Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

A judge is appointed, rather than elected. And if the president was elected on a platform of doing illegal stuff then he still will not be able to do it without a change to the law.

Having said that, the judiciary will not want to be seen to be acting against the expressed will of the people. If Trump accepts he is subject to judicial review, the judicial review will probably be favourable to him.

 

Wrong. Congress, under a different President, identified these countries.

 

Many have been caught before they could act.

How many US citizens must die, in your opinion, before we could enact such a law? 10? 100?

 

As I said President's are.

Specious nonsense.

Where in the Constitution is it stated that the President's foreign policy comes under judicial review and must seek it's approval? And your second statement is one of the more absurd I've heard. Judges are supposed to rule on the law as dictated under the Constitution and US Code, not by how they feel about someone.

 

Great. Now explain how that applies to non-US citizens.

 

No they are not, his finding is based on the previsious administration and stated in his EO it does NOT have to have judicial approval and the Constitution is quite clear on that as is US CODE.

If that is what the judge bases his decision or influences it in any way shape or form then that judge needs to be removed from the bench.

 

From congress and the last administration.

 

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Sup.Ct.1952): "[A]ny policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference."

 

They know that, but they want to obstruct and maximize the pain-in-the-ass factor, mostly because they just hate Trump's guts....

 

LOL still toting that lie huh? BTW I looked at your source from early, it doesn't address what you're saying, so your full of it.

 

Yep, and you see alot of them here on PF.
Just like our PF "lawyer" who doesn't appear to know basic laws.

 

Right there. Like I said early just tell them to piss off and go for it.

 

You would have a good stance expect one thing, It has been done in the past has been upheld in the court system.

 

The majority of citizens would love.

 

Yeah, the "lawyer" doesn't like me at all. BTW, I've never known of a real attorney with SO much spare time in the middle of the damn day that he could fart around with idle, little internet forums... but, maybe he just works pro bono -- out of "the goodness of his heart"....

 

Holy shi* you're right, I didn't think about that.

 

I wonder whether those who are most critical of these travel bans could offer any suggestions.

Would it be preferable not to impose any travel ban? Should only existing travel restrictions be allowed? What do you think would justify a travel ban? Would you agree to ban travel to the US of suspected terrorists or would suspicion alone be not enough? Would you require people banned be previously convicted of terrorism in a judicial procedure?

What, besides terrorism could justify banning people? Would you allow banning people convicted of any crime or only certain crimes? Most critics decry a suspected religiously discriminating motive, would banning people for any religious reason be unacceptable? What if their religion required animal sacrifices or illicit drug use, could these be banned?

The government can ban the importation of goods which unduly threaten the health, safety or welfare of the population, could people be banned if they were unduly threatening?

Should people be legally banned from immigration based on having a contagious disease? How about for some medical condition which was very costly to treat if they lacked adequate resources? What about people of documented moral turpitude, convicted war criminals, pedophiles, rapists, people convicted of fraud, embezzling, corruption, should they be banned? Should murderers be banned?

In fact there are restrictions in immigration regulations that bar admitting travelers for disease and crime, are these limitations wrong?

 

Obama did not ban any country, he suspended refugee visa for Iraq due to the fail terrorist attempt in Bowling Green, Ky "the infamous bowling green massacre" that was plotted by two iraq refugees but Trump does not have any bases for banning this 6 countries except for the fact that he told Rudy to find ways to create a Muslim ban or him claiming to want to vet the refugee from those countries. Keep in mind the vetting process for refugees takes an average of 2 years to complete before A refugee is given a visa and he is not adding any layer to the vetting process (because there is no more security layer to be added) but just strictly banning the citizens of those countries from coming in...

 

Wait. You think these federal judges are elected??

LOL

 

Words 7 through 11 in his post should clear that up for you.

 

Are you his fluffer?

'Words 7 thru 11" don't change the fact the man thought the federal judge was elected.

But it was nice of you to try and attend clean up for your bud.

 

Oh I thought this was a public forum. Maybe you should ask him if he'd like to get a room with you.

Actually, the statement clearly identifies he understands judges aren't elected, and word 1 refers to the President.

If you need any more help with comprehension, just let me know.

 

And if you think this federal court doesn't have jurisdiction in this matter, you're sadly mistaken.

 

Try again : "the judge was not elected to conduct foreign policy and make decisions about national security."

 

Do you not understand that the judge was not elected, but someone was?

Who could that be I wonder? Who WAS elected to conduct foreign policy and make decisions about national security?

That's a real brain tickler isn't it?