Courts love foreigners - Trump's new travel ban blocked Nationwide by Hawaii courts

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

Funny, both you and Troubadour aren't in the mood to discuss semantics.

 

My response: the restrictions are prejudicial against Muslims from a few countries not economically valuable to the US and/or Trump. No matter how you sugarcoat it, such a ban will cause more harm than good. Making the executive order was an overreach by Trump, which will be proven in courts in Hawaii and elsewhere.

They arent economically viable to anyone. Because terrorists are running the show in those countries. Just wonder how you think a credible background check can be done on people from these broken countries?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Nope. Just ones who respect our constitution.

So immigrants i.e. non-citizens have Constitional Rights now?

[Sho Nuff 719]

So immigrants i.e. non-citizens have Constitional Rights now?

Not just now...going back many years. Posted the link earlier for Jerry...court has ruled that as part of the 14th amendment for years.

[NewbieJr 540]

So immigrants i.e. non-citizens have Constitional Rights now?

5 judges so far seem to think so.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

5 judges so far seem to think so.

So they can carry firearms? Vote?

[NewbieJr 540]

So they can carry firearms? Vote?

Tell it to the judges. Trump is 0-5

[Sho Nuff 719]

So they can carry firearms? Vote?

You are reaching and again showing major ignorance.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

You are reaching and again showing major ignorance.

Once again, you fail to look before you leap. Either they're covered under the whole constitution or they're not.

[NewbieJr 540]

Once again, you fail to look before you leap. Either they're covered under the whole constitution or they're not.

You are losing this argument in a brutal way. Five judges have all ruled against you logic. What don't you understand about that?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

You are losing this argument in a brutal way. Five judges have all ruled against you logic. What don't you understand about that?

You and Slo assert these immigrants have Constitional Rights per the courts. If that's the case don't they have a right to bear arms and vote? Where exactly did the courts parse up the constitution in regard to these immigrants?

[DankNuggs 305]

Funny, both you and Troubadour aren't in the mood to discuss semantics.

 

My response: the restrictions are prejudicial against Muslims from a few countries not economically valuable to the US and/or Trump. No matter how you sugarcoat it, such a ban will cause more harm than good. Making the executive order was an overreach by Trump, which will be proven in courts in Hawaii and elsewhere.

Your opinion of the efficacy of the EO is irrelevant. What trump said during the campaign is irrelevant. Personal politics are irrelevant. The bill has words in it, those words must be evaluated as to whether they are within the law for the president to execute an EO. I don't see how you could argue they aren't.

[NewbieJr 540]

You and Slo assert these immigrants have Constitional Rights per the courts. If that's the case don't they have a right to bear arms and vote? Where exactly did the courts parse up the constitution in regard to these immigrants?

Email the judges. Maybe they can answer your questions. I haven't been responsible for one ruling on this.

[DankNuggs 305]

So immigrants i.e. non-citizens have Constitional Rights now?

Due process rights, yes. Citizen or not, everyone here is afforded due process

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Your opinion of the efficacy of the EO is irrelevant. What trump said during the campaign is irrelevant. Personal politics are irrelevant. The bill has words in it, those words must be evaluated as to whether they are within the law for the president to execute an EO. I don't see how you could argue they aren't.

This.

 

The judge must read the black and white things called words and base his decision on those.

[DankNuggs 305]

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Due process rights, yes. Citizen or not, everyone here is afforded due process

As you say....here it applies. Due process doesn't apply to those non-citizens outside the U.S. and the travel ban prevents them from getting here.

[DankNuggs 305]

As you say....here it applies. Due process doesn't apply to those non-citizens outside the U.S. and the travel ban prevents them from getting here.

correct

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yep....that these people are outside the country means they're outside that state's jurisdiction.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Once again, you fail to look before you leap. Either they're covered under the whole constitution or they're not.

You keep proving me right about you being ignorant.

 

You really should read more.

[Sho Nuff 719]

You and Slo assert these immigrants have Constitional Rights per the courts. If that's the case don't they have a right to bear arms and vote? Where exactly did the courts parse up the constitution in regard to these immigrants?

You continue to stay willfully ignorant on so many topics. Things have been linked and pointed out to you...but you refuse to even try to educate yourself and only sling the usual straw men.

 

Seriously...google is your friend...read yo before continuing to expose how little you know.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Shoflake tilting and unable to debate......business as usual.

[jerryskids 5,169]

Your opinion of the efficacy of the EO is irrelevant. What trump said during the campaign is irrelevant. Personal politics are irrelevant. The bill has words in it, those words must be evaluated as to whether they are within the law for the president to execute an EO. I don't see how you could argue they aren't.

 

Yep, thanks. Penny's opinions regarding the dangers of the EO, as well as the countries being selected for economic reasons, is 100% opinion and irrelevant to the decisions by the courts. Or should be, anyway.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Your opinion of the efficacy of the EO is irrelevant. What trump said during the campaign is irrelevant. Personal politics are irrelevant. The bill has words in it, those words must be evaluated as to whether they are within the law for the president to execute an EO. I don't see how you could argue they aren't.

Since none of us are judges or constitutional scholars, we'll see what the experts think.

[NewbieJr 540]

Since none of us are judges or constitutional scholars, we'll see what the experts think.

And so far, that's quite obvious

[jerryskids 5,169]

Since none of us are judges or constitutional scholars, we'll see what the experts think.

 

Sorry but that's sorta throwing the gun. I (and perhaps Dank and others) am arguing that these judges are being activist. You are doing nothing to dispel that by saying "let's see how the activist judges rule".

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Yep, thanks. Penny's opinions regarding the dangers of the EO, as well as the countries being selected for economic reasons, is 100% opinion and irrelevant to the decisions by the courts. Or should be, anyway.

Wait a second, I thought this was a bored for discussion, including opinions and stuff? You asked me what I thought to avoid "twenty questions", so I answered you. But to clarify your exact question, I think the distinction you are making between Muslim and dangerous muslim culture ( or whatever verbiage you used) is immaterial in interpreting the legality of the EO.

 

Under what circumstances will you accept a ruling against Trump's EO?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Shoflake tilting and unable to debate......business as usual.

Titling?

Again...I'm able to debate. Ive posted the links previously. You continue to be unwilling to read and educate yourself on a topic.

Correctly pointing out your ignorance is not tilting chief.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Sorry but that's sorta throwing the gun. I (and perhaps Dank and others) am arguing that these judges are being activist. You are doing nothing to dispel that by saying "let's see how the activist judges rule".

OK. I think they are justified in their concerns, and the more judges who agree, the less credible your "activism" argument becomes.

[Sho Nuff 719]

OK. I think they are justified in their concerns, and the more judges who agree, the less credible your "activism" argument becomes.

Bingo

[drobeski 3,061]

This judge made a political ruling, not a judicial one.

This cannot be argued. He's a hack.

[jerryskids 5,169]

OK. I think they are justified in their concerns, and the more judges who agree, the less credible your "activism" argument becomes.

 

What are their concerns? A Muslim from the UK, or France, or China, or Malaysia, or 100s of other countries can still enter our country.

 

If the concern that religion is a part (but not all) of the factors in the selection of countries... fair discussion to have. I argue that that is a simplistic interpretation of religious freedom. Times have changed and a dangerous Muslim culture exists in some countries. To deny that is to be unrealistic. If you insist on a circa 1700s interpretation of the constitution, then I presume you are fine with a bazooka in every household.

[MDC 5,877]

I love the idea that Trump is really some kind of master negotiator and coming out with a radical extreme position is just part of a strategy to get the other side to meet him in the middle.

 

The first problem with this idea is that Trump is already historically unpopular among incoming presidents. Staking out outrageous positions and getting them shot down over and over doesn't improve his position. It makes him come off like a dangerous extremist and emboldens people to oppose him. It also hurts his chances for re-election.

 

The second problem with this idea is that it assumes the same guy who stays up bickering with movie stars and newspapers on Twitter at 2 AM has some kind of well thought out endgame here. Call me crazy but I'm not getting the sense this is some kind of calculated leader who's thinking 2-3 steps ahead.

[Sho Nuff 719]

This judge made a political ruling, not a judicial one.

This cannot be argued. He's a hack.

[NewbieJr 540]

This judge made a political ruling, not a judicial one.

This cannot be argued. He's a hack.

Damn. Another judge who's a libruhl. Seems the whole world is against Trump. CIA, FBI, all judges, the media. ROFL

[DankNuggs 305]

OK. I think they are justified in their concerns, and the more judges who agree, the less credible your "activism" argument becomes.

His concerns are based on campaign rhetoric, not the actual EO, it is a travesty of the judicial system. The precedent it sets should be appaling to anyone that believes in a fair judicial system.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

His concerns are based on campaign rhetoric, not the actual EO, it is a travesty of the judicial system. The precedent it sets should be appaling to anyone that believes in a fair judicial system.

Exactly.

 

The judge simply renders an opinion on whether or not the temporary travel restriction is legal or not.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

And the judge's concern is simple: must stop Trump.

[NewbieJr 540]

And the judge's concern is simple: must stop Trump.

Why though? Why every judge?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Why though? Why every judge?

They are appointed by liberals and are looking for future appointments by liberals.

[NewbieJr 540]

They are appointed by liberals and are looking for future appointments by liberals.

two of the judges were appointed by George Bush. Try again dummy