Trump’s Second Travel Ban Is Blocked by U.S. Judge

[PokerGuy]

This judge made a decision which supported the Establishment Clause as traditionally followed and Trump clearly demonstrated his intent to violate it by his policy of discrimination against Muslims. Doesn't matter who is injured or where they reside, the action itself is not Constitutional.

There is nothing in the EO about religion at all. Going by this logic means you can't apply any kind of restrictions to immigration or travel from any countries because if they happen to be majority <insert group here> you'd have discrimination of that group. That's obvious BS. There's no way you can logically claim this is discrimination against a group when there is no reference to that group in the EO and the EO doesn't apply to just that group, it applies equally to all groups.

 

[fskimospy]

While I disagreed with the first block, since it was done (and upheld) by judges spanning the political spectrum, I view that as legitimate. In this case, all we have so far is a lib judge who in his ruling gets on his political soapbox to deliver a political "rebuke" of Trump -- in other words, an activist hack. No good judges have looked at it yet.

Lol. Thank you for so clearly pointing out what a brain dead partisan you are. You value the quality of judicial opinions based on the party affiliation of who appointed them.

There's no longer any need to pay even the slightest bit of attention to anything else you say about legal matters anymore as you just gave up the game. Thanks for letting me know!

 

[greatnoob]

@PokerGuy is a fucking idiot who still thinks this isn't a Muslim ban despite the Trump admin's (Trump, Giuliani, Miller, campaign site etc.) admittedly hilarious accidental confessions and the explicit statements that were made both pre and post Trump presidency. Keep believing whatever alt-facts you want to bud, you're only fooling yourself.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is nothing in the EO about religion at all. Going by this logic means you can't apply any kind of restrictions to immigration or travel from any countries because if they happen to be majority <insert group here> you'd have discrimination of that group. That's obvious BS. There's no way you can logically claim this is discrimination against a group when there is no reference to that group in the EO and the EO doesn't apply to just that group, it applies equally to all groups.

Gotta love it. That's the same sort of coy dishonesty Repubs applied to illegal voter suppression in NC. I mean, the law didn't say black people, did it? Of course not, but we all know who they were talking about.

 

[greatnoob]

Gotta love it. That's the same sort of coy dishonesty Repubs applied to illegal voter suppression in NC. I mean, the law didn't say black people, did it? Of course not, but we all know who they were talking about.

Next thing you know he'll argue useless semantics, "but he didn't use the word 'ban' he only said 'shutdown' so he was obviously talking about computers"

 

[fskimospy]

Gotta love it. That's the same sort of coy dishonesty Repubs applied to illegal voter suppression in NC. I mean, the law didn't say black people, did it? Of course not, but we all know who they were talking about.

The laws that mandated literacy tests didn't say anything about black people in them so I guess they weren't intended to suppress black voting! Who knew the courts got all those decisions wrong!?

It was probably because the judges weren't appointed by the right political party, which we all know is the right way to evaluate judicial opinions.

 

[mikeymikec]

There is nothing in the EO about religion at all. Going by this logic means you can't apply any kind of restrictions to immigration or travel from any countries because if they happen to be majority <insert group here> you'd have discrimination of that group. That's obvious BS. There's no way you can logically claim this is discrimination against a group when there is no reference to that group in the EO and the EO doesn't apply to just that group, it applies equally to all groups.

So you don't think the President referring to the action as a Muslim ban, and asking for advice on how to achieve a Muslim ban, and suggesting that Muslims should be banned from entering the US, constitute sufficient indication of his intentions?

If Trump showed up at a KKK rally complete with a white hooded outfit, you'd probably insist that because he wasn't recorded as having said anything pro-KKK, it was probably just a coincidence, and as it was a sunny summer's day, he simply picked appropriate attire to avoid getting sunburn!

 

[dullard]

Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-immigration-law.html?_r=0

Absolutely noting in Article II mentions immigration. Please show me where it does:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html

Instead the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is Congress in Article 1 with the power over immigration. That said, Congress has decided with laws to give some of that decision making to the president. But that actual power always belongs to Congress. The president's decision making on immigration is not protected by the Constitution and can be removed at any time with a different law.

From your own link regarding the laws that give the president some immigration decision making: "But another part of the law forbids discrimination “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence,”"

So the laws that you correctly claim gives the president some immigration decision making capability also limits the president to not use place of birth or residence in that decision. So which is it, do you agree with the laws or not?

 

[HomerJS]

There is nothing in the EO about religion at all. Going by this logic means you can't apply any kind of restrictions to immigration or travel from any countries because if they happen to be majority <insert group here> you'd have discrimination of that group. That's obvious BS. There's no way you can logically claim this is discrimination against a group when there is no reference to that group in the EO and the EO doesn't apply to just that group, it applies equally to all groups.

You missed the part where judge used his lackeys public statements of intent. Remember Miller, Guliani?

Talking shit has consequences

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Absolutely noting in Article II mentions immigration. Please show me where it does:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html

Instead the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is Congress in Article 1 with the power over immigration. That said, Congress has decided with laws to give some of that decision making to the president. But that actual power always belongs to Congress. The president's decision making on immigration is not protected by the Constitution and can be removed at any time with a different law.

From your own link regarding the laws that give the president some immigration decision making: "But another part of the law forbids discrimination “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence,”"

So the laws that you correctly claim gives the president some immigration decision making capability also limits the president to not use place of birth or residence in that decision. So which is it, do you agree with the laws or not?

Trump demonstrated unconstitutional intent. Even if Trump had primary control over immigration (and he doesn't), there is no principle of law which permits the means to that end to violate the Constitution.

 

[PokerGuy]

Lol. Thank you for so clearly pointing out what a brain dead partisan you are. You value the quality of judicial opinions based on the party affiliation of who appointed them.

There's no longer any need to pay even the slightest bit of attention to anything else you say about legal matters anymore as you just gave up the game. Thanks for letting me know!

Once again, misrepresent and argue against your misrepresentation. Doesn't that shtick get old after a while for ya? 😉 If you're naive enough to think ideology doesn't influence judicial review, that's up to you. Obviously wrong and silly, but you are entitled to your opinion. In this case, the only judge that has weighed in is a libbie hack (based on his own writing). When and if someone who is not a partisan hack reviews the case we can draw conclusions.

 

[PokerGuy]

So you don't think the President referring to the action as a Muslim ban, and asking for advice on how to achieve a Muslim ban, and suggesting that Muslims should be banned from entering the US, constitute sufficient indication of his intentions?

So based on those comments and your logic, it would be essentially impossible for any regulations to be created that affects countries that have significant muslim populations. Even though the regulations have nothing in them about religion, affect people of all religions, do not affect other countries with similar religious makeup etc etc, it's all irrelevant, you can never make regulations that impact certain countries anymore. Plainly absurd.

 

[PokerGuy]

Trump demonstrated unconstitutional intent. Even if Trump had primary control over immigration (and he doesn't), there is no principle of law which permits the means to that end to violate the Constitution.

So the actual regulations or EO's have nothing about religion nor any exemptions based on religions or specific targeting of religions. You're saying they are automatically still unconstitutional simply because of comments made prior. Does that mean no regulation could ever be constitutional again as it relates to countries with significant muslim populations?

 

[fskimospy]

Once again, misrepresent and argue against your misrepresentation. Doesn't that shtick get old after a while for ya? 😉 If you're naive enough to think ideology doesn't influence judicial review, that's up to you. Obviously wrong and silly, but you are entitled to your opinion. In this case, the only judge that has weighed in is a libbie hack (based on his own writing). When and if someone who is not a partisan hack reviews the case we can draw conclusions.

lol. I'm serious when I said that we can all freely ignore everything you say about the law from now on because now we know you view judicial rulings as legitimate or not based on ideological grounds instead of legal ones. For people who aren't insane and consumed by partisanship there's no point in even discussing it with you because we're living in two different worlds. This is entirely consistent with how you view everything. Judicial rulings only count if they came from a judge you agree with ideologically. Research only counts if it comes from a place you agree with ideologically. News that tells you what you don't want to hear is the result of secret liberal bias. Etc, etc.

You're perfectly welcome to live in this twisted ideological bubble, it just means that it's a waste of time for the rest of us to converse with you as you're unreachable by rational argument. Hope you get better someday.

 

[fskimospy]

Trump demonstrated unconstitutional intent. Even if Trump had primary control over immigration (and he doesn't), there is no principle of law which permits the means to that end to violate the Constitution.

Yep, pretty much. Trump CAN get around his obvious discriminatory intent if the government can show that it was a policy that would be enacted on the merits anyway, but that's basically impossible as the policy doesn't make sense on security grounds either. Here's a good legal analysis of why this new ban will probably go down in flames as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...till-unconstitutional/?utm_term=.d792ddb72fb8

The weakness of the security rationale for both the original order and the new one makes it more likely that discrimination against Muslims is the true motive behind it. Under the standard legal framework for analyzing such cases, once evidence of discriminatory intent is proven, the government has the burden of showing that it would have adopted the same policy even in the absence of improper motivation. That burden will be extremely difficult to meet in this case.

So he can probably craft something that meets that standard, but this isn't it.

 

[Humpy]

No good judges have looked at it yet.

LOL? I can hardly even read this shit anymore.

 

[Jhhnn]

So based on those comments and your logic, it would be essentially impossible for any regulations to be created that affects countries that have significant muslim populations. Even though the regulations have nothing in them about religion, affect people of all religions, do not affect other countries with similar religious makeup etc etc, it's all irrelevant, you can never make regulations that impact certain countries anymore. Plainly absurd.

Of course we can. we just need a better reason than "Muslims!" or "Those people might be more dangerous cuz they's Muslims!"

You can dance in circles all around it but that's really what it's all about.

When Obama issued a temporary travel ban it was because the govts named weren't forthcoming with the information we wanted to properly vet their citizens for travel in the US. When they cooperated the bans were lifted. Keeping that in mind, tell us what the Trump admin is asking for today. What do they want? Be specific.

 

[theeedude]

So the actual regulations or EO's have nothing about religion nor any exemptions based on religions or specific targeting of religions. You're saying they are automatically still unconstitutional simply because of comments made prior. Does that mean no regulation could ever be constitutional again as it relates to countries with significant muslim populations?

It can be, but the burden is on Trump to show that the rationale is not simply to ban some countries because they happen to be Muslim. If you brag during your campaign about doing something unconstitutional, you will get more constitutional scrutiny. If some Democrat politician promised during campaign to ban guns, and then didn't ban guns, but banned gunpowder because it could be used in a bomb, gun supporters would be in court arguing that it's simply a backdoor gun ban even if the rationale given is supposedly different.

 

[mikeymikec]

So based on those comments and your logic, it would be essentially impossible for any regulations to be created that affects countries that have significant muslim populations. Even though the regulations have nothing in them about religion, affect people of all religions, do not affect other countries with similar religious makeup etc etc, it's all irrelevant, you can never make regulations that impact certain countries anymore. Plainly absurd.

Before we get on to that question, are you going to concede that Trump's intentions are actually pretty damn obvious? Because I'm pretty damn sure that you would otherwise try to push what I'd call Schrodinger's Muslim Ban.

---

Could someone (else) explain to me why Trump supporters want to bend over backwards to claim that this isn't a Muslim ban? If they felt that Trump's repeated advocacy of banning Muslims was wrong/offensive, then surely they wouldn't have voted for him; therefore they support the notion of a Muslim ban.

 

[PokerGuy]

lol. I'm serious when I said that we can all freely ignore everything you say about the law from now on because now we know you view judicial rulings as legitimate or not based on ideological grounds instead of legal ones.

Yet again, you misrepresent, and then argue with the misrepresentation. Congrats, at least you are consistent! 😀

For people who aren't insane and consumed by partisanship there's no point in even discussing it with you because we're living in two different worlds.

So.... that doesn't apply to you then?

You're perfectly welcome to live in this twisted ideological bubble, it just means that it's a waste of time for the rest of us to converse with you as you're unreachable by rational argument. Hope you get better someday.

I'm perfectly fine, thanks! What's funny is the guy who lives in the impenetrable lefty echo chamber bubble accusing others of living in ideological bubbles. Mirror mirror on the wall..... 😀

 

[HomerJS]

So the actual regulations or EO's have nothing about religion nor any exemptions based on religions or specific targeting of religions. You're saying they are automatically still unconstitutional simply because of comments made prior. Does that mean no regulation could ever be constitutional again as it relates to countries with significant muslim populations?

When you publically state you want a religion ban. Then your peeps publically say I want a religion ban without it looking like a religion ban.

No.

 

[PokerGuy]

Before we get on to that question, are you going to concede that Trump's intentions are actually pretty damn obvious? Because I'm pretty damn sure that you would otherwise try to push what I'd call Schrodinger's Muslim Ban.

Again, logic: how does a ban on people from certain countries (ie, all the people, no matter the religion), and no ban on people from other countries with similar religious makeup constitute a ban on muslims??

Could someone (else) explain to me why Trump supporters want to bend over backwards to claim that this isn't a Muslim ban?

Uh, because logically it isn't. There's nothing in the EO about religion. Nothing. Other predominantly muslim countries are not impacted at all. The vast majority of muslims are not impacted at all, there is no attempt in the EO to target a religion. How can anyone possibly say that's a ban on muslims? You can say whatever you want about Trump's intent, but the EO itself simply isn't a ban on muslims by any rational definition.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet again, you misrepresent, and then argue with the misrepresentation. Congrats, at least you are consistent! 😀

So.... that doesn't apply to you then?

Certainly not. I would never say that a judicial opinion wasn't legitimate because it came from a judge I disagreed with ideologically. I might think the opinion was wrong, but I would never dismiss it. That's batshit crazy.

I'm perfectly fine, thanks! What's funny is the guy who lives in the impenetrable lefty echo chamber bubble accusing others of living in ideological bubbles. Mirror mirror on the wall..... 😀

I'm sure you believe this, which is sad.

 

[fskimospy]

Before we get on to that question, are you going to concede that Trump's intentions are actually pretty damn obvious? Because I'm pretty damn sure that you would otherwise try to push what I'd call Schrodinger's Muslim Ban.

---

Could someone (else) explain to me why Trump supporters want to bend over backwards to claim that this isn't a Muslim ban? If they felt that Trump's repeated advocacy of banning Muslims was wrong/offensive, then surely they wouldn't have voted for him; therefore they support the notion of a Muslim ban.

Because they are relying on the incredibly specious reasoning that because it did not ban all Muslims that somehow it was not a ban targeted at Muslims. As an example of how silly this is, the literacy tests for voting in the Jim Crow South were passed by some black people, meaning that the laws definitely didn't ban all black people from voting. In fact, race was never even mentioned in them. That doesn't change for a second the fact that these laws were meant to target black people.

They are expecting people to be so stupid as to think when the president comes right out and says he wants to ban Muslims and his aide then says that this EO was the way they thought they were able to ban Muslims and get around the law, that it's suddenly not a Muslim ban because it doesn't mention Islam. Maybe they are that easily duped, but to insinuate we are as stupid as they apparently are is pretty insulting when you think about it.

 

[trenchfoot]

Trump has the distinct advantage of having his base voters rally around him, nurture him, encourage his divisive and disruptive behavior no matter how ridiculously idiotic he becomes. So I think it's safe to assume that they're just like him in so many ways, that they see themselves in him as their most powerful means to project their hatred, their bigotry and their isolationist view of the world. I'm thinking it's for these reasons that many of his supporters are able to tolerate and actually endorse his wholly un-presidential behavior. Trump as president is unlike any other before him in that all of that difference, ALL of which differentiates himself from the others is horrifically damaging to the nation, and many of his followers see that as his most admirable strength, his (THEIR) personal weapons of mass destruction.

They relish the controversy he foments. They luxuriate in the upheaval and unrest he creates in order to extend his (THEIR) influence, his (THEIR) control over a nation divided by his (THEIR) willingness to weaken and threaten it's security and it's ability to influence the world in a positive way.

This travel ban of Trump's is nothing more than his pandering to that base, his way of keeping them under his influence, his attempt at strengthening and expanding that base of his. This symbiotic relationship between him and many of his supporters is about as destructive as they come and it seems they all like it that way.

Small wonder they admire Trump's fondness for his counterpart in Russia. Both they and Putin (via Trump) want to burn America to the ground and have it rebuilt in their image, for they see it as their one and only way to effect the changes they desire.

Gotta hand it to Trump though, his grab for ultimate power and influence knows no bounds and he's found a way to make it happen. He's even made a deal with the devil to get there but hey, it's all about him anyway, so what does it matter that he takes the whole nation down with him to placate his own desires? He gets what he wants, when he wants it any way he can. He's screwed the whole nation to get his way, but now that he's got it, it looks like he didn't think he could in the first place and now he doesn't know how to work it right or even how to get himself out of it.