Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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

Would you approve of a Christian ban?

Considering I am a Christian... no.

[Ronnie]

I don't think we are going to win this battle in the end, but I am happy that the orange-faced idiot and his cult have another thing to juggle in the meantime.

[Green Line]

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?

So if the ban also targetted Saudi Arabia, one of the most Muslim countries in the world, it would no longer be a "Muslim Ban" to you?  LOL!

[Middle-aged Europe]

Sigh, here we go again.

At least Donald Trump has the small consolation that this time it was indeed an Obama-appointed judge for a change.

[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?

So if the ban also targetted Saudi Arabia, one of the most Muslim countries in the world, it would no longer be a "Muslim Ban" to you?  LOL!

No, it would remain a Muslim ban. I was specifically pointing out the failure of this law to pursue its stated objectives of reducing the threat of alleged terrorists entering the United States. If that was truly its purpose, then why would it exclude the country most responsible for terrorist attacks on American soil?

[Devout Centrist]

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 .

And it's quite clear this violates the 1965 law.

The President has large majorities, if he wants a travel ban, he can make a law. This didn't work with Obama and it won't work now.

[Green Line]

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?

So if the ban also targetted Saudi Arabia, one of the most Muslim countries in the world, it would no longer be a "Muslim Ban" to you?  LOL!

No, it would remain a Muslim ban. I was specifically pointing out the failure of this law to pursue its stated objectives of reducing the threat of alleged terrorists entering the United States. If that was truly its purpose, then why would it exclude the country most responsible for terrorist attacks on American soil?

Because Saudi Arabia is an "ally" obviously.  The others are not.

[Beezer]

Can anybody explain to a layman like me why American law (equal protection clause) would apply to foreigners?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Can anybody explain to a layman like me why American law (equal protection clause) would apply to foreigners?

-Google "Zeroth Amendment". Very commonly believed to be part of the Constitution by NYT's core audience.

[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?

So if the ban also targetted Saudi Arabia, one of the most Muslim countries in the world, it would no longer be a "Muslim Ban" to you?  LOL!

No, it would remain a Muslim ban. I was specifically pointing out the failure of this law to pursue its stated objectives of reducing the threat of alleged terrorists entering the United States. If that was truly its purpose, then why would it exclude the country most responsible for terrorist attacks on American soil?

Because Saudi Arabia is an "ally" obviously.  The others are not.

Does that somehow change the supposed threat? If an "ally" has a recorded history of producing a disproportionate number of terrorists, including those responsible for the deaths on 9/11, and the stated intention of this controversial law is to limit our risk of future domestic terrorist attacks, then they should be included as well. Being an ally shouldn't mean you're able to send terrorists here, does it?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Wow, I didn't think the revised order could be successfully challenged. Praise the Lord!

[RI]

That it hurts tourism is an extremely flimsy pretext for this decision.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Can anybody explain to a layman like me why American law (equal protection clause) would apply to foreigners?

In the legal sense there was a court case Yick Wonvs Hopkins that said once an immigrant comes here he is protected under the equal protection laws due to the inhuman way immigrants (Chinese in particular) were treated. In a greater sense many feel (including me) our founders rebel and later founded this country on enlightenment ideals with "the universal rights of man" at the center

[Beezer]

Can anybody explain to a layman like me why American law (equal protection clause) would apply to foreigners?

In the legal sense there was a court case Yick Wonvs Hopkins that said once an immigrant comes here he is protected under the equal protection laws due to the inhuman way immigrants (Chinese in particular) were treated. In a greater sense many feel (including me) our founders rebel and later founded this country on enlightenment ideals with "the universal rights of man" at the center

Yeah, but those immigrants aren't here yet. I thought that was the problem with the first executive order because it included those already legally in the country. The argument now put forth sounds like anyone essentially has the right to enter the US. If that entry is denied, they can sue on the basis of the 14th amendment, which for some odd reason applies to the entire world now.

[The Other Castro]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

[Tartarus Sauce]

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 .

And it's quite clear this violates the 1965 law.

The President has large majorities, if he wants a travel ban, he can make a law. This didn't work with Obama and it won't work now.

That's what I was thinking as well, which also makes me wonder why the 1965 statute wasn't used as the meat of the case against it as opposed to the "Muslim ban" angle.

[Reaganfan]

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.

1965 is irrelevant. The laws signed in 1965 did more damage to our country than we can imagine. Slowly but surely, we will start to unwind them but it takes time.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Trump's support is fading little by little, they expected more winning.

[Reaganfan]

It's almost like liberals would risk being killed, as long as you die compassionate rather than live while being more cold-hearted.

I can't figure it out.



The question is when they begin to become a risk to the National Security of the United States.

[The Dowager Mod]

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.

1965 is irrelevant. The laws signed in 1965 did more damage to our country than we can imagine. Slowly but surely, we will start to unwind them but it takes time.

All of the untold damage done to this country because minorities were allowed to vote is a scandal!
Careful your latent racism is showing.

[Reaganfan]

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.

1965 is irrelevant. The laws signed in 1965 did more damage to our country than we can imagine. Slowly but surely, we will start to unwind them but it takes time.

All of the untold damage done to this country because minorities were allowed to vote is a scandal!
Careful your latent racism is showing.

The amount of suffering black communities have had all dates back to those bills in 1965.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Oh if right-wingers only looked at data showing that they are more dangerous and violent statistically in America then these " dangerous" Muslims... I'm not holding my breath on that.

[MasterJedi]

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!

[Reaganfan]

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.

[JA]

It's almost like liberals would risk being killed, as long as you die compassionate rather than live while being more cold-hearted.

I can't figure it out.



The question is when they begin to become a risk to the National Security of the United States.

I'm really conflicted here whether I should burst out laughing at your post or simply feel bad for you for actually believing something so ridiculous.