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

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Ima guess that the state of Hawaii, since we've established has virtually no standing, filed their brief with some confidence of how the judge would rule. Which was a "scathing" ruling in favor of a state with virtually no standing.

Virtually no standing huh?

Also...other states have ruled as well.

I'm sure it's all just activist hack judges though

[jerryskids 5,188]

Virtually no standing huh?

Also...other states have ruled as well.

I'm sure it's all just activist hack judges though

 

Yes, virtually no standing. I've already said why. Care to defend your smartass retort, or just continue to be a lefty hack?

[MDC 5,890]

POW - down goes Donald McDrumpf! Sorry clown you're not on The Apprentice anymore.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Yes, virtually no standing. I've already said why. Care to defend your smartass retort, or just continue to be a lefty hack?

My retort is that your claim of their standing is laughable.

And that other states are ruling the same is making you look foolish for just claiming it was just some leftist hack activist judge.

 

But you keep trying Jerry

[jerryskids 5,188]

My retort is that your claim of their standing is laughable.

And that other states are ruling the same is making you look foolish for just claiming it was just some leftist hack activist judge.

 

But you keep trying Jerry

 

So... nothing. Not surprised really. In case you missed it, this is a chat bored, which means we discuss and preferably defend our positions with werds. I've done my part, both in the standing and the juvenile interpretation which called this a religious ban. You post... this drivel.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

So... nothing. Not surprised really. In case you missed it, this is a chat bored, which means we discuss and preferably defend our positions with werds. I've done my part, both in the standing and the juvenile interpretation which called this a religious ban. You post... this drivel.

Is this even English?

You claimed the judge was an activist hack. There is literally nothing to support that claim...nor that they have no standing as you claim.

I think we have 3 courts now ruling the same way.

[jerryskids 5,188]

Is this even English?

You claimed the judge was an activist hack. There is literally nothing to support that claim...nor that they have no standing as you claim.

I think we have 3 courts now ruling the same way.

 

It's perfectly good English, Slingblade. I did claim that the Hawaii judge is an activist hack and defended that claim several times; you seem incapable of basic communication so I'm done with you on this topic. In parting I will once again state that you are a pathetic liberal wonk who everyone here laughs at. You will say you don't care, but at some level, if you have two brain cells to rub together, you must wonder why that is the case.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

It's perfectly good English, Slingblade. I did claim that the Hawaii judge is an activist hack and defended that claim several times; you seem incapable of basic communication so I'm done with you on this topic. In parting I will once again state that you are a pathetic liberal wonk who everyone here laughs at. You will say you don't care, but at some level, if you have two brain cells to rub together, you must wonder why that is the case.

No...I know that when you say everyone...you are full of .

You...like others...have been challenged multiple times to point out my positions that are supposedly so liberal and nobody ever comes up with any.

 

You should have been done long ago...calling him an activist hack because you disagree with his opinion is completely laughable.

[Big Guy 1,400]

The judge didn't seek this out. An amicus brief was filed...he heard arguments and ruled (and other courts have done the same)

 

That isnt activism at all.

 

I'm sure he was handpicked by Obuttfock

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

I'm sure he was handpicked by Obuttfock

Classy as always...

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

 

I'm sure he was handpicked by Obuttfock

Classmate of his and appointed by him.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Being "Muslim" is a religious practice. Nobody should be denied entry to the US solely on the basis of practicing Islam. That is a clear violation of our 1st amendment and, well, of a lot of what this country stands for.

 

"Muslim culture" in and of itself isn't bad either. Other than the occasional whack job like the Fort Hood killer, Muslims in the US are a peaceful community.

 

But "Muslim culture which intends to harm us," or whatever I called it... there are some countries which support Islamic terrorist activities, or perhaps cannot control such activities. I'm sorry penny, but they exist. You can put your head in the sand (pardon the pun) but that doesn't change reality.

 

Our country has a history of curbing activities justified by religion -- see the prohibition of polygamy and young marriages by some nutjobs in my neck of the woods. And the president, until now, has had a fairly broad brush in restricting entry due to security concerns.

 

But now we have a judge in Hawaii who chooses to take an infantile position that the restriction is a religious ban; I'm left to conclude he does so to support his activist decision.

 

HTH

So how does one determine which countries harbor harmful "Muslim culture"?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

So how does one determine which countries harbor harmful "Muslim culture"?

The ones with a lot of Muslims in them.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Ima guess that the state of Hawaii, since we've established has virtually no standing, filed their brief with some confidence of how the judge would rule. Which was a "scathing" ruling in favor of a state with virtually no standing.

While your at it, which jurisdictions have the appropriate "standing" to evaluate the propriety of the order?

 

Ima guess district courts in Maryland are equally unqualified as them hack islanders?

[penultimatestraw 473]

The ones with a lot of Muslims in them.

Exactly. It's a de facto Muslim ban.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

Exactly. It's a de facto Muslim ban.

Not really. No one from here is being deported or restricted. And it's only people in certain countries. So it's not a ban, it's a restriction for certain people. Bit of a difference.

[mobb_deep 917]

Semantics...

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Its just amazing. Western Europe has let many refugees in, and they all regret it now. What is it with liberals not seeing that? Why would you want to subject your own country to that? So you can feel morally superior? There is no practical reason for it, so that must be it.

Refugee getting asylum and a travel ban are not the same thing.

 

Hard to be the leader in global anything when you ban people from doing business in your country.

 

Honestly, I'm not down with taking refugees. But a blanket travel ban is ridiculous. Make me get a visa (which is a bit of a b!tch for most people btw) and business as usual.

[NewbieJr 540]

Not really. No one from here is being deported or restricted. And it's only people in certain countries. So it's not a ban, it's a restriction for certain people. Bit of a difference.

many many judges say you are wrong

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Exactly. It's a de facto Muslim ban.

A vast majority of "Muslim" countries are not part of the travel ban.

[MDC 5,890]

It's not a Muslim ban. It's a high risk Islam restriction.

[NewbieJr 540]

A vast majority of "Muslim" countries are not part of the travel ban.

Trump threw away any chance he had of disguising this when he ran on the very premise that he was going to ban Muslims from the country. Pretty hard to claim otherwise when there is endless footage of him speaking the words.

[FeelingMN 273]

Trump threw away any chance he had of disguising this when he ran on the very premise that he was going to ban Muslims from the country. Pretty hard to claim otherwise when there is endless footage of him speaking the words.

Had Drumpf campaigned on improving the vetting process, this all might have come about differently. But John Q. Arkansas doesn't get riled up over changing process.

 

Instead of appealing to reason, Drumpf played on people's emotions and its come back to bite him. A more savvy candidate would have avoided all this.

[jerryskids 5,188]

So how does one determine which countries harbor harmful "Muslim culture"?

 

I'm not playing 20 questions with you. I took the time to write out a thought-out description of the differences between the religion of Islam and dangerous Muslim cultures, and I would appreciate the courtesy of a response before do so again to another one-liner from you.

[jerryskids 5,188]

Had Drumpf campaigned on improving the vetting process, this all might have come about differently. But John Q. Arkansas doesn't get riled up over changing process.

 

Instead of appealing to reason, Drumpf played on people's emotions and its come back to bite him. A more savvy candidate would have avoided all this.

 

This is all true, except to add that the more savvy candidate would not have gotten elected.

 

I certainly wish Trump didn't put his foot in his mouth all of the time. But I have learned to take him figuratively vs. literally, and that his approach is consistent with being a Master Negotiator (or alternatively, with his lack of experience with political detente). I don't think he thinks all Mexicans are rapists and criminals. But there are rapists and criminals from Mexico who get back into the US multiple times, and stopping that seems like a pretty sensible thing. Similarly, he is not banning all Muslims, but we've beat that horse already...

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Trump threw away any chance he had of disguising this when he ran on the very premise that he was going to ban Muslims from the country. Pretty hard to claim otherwise when there is endless footage of him speaking the words.

So you agree we are dealing with prejudiced, hack judges.

[mobb_deep 917]

A vast majority of "Muslim" countries are not part of the travel ban.

Ok, let's call it what it really is then.

 

"The Donald J Trump ban of Muslims from countries who do not have deep financial ties to America, even if those countries are the ones where all the terrorists come from"

[cyclone24 1,811]

Ok, let's call it what it really is then.

 

"The Donald J Trump ban of Muslims from countries who do not have deep financial ties to America, even if those countries are the ones where all the terrorists come from"

So much dumb fail in this.

 

Its...not....Trumps....list.

[DankNuggs 305]

Crazy how every judge is a leftist hack. As is the CIA. And the CBO. Or, anyone who doesn't go along with Trump's retarded ideas.

This judge decided that trump can not act at all in foreign policy because their interpretation of campaign rhetoric disqualifies him...

 

It had absolutely nothing to do with the EO. Not it's language or interpretation. It's savage over reach

[iam90sbaby 2,122]

So much dumb fail in this.

 

Its...not....Trumps....list.

 

Well now it is, Iraq is removed, which was on Obamas original list.

[NewbieJr 540]

Had Drumpf campaigned on improving the vetting process, this all might have come about differently. But John Q. Arkansas doesn't get riled up over changing process.

 

Instead of appealing to reason, Drumpf played on people's emotions and its come back to bite him. A more savvy candidate would have avoided all this.

Absolutely. He had his base's mouth watering with his talk about Mexicans being rapists and lumping all Muslims into the group of being terrorists. And we all know that Trump loves cheers. "Lock her up!!". He had them eating out of his hand. But, unfortunately for him, he can't make those words go away.

[NewbieJr 540]

So you agree we are dealing with prejudiced, hack judges.

Nope. Just ones who respect our constitution.

[Sho Nuff 719]

So you agree we are dealing with prejudiced, hack judges.

[Sho Nuff 719]

So much dumb fail in this.

 

Its...not....Trumps....list.

Yes it is...he tried pinning it in obama to sell his bullshit...but it's his EO...could have used what list he wanted and he chose this to try and sell it and pass blame. It failed

[FeelingMN 273]

This is all true, except to add that the more savvy candidate would not have gotten elected.

 

I certainly wish Trump didn't put his foot in his mouth all of the time. But I have learned to take him figuratively vs. literally, and that his approach is consistent with being a Master Negotiator (or alternatively, with his lack of experience with political detente). I don't think he thinks all Mexicans are rapists and criminals. But there are rapists and criminals from Mexico who get back into the US multiple times, and stopping that seems like a pretty sensible thing. Similarly, he is not banning all Muslims, but we've beat that horse already...

He said he was going to ban Muslims. And when he said it, there was a strong and immediate backlash from people all over the political spectrum....including the VP. You can take what he says figuratively, but you certainly can't expect a federal judge to do the same.

 

I think Trump got elected because he was a familiar outsider. He didn't offer up the same platitudes and cliches we've heard a trillion times from other candidates and he gave the impression that he wasn't going to go to Washington and make excuses for why things don't get done. Ha!

 

I think the outcome of the election is the same if he avoided saying he was going to ban Muslims. The question is why did he say it? And I think it was to appeal to our basest instincts. I'm just guessing but I bet there's a significant portion of the population who want all Muslims banned from entering the US. There are a handful of those people here on this bored. Because if this was truly about keeping terrorists from entering the country there'd be far more discussion about improving a process that would accomplish that. But people equate Muslim with terrorist....so no need to improve any process at all. Ban Muslims and be done with it. And that's where this is all going.

[NewbieJr 540]

He said he was going to ban Muslims. And when he said it, there was a strong and immediate backlash from people all over the political spectrum....including the VP. You can take what he says figuratively, but you certainly can't expect a federal judge to do the same.

 

I think Trump got elected because he was a familiar outsider. He didn't offer up the same platitudes and cliches we've heard a trillion times from other candidates and he gave the impression that he wasn't going to go to Washington and make excuses for why things don't get done. Ha!

 

I think the outcome of the election is the same if he avoided saying he was going to ban Muslims. The question is why did he say it? And I think it was to appeal to our basest instincts. I'm just guessing but I bet there's a significant portion of the population who want all Muslims banned from entering the US. There are a handful of those people here on this bored. Because if this was truly about keeping terrorists from entering the country there'd be far more discussion about improving a process that would accomplish that. But people equate Muslim with terrorist....so no need to improve any process at all. Ban Muslims and be done with it. And that's where this is all going.

Trump ran a masterful campaign. Played on the country's fears. Immigrants. Refugees. Minorities. Works well as a candidate. Not so much once you have to govern.

[kutulu 1,545]

I've been waiting for a Geek like you

[penultimatestraw 473]

It's not a Muslim ban. It's a high risk Islam restriction.

High risk Islam culture* restriction.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm not playing 20 questions with you. I took the time to write out a thought-out description of the differences between the religion of Islam and dangerous Muslim cultures, and I would appreciate the courtesy of a response before do so again to another one-liner from you.

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.

[NewbieJr 540]

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.

yup. I've said this all along. Homegrown, lone wolf terrorists have proven to be a much bigger threat, domestically. Anti-Muslim acts like this is going to make the number of these terrorists multiply. It's not the refugee coming here to escape bloodshed that we need to worry about. It's the American Muslim who just learned his sister or parents can't join him here because Trump decided all of them are dangerous.