Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

Its like you didn't even read what you are quoting and responding to. You didn't even address my point.

 

Yes, I did. There is a precedent here and case law is on my side. Trump said before he wants to institute a Muslim ban. Now he goes and bans travel from 7 (6) majority Muslim countries and claims "nope, not a muslim ban!"

Sure.

I agree with the travel ban, and am on record multiple times saying as such on this forum, and I wish he WOULD extend it to all Muslims, frankly. The less religion we have here the more free we are.

But to claim that the judge's cannot use what he said in context to prove correlation and intent is hysterically mediocre.

 

????? He is acting directly under the authority of the law.

Title 8 § 1182
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate".

Couldn't be stated any more clearly

 

A Muslim ban would ban all muslims from traveling to the US. This ban doesn't even effect 15% of Muslims. LIKE I SAID, had Trump banned Muslims from traveling to the US, you and they would have a legitimate argument. He didn't.

 

Except the countries that have produced terrorists that have attacked the US are not on the list and Trump trades with all of them.
He doesn't trade with the countries that have not attacked the US but are listed in the travel ban.

 

Could you cite the 1965 Amendment to that 1952 law?

 

I would not hold my breath on that one if I were you. But sure, it is possible. And in the meantime, Trump could have just used the time to review the immigration, visa, and refugee program to make it safer (i.e. his stated goal). Why does he need to stop travel from those countries altogether in order to conduct that review?

 

Yeah, kind of blows a whole in your "Muslim Ban" theory

 

In the words of a federal district court judge I met the other day, "If I am overruled on appeal, it doesn't mean that I was wrong, just that I was outvoted."

 

You mean the part that says "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

Kind of irrelevant in these establishment clause cases.

 

lol. No, it's not irrelevant.

 

Like I said before, I support the ban on the grounds that less religion in America makes it safer. But I do agree; Trump's big ass mouth can be used against him here. And, the law as it stands prevents certain types of immigration holds.

 

String together a few words and make your argument if you can. How does this so called Muslim ban violate prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence"?

 

You are spinning...as a case that never gets to the Supremes cannot be overturned by the Supremes, the vast majority of day to day decisions are never appealed, many because the money runs out...HOWEVER...of the cases that are appealed and get to the Supremes, over 80% are reversed making it clear that the 9th's view of the law varies a smidgen from the real law.

From a nice liberal source

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

 

First, I would note that the Supreme Court gets to determine new law. So the 9th circuit being overturned could occur in a situation where the 9th circuit upheld the current law, but the Sup Ct made new law.

From your source:

What's True.

"Among less than one tenth of one percent of circuit court decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court, about 80 percent of the Ninth Circuit Court's decisions were overturned."

 

the ninth circuit is a legal wing of the democrat party, just look at the location it is based in.

The Supreme court as it will stand very very shortly will fix a lot of this shannanigans.
lets just hope for the countries sake none of these bad characters Trump is trying to stop get through and wage their war.

 

The Court is supposed to interpret the law, not create new law when applying THE LAW doesn't produce the results they would prefer.

 

If you prefer, I can use the phrase, "establish new legal precedent."

 

Out of curiosity, how many times have bad characters from the six countries named in the travel ban been able to get into this country and kill an American citizen?

And just so we can establish the trend line. I'd like you to break down the information over the past 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years.

 

I have no idea, not being privileged to certain information, but I'm taking a very educated guess that Trump isn't taking all this heat and bad press because he loves to be hated.
What you are inferring is counter intuitive and foolish.

 

That hasn't stopped Trump yet.

 

Nevertheless no one gets into a fight when it can easily be avoided.

 

Well, first the Supreme Court isn't the only federal court that gets to establish new legal precedent. Lower courts do it all the time. AND your label of "new law" more accurately describes what these courts are instead choosing to do.

 

Again, that has not stopped Trump yet.