Summary:

The federal judge in Hawaii who imposed the temporary restraining order against the new travel ban invoked many of Trump's own statements made during the presidential campaign showing a "discriminatory intent" on Trump's part when he repeatedly called for an unconstitutional anti-Muslim travel ban.

The judge also took note of the public statements made by Trump's White House political advisor, Stephen Miller, who declared that the second version of the travel ban was essentially the same as the first travel ban that had been struck down earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Also noted by the judge was Trump friend and political confidant Rudy Giuliani's open claim that Trump had personally asked him to devise a "legal anti-Muslim ban."

The federal judge in Hawaii declared that the court's freeze was necessary because the second White House attempt at a travel ban was a First Amendment issue involving violation of constitutional protections against anti-religious discrimination.
_____


The Mormon connection to this story has previously been highlighted by the LDS Church-owned "Deseret News":

"CNN Article Compares, Contrasts 1879 Mormon Travel Ban with Trump's 2017 Executive Order"

compiled by Morgan Jones
"Deseret News," at "Mormon Newsroom"
2 February 2017

"Last week, University of Utah professor W. Paul Reeve wrote an op-ed for the Deseret News showing similarities between President Trump’s executive order on immigration last week with U.S. Secretary of State William Evarts’ effort in 1879 to keep Mormons from immigrating to the United States.

"Reeve said “the rhetoric aimed at Mormons in the 19th century is eerily similar to that aimed at Muslims and other immigrants today,” and he proceeded to cite examples of justification of the Mormon ban interspersed with reasoning for the recent actions made by President Trump.

“'They are bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists'--a quote used by Reeve in reference to Muslims in the 21st century.

“'I found them a community of traitors, murderers, fanatics, and whores,'--a quote cited by Reeve referring to Mormons in the 19th century.

"Joining Reeve in drawing a parallel between Mormons in 1879 and Muslims today. Monday, CNN’s Hunter Schwarz wrote his own piece comparing the immigration and travel concerns with the two religions throughout history.

"Schwarz cites a quote from 'Harper’s Magazine' in 1881 that read: 'It is clear that the Mormon Kingdom in Utah is composed of foreigners and the children of foreigners. It is an institution so absolutely un-American in all its requirements that it would die of its own infamies within twenty years, except for the yearly infusion of fresh serf blood from abroad.'

"The CNN reporter points out that even Gov. Gary Herbert pointed out the resemblance between the two situations in a 2015 Facebook post: 'Utah exists today because foreign countries refused to grant the wishes of a misguided president and his secretary of state. I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state’s governor.'

"Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have encouraged its members to care for refugees, acknowledging that the church’s early members were refugees themselves.

“'As members of the Church, as a people, we don’t have to look back far in our history to reflect on times when we were refugees, violently driven from homes and farms over and over again,' Elder Patrick Kearon of the Seventy said in the church’s April 2016 General Conference.

"One month later, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the First Presidency spoke to Latter-day Saints in the Czech Republic and expressed appreciation for the people of Quincy, Illinois, who welcomed the early members of the LDS Church when they sought refuge.

“'They arrived at the river in the dead of winter with nothing, and there on the other side of the river was Quincy,' President Uchtdorf said. 'The city of Quincy had a population of 1,500. The Saints were on the other side of the river with 10,000. What an overwhelming amount of refugees for a community to take care of, and Quincy did it. They helped us. It was wonderful. It was perhaps not always easy, it wasn’t always happy, but they helped us. . . . Sometimes as Church members we have to see where we are coming from before we say, ‘We cannot help everyone. There are too many. That is too much. You cannot ask for so much.’ Fortunately, Quincy did not say that. They accepted us.'

"CNN does, however, point out the contrast between the two situations.

“'Despite Trump’s earlier call to specifically ban Muslims from entering the US, he said in a statement Sunday his executive order was 'not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion--this is about terror and keeping our country safe.' But the Mormon Church still seems aware of any perceived similarities, releasing a vaguely worded statement Saturday 'in response to recent media inquiries,” the CNN article concluded.'"

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865672436/CNN-article-compares-contrasts-1879-Mormon-travel-ban-with-Trumps-2017-executive-order.html
_____


Related breaking news story:

"Hawaii Judge Blocks New Travel Ban & It's A Major Development For Those Affected"

by Casey Sugliaan
FOX Business News
15 March 2017

"Last week, President Donald Trump introduced a revised version of the previous travel ban he signed into order back in January. The new federal travel ban was meant to appease those concerned over the original's constitutionality, yet still work to prohibit people from certain countries from entering the United States. But on Wednesday, a Hawaii judge blocked the new travel ban — and it's a major development for the immigrant and refugee families affected by the order.

"Just hours before the ban was supposed to go into effect at midnight on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson temporarily blocked the ban nationwide before it could see the light of day. According to CNN, this means that citizens in the countries affected by the ban will still be able to travel freely to the United States. The revised travel ban, which took the Trump administration took weeks to rewrite, according to CNN, was blocked due to the judge concluding that the new order "still failed to pass legal muster." The state of Hawaii argued that this new ban "discriminates based on nationality" and would prevent state residents from seeing family members in countries affected by the ban, according to ABC News. Those plaintiffs won when Watson ordered for a temporary block of the new ban less than 24 hours before it was supposed to be enacted."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/03/15/federal-judge-in-hawaii-puts-trump-travel-ban-on-hold.html



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 09:10AM by steve benson.

I've been following this whole ban thing. Trump is sure keeping the courts busy! There was a note in one article indicating that it was against international travel treaties also.
For some odd reason, Trump doesn't seem to think he needs to have his orders reviewed for legalities that he seems to be unaware of.

I honestly am a bit annoyed by this, mainly because this judge doesn't seem to have a legal framework to argue from. He just seems to be against the travel ban because it may or may not be targeting Muslims.
Also, I honestly think people are putting way too much emphasis on what Giuliani said rather than the actual law.
Also, it's not a good argument to say that unless we let Muslims into our country, they will become terrorists. I am generally a squish on immigration, but come on.

He made his ruling based on the principle of "discriminatory intent"--meaning the statements of Trump, as well as of some of his closest political advisors and cohorts, indicated that they were expressly in favor of crafting and implementing a travel ban specifically targeted against Muslims--an action by government which expressly violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The summary at the top of the OP explains, in basic terms, the essential content of, and reasoning behind, the judge's ruling. I am reposting it again here:

The federal judge in Hawaii who imposed the temporary restraining order against the new travel ban invoked many of Trump's own statements made during the presidential campaign showing a "discriminatory intent" on Trump's part when he repeatedly called for an unconstitutional anti-Muslim travel ban.

The judge also took note of the public statements made by Trump's White House political advisor, Stephen Miller, who declared that the second version of the travel ban was essentially the same as the first travel ban that had been struck down earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Also noted by the judge was Trump friend and political confidant Rudy Giuliani's open claim that Trump had personally asked him to devise a "legal anti-Muslim ban."

The federal judge in Hawaii declared that the court's freeze was necessary because the second White House attempt at a travel ban was a First Amendment issue involving violation of constitutional protections against anti-religious discrimination.
-------


*****Below are key findings of the judge's ruling against the revised anti-Muslim travel ban, as reported by the "New York Times," 15 March 2017, headlined "Highlights from Court Ruling Halting Trump’s Revised Travel Ban":

"Here are some highlights from Wednesday’s ruling by Judge Derrick K. Watson of United States District Court in Honolulu, who issued a temporary restraining order [TRO] blocking the Trump administration’s revised travel ban from going into effect nationwide.

"The case was brought by the state of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, an American citizen of Egyptian descent who is an imam and a leader in Hawaii’s Islamic community. . . .

"Addressing the government’s contention that the only concrete injury Mr. Elshikh claims is that the order would prevent his mother-in-law, a Syrian national with no visa, from visiting him and his family in Hawaii:

"'The Government’s premise is not true. Dr. Elshikh alleges direct, concrete injuries to both himself and his immediate family that are independent of his mother-in-law’s visa status.'

_____


"Addressing the government’s contention that the text of the executive order was religiously neutral because it applied to people from six countries regardless of their religion:

"'The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. … It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.'

_____


"Addressing the government’s suggestion that the court should rely only on the text of the executive order to evaluate its purpose:

"'Only a few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit commanded otherwise. … The Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not “turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.”'

_____


"Suggesting why the government wanted the court to stay focused on the text of the executive order:

"'The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.'

_____


"After extensively quoting President Trump:

"'The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” … The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”'

_____


"Saying that Mr. Trump’s own words, and those of his aides and advisers, betrayed the true intent of the executive order:

'Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, “secondary to a religious objective” of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.'

_____


"Giving credence to plaintiffs’ contention that national security was merely a pretext for, not the true purpose of, the executive order:

'Other indicia of pretext asserted by Plaintiffs include the delayed timing of the Executive Order, which detracts from the national security urgency claimed by the Administration, and the Executive Order’s focus on nationality, which could have the paradoxical effect of “bar[ring] entry by a Syrian national who has lived in Switzerland for decades, but not a Swiss national who has immigrated to Syria during its civil war,” revealing a “gross mismatch between the [Executive] Order’s ostensible purpose and its implementation and effects.”'

_____


"Leaving open the possibility that the Trump administration could issue yet another revised executive order that finally passes constitutional muster:

"'Here, it is not the case that the Administration’s past conduct must forever taint any effort by it to address the security concerns of the nation. … context may change during the course of litigation, and the Court is prepared to respond accordingly.'

_____


"Finding that Mr. Elshikh had provided evidence that his First Amendment rights had been impinged:

"'Dr. Elshikh has made a preliminary showing of direct, concrete injuries to the exercise of his Establishment Clause rights. … These alleged injuries have already occurred and likely will continue to occur upon implementation of the Executive Order.'

_____


"Concluding:

"'As discussed above, Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Executive Order violates First Amendment rights under the Constitution. When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs. TRO"

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/highlights-immigration-ruling.html



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 03:04AM by steve benson.

1. Reposting the judge's argument does not change my mind.
2. It is dumb to strike down a law, not based on what the law actually says, but based on what people have said about it.
3. The constitutional protections only apply to citizens. Not foreigners.
4. Judging both by federal statutes and precedence, the president has every right to do this.

. . . to get the arguments right before you read them.

Don't know beforehand and don't know afterwards. Boy howdy, life is bliss when your guiding light is "hit-and-miss."
_____


Let's deal with a couple of your sillier assertions.

First, non-citizens have constitutional rights afforded to them by the U.S. Constitution. For example, the 14th Amendment's does not stipulate that for individuals to be covered by the constitutional protections of due process and equal protection they first must be "citizens." The 14th Amendment refers only to "persons."

Homework assignment #1--Read this:

"Yes, Illegal Aliens Have Constitutional Rights

by Raoul Lowery Contreras,
"The Hill" newspaper
Washington, D.C.
29 September 2015

"These words, from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution rank along with the Constitution's Bill of Rights as --in these precincts--the most important in world and American history:

"'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

"The following words do not rank well in American history, jurisprudence or in truth: '(Illegal aliens) do not have legal rights.' Glenn Beck declared this on CNN in February 2007.

"He is not alone; popular radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity agree with Beck to one degree or another. For example, Ingraham--a lawyer--says that Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in Plyler v. Doe (1982) offhandedly commented that illegals had rights because they were 'persons,' so no one should take Brennan seriously or his official declaration of legal rights of illegal aliens.

"The critics all claim that undocumented workers or immigrants or migrants--whichever label is the flavor of the day--have legal rights because they are lawbreakers by entering the country illegally and owe no loyalty to the United States. They claim that only U.S. citizens (natural born or naturalized) are protected by the Constitution. The critics are not only wrong--they are really, truly and sincerely wrong.

"The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: 'that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage.'

"More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that 'due process' of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is 'unlawful, involuntary or transitory.'

"20 years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.

"The Court ruled in Plyler that:

"'The illegal aliens who are . . . challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents.'

"A decade before Plyler, the Court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.

"Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.

"In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court ruled that:

"'Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].'

"In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the Court ruled that:

"It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

"In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: 'person.' It is the word 'person' that connects the dots of 'due process' and 'equal protection' in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.

"'Aliens,' legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership (and that is now in doubt)--Glenn Beck and others notwithstanding."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights
_____



Second, federal statutes do not supercede the U.S. Constitution. If that were so, there would be no need for the Constitution at all and, instead, the government would derive its authority solely on the basis of a burgeoning array of federal statutory rules and regs.

Homework Assignment #2--Read this:

"The Priority of the Constitution over Federal Statutes"

by Mike Rapport, Darling Foundation Professor of Law. University of San Diego and USD Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism.
"Library of Law and Liberty"
Indianapolis, Indiana
13 April 201|

"I. . . I [have previously] described Jonathan Mitchell’s analysis of precedent, which he attempts to derive from the text of the Supremacy Clause. Here, I want to draw out one implication of his analysis: one that concerns whether the Constitution takes priority over federal statutes.

"A key premise for Mitchell is that neither the Supremacy Clause nor the Constitution gives priority to any of the three sources of supreme law. The Supremacy Clause provides in part that 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.' He believes the Constitution is silent as to the hierarchy between the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties.

"Notice that, under his analysis, this means that the priority of the Constitution over federal statutes--and judicial review of federal statutes--is not required by the Constitution. Rather, he believes it is discretionary with the courts.

"In my view, however, Mitchell is clearly mistaken here for one reason and possibly mistaken for another.

"First, I strongly believe that the priority of the Constitution over federal statutes follows from the meaning of the term “Constitution” when the Constitution was enacted. Part of what a written constitution meant was a fundamental law that took priority over ordinary federal statutes. (It is worth noting that Chief Justice Marshall placed significant reliance on this argument in Marbury.) Thus, it is not optional for the courts to treat the Constitution as taking priority over federal statutes.

"Second, there is a reasonable argument (also mentioned by Marshall) that the Supremacy Clause’s language indicates the superiority of the Constitution in another way. The Clause says that 'the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance [of the Constitution]' are supreme. This might be thought to say that only constitutional federal statutes are supreme and therefore imply that unconstitutional federal statutes are not binding.

"This argument, however, involves significant complications.

"First, the language here is ambiguous. It might mean, as I have said, that only federal statutes that conform to the Constitution are binding. But it might also mean simply that laws passed under the United States Constitution ('made in pursuance of' the Constitution) are binding (as opposed to laws passed previously under the Articles of Confederation).

"Second, the interpretation that views the 'made in pursuance' language as requiring that the statute conform to the Constitution may create other problems. If the 'made in pursuance' language implies the supremacy of the Constitution, then what about treaties? The Supremacy Clause states that only treaties “which shall be made, under the authority of the United States” are supreme law. Since the Constitution does not say 'made in pursuance of the Constitution' for treaties, that might seem to mean that treaties need not conform to the Constitution.

"The response often given to this argument about treaties is that 'the made in pursuance' language was intended to refer to statutes passed under the Constitution (beginning in 1789). By contrast, the 'made under the authority of the United States' language was intended to refer to treaties made both under the prior regime (beginning in 1776) and under the Constitution. Thus, under this response, 'the made in pursuance' language has little to say about the priority of the Constitution. It was really just about identifying statutes passed under the Constitution.

"I think there is much to this last argument. And since I believe that the term 'Constitution' itself implies the priority of the Constitution, I don’t think the made in pursuance language is necessary for judicial review of federal statutes. But the fact that various people at the time of the Framing made the argument that 'the made in pursuance' language was intended to imply the priority of the Constitution gives me pause. Sai Prakash and John Yoo write in this article at footnote 76:

"'During the ratification, various Federalists urged that "in pursuance” of the Constitution meant not just conformity with bicameralism and presentment, but otherwise consistent with the entire Constitution. Only such latter statutes were entitled to be treated as supreme over contrary state law. See, for example, Jensen, ed, 2 "Documentary History of the Ratification" at 517 (cited in note 59) (James Wilson commenting that "in pursuance" meant that a law was otherwise constitutional). Earlier, Wilson had claimed that Congress could not pass any laws restricting the press because such laws would not be in “pursuance” of the Constitution. Id at 455. See also Jonathan Elliot, ed, 4 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution" 188 (2d ed 1836) (Governor Johnston of North Carolina commenting that every law consistent with the Constitution is “made in Pursuance” of it; those laws inconsistent are not made in Pursuance of it); id at 182 (William Davie commenting to the same effect); id at 28, 178–79 (James Iredell commenting to the same effect); "Federalist 33" (Hamilton), in "The Federalist 203, 207" (Wesleyan 1961) (Jacob E. Cooke, ed) (claiming that laws that are not pursuant to the Constitution, but instead invade state power, are acts of usurpation).

"If we give credence to the interpretation of these Founders, how do we address the unconstitutionality of treaties? One argument (which I believe Mike Ramsey makes) is that the 'under the authority of the United States' language, which refers to treaties, both refers to treaties made since 1776 and also references only treaties that are constitutional. If a treaty had an unconstitutional provision, that provision could not be 'under the authority of the United States' because unconstitutional provisions do not have authority and therefore are not 'under the authority of the United States.' If one accepts the interpretation of the 'made in pursuance' language offered by the founders above, then then this interpretation of 'under the authority of the United States' language may be the best one.

"However one resolves this last issue, I do believe that it is clear that the Constitution takes priority over federal statutes. Therefore, a key aspect of Mitchell’s argument (and of the argument of many progressives who doubted judicial review of federal statutes) is mistaken.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2012/04/13/the-priority-of-the-constitution-over-federal-statutes/#sthash.ABQas2RH.dpuf

**********


How well did you do in "Constitutional Law for Dummies"?



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 02:06AM by steve benson.

Are you an illegal alien if you haven't made your way to the United States?

From your original post:

"Last week, President Donald Trump introduced a revised version of the previous travel ban he signed into order back in January. The new federal travel ban was meant to appease those concerned over the original's constitutionality, yet still work to prohibit people from certain countries from entering the United States."

Its the part that says "yet still work to prohibit people from certain countries from entering the United States" that made me think your post related to the ban prohibiting people from certain countries from entering the United States.

So, since you're not talking about a ban prohibiting people from certain countries from entering the United States, my question makes no sense.

. . . for the reasons enunciated by the sitting judge in the case of the "revised" anti-Muslim travel ban, which the judge declared was still patently unconstitutional.

Once illegal aliens enter the United States, they are protected by certain basic provisions of the U.S. Constitution.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 02:01AM by steve benson.

As the "Huffington Post" reports:

"Thank Stephen Miller's Big Mouth For Trump Travel Ban's Latest Court Woes: There is nothing '"secret"about the executive’s motive,' a judge writes."

by Nick Visser
"Huffington Post"
15 March 2017

"Recent comments made by a top aide to the White House contributed, in part, to a federal judge’s Wednesday ruling to place a nationwide hold on parts of President Donald Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban against citizens of six Muslim-majority nations.

"Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser to the president, was one of Trump’s most vocal mouthpieces following the fraught rollout of the administration’s first travel ban that sparked massive protests at airports around the country. Shortly after federal judges struck down that order, Miller appeared on television to stump a watered-down version, assuring Fox News it would include only 'minor technical differences.'

"The ruling notes:

"'On February 21, Senior Advisor to the President, Stephen Miller, told Fox News that the new travel ban would have the same effect as the old one. He said: 'Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.'

"Those 'plainly worded statements,' it seems, helped lead U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to issue a temporary restraining order against the ban on Wednesday. There is nothing '"secret" about the executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the executive order,' Watson’s ruling reads. It continues to point out statements made by Rudy Giuliani in January about the first ban:

“'Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: ‘When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, "Muslim ban." He called me up. He said, "Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legal

“'Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude . . . that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, secondary to a religious objective of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims,' Watson wrote."

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58c9cf39e4b0ec9d29d89ae2/amp



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 12:57AM by steve benson.

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up.

~~~Logging on to Twitter- you KNOW what's coming!~~~

Trump has stated publicly the purpose of this rule is to ban Muslims from entering the US and Rudy Giuliani has also stated publicly that he was asked by Trump to craft a legal Muslim ban.

Steve King from Iowa, Trump adviser Steve Bannon, neo-Nazis Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and others regard the Islamic faith as the "enemy" of Western Civilisation and any and all Muslims must be expelled. Not individuals who have engaged in terrorist acts or belong to terrorist groups. Anyone who is a Muslim.

This is the same kind of thinking that the original German Nazis used to justify the extermination of European Jews.

Not only is this wrong and totally against the western values which Trump and his ilk profess to protect, it is also exactly what the extremists want. They want the majority of Muslims to join them in their holy crusade and these ill-conceived policies will only serve to put a sword in their hands.

Is it against our values to shape culture?

Let's start on the edge. Is it against our values to admit Klu Klux Klan members from foreign countries?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 12:17AM by thingsithink.

First, not all Muslims are foreigners. Many native born Americans are Muslims.

Second, you don't have to be born a Muslim to be radicalised. Remember "Jihad Jane?" She was not a Muslim and was radicalised over the Internet.

Third, you mentioned a specific group -- the KKK. Trump's ban was a legalistic way to ban Muslims in general and not people from a known terrorist organisation. Gerry Adams was denied entry into the US on several occasions.


Fourth, we have a pretty good idea where the major terror groups are based, who they are, and where they come from. There's been a lot of work done on this. First generation immigrants rarely become radicalised. Trumps ban is just xenophobic and does nothing to keep people safe.


I can only infer from your comment that you think that anyone who self-identifies as a Muslim is someone whose way of living is incompatible with the modern Western World. Not all Muslims are the same just as all Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists are not the same. There are people from European and Latin American countries that are hyper-religious, patriarchal, homophobic, domestic violence prone and violent too. Once you start thinking that "group x" is responsible for everything that is bad and simply getting rid of "group x" will solve all problems you are no better than the Nazis. The vast majority of the worlds Muslims don't support the radical groups and these groups actually want the West to start a global anti-Islamic "crusade" to get more people to join their cause.


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/inside-islam-what-billion-muslims-really-think/



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 09:08AM by anybody.

Forget terrorism.

I'm just wondering what the posts would be like . . . ladies, don't wear the fashionable headscarfs - wear the body sacks, give your husband your car keys, don't talk to men alone, try this for a few weekends . . .

Then come back and talk about the culture you'd like to live in.

Does that matter?

I knew a fellow female Muslim student at university from Indonesia as well as other Arab students from middle eastern countries. I asked her questions about living as a Muslim in America and if she had choices.

What she told me about hejab was this: it was part of her faith and identity, she didn't like how women were sexualised in the West, and she thought it liberated her. She also said that in America she could choose whatever colour she wanted to wear without her father insisting on just black all the time -- she had a lot of bright pastel floral headscarves, whimples (don't know the correct term), long sundresses over long-sleeve t-shirts, etc.

Islam has the same "modest" obsession that Mormonism does. But what does this mean? There are different cultural interpretations -- just a headscarf or ayaba or hejab or niqab? I saw a woman in an terminal once in full niqab with the hood and eye slits. Her husband had to lead her around as she couldn't see in the crowed terminal. I though that was not only taking things to extremes but also unsafe.

If someone wants to be a Muslim or anything that's their business. Some Muslim sects are more liberal, other more conservative. There are ultra-Orthodox Jews with very strict sex role rules and I wouldn't want that life either. Everyone should have the right to leave.

Freedom of religion means freedom of religion for all and not just some. There is good and bad. Mormonism and Scientology scam people and use them. Evangelical TV hucksters like Rev. Ike milk their "congregations" for all they can get.

But just because Muslims live in America doesn't mean their rules will apply to me or any other non-Muslim -- and the rules vary depending on who you talk to.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 01:01PM by anybody.

(to thingisthink)
Wow, you're really scared of "different," huh?
Shame.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 08:23PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Would you have wanted to live in the culture Joseph Smith created? Where he made the rules and dished out the punishment?

I am concerned with ideology. I do think ideas matter. I do think words matter. I do think beliefs matter, prophets matter, religion matters.

I do think I'm uninterested in living in a culture where women can't drive, where some women are forced to wear body bags, where girls are not encouraged to get an education, and so on. I would be afraid - afraid of the life I would be forced to live in Saudi Arabia, etc.

How many years would I be serving?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33039815

Now, it is true that it's not all muslims and not all muslim countries. You enjoy statistics. You can look at the polling data.

I don't find the culture appealing. It's just a personal preference.

I'm afraid to live in that culture too. I also want to live in a culture that values science and not myth, doesn't nearly leave women to die who need a D&C for political pro life purposes, doesn't provide health care but claims to be pro life, etc. That's why I hate conservative Christianity. But guess what, they're still here and the world isn't built on my cultural preferences.

So we share many of the same concerns.

While the world isn't built on my cultural preferences either, I make some effort to create a world that does reflect my cultural preferences of giving daughters the same opportunities as sons, having a world that allows homosexuals to participate freely in society, etc.

I have noticed that America excludes millions of poor people from around the world - they simply are not allowed into the United States and Ashton Kutcher and most Americans don't seem to care.

I'm wondering if instead of keeping out the poor people, we considered the possibility of screening out those who oppose equality, who would like to criminalize homosexuality --- would that be a better group to screen out?

I think about it.

The thing is, Trump himself supports groups that want to criminalize homosexuality. Those who do were his main supporters. He just doesn't support it if they're brown and Muslim. He will gladly let in people with the same politics if they're white and non Muslim...They already love him here.

So, somewhat ignoring the offensive and inaccurate assumption there that Muslims are akin to the KKK (um...what about all the Christian homeschoolers who wear those creepy long denim skirts and caps on their heads? Those are weirder than a freaking headscarf to me. I went to an Ivy undergrad with a lot of women in headscarves, and my master's program had tons of Muslim female professors and students. Many of them were immigrants. There weren't any evangelical Christians there. A lot of them aren't even allowed to go to college unless it's Bible school. Who's more oppressed? Oh right, we're just going by appearances, not reality.)

...actually: No. Recently, many white supremacist groups were taken off terrorist watch lists and gang lists in the U.S. FBI reports several years ago suggested strong ties between the NYPD and the KKK...nobody did anything. You might have a problem with the KKK. Trump really, really doesn't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 11:19PM by Loyalexmo.

anybody Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is the same kind of thinking that the
> original German Nazis used to justify the
> extermination of European Jews.
>
> Not only is this wrong and totally against the
> western values which Trump and his ilk profess to
> protect, it is also exactly what the extremists
> want. They want the majority of Muslims to join
> them in their holy crusade and these ill-conceived
> policies will only serve to put a sword in their
> hands.


Calling bs, but give it a chance.

You are stating that "peaceful" Muslims (potential immigrants) have the propensity to rise against Western values, should they become banned from entry to the US.

Isn't that a statement against interests? At least, it is a statement against the nature and character of the people you seek to defend.

The very premise to NOT deny religion-based entry, is that a peaceful people would take up arms only in self-defense, or the rightful defense of others, not turn into "sword"-bearing anti-crusaders, intent on world domination, given a choice. They have had very limited choices, great hardships and losses beyond our experience, but still have not "become terrorists."

Herein we find the beauty of the Constitution, and its glorious Bill of Rights.

I would expect that those peaceful Muslim refugees would take up the weapons of the West, including phones, cameras, the internet and even guns if needed, to help defend against any significant threat to the land of freedom to which they fled, and now call home.

I am sick.to.death. of those quoting a contrived "percentage of potential terrorists" among the "peaceful refugees," whom, I think it safe to assume, could and would defend their new homeland from becoming the hell they fled. Their "inside knowledge" is the best "weapon" we could have against terrorism.

In the lands they flee, they have no, or very limited, access to the weapons of freedom by which ignorance and terrorism are battled. I believe that like other immigrants have historically done, they would fully embrace their new-found freedoms. Properly armed, given a choice, they would stand to fight evil.

And yes, anybody, I am aware of on which "side" you stand. I just want to avoid buying into the "other" side's bs rhetoric that there can only be "peaceful refugees," or "peaceful refugees standing ready to turn into terrorists."

They are a people desperately yearning the freedom and security provided by only a secular Constitution. I can only imagine their wonder and awe that such a thing really exists. I think that they would come to understand its value to a much deeper comprehension than most "Americans" now seeking to undermine its potency.

Language matters, and I know that you know that. I refuse to use the language (and faulty premises) provided by extremists and those who refuse to defend our Constitution. Ironically, they are on the same "side," in spreading lies about the character of these people.

Around here, we call it gaslighting.

You might be confused about what I meant so here it is again in plain language:

I was talking about how the very small percentage of Muslims that are Islamic extremists want Western countries to REACT WITHOUT THINKING and attack the entire Islamic World because the terrorists themselves believe that such an epic "clash of civilisations" would force the vast majority of Muslims who do not agree with them to join their cause. It's no different than the "RAHOWA" / Ragnarok / "Helter Skelter" fantasy of white nationalists in America. Neither scenario is likely to actually happen.

If you want to talk about sides, I'm on the side of reality, common sense, and reason vs. fantasy, hate, and intolerance.

If the travel ban was based on membership in a specific terrorist group or organisation like Jemaah Islamiyah for example that would be entirely appropriate and not a just a religious matter.

But Trump's purpose isn't REAL security or REAL counter-terrorism based on ACTUAL facts and data.

Instead, Trump is supporting a FALSE ideology based on xenophobia, white nationalism, and Christofascism -- the idea that ISLAM THE RELIGION is the enemy of Western Civilisation and that ANY AND ALL MUSLIMS EVERYWHERE will commit terrorist acts because the goal of Islam is to force all non-Muslims to CONVERT OR BE KILLED.

This isn't reality. This type of thinking is just hate. Terrorists are the enemy. Not the Islamic faith itself.

People fleeing terror just want to be safe. I've known and worked with several refugees from conflict zones. They have to go through a screening process that takes two to three years. As I have already said, you don't have to be raised Muslim to commit terrorist acts. Just look up Samantha Lewthwaite and Jihad Jane.

So, I don't think refugees are terrorists. Real world data says exactly the opposite and there is already thorough screening in place.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 10:52AM by anybody.

Glad the court saw through the "minor tweaks" that were supposedly done from the first one.

Glad that our constitutional system of checks & balances is operating properly.

Just...glad. :)

... Then they came for the muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a muslim.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me ...

First they came for the Muslims and we said "not this time, motherfucker."

Amen. :)

Then the muslim patriarchs came for the muslim daughters, the muslim homosexuals, the muslim wives . . . . and the daughters, wives & homosexuals said "oh mother-fucker, not again."

I don't like Islam any more than the next progressive. But I've got to say...conservatives and Christians seem to care about women's and gay rights all of a sudden when it comes to Muslims. They don't seem to care about them otherwise. Women are dying right here in the U.S...we have the worst maternal and infant mortality rates in the developed world because of our bad health care and pro-life policies of many Catholic hospitals, which require women to become septic or otherwise near death if they're carrying a dead or dying baby before it will be removed. Yet many pro life religious folks seem to love women dying if it means a sick baby can suffer for 2.5 hours. A quarter to a third (depending on the statistic you use) of female murder victims are killed by their spouses or partners in the U.S., yet we are told to fear strangers--Muslims, trans people, random men on the street.

But if it was Muslims doing it, you can bet we'd hear all about it from the same people.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 01:24AM by Loyalexmo.

That is the sad part of it all to me.

Conservatives - and really conservative christians - are opposed to Islam.

Rational liberals seem to defend Islam (while, in some cases, attacking christianity).

I'm speculating that this is because the rational liberals are so dedicated to their opposition of conservatives that they support Islam in order to oppose conservatives. Far fetched, perhaps.

I'd like to see rational liberals (and I have a longer track record of liberalism than most posters here) oppose the treatment of muslim women around the world, the treatment of homosexual muslims, the treatment of filipino workers in muslim countries, etc.

I'm sorry to see that the ration liberals are more interested in showing their acceptance of Islam (being good opponents of conservative christians) than standing up and speaking out against the crimes and oppression of millions & millions of muslims around the world.

I don't​ see how that relates to or follows from what I said, or negates the hypocrisy I mentioned.

I will say that while I don't know any liberals who defend Islam, I personally focus more on Christianity because 1) it's whitewashed and not demonized as much as it deserves in this country even though it leads regularly to death, abuse and horrific atrocities right here and it's disgusting that we are ok with that and 2) it's simply more common. Christianity is much more common here than Islam, so I'm not going to be as worried about global concerns when my neighbors are being abused under the guise of Christianity. If I lived in a Muslim majority nation, I would feel the opposite.

I wonder how the rhetoric would change if one or more radicalized refugees flew a plane or dropped a dirty bomb into a crowded stadium, etc.

Are you aware of the number of gang rapes and burglaries happening in Sweden, Germany and Norway from Muslim immigrants?

Do think there might be some wisdom in implementing a temporary ban on certain refugees until a solid vetting process can be developed?

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/20/14669572/sweden-trump-immigrant-crime



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 08:13PM by anybody.

Soregard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do think there might be some wisdom in
> implementing a temporary ban on certain refugees
> until a solid vetting process can be developed?

Please, by all means, do expound on the shortcomings of the current "vetting" system. You know, the one that requires fingerprints & background checks, requires contacting relatives and business associates, and that takes anywhere from 1-9 months, and that only "lets through" about 48% of the people who apply for visas.

I'd certainly enjoy hearing what you think needs to be changed to make that a "solid" process.

If you actually believe that, you're already lost. Propaganda is not your friend, bro.

A rebuttal to your article above ....

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/20/voxs-reporting-on-swedens-migrant-crime-problem-was-so-bad-that-even-liberals-corrected-them/

But reality always wins in the end...



Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark -- "Gravity Never Failed"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Rmr5mwdok

"Was Sweden 'Rocked' by a 'Massive Terror Attack' in February 2017?"

"An unknown man possibly discharged pepper spray or tear gas into a train car in Stockholm, but the incident did not constitute a "massive terror attack," and no one was seriously hurt.

"CLAIM: Sweden was 'rocked' by a massive terrorist attack in February 2017.

"RATING: FALSE

"ORIGIN On 23 February 2017, a number of disreputable web sites, including PamelaGeller.com and TruthMonitor.com, posted stories reporting that Sweden had been “rocked” by a terrorist attack which involved a man throwing a fume-releasing canister into a train car. The stories were topped by headlines such as 'MASSIVE TERROR ATTACK ROCKS SWEDEN — Trump Was Right …':

"'Liberals have spent the last few days mocking Donald Trump for claims he made that Sweden was suffering violence at the hands of Muslim migrants. The mainstream media claimed that Trump made this up from nothing, but what just happened in Sweden proves the president was right about what he said …

"'The UK Express reported that the city of Stockholm, Sweden was rocked by a terrorist attack when a masked man boarded a subway train and doused liquid on the passengers as the carriage doors slammed shut, trapping everyone inside. The attack occurred at Sankt Eriksplan station in the Swedish capitol.

"'A spokesman for Swedish police confirmed an incident occurred on a train in Stockholm, but it was not related to terrorism and no one was hurt. Swedish newspapers including Aftonbladet published reports on the incident written by TT, a national wire service, stating the incident took place at about 9 p.m. at the Fridhemsplan subway station in central Stockholm, when a person dressed in dark colors sprayed a noxious substance into a train car.'

"Neither the local news report nor the one from Express UK declared that the incident was a “terrorist attack,” much less one of a “massive” scale. The reports noted that victims experienced short-term breathing troubles, and the incident caused a temporary panic on the train:

"One witness, Alexander, 22, was on his way home from work and sat far back in the subway car when he noticed that people started to scream.

"'They kept both their mouth and eyes closed and cried and coughed.

“'It seemed like pepper spray, or whatever it was that was thrown out, and we got huge respiratory problems.

“'Then when the train arrived at Fridhemsplan they evacuated it.'

"The detalis of the incident on Swedish train did not support claims the country had been “rocked” by a “massive terrorist attack.” The claim was reported in what appeared to be an effort by partisan and anti-Muslim publications to shore up statements made by President Donald Trump during a speech in Florida, in which he said:

"'We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.'

"Although the incident was not terror-related and no information has been released regarding the identity or nationality of the suspect, the episode has nevertheless resulted in increased scrutiny over crime and migration trends in Sweden."

(Source: "Was Sweden 'Rocked' by a 'Massive Terror Attack' in February 2017?," at "Snopes," 23 February 2017,)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 12:58AM by steve benson.

Source: "Donald Trump Appears To Make Up Sweden Terror Attack: It didn’t happen," by Daniel Marans, "Huffington Post," 18 February 2017, updated 20 February 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-sweden-terror-lie_us_58a8f397e4b045cd34c263d3



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 02:18AM by steve benson.

The DAILY CALLER??!?!?! lol.

I'm glad to see the judge makes his decision on what Trump has said in the campaign, not on the actual contents of the order.

I hope this is the start of holding politicians to a higher standard. It doesn't matter what is written in a law but on what the person has said on the campaign trail, in a news conference or in a tweet

If you like your doctor you can keep him, ACA will save every family $2500. Sudam has weapons of mass destruction. All bills will be open for review before I sign it.

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c

, , , provide ample evidence of the order's true intent.

That intent, hovering under the cover of supposed "legality," was to religiously discriminate against Muslims, in clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 01:56AM by steve benson.

Judging legislation based on their disparities in implementation rather than only their 'stated intent' has legal precedent, so....

"North Carolina Voter ID Law Struck Sown as 'Discriminatory' by Federal Court: Court says law targeted black voters ‘with almost surgical precision’ as Republicans question whether judges are helping Hillary Clinton ‘steal the election’"

by Amanda Holpuch
"The Guardian (UK)
29 July 2016

"A federal court on Friday struck down North Carolina voting laws it said were enacted with 'discriminatory intent.' targeting African Americans 'with almost surgical precision.'

"Plaintiffs in the suit welcomed what one called 'a stinging rebuke' to the Republican-controlled state government . . . .

"The ruling was a sweeping victory for voting rights activists and the US justice department, which argued that black voters were disenfranchised by laws that, among other things, required voters to show photo ID at polling stations and banned early voting.

"A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision, writing in a stinging opinion that the district court 'fundamentally erred' in its decision to uphold the state’s 2013 voter ID law.

“'We can only conclude that the North Carolina general assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,' wrote circuit judge Diana Gribbon Motz in the majority opinion.

" . . .14 other states enacted voter ID laws after the June 2013 supreme court decision in Shelby v Holder, which overturned parts of the Voting Rights Act. North Carolina introduced its voting restrictions immediately after Shelby v Holder, leading numerous organizations and individuals to file suit.
Advertisement

"Many such suits were consolidated in the case eventually brought before the 4th Circuit. Plaintiffs included the U.S. Justice Department, the North Carolina chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that the voting laws discriminated against black voters.

“'This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state’s attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade,' Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. 'It is a major victory for North Carolina voters and for voting rights.'

"When the 2013 restrictions were put in place, African-American registration and turnout in North Carolina had nearly reached parity with white voting rates.

"If the laws were to stand, citizens taking part in the 2016 elections would have to provide photo ID at polling stations, could not pre-register to vote, would not be able to participate in early voting and could not register to vote on the same day as an election. Lawmakers who supported the restrictions said they were meant to prevent voter fraud.

"The federal court opinion said the new laws introduced voting mechanisms that African-Americans disproportionately lacked, like photo IDs, and took away voting methods African Americans disproportionately used, like pre-registration. They also, the opinion said, provided remedies for problems that did not exist.

"According to the opinion, lower courts also failed to account for the country’s history of instituting discriminatory voting laws as an electoral strategy.

“'The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the state suggests and that the district court accepted,' Motz wrote.'Rather, the general assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting.'

"The U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, applauded the ruling. Such voting restrictions, she said in a statement, 'sent a message that contradicted some of the most basic principles of our democracy.' She added: 'The ability of Americans to have a voice in the direction of their country--to have was a fair and free opportunity to help write the story of this nation --is fundamental to who we are and who we aspire to be.'"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/29/north-carolina-voter-id-law-struck-down

*****


Below is an assessment, via an examination of case law, of the presence and impact of "discriminatory intent" on certain laws that are argued to be unconstitutional:

"Testing Facially Neutral Classifications Which Impact on Minorities"

"Justia": U.S. Law
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/70-facially-neutral-classifications.html

" . . . [W]hen it is contended that a law, which is in effect neutral, has a disproportionately adverse effect upon a racial minority or upon another group particularly entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause, a much more difficult case is presented.

"It is necessary that one claiming harm through the disparate or disproportionate impact of a facially neutral law prove intent or motive to discriminate. '[A] law, neutral on its face and serving ends otherwise within the power of government to pursue, is not invalid under the Equal Protection Clause simply because it may affect a greater proportion of one race than of another.'

"In reliance upon a prior Supreme Court decision that had seemed to eschew motive or intent and to pinpoint effect as the key to a constitutional violation and upon the Court's decisions reading congressional civil rights enactments as providing that when employment practices disqualifying disproportionate numbers of blacks are challenged, discriminatory purpose need not be proved, and that it is an insufficient response to demonstrate some rational basis for the challenged practices, a number of lower federal courts had developed in constitutional litigation a 'disproportionate impact' analysis under which a violation could be established upon a showing that a statute or practice adversely affected a class without regard to discriminatory purpose, absent some justification going substantially beyond what would be necessary to validate most other classifications.

"These cases were disapproved in Davis; but the Court did note that 'an invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if it be true, that the law bears more heavily on one race than another. It is also not infrequently true that the discriminatory impact . . . may for all practical purposes demonstrate unconstitutionality because in various circumstances the discrimination is very difficult to explain on nonracial grounds.'"



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 01:57AM by steve benson.

I - Will - Build - A - Great - Swamp


oh hang on, let me come back to you on that one


regards

Time (and appeals) will tell, but it's hard to miss the political nature of these rulings.

Perhaps the best course is for the current administration to just surrender and run things the way the previous one did: Ignore the court order completely, and just do what they want.

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/judge-holds-interior-in-contempt-048745

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/29/three-year-amnesties-not-fully-rescinded/

Neither of your Obama examples involved the deprivation of constitutional rights. That's the difference. Trump, according to the courts, violated the constitution.

As for your assertion that this is political, I'd point out two facts. First, the decisions did not line up strictly along party lines. Second, Trump's attorneys apparently thought that the Supreme Court would side with the 9th Circuit, which is why they opted for a new Executive Order.

That leaves two interpretations. Either you think that the entire judiciary is liberal (read: corrupt) or you believe that any decision that you disagree with is political in nature and hence illegitimate.

Lawyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither of your Obama examples involved the
> deprivation of constitutional rights. That's the
> difference. Trump, according to the courts,
> violated the constitution.



So, as an attorney, will you parse the details here for me? Presidents are not bound by just any court order, it has to be a specific kind of order? Exactly how does that work? Obama's defiance of court orders was good, but Trump's would not be. Maybe explain this so we can all understand, and cite the constitutional support for your position?

Also, can you take a moment and explain to us the constitutional rights that foreigners in foreign lands who have never been to our country or had contact with our government are entitled to? Are Venezuelans owed the right to a free press promised by our Constitution? Do the Chinese have the right to bear arms, as our Constitution guarantees? And can a Cuban demand the right to peaceful assembly in Havana by citing our Constitution? And more to the point, can you show me the place where our Constitution guarantees foreigners be allowed entry to our country?



>
> As for your assertion that this is political, I'd
> point out two facts. First, the decisions did not
> line up strictly along party lines. Second,
> Trump's attorneys apparently thought that the
> Supreme Court would side with the 9th Circuit,
> which is why they opted for a new Executive Order.
>
>
> That leaves two interpretations.


Your universe is entirely too small. Your premises are not necessarily true, and there are myriad interpretations.


> Either you think
> that the entire judiciary is liberal (read:
> corrupt) or you believe that any decision that you
> disagree with is political in nature and hence
> illegitimate.

Or maybe none of the above.

Here's an in-depth examination of the law. Trump did create this problem with his campaign rhetoric, but the courts will need to let him govern despite this. We need to move beyond his campaign and weigh the actual substance of the order. Under the current rulings, this exact order would be acceptable if issued under Obama because there would be no suspicion of animus from him. That's the weakness of basing these rulings on statements that are not a part of the actual order.

The EO in its original form followed closely elements of the Lautenberg Amendment which has been part of law giving priority to persecuted minorities since the old Soviet days: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268350/more-lautenberg-amendment-tina-ramirez The new order preserves some of this wording which has been law for decades.

Going forward, activist judges could attempt to interrupt any Islamic state interaction citing Trump's campaign bias. That just won't work for very long.

It's a lengthy analysis, but if you've got a few minutes ...

https://lawfareblog.com/legality-3617-executive-order-part-iii-establishment-clause

"Ignore the court order completely and just do what they want."

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Who can square that with what Trump said on Wednesday, 25 January 2017. at the Department of Homeland Security?:

"Speaking . . . at the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C., Trump ordered federal employees to enforce the laws as they are currently written.

“'This is a law enforcement agency. But for too long your officers and agents haven’t been allowed to properly do their jobs. But that’s all about to change,' Trump told DHS officials. 'From here on out, I’m asking all of you to enforce the laws of the United States of America.' . . .

"'We will work within the existing system and framework. We are going to restore the rule of law in the United States,' Trump said."

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/25/trump-we-are-going-to-restore-the-rule-of-law/
_____


Maybe we should follow the course that Trump apologists are championing: Don't take him literally.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 03:15AM by steve benson.

I'm worried that this new Executive Order may pass constitutional muster. I'm not an expert on this area of law, so take this with a grain of salt, but the logic is as follows. . .

The constitution and laws give the president great latitude in determining immigration policy. The White House has in many instances barred people from specific countries on a variety of grounds. An Executive Order discriminating against all people from several Moslem countries is therefore not necessarily unconstitutional.

The constitution does not apply equally across the US borders. The various rights in the Bill of Rights each have their own case law, so it is complex, but most are much more limited outside of the country than in. My concern is that the courts will be significantly less protective of religious equality in this instance than we might expect given our domestic experience.

In this sort of case the normal court rule is that the document is evaluated on its own merits without reference to out-of-court statements. To that extent the campaign speeches, comments by Trump and his allies, etc., may not be particularly relevant. What doomed the first Executive Order was really the preferences given to non-Moslems, which was perceived as a violation of the constitution as the courts applied them abroad. Without those unconstitutional elements, the speeches alone may never have garnered much attention.

Since Trump has eliminated the most conspicuous religion-based provisions from his new Executive Order, the courts may decide that it does not violate the constitution (as effectuated internationally) and hence falls within the president's authority. That may be why the Washington judge who invalidated the first Executive Order has decided not to issue a stay on this second initiative. The case will probably go to the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, and we will see what those judges--and perhaps subsequently the Supreme Court--say. But for my money this is a tougher call than the first Executive Order was.

I hope I am wrong. . .

. . . Trump's anti-Muslim travel ban to be unconstitutional.

That now makes two go-arounds, with more states waiting in the wings to similarly sue, arguing (among other things) that the Executive Order is a clear and unwarranted act of discrimination that violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 03:23AM by steve benson.

This is confused, Steve.

First, the judge in Hawaii is not on the 9th Circuit. He is a district court judge, like the judge in Maryland and the one from last time in Washington. Circuit Courts are appellate courts, midway between the districts and the Supremes. If the government appeals the Hawaiian decision, it will then go to the 9th Circuit. But that hasn't happened yet.

Second, no California court has yet found the second Executive Order unconstitutional. The first and second orders are different in important ways and the difference may be constitutionally decisive.

Third, the fact that one or two or seven district court judges find something unconstitutional does not make those judges right. The matter will be decided by the appellate courts and perhaps the Supreme Court based on legal reasoning. The Hawaii judge is in some ways making new law by asserting that out-of-court statements may be used to interpret this sort of Executive Order in the absence of overt religious discrimination within the document. He is of course right about Trump's reasoning and intent, but the Supreme Court may well decide not to contravene the precedents.

I hope the Supremes do follow the Hawaiian logic but that is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Actually, I'm not sure I want the Supremes to follow the Hawaiian logic. I hate the travel ban in all its manifestations. But I haven't studied the reasons for the existing judicial practices and procedures and I don't know what the implications of changing them would be.

I hate the travel ban and will leave it at that.

I believe I heard a reporter on one of the major cable news networks--in this case, I think it was either CNN or MSNBC; I take in a swath of news reports throughout my work day and sometimes they blend together--describe Hawaii federal district court judge Derrick Watson as a member of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That mistake may have occurred by taking Trump at his word on the matter, although Trump's claim later turned out to be a case of mistaken identity:

"Trump said in his Nashville speech that the judge who blocked his travel ban, Derrick Watson, is part of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That is actually not the case; although the 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over Hawaii, Derrick Watson is a part of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii."

http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/who-are-the-judges-judge-on-ninth-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-list-democrats-republicans-how-many-appointees-rulings-donald-trump/


The "New York Times" reported on Trump's Nashville speech (n which it mentioned his attack on the 9th Circuit) but did not note that Trump’s claim of Watson's membership on that court was erroneous (at least the NYT did not say so in this particular story):

“Mr. Trump lashed out at Judge Watson during a campaign-style rally in Nashville late on Wednesday. Raising his voice to a hoarse shout, Mr. Trump accused the judge of ruling 'for political reasons' and criticized the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the earlier decision against his administration and will hear any appeal to the Hawaii ruling.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0
_____


As they say, the press often writes the first draft of history--which means it doesn't always get it right.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2017 04:54AM by steve benson.

Yes.

And ironically, Trump's outbursts in Nashville will make it somewhat less likely that the Executive Order will be read on its own merits.

If he'd shut up, the entire judiciary would be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But if he effectively insists that the out-of-court statements are his motivation, the courts may feel that they have no choice but to interpret the Executive Order in light of those comments. In other words, Trump's own actions may force the judiciary to narrow the scope of executive autonomy and, on that new basis, reject his Executive Order.

Presidents always assert executive privilege as a reason that their actions may not be reviewed but then, when confronted with the probability of a court hearing, settle out of court in order to avoid testing the limits of that privilege. In short, ambiguity serves the president's interests and gives him room for maneuver. This logic, though, is too subtle for Trump.

When he opens his mouth, he is his own worst enemy.

Lawyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm worried that this new Executive Order may pass
> constitutional muster.

That's kind of funny.

Is there no end to the legal things this maniac may do?

I'm glad I bring you amusement.

A more subtle reading of my posts, however, might indicate that I distinguish between my personal political views and the dictates of the constitution and constitutional jurisprudence. You might also notice that I expressly said I don't know how the courts should rule on some of the issues Trump raises because I lack the education to understand the logic behind the precedents and the broader social costs that a change may entail. Put simply, it may be right for the courts to decide on an outcome that I personally dislike.

I'm not sure I've seen similar awareness of one's own limitations in your recent writings. In that sense I'd venture you are more like President Trump, who thinks that his own views must inevitably be constitutional because he wants them to be; than like Justice Kennedy, a conservative in political terms who violates his own personal beliefs if jurisprudence so requires.
Judicial conservatism is a harsh mistress: it demands the ability to superimpose logic on visceral impulse.

Haha Ooooh Jiminy, uh oh this is filler isn't it dont get mad uh I got nothing to debate on this topic plus there is only room for two more posts I'll have something next time.