Judge blocks Trump's revised travel ban again!

[Phil1111 1,149]

A federal judge in Hawaii has placed a nationwide block on President Trump’s revised travel order, delivering a major blow to the president's policy just hours before it was set to go into effect.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, a President Obama appointee, ruled after a hearing on Wednesday that the plaintiffs, the state of Hawaii and a Muslim leader, showed a "strong" likelihood to succeed in their lawsuit against the ban. They argue that the policy violates the Establishment Clause and proved that "irreparable harm" is likely if temporary relief is not granted.

The temporary restraining order, which will be in place while the judge considers the case, blocks the sections of the travel ban that would have temporarily suspended the refugee resettlement program and barred nationals from six majority Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/324210-judge-blocks-trumps-revised-travel-ban

[yoink 321]

The interesting part is that is was blocked because of the 'intent' shown by Trump before and during the campaign to specifically target Muslims. Not because of any illegality in the document itself.

Personally, I completely agree that that is the intent of the document - to specifically target a specific religion and that it was written in a way to get around the constitution and that it's abhorrent.

Despite that, I'm not convinced that blocking it on intent is a good precedent to set. Either something is against the law or it isn't.

[quade 4]

I especially like how called it "unprecedented."

I don't think he knows what words mean.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,590]

quade

I especially like how called it "unprecedented."

I don't think he knows what words mean.

You sure he didn't mean "unpresidented"?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,991]

US 2, Trump 0.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

yoink

The interesting part is that is was blocked because of the 'intent' shown by Trump before and during the campaign to specifically target Muslims. Not because of any illegality in the document itself.

Personally, I completely agree that that is the intent of the document - to specifically target a specific religion and that it was written in a way to get around the constitution and that it's abhorrent.

Despite that, I'm not convinced that blocking it on intent is a good precedent to set. Either something is against the law or it isn't.

It just means words have meanings, something Trump doesn't seem to grasp.

[Phil1111 1,149]

Like every time he opens his mouth when other republicans are trying to get bill passed.

-his "wiretap" when trumpcare is on the agenda.
-his taxes to distract from travel ban.

Meanwhile the republican political capital goes drip...drip..drip... like a leaky toilet.

[rehmwa 2]

yoink

The interesting part is that is was blocked because of the 'intent' shown by Trump before and during the campaign to specifically target Muslims. Not because of any illegality in the document itself.

Personally, I completely agree that that is the intent of the document - to specifically target a specific religion and that it was written in a way to get around the constitution and that it's abhorrent.

Despite that, I'm not convinced that blocking it on intent is a good precedent to set. Either something is against the law or it isn't.

^^^ It opens some really scary doors. But, hey, those doors, and doors like that, have been opening on a regular basis for some time now. Judges don't have time to address the content of the documents when they 'just know' what's 'really being thought by people. Why worry about it because this case is a such a big gesture by.....I mean it's "Important" (TM).

I mean, who cares when the precedent is later applied by "someone's" appointees.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

^^^ It opens some really scary doors.

No it doesn't.

Let's say I keep screaming that I am going to do something against the law, say I keep telling you that I am going to kill you.

After loudly proclaiming for a year that I am going to kill you. Then one day I say, just kidding, I am not going to kill you, I am just going to maim you. Let me just go buy this gun.

Do you think a judge should temporarily ban me from owning a gun, until the situation can be looked into further?

[yoink 321]

SkyDekker

Quote

^^^ It opens some really scary doors.

Do you think a judge should temporarily ban me from owning a gun, until the situation can be looked into further?

No. Because that would be against the law. Your right to buy a gun would be protected by the constitution.
Personally, I think that part of the constitution is wrong but I don't get to decide how to apply it in certain situations just because I don't like it. It's either the law and applies equally to everyone, or it isn't.

If the law was rewritten to include postponing the ability to buy a gun based on mental status, behaviour or anything else then that would be a different situation - But it isn't. You have to apply the law fairly as it exists, even if the law is wrong.

The moment a judge can say 'despite your iron-clad defense this is what I think your motivation was' I think we've taken a big step away from justice.


The closest a situation can get to being like this up to now is Jury Nullification - where a jury can deliberately choose not to find someone guilty, despite thinking they are. It's so controversial that even discussing it can get you barred from jury duty or theoretically sent to jail if you're attempt to get it effected.

[sonnyblu 0]

SkyDekker

Let's say I keep screaming that I am going to do something against the law, say I keep telling you that I am going to kill you.

After loudly proclaiming for a year that I am going to kill you. Then one day I say, just kidding, I am not going to kill you, I am just going to maim you. Let me just go buy this gun.

Do you think a judge should temporarily ban me from owning a gun, until the situation can be looked into further?

If you guys are gay lovers, you could be subject to a PPO that would in fact temporarily ban you from owing a gun.

You might also be adjudicated as mentally defective, which would ban you as well.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No. Because that would be against the law. Your right to buy a gun would be protected by the constitution.

The right hasn't been taken away yet in my scenario. It has been delayed. There is nothing in the constitution that says there cannot be a waiting period.

The same is the case here. A temporary ban until the case has been decided.

[Phil1111 1,149]

Trump travel ban: Second US judge block new executive order
Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked US President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which was due to begin after midnight on Thursday.

The order would have placed a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.

Both judges questioned the legality of the ban, which critics say is discriminatory.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39287656

[wmw999 2,447]

I heard a pretty good discussion on NPR about this directive. had it been the first one, it might have stood up. However, the first one goes on the record.

Anyone who thinks that the end justifies the means needs to really think about their end, and how much effort it's worth, and how right (as opposed to comfortable or truthy) it is.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[melch 1]

At this point, I believe the next question to ask is: will Trump & Co attempt to enact a third travel ban? Not that it actually existed before, but the argument for national security has evaporated and had the initial ban not been blocked, we would be quickly approaching the end of the vetting review process.

The point I'm getting at is, internal review to determine the validity of our current processes could already be nearing completion and could have occurred without either ban. How long will Trump continue to insist a ban is necessary to evaluate current security measures? It is a waste of time and money in order to appease the support base.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

^^^ It opens some really scary doors.

No it doesn't.

Let's say I keep screaming that I am going to do something against the law, say I keep telling you that I am going to kill you.

After loudly proclaiming for a year that I am going to kill you. Then one day I say, just kidding, I am not going to kill you, I am just going to maim you. Let me just go buy this gun.

Do you think a judge should temporarily ban me from owning a gun, until the situation can be looked into further?

You're point is interesting, but I know what 'you are REALLY trying to do here'. So I'll ignore the actual words you wrote and just assume you are really just wanting to advocate for laws that control what people say in public.

and, we'll ignore that obvious parts of your post like:

1 - the total disregard of your obvious cries for help and the subsequent ignoring of a possible mental condition that needs treatment instead of hostility
2 - the advocation of a judge to take away private property rights even though no crime has been committed
3 - your subtle threats on my life in the post

(for the slow people - this whole thing is written tongue in cheek

for the slow people - you know who you are..........maybe you don't know who you are......)


Missing Lawrocket on these types of posts - he'd actually read the opinion and have a professional take on it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,027]

rehmwa

So I'll ignore the actual words you wrote...

Taking a leaf out of Sean Spicer's book?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Appeals court rejects travel ban:

www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-blocked.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

From the decision:

"The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution . . . remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles—that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court’s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Executive Order."

Score: Constitution 4, Trump 0. Looks like the US Constitution is passing one of its most onerous tests to date.

[billvon 2,991]

And today:

====================
Trump Loses Travel Ban Ruling in Appeals Court

By ADAM LIPTAK
JUNE 12, 2017
NYT

WASHINGTON — A second federal appeals court on Monday ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban. The decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, was the latest in a string of court rulings rejecting the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

The administration has already sought a Supreme Court review of a similar decision issued last month by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va.

The new ruling affirmed a March decision from Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the Federal District Court in Hawaii. Judge Watson blocked major parts of the revised order, saying they violated the Constitution’s ban on a government establishment of religion. Judge Watson wrote that the statements of Mr. Trump and his advisers made clear that his executive order amounted to an attempt to disfavor Muslims.

“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,” Judge Watson wrote.
===========================

Score - Constitution 5, Trump 0.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Looks like Trump tweets were used against him in this ruling, specially once his staff indicated they are official statements by the president.

[Stumpy 284]

SkyDekker

Looks like Trump tweets were used against him in this ruling, specially once his staff indicated they are official statements by the predisent.

FIFY

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[normiss 801]

Exempted from the travel ban are relatives of US citizens, students of US schools, employees of US firms and, of course, Saudi terrorists.

I'm curious though that they will review the case AFTER it's expiration, unless I misunderstood anyway.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

normiss

Exempted from the travel ban are relatives of US citizens, students of US schools, employees of US firms and, of course, Saudi terrorists.

I'm curious though that they will review the case AFTER it's expiration, unless I misunderstood anyway.

Reviewing it after it expires will establish that it was illegal (presuming the court finds that way).
While the original may well expire before that is found, that finding would apply to any future attempts at this sort of stupidity.

But I bet Trump finds some new sort of stupidity to make up for it. Sort of a 'stupidity corollary' to Booth's Law.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,590]

An analysis by a law prof: https://takecareblog.com/blog/on-the-travel-ban-the-supreme-court-says-stay-tuned

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.