Federal Judge Blocks Trumps New Travel Ban As Being UNconsitutional

As predicted the day this illegitimate order was signed that it would be stopped before it ever went into effect…CNN is reporting a Federal Judge in Hawaii put the kabaush on Trumps new ban saying it was essentially the same as the old ban.

Now Maryland is set to rule as well and odds suggest the ruling will be similar as is the Judge in Washington State. Massachusetts has also joined in filing to strike down this ban.

I want President Trump to do well for our country but the man has to let go of his obsession with immigrants and start working on improving how we PAY people here. THAT will build wealth, stimulate more consumption create even more jobs…and REDUCE welfare.

right now Trump is simply toiling with matters we all KNOW are unconstitutional so his minions can applaud but nothing is being accomplished.

Move On, Mr. President…start doing the people’s work that needs to be done and leave these false “causes” by the side of the road where they belong!!!

1 Like

A non-elected Federal Judge has blocked the new travel ban solely because it was signed by Trump.

A single man overruled a democratically elected President

These judges truly have no checks or balances

Justice should be BLIND, not ruled on by politics

2 Likes

All these judges need to be brought up before the ethics board & bar association. They need to be fired & stripped from practicing law. If your not a US Citizen (a citizen not a green card or visa holder) you don’t have rights to not like our new travel ban. Get Over it

2 Likes

These idiot so called judges have to be stopped from jeopardizing the safety of Americans. This stay is absolutely ridiculous. The travel ban should go much further than it does.

1 Like

I hope this 2nd block inspires him to put forward a total Islam ban to spare the USA.

Here it comes…

2 Likes

An asshole in a black robe violating the Constitution and spitting on the rule of law to please his liberal comrades? No problem! Build some temporary houses in this judge’s neighborhood and settle refugees in them. In fact, pay them a small stipend as long as they reside there. We need legal reform now.

The good news is we finally found an island to send all of the refugees too.

What the President of the US ‘obsesses’ over and why is of little concern to you. He is privy to information that you do not have and he was elected with a huge electoral majority with exactly that mandate. The law… the real black letter law is quite clear… he has within his power, granted not only by the constitution but by statute the power to block entry to anyone… just because you have liberal judges willing to publicly set on the constitution does not change that fact. Long before this issue of terrorism came up my white, English born wife was informed by then INS officials that while in the US she enjoyed all of the protections and considerations of a citizen as a green card holder but that she was never guaranteed re-entry should she leave the US. Once she spent over 2 hours in an INS office in Chicago because she traveled with me internationally and had several entries and exits on her history… they almost sent her back to the UK and this was years before 9/11. Judicial activism at its finest (and most egregious)… and you know it. Security of the actual citizens of our country is really the only mandated job of the federal government… all the rest is made up by authoritarians seeking power…so no, its not a false cause.

2 Likes

Between Hawaii for Refugees… including those Obama agreed to take that even Australia passed on and busing every single criminal illegal to sanctuary cities so that the citizens of those municipalities can feel the effects of their decisions first hand… problem solved!

1 Like

I wonder how objective a federal judge, who went to Harvard Law School with Obama, can actually be when reviewing an Executive Order by President Trump.

Apparently, not very objective.

the Constitution is a funny thing. No matter what…there it is.

the 5th and 14th Amendment seem to say differently.

this is among the biggest BS cause I’ve ever heard. Our system is working perfectly fine the way it is and it is within the Constitution. This is a bald faced ruse to deny entry to Muslims, period. We all know it.

Here are excerpts from one article shortened for readability, you can read the entire article at the link below.

A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday issued a sweeping freeze of President Trump’s new executive order hours before it would have temporarily barred the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries and suspended the admission of new refugees.

In a blistering 43-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson pointed to Trump’s own comments and those of his close advisers as evidence that his order was meant to discriminate against Muslims and declared there was a “strong likelihood of success” that those suing would prove the directive violated the Constitution.

Watson declared that “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

He lambasted the government, in particular, for asserting that because the ban did not apply to all Muslims in the world, it could not be construed as discriminating against Muslims.

“The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson wrote. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”
And Watson declared that the government’s assertion of the national security need for the order was “at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.” He pointed to Trump’s own campaign trail comments and public statements by advisers as evidence.

“For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’ ” Watson wrote. “Nor is there anything ‘secret’ about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order. Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: ‘When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ”

Watson also pointed to a recent Fox News appearance by Stephen Miller, in which the president’s senior policy adviser said the new ban would have “mostly minor technical differences” from the previous iteration frozen by the courts, and Americans would see “the same basic policy outcome for the country.”

“These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose,” Watson wrote.

Opponents of the ban across the country — including those who had argued against it in different cases on Wednesday — hailed Watson’s ruling.

Bob Ferguson, the Washington state attorney general who asked Robart to block the measure, called the Hawaii ruling “fantastic news.” Justin Cox, a staff attorney for the National Immigration Law Center who argued for a restraining order in the case in Maryland, said, “This is absolutely a victory and should be celebrated as such, especially because the court held that the plaintiffs, that Hawaii was likely to succeed on its establishment clause claim which essentially is that the primary purpose of the executive order is to discriminate against Muslims.”

Cox said while the judge did not halt the order entirely, he blocked the crucial sections — those halting the issuance of new visas and suspending the refu­gee program. Left intact, Cox said, were lesser-known provisions, including one that orders Homeland Security and the U.S. attorney general to publicize information about foreign nationals charged with ­terrorism-related offenses and other crimes. He said the provision seems designed to whip up fear of Muslims.

“It’s a shaming device that it’s really a dehumanizing device,” he said. “It perpetuates this myth, this damaging stereotype of Muslims as terrorists.”

Hawaii is 2,217 nautical miles from Los Angeles, making it the perfect place to keep our entire Muslim refugee program. It’s time to export the “goodness” of the 3rd world to this elitist paradise.

1 Like

Another excellent choice is the Aleutian Islands in Alaska.

Why would we advocate sending them to a vacation destination? We should send them to that place in California that Mexico keeps flooding with sewage and let them duke it out.

Well… We shall see if the US constitution extends to peoples who are 1) not US Citizens and 2) exist outside of the territorial limits of the United States of America… The constitution was not written to protect ANYONE outside of its borders. The 14th amendment specifically uses the words ‘within its jurisdiction’… and pray tell how can US laws for double jeopardy or due process extend beyond its borders? And other than at the sharp end of a missile can the US protect the citizen of another country residing outside of US jurisdiction life, liberty or property… I mean, get real.

As far as the ‘Our system is working perfectly fine the way it is’ … funny how so many people on all sides of the issue are clamoring for ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform’… and make no mistake, the people who voted for this president have a pretty clear understanding of the reform they are looking for. P.S… the weren’t all white and male either…

This will go to the Supreme Court as I am sure Trump is looking to see this fight to its conclusion and we will determine at that point if we are still a sovereign nation or just a district in the UN’s world map… but in the mean time half the US population told this President to change the course of the policies of at least the last 8 years…

2 Likes

Oxymorons anybody? Are these the comments of more constitutional scholars?

Don’t believe everything you think…

Is that the Kenyan Muslim Obama? or the Irishman. Either way I suspect either’s legal opinion is more thoughtful, more aligned with the actual Constitution than Trump.

absolutely does to both under certain circumstances such as decisions based on religion which this blatantly is from Trumps own words…Muslims.