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

a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

There are no feelings involved. The judge ruled based on many criteria.

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.

Can't wait for the next episode.

a reply to: reldra

And the judge clearly misinterpreted it. Based upon personal feelings.

originally posted by: introvert

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?

No, this is a silent medium. Sheesh.

The first amendment prevents establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The EOs do not establish a religion nor tell muslims they cannot practice free expression of their religion.

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

Wait for it....intent.

Yes, you can bring up his rhetoric all you want. You can hold it against him all you want. But that rhetoric is not a valid argument against an EO that does not contain the rhetoric. BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.

Should I repeat that again?

originally posted by: Lysergic
Can't wait for the next episode.

I did like Law and Order Criminal Intent. I was disappointed when it ended in 2011.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra

And the judge clearly misinterpreted it. Based upon personal feelings.

You think it is clear. That does dot mean it is what he was thinking unless you have access to his mind.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.

He did, so, at this point, no matter what he has a Best of the Best person write, in regard to this, it may not pass judicial muster. His own fault.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.

He stated a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the country.

Exactly how does this EO achieve that when SEVERAL muslim nations are not included in it?

Intent would HAVE to include ALL muslim nations.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.

He stated a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the country.

Exactly how does this EO achieve that when SEVERAL muslim nations are not included in it?

Intent would HAVE to include ALL muslim nations.

The judge explained that clearly. It does not have to include ALL.

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.

How are the unconstitutional?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The first amendment prevents establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The EOs do not establish a religion nor tell muslims they cannot practice free expression of their religion.

Damn...you guys really don't understand it.

Yes, you can bring up his rhetoric all you want. You can hold it against him all you want. But that rhetoric is not a valid argument against an EO that does not contain the rhetoric. BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. Should I repeat that again?

Yell it all you want. Let me ask you. If this was truly about keeping terrorists out of the country, why was Saudi Arabia not included?

Politics. He wants to ban Muslims, but not terrorists and not from countries that would have huge political ramifications.

He is cherry-picking which countries they can come from.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.

He stated a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the country.

Exactly how does this EO achieve that when SEVERAL muslim nations are not included in it?

Intent would HAVE to include ALL muslim nations.

The judge explained that clearly. It does not have to include ALL.

Then intent wouldn't be relevant here, Trump didn't say SOME, he said ALL.

If using his words as intent are to be the case, they must be used exactly as spoken. He never said SOME.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.

He did, so, at this point, no matter what he has a Best of the Best person write, in regard to this, it may not pass judicial muster. His own fault.

Indeed. This EO may never see the light of day.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Again, proving my point the judgement was based upon personal feelings and emotions, not the actual law itself.

What is written is not unconstitutional, and Trump's words on a campaign trail do not make it unconstitutional.

What IS relevant, is the text of the document itself, not a judges personal feelings on them.

Intent is a cornerstone of judicial decisions and laws. Many decisions are based on the concept of intent in the action.

Exactly.

Trump stated his specific intent many times.

He stated a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the country.

Exactly how does this EO achieve that when SEVERAL muslim nations are not included in it?

Intent would HAVE to include ALL muslim nations.

Logical fallacy. Read what the judge had to say on that sort of horrible argument.

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.

a reply to: allsee4eye

MY QUESTION IS THIS WHY THE HECK IF SAUDI ARABIA IS SO RICH AND A BASTION OF THE RELIGION OF PEACE NOT TAKING IN THE FIRST ONE OF THESE REFUGEES ?

This "decision" is 100% political.

And everybody knows it.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: allsee4eye

MY QUESTION IS THIS WHY THE HECK IF SAUDI ARABIA IS SO RICH AND A BASTION OF THE RELIGION OF PEACE NOT TAKING IN THE FIRST ONE OF THESE REFUGEES ?

Real question is, if Trump was truly concerned about terrorism, why is SA not on the list?

I suspect politics plays a huge roll and Trump thinks he can get away with banning others from others in the Middle East.