Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

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

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.

Basically the idea is that we shouldn't decry any particular religion as a whole, but should not allow religion to be practiced in the context of a business that isn't a private club or place of worship.

[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.

Basically the idea is that we shouldn't decry any particular religion as a whole, but should not allow religion to be practiced in the context of a business that isn't a private club or place of worship.

Your logic would fit but you have a double standard when it comes to certain religions. Funny enough, Islam is alot less prevalent in America than Christianity which makes me wonder why, if you have to choose, you choose the minority over the majority.

[MasterJedi]

Would need to be checked but I'm pretty sure Christian terrorists have killed more than Muslim terrorists in the US since 9/11. But facts never stopped Naso.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Glorious news!

Hopefully this gets confirmed by the SCOTUS. It would be great to set a precedent.

[Illiniwek]

Yayyyy

[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.

[The Other Castro]

We're 54 days into Trump's presidency, over half of the first 100 days which are arguably the most consequential for a new administration, and what does Trump have to show for it? His credibility has eroded with the false wire-tapping claims, his big immigration moves have been halted twice, and Obamacare repeal is shaping up to be a bust. The Wall is likely going to fail as well, and infrastructure talks will probably get nowhere under a Republican Congress. The only lasting thing he might end up accomplishing is a Gorsuch confirmation.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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

Would you approve of a Christian ban?

Would Scott approve of having himself banned from the country? Probably not.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Trump now suggests that he now wants go go back to the first draft and Huckabee proposes, he should ignore the courts like Andrew Jackson did.

[Tintrlvr]

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.

This is not true at all. Discriminatory intent is a well-established aspect of 5th and 14th Amendment jurisprudence with decades of history behind it. No possible ban that applies only/primarily to predominantly Muslim countries can survive a court challenge at this point; Trump and his surrogates destroyed their chances of that by promising a "Muslim ban" incessantly on the campaign trail, which makes the discriminatory intent of any relevant EO clear.

The green card/visa stuff is a red herring that is totally irrelevant to the constitutionality.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Would need to be checked but I'm pretty sure Christian terrorists have killed more than Muslim terrorists in the US since 9/11. But facts never stopped Naso.

are you sure?

well....i mean, depends on the definition of the word "terrorist" and if the "terrorist" is also trying to somehow influence the world cause of his religious beliefs.

otherwise....even if that would be the case, i doubt it if a narrow definition is followed, that would be as meaningless as the opposite.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Would need to be checked but I'm pretty sure Christian terrorists have killed more than Muslim terrorists in the US since 9/11. But facts never stopped Naso.

are you sure?

well....i mean, depends on the definition of the word "terrorist" and if the "terrorist" is also trying to somehow influence the world cause of his religious beliefs.

otherwise....even if that would be the case, i doubt it if a narrow definition is followed, that would be as meaningless as the opposite.

The amount of people killed by Christian terrorists in the US since 9/11 is probably in the single digits. That guy who killed that doctor who ran an abortion clinic and the guy who shot the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs is all I can think of. The Tsarnaev brothers alone have them beat as would the shooters in San Bernardino. Obviously the Orlando shooter would too, but he wouldn't count as a terrorist by any definition.

[Dr. Arch]

If Trump were serious about this, Saudi Arabia would be at the top of the list. This is a joke.

Agreed

[ApatheticAustrian]

If Trump were serious about this, Saudi Arabia would be at the top of the list. This is a joke.

besides the fact that trump got business interests in SA and tries to improve their military relationship with the US, you know as well as i do, that the list is based on a paper the administration found in the "legacy" of Obama and tried to re-purpose.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

If Trump were serious about this, Saudi Arabia would be at the top of the list. This is a joke.

-No doubt. But the reasoning behind the blocking of the ban is jokier, still.

[Tintrlvr]

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

In this case, the court ruled that the State of Hawaii as a whole, on behalf of its residents, as well as an individual Muslim Hawaiian who is an American citizen, would be harmed by the discriminatory EO as a result of its interference with their relationships with family and friends who are non-citizens overseas. The courts are tying the cases to the harm caused to American citizens and states that are acting on behalf of their residents by discrimination against Muslim non-citizens rather than ruling that Muslim non-citizens themselves are protected by the Constitution.

While courts are not taking this route because they do not have to do so, it would be quite arguable that equal protection under the 5th Amendment due process clause applies to non-citizens in any case. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause says: "nor shall any state ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." No mention of citizens, just "persons." While equal protection is not explicitly included in the 5th Amendment, it has been read to be included in the 5th Amendment's guarantee of due process, which, once again, does not specify citizens: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Taken literally, that applies to non-citizens with just as much force as it applies to citizens.

[Xing]

If Trump were serious about this, Saudi Arabia would be at the top of the list. This is a joke.

I agree, but it's clear that this ban is more about making people "feel" safe than actually accomplishing anything.

[Hermit For Peace]

We're 54 days into Trump's presidency, over half of the first 100 days which are arguably the most consequential for a new administration, and what does Trump have to show for it? His credibility has eroded with the false wire-tapping claims, his big immigration moves have been halted twice, and Obamacare repeal is shaping up to be a bust. The Wall is likely going to fail as well, and infrastructure talks will probably get nowhere under a Republican Congress. The only lasting thing he might end up accomplishing is a Gorsuch confirmation.

What do you expect from somebody who has no political experience? He thought he could waltz into office and run it like a corporation, but is finding out things don't work that way in politics.

What do you expect from a guy who thought that when he told people to "jump" they would be asking "How high?" Instead he's finding out that things don't work that way in politics.

What do you expect from a guy who thought he could be King and dictator like he is in Trump world? And how's that working out Mr. President?

I think that Trump is becoming very disillusioned about the job because he's used to getting his way, and well....how's that working out Mr. President? Look at his face in the daily photos of him. He's VERY serious, and he's been gaining weight. It's by no means a fun job. The guy has taken about 8 golf vacations since he became President. He's a lightweight. He'll be gone soon.

[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.

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.

Rule of law doesn't matter to you people I guess.

Pass a law if you care that much. Then it's legal.

[Badger]

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.

ladies and gentlemen, as high a bar it may be, behold! NASO'S WORST POST EVER.

[Ebowed]

Has Donald Trump even read the U.S. constitution?  Khizr Khan would lend him a copy.

[Edu]

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.

ladies and gentlemen, as high a bar it may be, behold! NASO'S WORST POST EVER.

[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!

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!

That was not in ban 2

[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.

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.