Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban

[FrDavid96]

He hasn’t overturned the order. He has interpreted some vague language in the Supreme Court’s order temporarily blocking a small part of the executive order until it can be determined if it’s constitutional or not. No ruling on the constitutionality of the order has been made. The government has appealed this judge’s decision to the Supreme Court who will clarify whether or not grandparents qualify as “close and familial”.

I understand legal proceedings can be complicated, but you seem to be making pronouncements that are in no way based on the facts of the case.

In the first injunction, he did effectively overturn the order. He did that by prohibiting enforcement, which amounts to the same thing.

In the more recent injunction (the one he issued after SCOTUS overruled him) he’s still expanding “close family relationship” in a way that could apply to almost anyone.

And again I’ll ask: where does the US Constitution define a right of foreign nationals living in foreign countries to enter the U.S. without a reliable background check???

Unless such a Constitutional right exists, then the judge (indeed the judicial branch) is overstepping constitutional authority by creating one.

 

[mary_bobo]

Yikes! You speak to a priest in that tone? It’s OK to disagree with him (so do I) but in a civil manner, especially to a priest.

I think Jig_Saw is a youngster with a lot of growing up to do, including some manners and some lessons on how to express disagreement without being disagreeable.

 

[exnihilo]

And again I’ll ask: where does the US Constitution define a right of foreign nationals living in foreign countries to enter the U.S. without a reliable background check???

Unless such a Constitutional right exists, then the judge (indeed the judicial branch) is overstepping constitutional authority by creating one.

The judge is a usurper. It is obvious to even the simplest mind that people of other countries don’t have ‘constitutional rights’. They are outside the jurisdiction of the US. Were it otherwise the same president, by which I mean the office, couldn’t order the killing of foreigners. According to this judge the president can launch a drone strike against a foreigner but can’t order them to be vetted for purposes of immigration. It is madness.

 

[Jig_Saw]

He has the authority to review the matter (judicial review), assuming all the other points of law such as jurisdiction and standing (those points aren’t relevant here).

He does not have the authority to overturn the exec. order unless that order violates the Constitution.

That’s a distinction you aren’t making.

A federal judge cannot just start handing foreign nationals living in their own countries Constitutional rights that the Constitution itself does not articulate.

First and foremost, his role is to interpret the law to apply what Congress intended when it passed the law. That law is very clear that the President has the authority to do what Pres. Trump did in his order.

I am making the distinction. The judge is exercising judicial review and feels the order is unconstitutional. I will note that the Supreme Court did not throw it out because of lack of standing so that tells me that the Supreme Court believes the highest court believes it has jurisdiction over this matter. Based on the evidence, I believe that the court system would believe that you are wrong in this matter.

 

[mary_bobo]

You do realize that the Republicans hold Congress, so they can do whatever they want and the Democrats can’t block any of their nominations, so any failure to have nominees in place lies on Republicans, not Democrats.

And you do realize that the highest level of the Trump campaign was trying to collude with the Russian government to obtain dirt on their political opponent, which is against US law.

So the comments that you just gave a ‘thumbs up’ are completely wrong.

I’d appreciate a response that does not include an insult, if you please.

Does that mean you will stop insulting as well. Most of your posts could be construed as insults, either that or those of a smart-Alec.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Yikes! You speak to a priest in that tone? It’s OK to disagree with him (so do I) but in a civil manner, especially to a priest.

I don’t see anything wrong with what I said. The poster was factually incorrect and I pointed out the mistakes. Based on the mistakes, it suggests that the poster is not keeping up with the news and should catch up by reading the latest news.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I think Jig_Saw is a youngster with a lot of growing up to do, including some manners and some lessons on how to express disagreement without being disagreeable.

Again, I pointed out the error in the post and suggested that the poster catch up on the news.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Does that mean you will stop insulting as well. Most of your posts could be construed as insults, either that or those of a smart-Alec.

Really? I tell someone to catch up on the news because he has clearly fallen behind and that’s an insult.

Golly, I thought an insult would be telling someone to get a job at Burger King or calling someone a 4 year old. I guess you don’t consider those insults because I didn’t notice you saying anything then.

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t see anything wrong with what I said. The poster was factually incorrect and I pointed out the mistakes. Based on the mistakes, it suggests that the poster is not keeping up with the news and should catch up by reading the latest news.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

You did also say “any 4-year old knows,” which, to me, sounds rude. Maybe I have a lower threshold since I am from an older generation. Further, the tone of the comment sounded condescending. But, of course, tone in writing can be deceptive.

I always appreciate a Shakespeare verse, however.

Carry on…

 

[Jig_Saw]

You did also say “any 4-year old knows,” which, to me, sounds rude. Maybe I have a lower threshold since I am from an older generation. Further, the tone of the comment sounded condescending. But, of course, tone in writing can be deceptive.

I always appreciate a Shakespeare verse, however.

Carry on…

Ah, that was an inside joke because the poster called me a 4 year old in the other thread. I suppose you’ll go over there now and chastise that poster for not being charitable.

 

[meltzerboy]

Ah, that was an inside joke because the poster called me a 4 year old in the other thread. I suppose you’ll go over there now and chastise that poster for not being charitable.

Of course. I think I’ve derailed this thread enough but your comment just caught my eye.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am making the distinction. The judge is exercising judicial review and feels the order is unconstitutional. …

What you don’t seem to understand, in fact you’ve gone so far as to call it a red herring, is that if someone claims that something is unconstitutional, then such a person must show where that law or act actually violates the Constitution.

There’s no such thing as “unconstitutional” without showing the words of the Constitution which would prove that.

What you’re expressing really is a problem we have today that people use words without regard for the definition of those words. “Unconstitutional” has come to mean “I don’t like it” in modern vocabulary.

If someone says that it is “unconstitutional” to delay entry of foreign nationals until they can be properly vetted, then it is the responsibility of that person to show where the Constitution defines any right of foreign nationals to enter the US without a check.

 

[dvdjs]

What you don’t seem to understand, in fact you’ve gone so far as to call it a red herring, is that if someone claims that something is unconstitutional, then such a person must show where that law or act actually violates the Constitution.

To vacate an EO, a court might hold that it violates constitutional law, statuary law, case law, or just that it is arbitrary and capricious while causing injury.

In the situation under discussion, the judge holds that the narrow sense of close family relationship is incompatible with the SCOTUS ruling.

The other kinds of violations have been discussed in the earlier litigation with earlier forms of the the travel ban.

theconversation.com/the-best-legal-arguments-against-trumps-immigration-ban-72196
origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/322515-the-3-strongest-arguments-against-trumps-revised-travel-ban

 

[Jig_Saw]

What you don’t seem to understand, in fact you’ve gone so far as to call it a red herring, is that if someone claims that something is unconstitutional, then such a person must show where that law or act actually violates the Constitution.

There’s no such thing as “unconstitutional” without showing the words of the Constitution which would prove that.

What you’re expressing really is a problem we have today that people use words without regard for the definition of those words. “Unconstitutional” has come to mean “I don’t like it” in modern vocabulary.

If someone says that it is “unconstitutional” to delay entry of foreign nationals until they can be properly vetted, then it is the responsibility of that person to show where the Constitution defines any right of foreign nationals to enter the US without a check.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I didn’t call anything a red herring. Again, I ask that you actually attribute to me what I actually said instead of creating new items.

I get where you are coming from - I am just pointing out that the courts disagree with you and that seems to come from both sides of the bench. Both the liberal and conservative sides of the judiciary seem to think they have jurisdiction over this matter or the Supreme Court ruling would have been much different.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I didn’t call anything a red herring. Again, I ask that you actually attribute to me what I actually said instead of creating new items.
.

And I fully admit that I made a mistake there. You did not say that; someone else said it, but not you.

 

[steve_b]

WASHINGTON—A Hawaii judge late Thursday ordered a nationwide loosening of President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on U.S. entry for some travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, ruling the administration’s strict approach contradicted a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The decision is a fresh legal blow for the president just two weeks after a Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to implement its travel ban against refugees and foreign nationals from six countries who have no connection to the U.S.

The justices said Mr. Trump’s administration couldn’t enforce the ban against people with bona fide relationships to people or organizations in the U.S. Days after, the Trump administration adopted a narrow view of what relationships counted for an exemption from the ban.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which is defending the ban, had no immediate comment on the court order.

Administration officials said visa applicants and refugees with U.S.-based spouses, children, parents and siblings would be allowed in. But those with only lesser ties—such as grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and cousins—would be subject to the ban.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii took issue with that interpretation. He issued an order late Thursday, which applies nationwide, that says people with broader family ties are also exempt from the ban.

“The Government’s definition of close familial relationship is not only not compelled by the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision, but contradicts it,” the judge wrote.

More:
wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-orders-loosening-of-trump-travel-ban-1500004506

Obama in 8 yrs appointed to the bench, over 300 lefty judges.

Ecc 10:2
A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right,
but a fool’s heart toward the left.

That goes for voters as well.

Actions have consequences… for a long time.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You do realize that the Republicans hold Congress, so they can do whatever they want and the Democrats can’t block any of their nominations, so any failure to have nominees in place lies on Republicans, not Democrats.

And you do realize that the highest level of the Trump campaign was trying to collude with the Russian government to obtain dirt on their political opponent, which is against US law.

So the comments that you just gave a ‘thumbs up’ are completely wrong.

I’d appreciate a response that does not include an insult, if you please.

You wouldn’t like or agree with any of my comments anyway so why bother?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Does that mean you will stop insulting as well. Most of your posts could be construed as insults, either that or those of a smart-Alec.

+1

 

[Sy_Noe]

I always considered my relationship with my grandparents close and familial. I guess I was wrong.

And now I must wonder if Jesus felt the same about St Anne.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

And now I must wonder if Jesus felt the same about St Anne.

Wouldn’t John the Baptist be a better example? I mean it appears they were close…and they were related. Not sure cousins count in the ban or if it was even addressed in the judge’s rebuke.