Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban

[Reuben_J]

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.

Exactly, Fr. There is no place for the judge’s intervention at all as this is the President’s prerogative in protecting the country and very much within his duty. Of course, as was in his inaugural address, all countries in the world would do what is good for their countries, and the US is no exception in this regard.

The Hawaiian judge, as he did before that, was actually amounting to saying that the President is being racist and discriminating and that the EO was the camouflage of the insidious intention.

That ruling would not stand of course except of being mischievous and delaying the action of the President. Politic is more to do with it.

 

[Jig_Saw]

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.

Again, now that we have established that the judge does in fact have the right to review it, some feel it was a correct decision and some don’t and it has little to do with legal arguments but rather their own personal feelings on the case.

 

[josie_L]

**Judge in Hawaii carves new hole in Trump travel ban
**

A federal judge took another swing at President Trump’s travel ban late Thursday, ruling that the administration must expand the definition of family who are exempted from his policy — and also dramatically expanding the number of refugees who can be admitted.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ruled that grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews and cousins can all show a close enough family relationship that they qualify under the Supreme Court’s ruling last month.

“Grandparents are the epitome of close family members,” the judge wrote.

**Judge Watson also said any potential refugee who has been connected to a resettlement agency in the U.S. must be admitted. That widely broadens the potential pool of refugees who can break the 50,000-person cap Mr. Trump had tried to impose.
**
**The ruling was a reversal from earlier this month, when Judge Watson had said it was up to the Supreme Court to answer questions about what the justices meant by close family relationship.
**
The high court ruled in late June, in a 9-0 decision, that Mr. Trump’s travel ban was legal — but was drawn too broadly, at least for now. The justices said U.S. persons with close family ties to those outside the country have constitutional rights that had to be respected, and in those cases it outweighed Mr. Trump’s security rulings.

The justices didn’t define what those close relationships were, however, inviting a new round of litigation.

**Judge Watson, an Obama appointee to the federal bench, has repeatedly ruled against Mr. Trump on the travel ban, including issuing the broadest injunction of any court back in March.

Higher courts have repeatedly reined in his rulings, to varying degrees, and it’s possible they could limit his new injunction, should the Justice Department appeal.
**
The Supreme Court has said it will revisit the issue more broadly early in October, when the justices return from a three-month summer vacation.

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/14/judge-hawaii-carves-new-hole-donald-trump-travel-b/

 

[dvdjs]

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.”

Trump has been slow to nominate. And the idea that these nrratives re ake was buried this week.

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

Not in the least.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

I suspect that something of the Constitution and the law He might also suggest that you leans something about your field of work. But I suspect that he would be more respectful.\

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

Not apparent in the least.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

Red herring. Not relevant to the ruling.

 

[Jig_Saw]

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.

No, I don’t mind talking about it. I guess you don’t realize that the Republicans hold Congress as well as the Presidency, so there is, in effect, nothing that the Democrats can do to obstruct or delay anything.

As far as the fake narrative about “Russian collusion”, well, most 4 year olds know that Donald Trump Jr. released emails where it was very clear that he was setting up a meeting with someone that supposedly represented the Russian government and had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. I think his exact words were “I love it.”

You should really watch the news sometime.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.

well said!

 

[Jig_Saw]

well said!

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.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

From what we can see, unlike the Dems, Republicans do not vote en bloc and pretty much independent in their trend of voting.

So I would not count on it that just because Republicans are the majority in both houses that President Trump would have plain sailing in introducing new legislation to implement his policy or his nominations.

As for alleged collusion with Russia, so far there is no evidence for that other than the wishful thinking of the election hurt Democrats.

 

[Jig_Saw]

From what we can see, unlike the Dems, Republicans do not vote en bloc and pretty much independent in their trend of voting.

So I would not count on it that just because Republicans are the majority in both houses that President Trump would have plain sailing in introducing new legislation to implement his policy or his nominations.

I’m glad you acknowledge that it is the Republicans who are responsible for any issues passing legislation or getting nominees confirmed instead of falsely blaming the Democrats.

As for alleged collusion with Russia, so far there is no evidence for that other than the wishful thinking of the election hurt Democrats.

Well, no, there are emails that were released by Donald Trump Jr where he set up a meeting with someone who was portrayed as an agent of the Russian government to get ‘dirt’ on their political opponent where the campaign manager and a current high-level advisor to the Trump were copied.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m glad you acknowledge that it is the Republicans who are responsible for any issues passing legislation or getting nominees confirmed instead of falsely blaming the Democrats.

Well, no, there are emails that were released by Donald Trump Jr where he set up a meeting with someone who was portrayed as an agent of the Russian government to get ‘dirt’ on their political opponent where the campaign manager and a current high-level advisor to the Trump were copied.

Why are you glad? Is not that obvious?

As for the emails, sorry, that is no proof of collusion. It could be just anything. Anyway, if needs be, the court has to decide that, not you or I.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Why are you glad? Is not that obvious?

It is obvious to you, but there are many people on these forums that it is not obvious to. In fact, they want to blame the Democrats for the Republicans’ inability to govern.

As for the emails, sorry, that is no proof of collusion. It could be just anything. Anyway, if needs be, the court has to decide that, not you or I.

Whether or not the law was broken, well, that will be up to a court to decide, so I guess we’ll find out after DJT’s trial. But, after months of denying everything Russia, we now have evidence that the Trump campaign tried to collude with the Russian government. We’ll have to wait on Mueller to find out if he discovers anything else.

 

[pnewton]

Obviously, this federal judge is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that over-ruled him in the first place.

Would someone please explain to this federal judge that he does not have the authority to over-turn the Supreme Court.

I think the judge would argue that it was Trump who is trying to circumvent the SC ruling. I suspected this would happen when I first read how the administration was going to interpret this order. I think if they would have just included grandparents and grandchildren, they might have skated without another challenge. I believe they erred in using a tighter definition than is used elsewhere in government.

 

[meltzerboy]

No, I don’t mind talking about it. I guess you don’t realize that the Republicans hold Congress as well as the Presidency, so there is, in effect, nothing that the Democrats can do to obstruct or delay anything.

As far as the fake narrative about “Russian collusion”, well, most 4 year olds know that Donald Trump Jr. released emails where it was very clear that he was setting up a meeting with someone that supposedly represented the Russian government and had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. I think his exact words were “I love it.”

You should really watch the news sometime.

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, now that we have established that the judge does in fact have the right to review it, some feel it was a correct decision and some don’t and it has little to do with legal arguments but rather their own personal feelings on the case.

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

Red herring. Not relevant to the ruling.

That’s exactly what this is about.

This is about a judge creating some kind of Constitutional right of foreign nationals to enter the US in spite of the fact that the Executive branch of government had determined that those persons cannot be reliably identified (to include their criminal pasts or lack thereof).

It is exactly the topic of the entire conversation.

 

[lmachine]

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

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think the judge would argue that it was Trump who is trying to circumvent the SC ruling. I suspected this would happen when I first read how the administration was going to interpret this order. I think if they would have just included grandparents and grandchildren, they might have skated without another challenge. I believe they erred in using a tighter definition than is used elsewhere in government.

That doesn’t change the bigger problem—the lack of separation of powers that is so essential to our form of government.

Congress passed a law in the 1950s. That’s their Constitutional role to legislate. That law gives the President certain authority to enforce the law (again, the President’s constitutional role). That authority includes certain necessary discretion with regard to immigration. It’s necessary because there’ no one-size-fits-all method that could be applied to every foreign nation under every circumstance.

The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law. No one actually disputes the authority that the law gives to the President.

The judicial branch only has the authority to overturn laws (judicial review) when laws violate the Constitution. The judicial branch has no power to legislate.

There is no such thing as foreign nationals having a right to enter the U.S. based on some kind of family relationship or business relationship with a US person or entity. Maybe we could expand things to a spouse or minor child of a US citizen. Maybe so, but even that would only exist as a matter of law (legislative branch).

The Supreme Court does not have Constitutional authority to invent new Constitutional rights–especially not to create Constitutional rights for foreign nationals living on foreign soil. Such a power has never been given to them.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s exactly what this is about.

This is about a judge creating some kind of Constitutional right of foreign nationals to enter the US in spite of the fact that the Executive branch of government had determined that those persons cannot be reliably identified (to include their criminal pasts or lack thereof).

The ruling was on the matter of what is a close family relationship. It was perfectly appropriate and even expected in the aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling that such as case would be brought. It has nothign to do with what you are going on about.

It is exactly the topic of the entire conversation.

That is another matter. Some like to deflect.