Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

[Fenton]

This was the lawyer, not the judiciary. But I dont think it is overreach. I think that it is akin to the notion that a court can go to the intent of Congress, for example, those things said in Congress by the person who introduced a law about its intended effect, even if the language does not specify those intentions. So, an extreme example, the congressman says "black people are dangerous" as he introduces his bill restricting their rights. But the language of the bill only mentions curly haired people, not race. I, with my curly hair, would be banned, though I am not black, so one could make the argument that the law is not racial. The court rejects this and takes note of the language as indicating biased intent. Trump trashed Muslims during his campaign. He has to figure out away to ban them without an order that bans them. Reportedly, with Giuliani's help, he comes up with a ban that does not mention Muslims, keeps significant numbers of them out, and keeps his dumb campaign promise. Scalia scoffed at the sort of judicial reasoning I describe that uses what Trump said, naively, in my view, saying the language controls absolutely, but other justices have made decisions in this manner for decades, as I understand things.

What Trump is doing is no different than historic attempts to restrict Italian or Jewish or Irish immigration, playing on fear of crime. As I noted, I believe that he has a chance to win this with the Supremes. There is precedent in Reagan's interdiction of Haitians, but I am a lay person not familiar with enough law to judge other than in our exchanges here. It is still based on fear, which is some part of Trump's political strategy.

Apparently the Judiciary agreed with the lawyer and upheld the stay.

And yes, this is by definition a judicial overreach, they didnt even attempt to rule on the content or merits of the EO, instead they based their decision on a politicized narrative that extended from the campaign

Like Trump or hate him, people have to be objective enough to recognize the dangers of a activist judiciary who grants itself new powers arbitrarily. This is banana rebublic tactics right here in America

If the tables were turned Im sure you and everyone else in this thread who are defending this ruling would agree, and would be raising hell about it too

 

[ludin]

Good.

It is xenophobic-based nonsense.

I don't care why the court blocked this - I am glad it did.

Restricting travel on the basis of religion (which this is no matter who says otherwise) is cowardly and ridiculous.


Just like the cause for massive drug crime is the actual law making many drugs illegal. Without the law, the crime would virtually end, just like it did after Prohibition died.

The reason for 'Islamic extremist' terrorism is the immoral and often illegal military and political incursions of the West into the internal affairs of Middle Eastern and African nations.
Stop budding in where it is none of your business (except with humanitarian and peace keeping) and the terrorist attacks will eventually stop.


But like most people who are too ignorant to see the flaw in the 'War on Drugs'. Many of these same people are too ignorant to see the gigantic flaw in the 'War on Terror'.


Islam is not the source of the terror attacks. American/western foreign policy is.

victim blaming is not an argument. sorry but islam is 100% the source of terror attacks.
it specifically calls for it.

instead of blaming victims for what happens to them you should blame the people doing it.
it would make you a bit more credible on this topic.

 

[Athanasius68]

Newp. That's just one clown's irrational opinion.

But you go right ahead and consider it reality if you have to.

During the campaign, Trump made his comments about banning all Muslim immigration. Mrs. Clinton made no such comment.

Part of the lawsuit and original decision had been that the EO was really about a Muslim ban and not security as Trump argued in court.

This ACLU 's lawyer thus seems correct in his conclusion.

Whether the ACLU is happy that comments in political campaigning can be held legally accountable remains to be seen.
Certainly Democrats should be happy this standard was not applied by the courts to Obamacare.

 

[bubbabgone]

Trump believed that his public statements (which announced his intent) could be divorced from the literal text of the Executive Order. He was wrong.

The majority of the Appellant Judges thought that it couldn't but the minority did.
What do YOU think?
Wanna take a guess what the USSC thinks?

Decisions based on something other than what's actually written is a helluva way to decide the Constitutionality of what's written.

 

[Redress]

The majority of the Appellant Judges thought that it couldn't but the minority did.
What do YOU think?
Wanna take a guess what the USSC thinks?

Decisions based on something other than what's actually written is a helluva way to decide the Constitutionality of what's written.

The Supreme Court has used intent with some regularity when deciding cases for at least 100 years...

 

[Nickyjo]

Apparently the Judiciary agreed with the lawyer and upheld the stay.

And yes, this is by definition a judicial overreach, they didnt even attempt to rule on the content or merits of the EO, instead they based their decision on a politicized narrative that extended from the campaign

Like Trump or hate him, people have to be objective enough to recognize the dangers of a activist judiciary who grants itself new powers arbitrarily. This is banana rebublic tactics right here in America

If the tables were turned Im sure you and everyone else in this thread who are defending this ruling would agree, and would be raising hell about it too

In general I support an activist judiciary, tho I wouldn't use that term, so I wouldn't complain about the reasoning. I think the ban will be upheld, but you cannot escape the sequence of events: Trump calls for a total shutdown of Muslims coming to the US. He subsequently asks Giuliani to figure out a way to do it "legally," perhaps having read the constitution. He then bans people from Muslim dominated countries, though not from the countries that produced the 9/11 hijackers. He exempts Christians from the rule. Whether or not the court upholds the lower court rulings, it's obvious what Trump's intent was, even if it was not explicit enough for the order to be struck down.

As to activist judiciary, without some activism, we wouldn't have struck down "separate but equal" or gotten Roe v Wade. On the other hand, the courts turned activist to interpret the Second Amendment (admittedly a poorly written sentence) inaccurately, as I believe it did. But on balance, though justice should be blind, it need not be deaf. Many people have had their sentences reduced or increased based on evidence of intent or lack of it.

 

[Athanasius68]

The Supreme Court has used intent with some regularity when deciding cases for at least 100 years...

Well, yhe EO said that the USA was going to make it difficult for citizens from a few countries, for a short period of time, to travel to the USA.
Maybe Trump really does secretly desire to keep all Muslins out of the USA. But this EO doesn't achieve that objective. And if indeed it is Trump's desire, it is something to be resolved in the political world, not judicial.

 

[KLATTU]

The Supreme Court has used intent with some regularity when deciding cases for at least 100 years...

If they use intent, a good lawyer would argue that there are 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. So if the intent was to ban Muslims from coming to America, why would he only pick 7 countries?

 

[Henrin]

The Supreme Court has used intent with some regularity when deciding cases for at least 100 years...

Which is of course bogus.

 

[Henrin]

If they use intent, a good lawyer would argue that there are 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. So if the intent was to ban Muslims from coming to America, why would he only pick 7 countries?

And why would he not make an exception for people that are not Muslims from those seven countries?

 

[Athanasius68]

In general I support an activist judiciary, tho I wouldn't use that term, so I wouldn't complain about the reasoning. I think the ban will be upheld, but you cannot escape the sequence of events: Trump calls for a total shutdown of Muslims coming to the US. He subsequently asks Giuliani to figure out a way to do it "legally," perhaps having read the constitution. He then bans people from Muslim dominated countries, though not from the countries that produced the 9/11 hijackers. He exempts Christians from the rule. Whether or not the court upholds the lower court rulings, it's obvious what Trump's intent was, even if it was not explicit enough for the order to be struck down.

As to activist judiciary, without some activism, we wouldn't have struck down "separate but equal" or gotten Roe v Wade. On the other hand, the courts turned activist to interpret the Second Amendment (admittedly a poorly written sentence) inaccurately, as I believe it did. But on balance, though justice should be blind, it need not be deaf. Many people have had their sentences reduced or increased based on evidence of intent or lack of it.

However, the EO does not ban Muslins from the USA. And that is because it can't be done.
BUT-- the borders are not open. And the president has authority under the law. He he based a temporary restriction from citizens from certain countries to enter the USA based upon security concerns as determined by the previous administration.

 

[Nickyjo]

However, the EO does not ban Muslins from the USA. And that is because it can't be done.
BUT-- the borders are not open. And the president has authority under the law. He he based a temporary restriction from citizens from certain countries to enter the USA based upon security concerns as determined by the previous administration.

All of this makes sense. The best argument in support of the order was that the countries in question do not have strong enough governments to screen or discover dangerous persons, as opposed to, say, the Saudis. I don't know if this was included in the government arguments, however, or in the language of the order.

But if the order flies legally, politically it is dumb (except domestically, to satisfy the Trump base), like the suspension of admission of refugees, the most "extremely vetted" of persons coming to the US. These policies make it hard to take our country's government seriously, easy to assume we dont know what we are doing. Tho Trump has evolved into a pretty normal conservative republican, his bigotry, boorishness, and ignorance are embarrassing.

 

[Redress]

Well, yhe EO said that the USA was going to make it difficult for citizens from a few countries, for a short period of time, to travel to the USA.
Maybe Trump really does secretly desire to keep all Muslins out of the USA. But this EO doesn't achieve that objective. And if indeed it is Trump's desire, it is something to be resolved in the political world, not judicial.

And yet he stated, again and again, that he intended to keep Muslims out of this country, which creates a potential legal issue that the courts will have to decide. See, if you read the ruling, you would know this. The judges ruled that it is entirely possible the courts will rule against the EO(though certainly not sure, and not even necessarily the most likely outcome), and as such, the stay should remain until the courts have ruled.

If they use intent, a good lawyer would argue that there are 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. So if the intent was to ban Muslims from coming to America, why would he only pick 7 countries?

That argument will be made, but it is not a terribly good one for legal purposes. If the intent is to specifically keep some muslims, based on their religion, out of the US, it raises real constitutional, First Amendment issues.

Which is of course bogus.

Your ignorance of US law and the constitution continues to show through.

 

[Cardinal]

The majority of the Appellant Judges thought that it couldn't but the minority did.

Do tell.

What do YOU think?
Wanna take a guess what the USSC thinks?

Decisions based on something other than what's actually written is a helluva way to decide the Constitutionality of what's written.

As I said, Trump thinks if he keeps one hand with his fingers crossed behind his back then it's okay to lie. That logic works up until you're about eight years old.

 

[Henrin]

Your ignorance of US law and the constitution continues to show through.

Hardly. Using a speech to speak towards what is actually written months later in an EO is ignorant.

 

[bubbabgone]

Do tell.



As I said, Trump thinks if he keeps one hand with his fingers crossed behind his back then it's okay to lie. That logic works up until you're about eight years old.

AH.
So you heard there's UV visible text that Trump demanded be in the EO that requires Government agencies to violate the rest of what's in the EO in order to comply with what Trump said on the campaign trail.
You should have said that earlier.
Is that finding from the Christopher Steele dossier?

 

[Athanasius68]

And yet he stated, again and again, that he intended to keep Muslims out of this country, which creates a potential legal issue that the courts will have to decide. See, if you read the ruling, you would know this. The judges ruled that it is entirely possible the courts will rule against the EO(though certainly not sure, and not even necessarily the most likely outcome), and as such, the stay should remain until the courts have

Trump did indeed say this. People say lots of things when they run for office. Does those comments therefore place a legal standard upon the person upon election? It has never before been thus viewed.

And the EO doesn't keep Muslins out of the the USA. Even if you wish to argue that this is just a 'first step' it ought remain in the political, not legal, world.

 

[Cardinal]

AH.
So you heard there's UV visible text that Trump demanded be in the EO that requires Government agencies to violate the rest of what's in the EO in order to comply with what Trump said on the campaign trail.
You should have said that earlier.
Is that finding from the Christopher Steele dossier?

You're certainly working overtime to avoid a simple and obvious point: judges take intent into decisions all the time, both both from public statements and even the end results of an order or bill. It's not the judge's fault Trump didn't know that.

Your ignorance is nobody's fault but your own.

 

[KLATTU]

And yet he stated, again and again, that he intended to keep Muslims out of this country, which creates a potential legal issue that the courts will have to decide. See, if you read the ruling, you would know this. Thgh.

...but then he doesn't do that. He only selects 7 countries. So why those 7 ? Was it just because the people from those countries would probably be Muslims?
Well I think we all know there is a good answer to that.

 

[bubbabgone]

You're certainly working overtime to avoid a simple and obvious point: judges take intent into decisions all the time, both both from public statements and even the end results of an order or bill. It's not the judge's fault Trump didn't know that.

Your ignorance is nobody's fault but your own.

That's in the application or execution of a Law/EO
You're misapplying "intent" to the constitutionality of the language of a Law/EO.
Provide an example of the USSC striking down a Law that says one thing but where the Judges decided that it doesn't actually mean what it says because of a position held before the Law was written.

 

[Cardinal]

That's in the application or execution of a Law/EO
You're misapplying "intent" to the constitutionality of the language of a Law/EO.
Provide an example of the USSC striking down a Law that says one thing but where the Judges decided that it doesn't actually mean what it says because of a position held before the Law was written.

You're completely wrong, and you will continue to be completely wrong. And I hope that Trump continues to be as wrong as he has been so that order after order after order will continue to be struck down.

In the same way, I prefer that a liar puts one hand with his fingers crossed behind his back so I can always tell if he's lying. If only life were always so easy.

 

[bubbabgone]

You're completely wrong, and you will continue to be completely wrong. And I hope that Trump continues to be as wrong as he has been so that order after order after order will continue to be struck down.

In the same way, I prefer that a liar puts one hand with his fingers crossed behind his back so I can always tell if he's lying. If only life were always so easy.

It should be noted that you didn't answer what I asked and you would have if you could have.
I can wait to see what the USSC says for the final verdict.
How about you? (not that there's much of a choice)
I can see you'd rather drop it now so that's okay with me.

 

[Cardinal]

It should be noted that you didn't answer what I asked and you would have if you could have.
I can wait to see what the USSC says for the final verdict.
How about you? (not that there's much of a choice)
I can see you'd rather drop it now so that's okay with me.

And it should be noted that you said, "The majority of the Appellant Judges thought that it couldn't but the minority did." When called on to explain that statement, you deflected. Did you think I wouldn't notice that?

 

[danarhea]

Trumps prior statements have no legal bearing, and niether would Hillarys

The content of the order is whats relevent and thats been ignored over an over by activist judges

Whys this so hard for you people to comprehend ?

Actually, they DO have legal bearing, since it shows his intent, which is violate the separation clause of the Constitution.

 

[Samhain]

Actually, they DO have legal bearing, since it shows his intent, which is violate the separation clause of the Constitution.

So what you are saying is that any statement made by any politician, or statements made by people associated with a politician, at any point in time, can be used in questioning the legality of any law or order they participated in passing.

That should be fun in the long run.