Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban

[FrDavid96]

Arrant.

And federal judges routinely interpret the scope of SCOTUS decisions.

Interpret, yes.

It’s clear, however, that this particular judge is taking things too far by going beyond what SCOTUS allowed (a close familial relationship) and re-instating what SCOTUS had just overturned.

Given the rather unusual speed with which SCOTUS overturned the judge’s order (and bypassed the usual appeals process) it seems to me that the judge should have acted with an overabundance of caution before issuing another injunction. Instead, he has created the appearance that he’s thumbing his nose at SCOTUS. Real or not, the appearance is there.

It is quite clear that overall, the Executive Order can withstand Constitutional scrutiny. SCOTUS is rarely unanimous nowadays; but they were unanimous on this one.

 

[dvdjs]

Arrant.

Yes, thanks.
But Errant, too.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You. Were. Being. Rude.

I agree. Very rude.

 

[dvdjs]

The court ruled “For individuals, a close familial relationship is required”

The fed judge in Hawaii effectively over-ruled that by allowing other than close familial relationship.

Page 12 Nos. 16–1436 (16A1190) and 16–1540 (16A1191)

Just because two people’s great grandfathers might have drank from the same well doesn’t mean they have a “close familial relationship.” (sarcasm)

From the OP

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.

So we are not talking about two great grandfather’s are we?
No, do I think it anything other than a matter of interpretation to say that aunts, uncles, coursing, grandparent, and grandchildren are - or are not - in of a close family relationship.

 

[Jig_Saw]

It affects people from countries that do not have reliable information on their own citizens criminal pasts or lack thereof.

If their own governments are unable to verify their identities, then it’s perfectly reasonable for the U.S. to exercise some caution before admitting them into our borders.

And I thought it was supposed to be a temporary 90 or 120 day ban under the administration made the necessary changes. Wouldn’t that mean the administration made the changes and the ban is no longer needed?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

The court ruled “For individuals, a close familial relationship is required”

The fed judge in Hawaii effectively over-ruled that by allowing other than close familial relationship.

Page 12 Nos. 16–1436 (16A1190) and 16–1540 (16A1191)

Just because two people’s great grandfathers might have drank from the same well doesn’t mean they have a “close familial relationship.” (sarcasm)

In the Middle East, anyone can claim almost anyone else as a “cousin.”

Did the SC not define what close familial relationship" is? If not, shame on them as it then can be defined as literally anything.

 

[lmachine]

The court ruled “For individuals, a close familial relationship is required”

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

 

[FrDavid96]

And I thought it was supposed to be a temporary 90 or 120 day ban under the administration made the necessary changes. Wouldn’t that mean the administration made the changes and the ban is no longer needed?

In one sense, yes.

However, there’s still the larger issue at stake.

The Constitution requires a separation of powers. That’s fundamental, foundational, and absolutely essential to our form of government. The legislature legislates. The executive executes. The judicial adjudicates. Unfortunately, too many judges today are too casual in ignoring this basic principle. Case in point: the federal judge in Hawaii has no business making executive decisions. No one gave him that authority, certainly not the Constitution which clearly gives executive power to the Executive. Congress passed a law (legislated) decades ago giving the President precisely the authority that Pres. Trump is exercising----that’s how our government is supposed to work. This particular judge doesn’t like the outcome, so he took it upon himself to usurp executive power. And yes, I used the word “usurp” intentionally.

We cannot allow things like this to continue as they have been doing. There is a definite pattern of the judicial branch grabbing for itself more and more power to legislate and now to enforce the laws. To preserve our form of government, it’s necessary for this judge to be reminded (unfortunately ‘again’) that he is a judge, not an unelected dictator who can impose his will on the nation anytime it pleases him.

That’s a long way of saying that we need for SCOTUS to finally put an end to this; even if, in the end, it turns out to be just a matter of principle without any practical effect on the travel restrictions themselves. Otherwise, it sends a message to other federal judges who want to set aside the Constitution and set aside the law of the land in favor of their own personal agendas that they have the same license to do what this judge has done.

 

[Jig_Saw]

In one sense, yes.

However, there’s still the larger issue at stake.

The Constitution requires a separation of powers. That’s fundamental, foundational, and absolutely essential to our form of government. The legislature legislates. The executive executes. The judicial adjudicates. Unfortunately, too many judges today are too casual in ignoring this basic principle. Case in point: the federal judge in Hawaii has no business making executive decisions. No one gave him that authority, certainly not the Constitution which clearly gives executive power to the Executive. Congress passed a law (legislated) decades ago giving the President precisely the authority that Pres. Trump is exercising----that’s how our government is supposed to work. This particular judge doesn’t like the outcome, so he took it upon himself to usurp executive power. And yes, I used the word “usurp” intentionally.

We cannot allow things like this to continue as they have been doing. There is a definite pattern of the judicial branch grabbing for itself more and more power to legislate and now to enforce the laws. To preserve our form of government, it’s necessary for this judge to be reminded (unfortunately ‘again’) that he is a judge, not an unelected dictator who can impose his will on the nation anytime it pleases him.

That’s a long way of saying that we need for SCOTUS to finally put an end to this; even if, in the end, it turns out to be just a matter of principle without any practical effect on the travel restrictions themselves. Otherwise, it sends a message to other federal judges who want to set aside the Constitution and set aside the law of the land in favor of their own personal agendas that they have the same license to do what this judge has done.

Well, it isn’t clear to me at all that this judge acted inappropriately and I am not one to trust a poster’s judgement on that. Some here say he did, some say he didn’t and those follow exactly along the ideological lines of the posters.

The big question is why the Trump administration hasn’t gotten its act together because, at this point, this Muslim travel ban should not be necessary.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

The big question is why the Trump administration hasn’t gotten its act together because, at this point, this Muslim travel ban should not be necessary.

Thanks for the opening.

Now I’ll drive my truck through it.

A big part of the reason why his administration cannot get things done in a timely manner is because the Democrats are obstructing and delaying his appointments; and distracting his administration with fake narratives about “Russian collusion.”

I rather think that’s a line of conversation that you would prefer to avoid.

It’s also off-topic, so that’s the last you’ll hear from me about it. In fairness, I’ll read your response if you care to offer one. I won’t be replying though, in deference to forum policies.

 

[Theo520]

It only affects Muslims from countries that haven’t attacked Americans.

No, it only affects countries that the Obama administration targeted as high risk, countries that are effectively failed states and can’t support essential background screening.

I don’t think a Muslim country has ever attacked the USA, in our entire history.

Work harder, and get your facts straight before using other’s talking points.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well, it isn’t clear to me at all that this judge acted inappropriately
…

If you would read something called The Constitution of the United States you would understand.

Perhaps someone should send that judge a copy. Apparently, he’s never read it.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

&

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

&

Article III
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Apparently, that judge thinks that not only judicial, but legislative and executive power as well, has been vested in him.

 

[FrDavid96]

,

I don’t think a Muslim country has ever attacked the USA, in our entire history.

,.

Actually, that did happen.

They were called the “Pirate wars” or “Barbary wars” during the time of Pres. Jefferson.

 

[Jig_Saw]

If you would read something called The Constitution of the United States you would understand.

Perhaps someone should send that judge a copy. Apparently, he’s never read it.

&

&

archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Apparently, that judge thinks that not only judicial, but legislative and executive power as well, has been vested in him.

Judicial review isn’t in the Constitution but was established by Marbury v. Madison. The judge was practicing judicial review. Perhaps the judge took a history course and knows that.

 

[FrDavid96]

Judicial review isn’t in the Constitution but was established by Marbury v. Madison. The judge was practicing judicial review. Perhaps the judge took a history course and knows that.

Then show me where the US Constitution says that non-US citizens living in their own countries have any kind of right to come here without being able to prove even their own identities.

This is judicial over-reach, not judicial review.

 

[Theo520]

Actually, that did happen.

They were called the “Pirate wars” or “Barbary wars” during the time of Pres. Jefferson.

Thanks for the history lesson,

but for this argument I don’t think pirate strongholds qualify as Muslim countries since they were autonomous from both local and Ottoman governance…

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for the history lesson,

but for this argument I don’t think pirate strongholds qualify as Muslim countries since they were autonomous from both local and Ottoman governance…

They were genuine nation-states. They weren’t autonomous from local government, they were actual national governments and recognized as such by other nations.

 

[Reuben_J]

He is most certainly interpreting.

As to ad hominems, the fact that on a Catholic Board you advertise you are a priest, and all that goes along with it, invites pointing out that it has nothing to do with this.

You can disagree but being rude and personal is against the Forum rule. :tsktsk::tsktsk:

 

[Reuben_J]

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

In some Middle East culture, practically all cousins are considered brothers and sisters. If it is up to how you feel or how they interpret their familial relationship, practically all members of the clan would be included.

The interpretation needs to go back to SCOTUS who ruled in the first place. Probably it is more like the ‘next of kin’, and if it is, it will be parents and immediate siblings, not grandparents or uncles and aunts.

 

[FrDavid96]

In some Middle East culture, practically all cousins are considered brothers and sisters. If it is up to how you feel or how they interpret their familial relationship, practically all members of the clan would be included.

The interpretation needs to go back to SCOTUS who ruled in the first place. Probably it is more like the ‘next of kin’, and if it is, it will be parents and immediate siblings, not grandparents or uncles and aunts.

I don’t even see how they could block any part of the travel restrictions.

None of those restrictions violates anyone’s Constitutional rights.

There is no Constitutional right of non-citizens to enter the US. It’s a privilege extended to them by law and by the executive enforcement of the law.

I cannot see how SCOTUS can justify blocking an Executive Order that does not violate either the Constitution itself, nor the statute upon which the Order is based.

At this point, everything is preliminary.

SCOTUS has yet to actually rule on the case. Indeed, they haven’t even heard the case itself.