he knew he had to for his boss.

The EO is fatally flawed..fully derivative of the first failed EO and a direct and proud product of the "Muslim Ban" rhetoric..

And it is like the Trump administration is working to make the plaintiffs case...regularly making (court relevant) statements of how this EO is just like the first, but tweaked to survive legal scrutiny..And the first was just "Muslim Ban" with legal lipstick.

It will not survive, but will be fun to watch ....

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

This will go to the Supreme Court and Trump will win.

Is it my imagination or did you not say the same thing about Trumps first failed EO?

This has not been to the Supreme Court as yet
.

My suspicion, just like with the first EO...It is all ego with Trump and no backbone.

Know where the Hawaii decision is appealed to? The 9th circuit again..Sessions might request a full panel of the 29 Justices in the Ninth Circuit...but he will still get his unconstitutional ass handed to him.

After that they can try and take it to SCOTUS, but even with Gorsach...There is a high risk that SCOTUS will slap it down as well....reasons which are complicated, but conservatives are thinking this will be a partisan ruling if it gets to SCOTUS, when in reality it won't be.

For those reasons...I think Sessions will stop at the 9th Circuit and not appeal SCOTUS and risk the embarrassment.

I don't think Sessions would even appeal this unless he knew he had to for his boss.

The EO is fatally flawed..fully derivative of the first failed EO and a direct and proud product of the "Muslim Ban" rhetoric..

And it is like the Trump administration is working to make the plaintiffs case...regularly making (court relevant) statements of how this EO is just like the first, but tweaked to survive legal scrutiny..And the first was just "Muslim Ban" with legal lipstick.

It will not survive, but will be fun to watch ....

Oh, I think it is going all the way to the Supreme Court as this is a significant constitutional issue, with what appears to be a conflict. It won't be a partisan ruling at the Supreme Court either - it will be a fair one based on the Constitution, not an over reach for political reasons.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

This has not been to the Supreme Court as yet.
Just saying you should not get too invested just yet as you may end up looking foolish.

Trump didn't even petition the Supreme Court to hear the case the first time. The notion that this is justice served is idiotic.

Indeed. A liberal judge has abused his power in order to stop Trump performing his constitutional role as President. I think Trump will now take this to the Supreme Court and this liberal judge will be struck down.

Gorsuch will be confirmed soon and then Trump can move to put the activists in their place. This is precisely why it was so important for Trump to win, so the judical system can be saved from ideologues.

Hopefully the supreme court will specify Trump has the power to control immigration and all injunctions/and restraining orders are null and void from that point on on that issue. Thereby eliminating the ability to say no.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh...And what about Judge Judy's opinion?...Hers is as relevant as the 5 Justices issuing unsolicited and legally irrelevant opinions on cases they have not heard nor ruled on.

They way our court system works is that Federal Appeals Courts hear Federal Appeals..

They ruled on the case.

Everybody else simply has an opinion...Former Bush AGs who signed off on torture included...

Thank you for that, but that wasn't my point.

It's simple. Can a judge be wrong?

Given the number of times they are over ruled, the answer to that question is self evident.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

This has not been to the Supreme Court as yet.
Just saying you should not get too invested just yet as you may end up looking foolish.

Trump didn't even petition the Supreme Court to hear the case the first time. The notion that this is justice served is idiotic.

Indeed. A liberal judge has abused his power in order to stop Trump performing his constitutional role as President. I think Trump will now take this to the Supreme Court and this liberal judge will be struck down.

Gorsuch will be confirmed soon and then Trump can move to put the activists in their place. This is precisely why it was so important for Trump to win, so the judical system can be saved from ideologues.

Hopefully the supreme court will specify Trump has the power to control immigration and all injunctions/and restraining orders are null and void from that point on on that issue. Thereby eliminating the ability to say no.

Agreed. It needs to be bottomed out. Either the President can bar any group for any reason he deems appropriate in the interest of national security or he can't.

a reply to: UKTruth

Given the number of times they are over ruled, the answer to that question is self evident.

It's quite obvious.

The logic "Judge 1 says X is true, therefore, X is true" is invalid on those grounds. Yet that logic seems typical around here.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh...And what about Judge Judy's opinion?...Hers is as relevant as the 5 Justices issuing unsolicited and legally irrelevant opinions on cases they have not heard nor ruled on.

They way our court system works is that Federal Appeals Courts hear Federal Appeals..

They ruled on the case.

Everybody else simply has an opinion...Former Bush AGs who signed off on torture included...

It's simple. Can a judge be wrong?

Of course! So can Doctors if they tell you that you have lung cancer...That is what second opinions and appeals courts are for.

But the idea that some guy on the internet is more qualified to diagnose you than your doctor is silly..

And searching for a doctor that tells you not to worry about it is equally as foolish.

In the end Doctors are Doctors for a reason and Federal Judges are Federal Judges for a reason.

Thus far Trump's EO's on the travel Ban have accrued a collection of rulings all saying the same thing.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

Given the number of times they are over ruled, the answer to that question is self evident.

It's quite obvious.

The logic "Judge 1 says X is true, therefore, X is true" is invalid on those grounds. Yet that logic seems typical around here.

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

a reply to: Indigo5

Are these judges right or wrong is the question we should be debating, not whether they did or did not obstruct the President's executive order.

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.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

Are these judges right or wrong is the question we should be debating

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.