Federal Judge Issues Restraining Order on Immigration EO

[RI]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

[Ronnie]

HOORAY!

I just wonder if the ignoramus-in-chief will insult him via tweet.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

IMPEACH!

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Thank God.

[Santander]

Lock him up!

[Xing]

Finally, some good news.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Makes sense on the merits. This is no different than the injunction pending trial on the Clean Power Plan.

[Meclazine for Israel]

 
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump  3h3 hours ago
More
 We must keep "evil" out of our country!

[KingSweden]

I think Congress would have to pass some type of comprehensive law at this point, for this type of ban to go through.

Indeed, Congress should have the stones and just pass a law if they want something like this, rather than hide behind EOs.

[ApatheticAustrian]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

how could he....it IS NOT A MUSLIM BAN!!!!

[heatcharger]

And it was a Dubya-appointed judge... also, if this case gets to the Supreme Court and deadlocks, the 9th circuit's ruling would the the law of the land.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump  3h3 hours ago
More
 We must keep "evil" out of our country!

Too late. Trump's already here.

[The_Doctor]

SCOTUS will evaluate the intensity of the protests and the polling to decode whether to uphold or toss the ban. I would bet, as of right now, that Kennedy joins the 4 liberals to strike it down, with Roberts possibly joining Kennedy.

Trump really needs to back down or change the order. He's hitting record disapproval indicating that this is bleeding support and political capital for him.

[heatcharger]

A CNN reporter just said that Customs and Border Protection held a conference call with the major U.S. airlines and told them that things were going "back to business as usual" before the EO, and so they will begin reinstating their visas. That's a pretty huge development.

[Rjjr77]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

[Dr. Arch]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

It has nothing to do with the non-citizens' rights so much as the EO directly violating the constitution in nature by targeting a group of non-citizens based on their religion.

[Rjjr77]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

It has nothing to do with the non-citizens' rights so much as the EO directly violating the constitution in nature by targeting a group of non-citizens based on their religion.

Well actually it does. What standing does the plaintiff have in this case? How can you infringe on freedom of religion for someone who is not a citizen and not on us soil? How can you extend equal protection to visa cancellations?


There's a million reasons you may not like the EO, but if it is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination it opens up a can of worms like we've never seen before in our legal system.

[Dr. Arch]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

It has nothing to do with the non-citizens' rights so much as the EO directly violating the constitution in nature by targeting a group of non-citizens based on their religion.

Well actually it does. What standing does the plaintiff have in this case? How can you infringe on freedom of religion for someone who is not a citizen and not on us soil? How can you extend equal protection to visa cancellations?


There's a million reasons you may not like the EO, but if it is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination it opens up a can of worms like we've never seen before in our legal system.

In that sense, you have a point, but note that the EO also targeted permanent residents with Green Cards, who are protected and afforded those rights.

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

It has nothing to do with the non-citizens' rights so much as the EO directly violating the constitution in nature by targeting a group of non-citizens based on their religion.

Well actually it does. What standing does the plaintiff have in this case? How can you infringe on freedom of religion for someone who is not a citizen and not on us soil? How can you extend equal protection to visa cancellations?


There's a million reasons you may not like the EO, but if it is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination it opens up a can of worms like we've never seen before in our legal system.

In that sense, you have a point, but note that the EO also targeted permanent residents with Green Cards, who are protected and afforded those rights.

It's not just permanent residents, but *any* person within the jurisdiction of the US has constitutional rights by virtue of the 14th amendment, no?  But yeah, what about people who are not *yet* in US jurisdiction, but applying to get in?  Doesn't seem so obvious that the constitution would apply to them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Good.

[Mr. Morden]

Trump really needs to back down or change the order. He's hitting record disapproval indicating that this is bleeding support and political capital for him.

It's not obvious to me that he is bleeding support in any meaningful way.  He was simply unpopular to begin with, and he's still unpopular.  His favorability was way underwater on election day, yet he still managed to win, because Clinton was also unpopular.

[Sbane]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

It has nothing to do with the non-citizens' rights so much as the EO directly violating the constitution in nature by targeting a group of non-citizens based on their religion.

Well actually it does. What standing does the plaintiff have in this case? How can you infringe on freedom of religion for someone who is not a citizen and not on us soil? How can you extend equal protection to visa cancellations?


There's a million reasons you may not like the EO, but if it is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination it opens up a can of worms like we've never seen before in our legal system.

In that sense, you have a point, but note that the EO also targeted permanent residents with Green Cards, who are protected and afforded those rights.

It's not just permanent residents, but *any* person within the jurisdiction of the US has constitutional rights by virtue of the 14th amendment, no?  But yeah, what about people who are not *yet* in US jurisdiction, but applying to get in?  Doesn't seem so obvious that the constitution would apply to them.

If they had simply applied this to any new applicants for a visa/green card, they would have saved themselves a lot of grief. No drama at airports, no stories about grandmas being stuck and students not able to continue their education. They would have still scored their political points, and there wouldn't be that same degree of backlash to it. Polling shows that a ban like this is actually mildly popular. It's only when people established in the US in one way or another get impacted that it runs into any problems.

[SteveRogers]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

It has nothing to do with the non-citizens' rights so much as the EO directly violating the constitution in nature by targeting a group of non-citizens based on their religion.

Well actually it does. What standing does the plaintiff have in this case? How can you infringe on freedom of religion for someone who is not a citizen and not on us soil? How can you extend equal protection to visa cancellations?


There's a million reasons you may not like the EO, but if it is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination it opens up a can of worms like we've never seen before in our legal system.

If you read the article you would see that the plaintiff in this particular suit is actually the state of Washington.

[Ban my account ffs!]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

Basically, the judge ruled it as anti-Muslim.

This could open up a world of insanity if turned into precedent. Granting constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil?

It has nothing to do with the non-citizens' rights so much as the EO directly violating the constitution in nature by targeting a group of non-citizens based on their religion.

Well actually it does. What standing does the plaintiff have in this case? How can you infringe on freedom of religion for someone who is not a citizen and not on us soil? How can you extend equal protection to visa cancellations?


There's a million reasons you may not like the EO, but if it is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination it opens up a can of worms like we've never seen before in our legal system.

If you read the article you would see that the plaintiff in this particular suit is actually the state of Washington.

And the state of Minnesota as well.  I believe NY and MA are also involved now.

[Middle-aged Europe]

James Robart should be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal.