Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

Dude you just want to divert and I don't chase rabbits. Deal with the issue at hand which is an EO issued under the Presidents plenary power and stautary authority

 

No law supports their decision. They are in open defiance of clear unambiguous law and should be impeached and forced to defend their scofflaw holdings at Senate trials.

 

And all of these judges are not following the Constitution of the United States as it is laid out in the 4 corners of the document. All are making political decisions based of their belief and not on merit.

It's a fact and it's undeniable.

All of these judges could be impeached and I think it would be a good idea. I want the Constitution upheld, not what these liberal judges think is best. They need to be punished. They have no right for such a blatant overreach and to make political decisions in direct conflict with our Constitution.

 

No. I am trying to discuss the aspect of the Constitutional Review that is pertinent to whether the EO is Constitutional. We are talking about reviewing a facially neutral law for discriminatory intent. Please, please. Look at the hypothetical again. Do you see how that hypothetical illustrates this concept?

 

If you need to say that something is "clear," in order to make your argument, then it is probably not that clear.

 

Since I claimed no majority and we have no evidence of a majority support for the stay your point is what? What I have shown there is such a decent that thes judges took the HIGHLY unusual act of issuing an unsolicited opinion in decent.

 

LOL! IOW, it is even clear to you.

 

No. They can not be impeached because they reached a decision with which you disagree. They applied their legal training and analysis to reach a justifiable decision.

That is a fact and it is undeniable.

 

Just because you relied on statements in bold and capitalizing the word does not make it true. It is quite common for judges to issue unsolicited opinions in dissent when dealing with a prominent issue.

 

Yes, they can be impeached. It is a fact and it very well could happen.

I would proceed because it would then let judges know they are accountable for their actions and they must defend the Constitution and not make rulings specifically on their liberal agenda. Break up the 9th and get a better balance of judges that actually uphold laws.

 

Do you have any legal training? Did you go to law school or become bar certified? I am curious.

 

Not really. For one no court has ever considered campaign rhetoric as a valid argument before. Not even the Seattle judge did that. Second, they never addressed the law giving the president plenary power over immigration. Third, they ignored the precedent set by congress and the previous president identifying these countries as failed states with no records to review for incoming foreigners. Remember, no one has a 'right' to enter if they are not a citizen and have no visa.

 

Deleted duplicate

 

Find me one former example of a Presidential candidate issuing multiple statements of an intent to enact a blatantly discriminatory policy, successfully getting elected, and then passing a policy that was the direct evolution of the discriminatory policy.

That's why these judges (and it is wrong to claim that other judges did not cite to his campaign promises) cited to his campaign "rhetoric."

 

You are on the wrong side here. The Constitution does not stipulate that it's rules and laws can be ignored if you disagree with things they have said.

The Constitution says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. Period.

These judges overstepped their bounds. To even have this conversation is very telling on how politics interferes with actual law.

 

This is true. Which is problematic for many. What happens when you entrench stupid for life? What are our options for then removing the stupid? It may not be as simple as saying a "decision with which you disagree". How do we evaluate constitutional performance. In this particular district, 84% of decisions are overturned. Which seems amazingly like a performance review. Perhaps their inability to craft quality legal opinion should count.

 

It may be time for Congress to eliminate the Federal District Courts and a few of the Circuit Courts of Appeal - they are all optional.

 

Do you understand the source of the 84% statistic?

 

Of course, being a smart guy, you can't dispute that a religious ban on Muslims coming to America that doesn't include 91% of the Muslim population in that ban isn't really a religious ban at all, but just the same, you know something is really bad when you're told it....right?

LOL....no one can make you seem like a true dupe if you don't help out a little. Thanks for helping out a lot.

 

I fully support sending the Syrian "refugees" to Hawaii. It's far enough from the US and it's isolated. And there's a volcano

 

If you mean the analysis by the American Bar that called out their Reversed or Vacated opinions, yes. Yes I do. Which doesn't actually require "understanding" as much as being able to cite it, and then justify the veracity of it which isn't an "understanding" but a competence in doing so.

 

Let me clarify. Do you understand that the 84% refers only to those decisions which were agreed to be heard by the Supreme Court? Do you understand that the 84% only arises after you eliminate the 99% of decisions that were not agreed to be heard by the Supreme Court?

 

It was hard to do but this judge succeeded in beating the Oregon/Washington judge for judicial stupidity.

 

If I pass a law that prevents Black people living in White County from going to the Public Library, does that law discriminate even though Black Americans living in White County only constitutes 5% of the Black people living in that State, 0.5% of the Black people living in the country, and 0.0005% of the Black people in the world?

 

What sort of "religious ban" only applies to one out of ten Muslims world wide? And is triggered by nation of origin and not religion, per se?
Gosh, that judge is a real "sharp" guy.

What sort of "ban" only effects one out of ten people it supposedly intends to stop? Stop and think how idiotic your claim is. I have.

Consider this: We are dealing with nations here...not a single imaginary county somewhere! This is a national issue and not a religious one.

Your hypothetical truly fails and if you and your unthinking ilk want to claim Trump is attempting to ban people (temporarily, let's not forget) from traveling to America because of their religion you have to explain what sort of "religious ban" ignores over 90% of that religion.
So far your judge and you haven't done a very good job.

We also live in a country where
the potential for terrorist attack is always present. Do you have any idea how many potential terrorist plots have been proactively foiled
before anyone was stabbed, run over, blown up or further maimed?
Play the fool if you want but the president has every authority needed to take steps to make the nation safe from the dangers presented
by people that want you dead. A temporary and targeted halt in travel to this nation is only being contested because of who the president is. The animus her is all yours!