Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban

[Reuben_J]

I do not want to make more of this than it deserves. I’m willing to just move on here.

However, I’ll just make this one comment.

Your statement implied that because I am a priest, that necessarily means that I am ignorant of any other subject matter. That’s not only insulting to me personally, but to every other priest who worked long and hard at his own education. Just because we do know theology, doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything else.

You made that very clear when you wrote “and makes clear his own lack of knowledge in the secular legal realm.”

You can disagree all you like, but don’t accuse me of ignorance just because we disagree.

That’s all I have to say.

I would never consider a priest to be ignorant of any subject matter beside theology, and many of them probably would be more knowledgable on a given subject that they are interested in.

We had a rector of the cathedral sometimes back, a monsignor, who became a priest at the age of forty two. Before that he was a very senior administrative officer in a government agency, having a master in business administration, but decided to go into the seminary after being certain of his vocation.

There are priests who were ex-lawyer, engineer and architect. We certainly can’t say they wouldn’t be able to talk about subject outside the ‘ecclesiastical’ realm.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I would never consider a priest to be ignorant of any subject matter beside theology, and many of them probably would be more knowledgable on a given subject that they are interested in.

We had a rector of the cathedral sometimes back, a monsignor, who became a priest at the age of forty two. Before that he was a very senior administrative officer in a government agency, having a master in business administration, but decided to go into the seminary after being certain of his vocation.

There are priests who were ex-lawyer, engineer and architect. We certainly can’t say they wouldn’t be able to talk about subject outside the ‘ecclesiastical’ realm.

I am reminded of the business executive who constantly complimented. His subordinates laugh at his bad jokes. He can yell at them and they don’t yell back. He can insult and they don’t insult back. He can make factually incorrect statements and demean those debating him, but no one will tell him he is wrong because he is the boss.

Power corrupts. Even with priests.

 

[steve_b]

You know that 300 are lefthanded? I hardly think though when Ecclesiastes was written that the United States political references of left and right were what was meant.

Obama voted twice against the born alive infant protection act as a senator. I could go on and on. What kind of judges do you think he appointed?

 

[steve_b]

You know that 300 are lefthanded? I hardly think though when Ecclesiastes was written that the United States political references of left and right were what was meant.

Obama voted twice against the born alive infant protection act as a senator. I could go on and on. What kind of judges do you think he appointed?

Ecclesiastes works just fine today in that situation

 

[steve_b]

Drawing a ridiculous conclusion from a verse that cannot possibly be linked to American politics.

It’s interesting, The right have no objection to that verse.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am reminded of the business executive who constantly complimented. His subordinates laugh at his bad jokes. He can yell at them and they don’t yell back. He can insult and they don’t insult back. He can make factually incorrect statements and demean those debating him, but no one will tell him he is wrong because he is the boss.

Power corrupts. Even with priests.

Addressing a priest in this manner is very disrespectful. Where is the mercy?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Obama voted twice against the born alive infant protection act as a senator. I could go on and on. What kind of judges do you think he appointed?

Whichever judges would support his agenda from abortion to climate change to
immigration to sexuality.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Addressing a priest in this manner is very disrespectful. Where is the mercy?

I am not addressing this to a priest in any way. I said that Reuben J’s comments remind me that people that are often treated with too much reverence based on their position often have inflated self perceptions and think they know things that they don’t or treat people poorly because they can get away with it. I’ve seen this with people in power: teachers, executives, priests, preachers, etc. It’s worth remembering when people immerse themselves in a forum that they are often treated differently than they are used to in real life. Heck, they are even treated differently inside a forum. I am confidently sure that no one would give a darn on this forum if johnnykins said what he said to Ridgerunner or you. After all, I don’t remember anyone coming to my defense when you told me to go get a job at Burger King.

And that is all I am saying.

 

[steve_b]

Whichever judges would support his agenda from abortion to climate change to
immigration to sexuality.

Exactly

 

[dvdjs]

I would never consider a priest to be ignorant of any subject matter …

I would never consider anyone to lacking in knowledge on any subject matter until they supply the evidence that supports the conclusion.

 

[lmachine]

Grandmas, grandpas from travel ban states now welcome -U.S. cable

Grandparents of U.S. citizens from six Muslim-majority countries are now eligible to receive U.S. visas, according to a State Department memo seen by Reuters that reflects the latest court ruling on U.S. President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The memo, or cable, from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was sent to all U.S. diplomatic posts overseas on Friday after a U.S. district judge in Hawaii issued a ruling late on Thursday limiting the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from the six countries.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu found the government cannot bar grandparents and other relatives of United States citizens from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from getting visas under the ban.

Watson declined to put his ruling on hold pending appeal, meaning it went into effect immediately. The administration has asked the Supreme Court and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block the decision.

The July 14 cable updated the definition of “close family” that are exempt from the temporary travel ban laid down in Trump’s March 6 executive order.

 

[AnnArbor]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has now clarified.

 

[johnnykins]

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.

cnn.com/2017/07/19/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban-grandparents/index.html

It appears the Supreme Court disagrees with you…

 

[johnnykins]

I do not want to make more of this than it deserves. I’m willing to just move on here.

However, I’ll just make this one comment.

Your statement implied that because I am a priest, that necessarily means that I am ignorant of any other subject matter. That’s not only insulting to me personally, but to every other priest who worked long and hard at his own education. Just because we do know theology, doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything else.

You made that very clear when you wrote “and makes clear his own lack of knowledge in the secular legal realm.”

You can disagree all you like, but don’t accuse me of ignorance just because we disagree.

That’s all I have to say.

Not wanting to make more of this than it deserves, but one reply. On a Catholic Forum someone who identifies himself as a priest is often given far more leeway and credence on all matters - whether within his area of competence or not. Several posts here prove that. The post simply makes clear that despite your vocation, you know not of what you speak. Certainly you have the right to your opinion, however ignorant on the subject. My comment was simply to caution those who would ascribe some expertise to you in the law simply because of your collar. Certainly on matters ecclesiastical…but on the civil law…not so much.

BTW I ascribe ignorance when I see ignorant statements. Rather like the folks here who clearly slept though high school geometry where QED is regularly used.

 

[josie_L]

cnn.com/2017/07/19/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban-grandparents/index.html

It appears the Supreme Court disagrees with you…

Wasn’t Judge Watson the same judge who initially put a ban on the ban citing it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It seems then that the Supreme Court disagreed with said judge. Furthermore, the SCOTUS did not necessarily uphold said judge’s rulings (not in its entirety):

The Supreme Court dealt President Trump a partial victory Wednesday in the legal battle over his travel ban, allowing the administration to restore strict limits on refugees that were blocked last week by a federal judge in Hawaii.

The win for Mr. Trump, however, was tempered by the high court’s decision to uphold the same judges’ ruling that exempted grandparents and other relatives of U.S. citizens from the administration’s travel ban on six Muslim-majority countries.

Both decisions are temporary, and the case is headed to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a full review.

The administration appealed to the Supreme Court after Judge Derrick Watson ruled last week that refugees on file with U.S. resettlement agencies and grandparents qualify for exemptions from the travel ban for people with “close” relationships to U.S. citizens.

Three of the nine justices on the high court — conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they wanted to grant Mr. Trump’s request in full.

The State Department recently changed its policies and began admitting grandparents as “close” relatives, so the decision’s only effect was to allow the administration to implement its refugee program over the Hawaii judge’s ruling, he said.

“It’s at minimum a partial victory and, at maximum, a big victory because they were already complying with the grandparent policy,” said Mr. Blackman. “This doesn’t mean the policy gets upheld, but it has more merit than the lower courts are giving to it.”

Joseph K. Young, a professor of justice, law and criminology at American University who opposes the travel ban, agreed.

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/19/scotus-allows-strict-enforcement-trump-refugee-ban/

 

[josie_L]

Not wanting to make more of this than it deserves, but one reply. On a Catholic Forum someone who identifies himself as a priest is often given far more leeway and credence on all matters - whether within his area of competence or not. Several posts here prove that. The post simply makes clear that despite your vocation, you know not of what you speak. Certainly you have the right to your opinion, however ignorant on the subject. My comment was simply to caution those who would ascribe some expertise to you in the law simply because of your collar. Certainly on matters ecclesiastical…but on the civil law…not so much.

BTW I ascribe ignorance when I see ignorant statements. Rather like the folks here who clearly slept though high school geometry where QED is regularly used.

And I ascribe rudeness when I see rude statements.

 

[josie_L]

I found something rather interesting about Hawaii, and that it has, to date, not accepted any refugees:

**5California, Texas and New York resettled nearly a quarter of all refugees in fiscal 2016, together taking 20,738 refugees. Other states that received at least 3,000 refugees included Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, Washington, Pennsylvania and Illinois. By contrast, Arkansas, the District of Columbia and Wyoming each resettled fewer than 10 refugees. Delaware and Hawaii took in no refugees.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/**

Ironic, isn’t it that the federal judge who put a ban on the ban, comes from a state that hasn’t taken in any refugees. And from the petition I saw on the Hawaiian Free Press, neither do many Hawaiians:

hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16348/Thousands-Sign-Petition-No-Syrian-Muslim-lsquoRefugeesrsquo-in-Hawaii.aspx

 

[dvdjs]

Wasn’t Judge Watson the same judge who initially put a ban on the ban citing it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It seems then that the Supreme Court disagreed with said judge. Furthermore, the SCOTUS did not necessarily uphold said judge’s rulings (not in its entirety):

Can you link to his rulings, please?

 

[josie_L]

Can you link to his rulings, please?

Why is this information incorrect? If it is, will you tell me why and provide a source? I’d be more than glad for the correction.

 

[dvdjs]

Why is this information incorrect? If it is, will you tell me why and provide a source? I’d be more than glad for the correction.

I want to known the grounds for his ruling, and the extent of it. I am not sure that you communicated them correctly and would like to check.