Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge

by Herbie Green Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:21 pm

Yay! we are free again!

by **InTenSity** Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:40 pm

What travel ban?

by **NigelUno** Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:09 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/index.html

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:37 pm

by **NigelUno** Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:17 am

Outrageous!

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge 502811600

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:47 am

I read his order lifting it, don't think it will hold up. It'll be interesting what the court of appeals says, this will eventually end up with the SCOTUS.

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:56 am

LooseGoose wrote:I read his order lifting it, don't think it will hold up. It'll be interesting what the court of appeals says, this will eventually end up with the SCOTUS.

I assume as a conservative constitutionist you are strongly in favor of the judges ruling?

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:20 pm

Herbie Green wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:I read his order lifting it, don't think it will hold up. It'll be interesting what the court of appeals says, this will eventually end up with the SCOTUS.

I assume as a conservative constitutionist you are strongly in favor of the judges ruling?

Why would a constitutionalist favor his ruling? I saw no logic or reasoning in his ruling. The US has been limiting immigration in some form or fashion for 150+ years. Actually I think Congress should take the lead on this but the reality is that Presidents have been doing it with EOs for decades so there's plenty of precedent this will be found legal.

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:31 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

I assume as a conservative constitutionist you are strongly in favor of the judges ruling?

Why would a constitutionalist favor his ruling? I saw no logic or reasoning in his ruling. The US has been limiting immigration in some form or fashion for 150+ years. Actually I think Congress should take the lead on this but the reality is that Presidents have been doing it with EOs for decades so there's plenty of precedent this will be found legal.

Isn't the federal judge ruling based on the constitution?

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:39 pm

The President's attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration," Schumer said in a statement.

"With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process."

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:41 pm

Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms" suffered by Washington state's universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump's order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be "based in fact, as opposed to fiction."

by **xsanguine** Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:11 pm

That's dumb of Trump to use 9/11 as a justification of the ban... you don't stop the next attack by trying to stop the previous attack. Granted, I have a feeling it was just an excuse and the 'ban' is based off of current Middle Eastern affairs, but if you take it on its face or if that really is the justification in some twisted way, he'll be slapping at gopher holes.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:36 pm

Herbie Green wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:I read his order lifting it, don't think it will hold up. It'll be interesting what the court of appeals says, this will eventually end up with the SCOTUS.

I assume as a conservative constitutionist you are strongly in favor of the judges ruling?

Lol

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:04 pm

Herbie Green wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Why would a constitutionalist favor his ruling? I saw no logic or reasoning in his ruling. The US has been limiting immigration in some form or fashion for 150+ years. Actually I think Congress should take the lead on this but the reality is that Presidents have been doing it with EOs for decades so there's plenty of precedent this will be found legal.

Isn't the federal judge ruling based on the constitution?

So you're assuming that?

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:08 pm

Herbie Green wrote:The President's attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration," Schumer said in a statement.

"With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process."

While true that Robart was appointed by Bush he was proposed/selected by Patty Murray/Maria Cantwell (Dem Senators from WA) as part of a deal that got an entire slug of judges approved by both sides. (from a news article in 2004 I read last night) Anyone else remember the "gang of" deals? So I don't put a lot of stock in who nominated who. Especially in light of the fact that 3 of the most liberal SCOTUS judges of my lifetime were nominated by R's - Blackmun, Stevens, Souter.

And the "raising the bar" shit RE:Gorsuch is just plain stupid.

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:09 pm

Herbie Green wrote:Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms" suffered by Washington state's universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump's order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be "based in fact, as opposed to fiction."

I'd like to know where he found the bolded in the Constitution. Do you have any ideas?

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:12 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

Isn't the federal judge ruling based on the constitution?

So you're assuming that?

Never heard of due process?

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:06 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

Isn't the federal judge ruling based on the constitution?

So you're assuming that?

What am I supposed to believe that a federal judge is lying now?

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:19 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms" suffered by Washington state's universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump's order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be "based in fact, as opposed to fiction."

I'd like to know where he found the bolded in the Constitution. Do you have any ideas?

I am not a judge or lawyer or anything close to having expertise in constitutional law but I have seen the 1st amendment referenced that says you can not favor one religion over another.

It seems the president might be able to legally put in such an order if there was an actual threat, hence the quote "based on fact not fiction".

So it would seem to me that without proof of such a threat a constitutionalist would obviously want the strict interpretation rather than play politics and let the president operate in violation of constitutional law.

It seems if the Washington judge was so obviously in the wrong it would have been already over-ruled by now as it completely changed the custom operations nationwide and our country would be in serious danger from so doing if this treat actually existed.

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:23 pm

Herbie Green wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

So you're assuming that?

What am I supposed to believe that a federal judge is lying now?

Have I accused him of lying? A judge can make a ruling with no basis in the constitution without lying.

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:26 pm

Herbie Green wrote:I am not a judge or lawyer or anything close to having expertise in constitutional law but I have seen the 1st amendment referenced that says you can not favor one religion over another.

It seems the president might be able to legally put in such an order if there was an actual threat, hence the quote "based on fact not fiction".

So it would seem to me that without proof of such a threat a constitutionalist would obviously want the strict interpretation rather than play politics and let the president operate in violation of constitutional law.

It seems if the Washington judge was so obviously in the wrong it would have been already over-ruled by now as it completely changed the custom operations nationwide and our country would be in serious danger from so doing if this treat actually existed.

The United States has used religion as a basis for immigration for over 100 years so that argument goes up in smoke.

Would you like to wager on it getting overruled? These things take time. I'll lay 4-1 that it gets overruled. I don't think there's any basis in law for the restraining order.

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:37 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

What am I supposed to believe that a federal judge is lying now?

Have I accused him of lying? A judge can make a ruling with no basis in the constitution without lying.

He just made a ruling based on the constitution and quoted it so I don't know what you are attempting to argue here.

by Herbie Green Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:44 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:I am not a judge or lawyer or anything close to having expertise in constitutional law but I have seen the 1st amendment referenced that says you can not favor one religion over another.

It seems the president might be able to legally put in such an order if there was an actual threat, hence the quote "based on fact not fiction".

So it would seem to me that without proof of such a threat a constitutionalist would obviously want the strict interpretation rather than play politics and let the president operate in violation of constitutional law.

It seems if the Washington judge was so obviously in the wrong it would have been already over-ruled by now as it completely changed the custom operations nationwide and our country would be in serious danger from so doing if this treat actually existed.

The United States has used religion as a basis for immigration for over 100 years so that argument goes up in smoke.

Would you like to wager on it getting overruled? These things take time. I'll lay 4-1 that it gets overruled. I don't think there's any basis in law for the restraining order.

I don't know as I don't claim to know more about constitutional law than judges. It does seem like this will have to go through higher courts. I would think this is so important they are working right now. If it was so cut and dry and not in the constitution as you claim then this would go through quickly.

by **Blanch32** Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:55 pm

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

So you're assuming that?

Never heard of due process?

are foreigners us citizens? if so, then gutamo Bay??

by Guest Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:36 am

Herbie Green wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Have I accused him of lying? A judge can make a ruling with no basis in the constitution without lying.

He just made a ruling based on the constitution and quoted it so I don't know what you are attempting to argue here.

Read this and then come back and tell me again about his ruling.

On Trial: Why Trump’s Immigration Ban Will Win Over Seattle Judge’s Nationwide Order

Opening Statement
On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?

Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally, and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will lose, and Trump’s position will win.

Closing Argument

Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns. In the ultimate outcome of these decisions, memories of Super Bowls past will prove prescient: Like the Patriots, Boston will best Seattle once again

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:44 am

Trump bid to restore travel ban rejected - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38872680

The judicial system working as intended.

by Guest Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:51 am

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Trump bid to restore travel ban rejected - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38872680

The judicial system working as intended.

I agree. It'll take time before it's upheld. I have no problem with it getting a full hearing.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:05 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Trump bid to restore travel ban rejected - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38872680

The judicial system working as intended.

I agree. It'll take time before it's upheld. I have no problem with it getting a full hearing.

Goose agrees with me (on one thing)! It's a Christmas day miracle!!!!

by **xsanguine** Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:08 pm

I don't know how many of you have been paying attention to Europe's refugee crisis but it's been getting quite wild. It's tough for me to square because I really don't like the idea of telling people which piece of land they can travel to... but when you add in forcing the native citizens in that geographical area to pay for refugees housing, health care and schooling against their will it makes me wonder how sustainable a humanitarian effort like that is.

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Noname

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Noname

Much of Europe has experienced a clash of cultures and at times the media even covers events if they get too big (NYE in Cologne, mass rape networks in UK). It's connected to the issue in this thread.

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Billionaire-investor-George-Soros-tells-the-EU-to-accept-millions-of-refugees-every-year-381016

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Billionaire-investor-George-Soros-tells-the-EU-to-accept-millions-of-refugees-every-year-381016

by **xsanguine** Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:16 pm

Half of new homes built in Britain the next five years will go to migrants

Daily Mail wrote:Almost half of new homes built in the next five years will go to migrants, government figures have revealed.

Soaring immigration means that Britain will need to accommodate as many as 243,000 new households each year for the next 22 years, the Department for Communities and Local Government has said.

It is been estimated that an extra 5.3 million new properties could be needed to meet the growth in population, and an extra 2.4 million of the new homes will be needed for migrants alone.

This means that one new home needs to be built every five minutes to house Britain's burgeoning migrant population.

Refugees must have great credit and a decent savings. Affording a house in the UK is something a lot of British can only dream of.

by **Blanch32** Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:19 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Trump bid to restore travel ban rejected - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38872680

The judicial system working as intended.

I agree. It'll take time before it's upheld. I have no problem with it getting a full hearing.

warning serious question:

does the constitution seriously grant the executive branch sole authority on all matters immigration? if so, wtf is the check and balance?

by **xsanguine** Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:20 pm

Never knew Japan was so racist (actually, I did).

Japan not taking in refugees; says it must look after its citizens first

by **xsanguine** Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:23 pm

This is the type of attitude that gave birth to the "cuckold" culture as it relates to politics.

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Noname

by **xsanguine** Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:31 pm

This is who we have to join in order to get on board. This is the future...

I love the look on the faces of some of the refugees. Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge 502811600

#whitepeople
Why do they have to embarrass us as a race? This is why white people get made fun of by every other race.

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Sizzle-album-white-people-645349370875899904-Twitter

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge White-people

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge White-people_o_1845205

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Things-white-people-do-wear-socks-with-sandals-face-time-1028724

Trump's travel ban lifted by Washington judge Enhanced-buzz-31565-1381118416-35

by Herbie Green Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:07 pm

You aren't doing so well here Goose.

by Guest Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:31 pm

Herbie Green wrote:You aren't doing so well here Goose.

Am I more accurate than your judge?

Jessica Vaughan ‏@JessicaV_CIS 2h2 hours ago
Fed judge who blocked Trump Vetting EO says thereve been no arrests of aliens from the 7 countries-wrong: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born …

Jessica Vaughan ‏@JessicaV_CIS 2h2 hours ago
Since 9/11 60+ people from the 7 nations covered by Vetting EO have been convicted of terror offenses: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born …

by **Robert J Sakimano** Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:35 pm

poor Goose.. caught between a Trump and a hard place.

by Herbie Green Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:26 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:You aren't doing so well here Goose.

Am I more accurate than your judge?

Jessica Vaughan ‏@JessicaV_CIS 2h2 hours ago
Fed judge who blocked Trump Vetting EO says thereve been no arrests of aliens from the 7 countries-wrong: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born …

Jessica Vaughan ‏@JessicaV_CIS 2h2 hours ago
Since 9/11 60+ people from the 7 nations covered by Vetting EO have been convicted of terror offenses: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born …

Not only are you more accurate than the Washington judge you are more accurate than the appeals court that upheld the rulining.
Have you forwarded your links to the Supreme Court?

by **Robert J Sakimano** Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:27 pm

Herbie Green wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Am I more accurate than your judge?

Jessica Vaughan ‏@JessicaV_CIS 2h2 hours ago
Fed judge who blocked Trump Vetting EO says thereve been no arrests of aliens from the 7 countries-wrong: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born …

Jessica Vaughan ‏@JessicaV_CIS 2h2 hours ago
Since 9/11 60+ people from the 7 nations covered by Vetting EO have been convicted of terror offenses: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born …

Not only are you more accurate than the Washington judge you are more accurate than the appeals court that upheld the rulining.
Have you forwarded your links to the Supreme Court?

by Guest Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:33 pm

Even the AP is Fact Checking Herbie's judge.

AP FACT CHECK: No arrests from 7 nations in travel ban? Nope

by Sponsored content