A Hawaii judge blocks travel ban EO

[John L]

It's starting to look like the left's desire for refugees and Islamic third worlders will not be stopped.

How exactly is the EO unconstitutional like many are saying? Because the Hawaii judges "proof" is this (lol):

Watson cited public statements by Trump that he said proved that the order was targeted at Muslims — including his comments after he signed the first executive order in January that he was "establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America" because "we don't want them here."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-order-n734141

[Noliberals4]

Trump should just ignore it.

[sawoobley]

Complete lawlessness. Congress needs to step up and fix this. Judgments based on feels. Unbelievable.

Time to break apart some of these districts.

[Griffco]

The first one was a nod to some of his supporters, and bait for liberals to block it.

The second one was ironclad and that judge will be gone within the week.

[John L]

Complete lawlessness. Congress needs to step up and fix this. Judgments based on feels. Unbelievable.

Time to break apart some of these districts.

And his reasoning for it being unconstitutional was because the EO is intended to "keep Islamic terrorists out of the USA"

Unbelievable

[jimmyjabbar]

There's a very good case for it being unconstitutional. Trump basically said throughout his whole campaign that he was going to ban muslims 'until we figure out whats going on'. His lawyers can make the wording of the document as secular as he wants it, if a case can be made that the intent of the law is religious, which a strong case can be made for, it'll keep getting held up in the courts.

[tk217]

Trump just needs to learn about Article III.

[iifymbro]

Democrats keep digging that grave deeper and deeper

[iifymbro]

There's a very good case for it being unconstitutional. Trump basically said throughout his whole campaign that he was going to ban muslims 'until we figure out whats going on'. His lawyers can make the wording of the document as secular as he wants it, if a case can be made that the intent of the law is religious, which a strong case can be made for, it'll keep getting held up in the courts.

Please explain to me how there's a case for the intent being a Muslim ban when the temporary restriction only covers 9% of Muslims (living in countries that are all in the top 10 globally for harboring and/or funding terrorism) and leaves off all the highest Muslim populated countries.... also please explain to me how it is our fault that radical Islam has a serious terrorism problem...


(you can't).

[MajesticLion]

How about we tell the whole story. That'd be nice.

Watson also cited remarks by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a prominent Trump supporter, who said in January: "When he [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"

"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," Watson wrote.

Public statements have consequences, who knew.

[BigRangs]

He called the the 9th circuit out in his speech right now

[Vishus]

I love the knee jerk reaction of people acting like a single ruling from a judge in Hawaii means the goose is cooked. It is highly unlikely that the White House did not plan for this. In fact, they more than likely expected it. They went and re-wrote the original order to make sure that it was sound in law. This will likely make it to the supreme court level and I would wager that the supreme court rules in favour of it.

[Travis99]

judge is part of the deep state

[sawoobley]

There's a very good case for it being unconstitutional. Trump basically said throughout his whole campaign that he was going to ban muslims 'until we figure out whats going on'. His lawyers can make the wording of the document as secular as he wants it, if a case can be made that the intent of the law is religious, which a strong case can be made for, it'll keep getting held up in the courts.

It's either constitutional or it is not. What Trump said during the campaign is irrelevant. LOL at that foolish judge trying to get inside the mind and heart of Trump to determine his motivations. What a joke!

[nutsy54]

There's a very good case for it being unconstitutional. Trump basically said throughout his whole campaign that he was going to ban muslims 'until we figure out whats going on'. His lawyers can make the wording of the document as secular as he wants it, if a case can be made that the intent of the law is religious, which a strong case can be made for, it'll keep getting held up in the courts.

Claim: ban Muslims
Reality: 90% of the world's Muslims aren't affected by this EO

Derp.

[John L]

It's either constitutional or it is not. What Trump said during the campaign is irrelevant. LOL at that foolish judge trying to get inside the mind and heart of Trump to determine his motivations. What a joke!

This. What matters is what is written in the EO.

How exactly is a travel ban to 7 countries unconstitutional (serious question, not trying to sound dickish. I'm not constitutional scholar obviously, but from what I've read I don't see how this violates the constitution)

[dabbmw2002]

Judicial tyranny. Pretty ridiculous stuff.

[jimmyjabbar]

Claim: ban Muslims
Reality: 90% of the world's Muslims aren't affected by this EO

Derp.

90% of the people affected by this are muslim.

[jimmyjabbar]

It's either constitutional or it is not. What Trump said during the campaign is irrelevant. LOL at that foolish judge trying to get inside the mind and heart of Trump to determine his motivations. What a joke!

Well thats not true at all. Intent of law matters. If someone can make a case the intent is religious based, they can make a case it's unconstitutional.

[tk217]

Claim: ban Muslims
Reality: 90% of the world's Muslims aren't affected by this EO

Derp.

Well, you at least live in Hawaii, why is this judge such a nut-ball?

[7rmr]

Claim: ban Muslims
Reality: 90% of the world's Muslims aren't affected by this EO

Derp.

A law can be discriminatory based on intent or effect. Trump's numerous remakes during the campaign that he intended to enact a Muslim ban strongly suggest that's exactly what the intent of the order is even if it's dressed up to appear otherwise

Furthermore, a law can be discriminatory even without impacting all members of the particular religion

[sawoobley]

This. What matters is what is written in the EO.

How exactly is a travel ban to 7 countries unconstitutional (serious question, not trying to sound dickish. I'm not constitutional scholar obviously, but from what I've read I don't see how this violates the constitution)

According to the judge's logic if Trump would have praised Muslims and prayed to Allah during the campaign and proposed the same exact EO it would have been constitutional. This just tells you where we are with these out of control judges.

[Kane_89]

Who knew Presidencing can be so hard

[Postmort3m]

90% of the people affected by this are muslim.

Sounds like the problem is not with the EO

[rocker1]

Hahahahahahahahah

[jimmyjabbar]

Sounds like the problem is not with the EO

Fair enough. Terrorist ban and dont include Saudi Arabia?

[Griffco]

I bet $10 he keeps "watering down" his EO to force the 9th circuit to keep blocking it.

5 blocks of 100% constitutionally justified EOs later he has full support with breaking up the 9th circuit. Libs are being crybabies and called him a tyrant for firing 1 AG when the only Clinton president fired 93. He has to build up bait because y'all care more about virtue signalling than doing what is best.

[Trapstar4.4]

it's a bi-product of running a wild campaign
even before the first block, they were saying that a major factor was the fact that it was always called a "muslim" ban before.
the only way to get around it is to erase the past.

or ban more countries. countries that are not muslim dominated... but then i suspect you would run into a myriad of other issues

[nutsy54]

90% of the people affected by this are muslim.

Absolutely irrelevant to the points I made (which you quoted then ignored).

[nutsy54]

A law can be discriminatory based on intent or effect. Trump's numerous remakes during the campaign that he intended to enact a Muslim ban strongly suggest that's exactly what the intent of the order is even if it's dressed up to appear otherwise

How can you "strongly suggest" something that fails to meet its alleged goal by 90%...?