Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

Does this judge have the authority to overrule SCOTUS?

 

None of the carpers who are howling about this very temporary 'travel ban' care the slightest about anything but making everything imaginable as hard and miserable for the Trump Administration as they possibly can.

So, what are they concerned about beyond that? Oh, they don't want to be around when the Islamo-Nazis resume shooting people, driving trucks into crowds, setting off bombs in gatherings and celebrations, or just randomly slicing people's heads off. As long as all that is happening to somebody else, they couldn't care less! But, if and when any of those things happen again (on Trump's watch), they'll bitch endlessly, and raise holy hell -- blaming HIM for all of it! Wait and see....

 

Looks like it's your brain tickled, Sonny.

If he meant it that was, he should have said "the judge was appointed...."

Still, he's wrong either way.

He owes you a kiss, though, for your warm attention to correct his inartful language.

 

No, he said "the judge was NOT elected".

Is it "not" you're having trouble with?

 

You obviously don't understand how our judicial system works.

Hold onto your bootstrap, buckem's. Some learnin' in the following months is coming your way.

Q: Trump said he was going to appeal the last ban by the federal judges, setting it on course to SCOTUS. Why do you think he pulled an ooopsie, and said - We gunna dew over. Ug.

?

 

Dude.

Stop.

He messed up.

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

 

If you're having trouble understanding the word "not" this might be a little too much for you.

 

LoL Ok, ignore the first part of the sentence. Poor guy.

You'll get it eventually. We're here for you.

 

A period is what you need.

That's it.

The one that punctuates it after elected.

Or maybe one that Trumpie calls blood coming from out of your ....wherever.

 

Here you go buddy maybe this will help: "He was elected to do this, the judge was not elected......"

 

You crafted a period.

Ingenious!

That's some serious affection for Bluesy. lol
"the judge was not elected to conduct foreign policy and make decisions about national security."

 

Hahahaha! Ok bro, you go with that, I'm done.

 

Why? Why are people so ridiculously paranoid about immigration right now? I expect it's coming from an echo chamber of right wing fear mongering.

 

That is the law...The judge didn't bother with that, to the joy of his fellow partisans.

 

Haven't been paying attention to what is going on around the world especially in Europe huh??

 

A small group of unelected "judges" effectively strip democratically elected Trump of executive powers.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/0...-effectively-strip-trump-of-executive-powers/

 

Americans have always been against immigrants. The colonists on the first boat in 1620 were ticked off at the people on the second boat. For centuries the only new people residents actually wanted here were black African slaves. They spent a fortune making sure they got here.

 

The only person getting killed around here is an Indian man, who was shot dead by a former Navy man, who, earlier in the week, heard his Commander-in-Chief tweet "Wake up America".

 

I don't bury myself in the hyped up news 24/7, if that's what you mean. Helps me maintain perspective and stay grounded.

 

Yes

Until something indicates they are inadequate

A risk that a travel ban would address

If they are a US citizen, suspicion would not be enough. If they are not, then their visa should be revoked. Ideally there should be some grounds for the suspicion and the decision should be subject to independent review (standard bureaucratic best practice).

I think those people should be banned

Criminal record

The current situation is that any arrest for any crime invalidates a submission for a US Visa. I think this is too strict and it should be based on conviction. Anyone could be arrested on false pretences.

Banning someone for their beliefs I believe is "unAmerican", banning someone for their potential actions to commit crimes is fine.

Those activities are already illegal in the USA. Their religion would not exempt them from those laws. They should not be prevented from entering purely on the grounds of the religious belief, but if there were grounds to believe they would practice those actions in the USA then they should not be given a visa.

Of course (other than US citizens).

Prevented from entering, sure. "banned", well if they get better, it wouldn't be a problem anymore... By a "contagious disease" I presume you don't mean common colds etc.

If they can self-fund its not a problem. In fact, that is something of a money spinner for US medical practice. Other-wise I think its fair to block them.

Yes, in general. But you also have to have some sense of politically-motivated convictions in un-safe jurisdictions.

no

 

Largely immune. Not immune.

 

I am aware of that, but the previous administration did not impose a travel ban. The finding relates to the restriction on travel from those countries being a means of controlling a perceived risk.

 

Not according to the FBI.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/fbi-data-backs-up-trump-claims-on-illegals-and-crime/

 

I think you meant "that's right"

It doesn't. Any proper plaintiff has the right to challenge the legality of an action of the government through the the courts.

if you have ever been in court , or indeed even watched Judge Judy, you will appreciate that a certain level of humble deference goes a long way.