Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We'll have to await the conclusion of the review process before we can celebrate anything, but things are certainly looking good. Whether or not this truly amounts to a "Muslim ban" is debatable, but Trump didn't help his case by campaigning on the promise of a Muslim ban. Now any proposal to limit travel or migration from a Muslim majority nation will be immediately viewed as a ban on persons of the Islamic faith, which is exactly the perception the courts and American public should maintain.

Absolutely not , unless it has religious exemptions the order is not a religious ban and it should not be overturned.

So, by that thinking, we should never have struck down literacy tests for voting?  After all, they weren't explicitly racially discriminatory.  Just look at the written words and never mind the effect, right?

That said, this is weak sauce. I expect that by the time it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll be back to a full court and the EO will mostly be allowed to go forward.  The temporary 90-day ban will be moot as by then the review in policy that it's supposed to give time for should have been long done by the time this get to SCOTUS.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Its so obviously not a Muslim ban it's painful to watch hacks try and tell me that it is.  It might be stupid, but it aint a Muslim ban!

Except when Trump said he wants to allow Christians and other minorities to be able to come in from said countries easier but not the other guys, what are they called? Oh yeah, Muslims!

I just don't understand the logic of the left.

A muslim terrorist kills innocent people at a nightclub in Orlando and they are all "Let's be nice to muslims".

A married Christian couple decides to not bake a wedding cake and Christians are "terrible people".

I don't understand their logic.

Since you pride yourself on your Christian heritage, among other things, I invite you to reread the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, especially Matthew 5:38-42 and Luke 6:27-31.  You might want to also reread the Parable of the Sheep and Goats. (Matthew 25:31-46) And when it comes to saying "Christians" are terrible people, I invite you to reread Matthew 7:21-23.  If you do all that, I hope you might understand the logic of the left, even if you continue to ignore it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We'll have to await the conclusion of the review process before we can celebrate anything, but things are certainly looking good. Whether or not this truly amounts to a "Muslim ban" is debatable, but Trump didn't help his case by campaigning on the promise of a Muslim ban. Now any proposal to limit travel or migration from a Muslim majority nation will be immediately viewed as a ban on persons of the Islamic faith, which is exactly the perception the courts and American public should maintain.

Absolutely not , unless it has religious exemptions the order is not a religious ban and it should not be overturned.

So, by that thinking, we should never have struck down literacy tests for voting?  After all, they weren't explicitly racially discriminatory.  Just look at the written words and never mind the effect, right?

That said, this is weak sauce. I expect that by the time it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll be back to a full court and the EO will mostly be allowed to go forward.  The temporary 90-day ban will be moot as by then the review in policy that it's supposed to give time for should have been long done by the time this get to SCOTUS.

except the 14th 15th and 19th amendments clearly said you coudnt ban citizens from voting for those reasons.

Where in those amendments does it bar literacy tests? You can't logically argue in favor of considering the discriminatory effect of laws and regulations despite them not being in their literal text in some situations while simultaneously holding it doesn't matter in others. The whole history of this EO shows a discriminatory intent that makes it more difficult to be sustained. Granted, this EO would have an easier time in the courts were it not for the explicitly discriminatory language in the first EO. However, you can't unbite an apple.