Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wednesday-morning/2017/03/14/b2d24636-090c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html

[OSR stands with Israel]

This should ruling should be overturned , I disagree with the order but it is not even close to being unconstitutional and the fact that this happened proves that judges have become way too political .This ban does not apply to people who have green cards, or already have visas, it just applies to future visas. Secondly it doesnt have any religious exceptions which means it does not violate the establishment clause.

Judges are ONLY supposed to look at the written language of a law or executive order not intent or campaign speeches by person who signed it.

[The Dowager Mod]

MAGA!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What a glorious day for non-bigots today has been.

[Suburbia]

Move on. Just profile these people in the streets and subways. They know that they have bad apples in their religion, but they divert to whites and Christians, like if Christians hijack planes in towers. Who cares, all religions have terrorism. I'm glad I'm a Independent voter and I don't have to cater to warring sides.

[Hermit For Peace]

when does the winning start?

LOL!

[Suburbia]

What a glorious day for non-bigots today has been.

Would you approve of a Christian ban?

[JA]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

This should ruling should be overturned , I disagree with the order but it is not even close to being unconstitutional and the fact that this happened proves that judges have become way too political .This ban does not apply to people who have green cards, or already have visas, it just applies to future visas. Secondly it doesnt have any religious exceptions which means it does not violate the establishment clause.

Judges are ONLY supposed to look at the written language of a law or executive order not intent or campaign speeches by person who signed it.

That doesn't violate the Nat'l Origin part of the 1965 Immigration Act?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What was it struck down for? Violation of the Zeroth Amendment?

http://www.unz.com/isteve/its-right-there-in-the-zeroth-amendment/

[heatcharger]

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.

I'm wondering if the Justice Department has any room to make the argument in court that this ban is significantly different from the original order. I haven't looked too deep into it, so I'm not sure.

[Green Line]

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!

[Suburbia]

Time to move on, folks. Let's focus on jobs, economy and quality of life.

[Devout Centrist]

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!

It's a national origin ban. It still violates the 1965 law.

[Dr. Arch]

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!

NUH UH!

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

I'm wondering if the Justice Department has any room to make the argument in court that this ban is significantly different from the original order. I haven't looked too deep into it, so I'm not sure.

Its different in 2 major areas this one unlike the last one does not apply to permanent residents, and unlike the last one doesnt have religious exemptions  

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

This judge should be impeached for violation of the negative second amendment.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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!

It's a national origin ban. It still violates the 1965 law.

It's only temporarily which means its still valid 

[Hermit For Peace]

Time to move on, folks. Let's focus on jobs, economy and quality of life.

YES. The Republicans are wasting our time with their petty stupid chit.

[Devout Centrist]

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!

It's a national origin ban. It still violates the 1965 law.

It's only temporarily which means its still valid 

The law doesn't specifically allow for that. Besides, a temporary ban could be extended on multiple occasions if that were the case, meaning the distinction would render the law meaningless.

[DrScholl]

Time to move on, folks. Let's focus on jobs, economy and quality of life.

It's Trump who is focusing on all this, so you should be telling him and his party to move on.

[The_Doctor]

Once again the judiciary whacks at Trump secure in the knowledge his unpopularity will mean they can needle him at will. A Trump at 55% approval wouldn't be getting donged.

FF decision of course.

[JA]

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.

The intended target of the ban is implicit in the law by its application solely to Muslim-majority countries. If this ban was truly intended to target countries that are exporters of alleged terrorists, then why does it not even include Saudi Arabia - the home of numerically and proportionally more terrorists than any other? If we cannot trust the law to include the country most responsible for terrorism, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, then how can we trust that it's stated purpose is its actual objective?

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

The intended target of the ban is implicit in the law by its application solely to Muslim-majority countries. If this ban was truly intended to target countries that are exporters of alleged terrorists, then why does it not even include Saudi Arabia - the home of numerically and proportionally more terrorists than any other? If we cannot trust the law to include the country most responsible for terrorism, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, then how can we trust that it's stated purpose is its actual objective?

judges are only supposed to look at letter of the order not perceived intent .