PDA

View Full Version : Thi sjust in: Trump's Travel Ban Injunction Upheld



BrianY
05-25-2017, 02:10 PM
Another "win" for Donny Two Scoops

From the LA Times:



A federal appeals court has ruled against President Trump's travel ban, upholding a nationwide injunction barring the administration from enforcing the executive order.


The ruling is the latest legal setback for Trump on the travel issue and, like several previous court rulings, the outcome rested heavily on his own words.


Trump's order restricting travel from six majority-Muslim countries "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination," Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in his ruling (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3733125/5-25-17-4th-Circuit-IRAP.pdf).


Read the 4th Circuit’s decision to uphold the block on Trump’s travel ban

(http://documents.latimes.com/read-4th-circuits-decision-uphold-block-trumps-travel-ban/)

The 10-3 ruling included numerous citations to campaign statements in which Trump called for a ban on Muslims immigrating to the United States. The plaintiffs who have challenged the travel order have argued that it is a disguised version of the Muslim ban that he called for during the campaign.


Trump's statements "provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both EO-1 and EO-2," the court said, referring to ther first and second versions of the travel order: "President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States."


The 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., is one of two appeals courts that have recently heard arguments on the travel ban. A similar case is pending before the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco.

John of Phoenix
05-25-2017, 02:13 PM
"See you in court!"

:D LMAO :D

isla
05-25-2017, 02:16 PM
Now Donny will have to dismantle the 4th circuit as well as the 9th. :d

Gerarddm
05-25-2017, 02:21 PM
Thank your favorite deity for the deep state, which is the only bulwark we have against us morphing into something like the walking dead.

Keith Wilson
05-25-2017, 02:33 PM
A court deciding on the constitutionality of a government action is hardly anything so sinister-sounding as "The Deep State"; it's precisely how the Constitution is supposed to work. An order specifically designed to exclude members of a particular religion is a clear and blatant violation of the First Amendment. A no-brainer, really.

John of Phoenix
05-25-2017, 02:47 PM
Does this mean Sally Yates gets her job back?

(Rhetorical question)

Phillip Allen
05-25-2017, 02:52 PM
A court deciding on the constitutionality of a government action is hardly anything so sinister-sounding as "The Deep State"; it's precisely how the Constitution is supposed to work. An order specifically designed to exclude members of a particular religion is a clear and blatant violation of the First Amendment. A no-brainer, really.

I understand there was no reference to any religion in the ban... it seems to me that you're assigning motive based on personal prejudice

Canoez
05-25-2017, 02:56 PM
I understand there was no reference to any religion in the ban... it seems to me that you're assigning motive based on personal prejudice

Well, not personal - but institutional.


Both courts concluded that Trump’s own words, and those of his surrogates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/giuliani-muslim-ban_us_588e25fce4b0b065cbbca59f?ncid=edlinkushpmg0 0000313), tainted the executive order with unconstitutional animus against a religious group.

“The president has never repudiated the statements he made on a Muslim ban,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King earlier this month when the 4th Circuit heard the case. King and other judges specifically pointed to Trump’s own campaign website (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-muslim-ban-pledge-website_us_591204dfe4b050bdca5ff6c1?ncid=edlinkush pmg00000313), which once called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States, as relevant evidence for the purpose behind the executive order.

Keith Wilson
05-25-2017, 02:56 PM
I understand there was no reference to any religion in the ban... it seems to me that you're assigning motive based on personal prejudiceNo, sir. I, and the court that decided this case, assigned motive based on the public statements of Mr. Trump and members of his administration. They talked about it a lot, and were very clear about their motives. They wanted to ban the entry of Muslims; they said so themselves. This is a clear violation of the US Constitution.

John of Phoenix
05-25-2017, 03:07 PM
This is a clear violation of the US Constitution.

Not to SOME people.

:D LMAO :D

Keith Wilson
05-25-2017, 03:20 PM
If there could be a more blatant violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that a rule preventing members of one particular religion from entering the US, I'd like to know what it would be. A pogrom? The Jizya?

oznabrag
05-25-2017, 03:26 PM
Does this mean Sally Yates gets her job back?

(Rhetorical question)

No, Sally will be assisting Mueller.

:d

Osborne Russell
05-25-2017, 04:04 PM
I understand there was no reference to any religion in the ban... it seems to me that you're assigning motive based on personal prejudice

There was plenty reference to religion outside it. The court assigned motive based on taking Republicans at their word. See, just because you run your ignorant bigot mouth all day long, but drop it at governing time, doesn't mean you will never be accountable for it. That is not true. It's a cheap, dishonest, cowardly trick and it won't work. Understand? Told you so.


EO-2 cannot be read in isolation from the statements of planning and purpose that accompanied it, particularly in light of the sheer number of statements, their nearly singular source, and the close connection they draw between the proposed Muslim ban and EO-2 itself.

-- decision, p. 58-59

So by all means, keep talking, Republicans, that tough talk you love so well.

Phillip Allen
05-25-2017, 05:56 PM
sticks and stones... :)

Osborne Russell
05-26-2017, 08:52 AM
sticks and stones... :)

May break your bones,
But honesty will never reach you.

Trump says it was a Muslim ban.
The courts say it was a Muslim ban.
You say it wasn't. Why? Because you're a Republican,
And that name can never hurt you.

oznabrag
05-26-2017, 09:08 AM
I understand there was no reference to any religion in the ban... it seems to me that you're assigning motive based on personal prejudice

Correct.

The courts assigned motive on the basis of Trump's oft-stated personal prejudice against Muslims.

LeeG
05-26-2017, 09:18 AM
His first executive order to implement a policy based on deplorable beliefs and prejudice with no consultation with those tasked to implement it or the affects on the nation and its operations in the world. Checked.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/muslim-ban-drips-religious-intolerance-animus-and-discrimination-rules-federal

While the text of the Muslim ban “speaks with vague words of national security,” the court recognized that in context it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The ban’s message of religious condemnation is contrary to the bedrock constitutional requirement that the government remain neutral among religions: “When the government chooses sides on religious issues, the inevitable result is hatred, disrespect and even contempt towards those who fall on the wrong side of the line

George Jung
05-26-2017, 11:24 AM
I understand there was no reference to any religion in the ban... it seems to me that you're assigning motive based on personal prejudice


Well, not personal - but institutional.


Hehehe....

Rich Jones
05-26-2017, 12:06 PM
Will this end up in the Supreme Court as DT has stated? What happens if his new man on the court votes against him? Wouldn't that be sweet justice?

Osborne Russell
05-26-2017, 12:25 PM
His first executive order to implement a policy based on deplorable beliefs and prejudice with no consultation with those tasked to implement it or the affects on the nation and its operations in the world. Checked.

But absolutely within the authority of the President . . . doh !

LeeG
05-26-2017, 01:24 PM
But absolutely within the authority of the President . . . doh !

He has the best generals!

John Smith
05-26-2017, 03:05 PM
I understand there was no reference to any religion in the ban... it seems to me that you're assigning motive based on personal prejudice

The thing is, it doesn't have to use the words to have the meaning.

On the one hand, these six countries are predominantly Muslim. On the other hand we've had no attacks by terrorists who came here from any of these six countries in decades, while countries from which terrorists have come and attacked us are not on the list.

Either way, it doesn't seem to work.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 03:11 PM
Funny the tacks Phillip chooses, the positions he defends. It's a mystery!