Refugees/Citizens of Muslim Countries Barred

[Claire.]

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

And that will need to be proven. Oh, and if it can be demonstrated that this is prejudice against Islamic Terrorism (not the entire religion of Islam) then I highly suspect I can predict the ruling.

Well one federal judge has already placed a nation-wide block on the order, and a second judge has, apparently, blocked parts of it. We've already discussed why the first judge blocked it, and that is because he believed it to be discriminatory.

[bee]

1 minute ago, Claire. said:

Trumps words and actions do. But thanks anyway for the psych evaluation.

.

First sentence...  but the Bush and Obama administrations are responsible for the death of
hundreds of thousands of muslims and the displacement of millions -- now that's what I
call ''''actions''' ...to get concerned about --- not a temporary travel ban --

Second sentence ... I could say a lot more but....... you're welcome.. 

. 

[Claire.]

Just now, bee said:

I could say a lot more but.

Likewise.

[hatecraft]

4 minutes ago, Claire. said:

We've already discussed why the first judge blocked it, and that is because he believed it to be discriminatory.

Judges aren't supposed to make rulings based on their beliefs.

[Claire.]

Just now, hatecraft said:

Judges aren't supposed to make rulings based on their beliefs.

That was my choice of words, not the judge's. He based his decision on the evidence.

[aztek]

were both judges presented same evidence?

[Claire.]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

were both judges presented same evidence?

Most likely. The Maryland judge apparently pretty much echoed the first judge's conclusions.

I've not had a chance to read the second ruling in full yet, but that's what has been reported.

[aztek]

if they were why both rulings were not the same? so why one federal judge has  placed a nation-wide block on the order, and a second judge has, only, blocked parts of it.?

shouldn't both ruling be same, if based on same evidence? if judgement is based on evidence alone? 

[Agent0range]

13 minutes ago, aztek said:

if they were why both rulings were not the same? so why one federal judge has  placed a nation-wide block on the order, and a second judge has, only, blocked parts of it.?

shouldn't both ruling be same, if based on same evidence? if judgement is based on evidence alone? 

I think the first judge issued a hasty ruling in regards to one family...he didn't take a large amount of time to analyze the whole thing.  I THINK that was the case, don't quote me on that...

[Claire.]

22 minutes ago, aztek said:

if they were why both rulings were not the same? so why one federal judge has  placed a nation-wide block on the order, and a second judge has, only, blocked parts of it.?

shouldn't both ruling be same, if based on same evidence? if judgement is based on evidence alone? 

The cases brought before the two judges were different.

Judge Watson, the Hawaii judge, wrote a 40+ page ruling. I do not think his decision was a hasty one. His restraining order applies to two key sections of Trump’s order: (1) the one barring citizens from six countries from entering the US for 90 days, and (2) the one that suspends refugee admissions for 120 days. Hawaii’s attorney general had asked Watson to stop the order on the grounds that it violated the right to freedom of religion under the US constitution. The AG also argued that the implementation of the ban would harm tourism and the state's university system.

Judge Chuang, the Maryand judge, did not block the entire executive order, stating that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently developed their argument that the temporary ban on refugees offended the establishment clause. The case had been brought forward by the American Civil Liberities Union and other groups representing immigrants, refugees and their families. They argued that the underlying rationale of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, which therefore made it unconstitutional.

 

[Lilly]

Just watch, this will go to the Supreme Court.

[Claire.]

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Just watch, this will go to the Supreme Court.

I hope so. It will be interesting to see which version of the ban the Trump administration will attempt to push through. In the interim, the Democrats will no doubt do everything possible to stall Gorsuch's appointment so that he's not there to break what some are predicting will be a 4-4 tie.

[hatecraft]

16 minutes ago, Claire. said:

I hope so. It will be interesting to see which version of the ban the Trump administration will attempt to push through. In the interim, the Democrats will no doubt do everything possible to stall Gorsuch's appointment so that he's not there to break what some are predicting will be a 4-4 tie.

The more they stall on Gorsuch, the easier it will be for Trump's next SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed.  The Democrats are just hurting themselves. 

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, Claire. said:

What illegal war? The war that Trump initially supported? The same war that Pence not only strongly supported but also co-sponsored and voted in favor of the bill authorizing it? That war?

Yes THAT war.

I supported it at first as well. Till I learned what lying dirt bags our imperialist government truly was. Till I realized it was done without even a real declaration of war, but instead congress handing over indefinite war powers to the president. Everything about our entire involvement in the ME was and is a criminal sham.  

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, Claire. said:

Well one federal judge has already placed a nation-wide block on the order, and a second judge has, apparently, blocked parts of it. We've already discussed why the first judge blocked it, and that is because he believed it to be discriminatory.

The same courts that get rejected by higher courts 90% of the time?

[Claire.]

14 minutes ago, hatecraft said:

The more they stall on Gorsuch, the easier it will be for Trump's next SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed.  The Democrats are just hurting themselves. 

Gorsuch is one of Trump's better choices, in my opinion. The Democrats need at some point to accept that they cannot at this point tip the Supreme Court in their ideological favor, so they may as well go with someone who's solid.

[Claire.]

5 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

The same courts that get rejected by higher courts 90% of the time?

Nope.

Trump said in his Nashville speech that Judge Watson, is part of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That is not the case. Watson is with the US District Court for the District of Hawaii. The second judge, Judge Chuang is a United States District Judge for the District of Maryland.

[preacherman76]

2 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Nope.

Trump said in his Nashville speech that Judge Watson, is part of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That is not the case. Watson is with the US District Court for the District of Hawaii. The second judge, Judge Chuang is a United States District Judge for the District of Maryland.

Oh yea that's right. Wonder if its a coincidence that 0bama happen to show up there just before the ruling?? Hmm 

[Claire.]

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

Oh yea that's right. Wonder if its a coincidence that 0bama happen to show up there just before the ruling?? Hmm 

Let me guess. Your next post will be about Obama sending his doppelganger to Maryland.

[preacherman76]

2 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Let me guess. Your next post will be about Obama sending his doppelganger to Maryland.

LOLI knew you'd like that one

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, Claire. said:

Correction: We are a nation of LAWS, not presidents' whims.

I suppose you raged regularly at Obama then, eh?

[Claire.]

Just now, and then said:

I suppose you raged regularly at Obama then, eh?

I was too young during his first term to really understand what was going on. During his second term, like most teenagers, I had other, more important, stuff to do. This is my first real election, and the first time I've voted. I've raged a lot against Hillary though, if that counts for anything.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Lilly said:

Just watch, this will go to the Supreme Court.

McConnel needs to get Gorsuch seated.  If it takes a nuclear option then so be it.  The party that lost the election still seems to be running the country's agenda.  The hell with that AND them. Since when can a district judge veto the executive order of a sitting president on security issues?  Can you imagine the bloody outcry if the tables were turned?  Either he is the executive or he isn't.  He needs to move boldly to kick this trash to the curb where they belong.  Obstructionist b*******.

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Claire. said:

That was my choice of words, not the judge's. He based his decision on the evidence.

He based his decision on his OPINION of the president's frame of mind during the election.  That is illegal and it will be struck down but it will take months to do.  Meanwhile, if someone is killed due to this meddling, I hope someone revenges themselves on these so-called judges.  Only when THEY begin to sense a personal risk will they stop ruling from political bias.  

[Claire.]

Just now, and then said:

He based his decision on his OPINION of the president's frame of mind during the election.  That is illegal and it will be struck down but it will take months to do.  Meanwhile, if someone is killed due to this meddling, I hope someone revenges themselves on these so-called judges.  Only when THEY begin to sense a personal risk will they stop ruling from political bias.  

No. The judge based his LEGAL opinion (partly) on STATEMENTS made by the president and others in his administration.