patrick.net

That Shitbird is in for a lesson in Federal Aviation Laws.
He said himself it's not the loudest voice in the courtroom.

Trump will whip those pussy states into submission. All you hear now are the hollow howls of the lactateless left as they lap the still raw and open flesh gashes of the electoral sword.

Rew says

Oh. That. Was. Orgasmic.

Nope. Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). We don't even have a written ruling yet.

Appeals Court will reverse. Congress explicitly gave the President wide powers to ban countries. Carter used the same provision without a problem, and his was not temporary.

This is the Multi Kult hoping to score on a Hail Mary the Judicial Process, it'll be reversed soon.

85% of Muslims still allowed to come-lefties-this is a Muslim ban. Sigh trump will win a 2nd term-lefties are doubling down on crazy.

If the appeals court upholds this, they just granted everybody in the World a US Citizen with inalienable rights to immigrate, collect welfare, never to be deported.

It's the wet dream of the Neoliberals, because once Western Countries get overwhelmed with Immigrants on Welfare, they'll have to end all Social Programs since you can't have a Welfare State with Unlimited Immigration.

T L Lipsovich says

If the appeals court upholds this, they just granted everybody in the World a US Citizen

Yes, because that is what we had before the ban.

Nope. The President has this power for half a century - Carter used it and it wasn't temporary - not limited to 4 months, either.

Well, time for the President to order the State Department to stop processing visas and green cards.

T L Lipsovich says

Congress explicitly gave the President wide powers to ban countries. Carter used the same provision without a problem, and his was not temporary.

This is the Multi Kult hoping to score on a Hail Mary the Judicial Process, it'll be reversed soon.

Except the Trump isn't banning countries. He is allowing some religions from those nations and banning others. That is unconstitutional. I realize the right has the subtley of a brick in heat, but understand the issue.

Gary Anderson says

Except the Trump isn't banning countries. He is allowing some religions from those nations and banning others. That is unconstitutional. I realize the right has the subtley of a brick in heat, but understand the issue.

Nope. He's got those countries under ban with an exception if they can prove they are an oppressed minority, like the Yazidi (who aren't really Monotheistic, but Dualist Gnostics).

What you gonna do now tRump? Come try and enforce it! Let's get a real showdown going. Come on.

So proud of the civil servants standing up for rule of law, and defying what they know to be illegal.

T L Lipsovich says

It's mostly man-preventable.

So is swimming in the ocean with sharks. We are talking balance of freedoms and acceptable risk.

T L Lipsovich says

if they can prove they are an oppressed minority, like the Yazidi (who aren't really Monotheistic, but Dualist Gnostics).

Doesnt' matter. It is all based on religion.

Judge looks like he's putting away at least a fifth a day. Maybe an JD appeal based on rotten lawyer liver syndrome.

There is a difference between being a nation of laws and a nation of lawyers, and the two seem to be mutually contradictory in the USA.

Ceffer says

There is a difference between being a nation of laws and a nation of lawyers, and the two seem to be mutually contradictory in the USA.

That's some mighty fine truthiness you have there in your gut. Yes, that just feels and sounds so right, doesn't it?
(Only problem is when you think it over for about 2 seconds it makes zero sense at all.)

I love that State's rights may become a thing again... Its sad that we require a divisive POTUS for citizens to respect the constitutional rights of states > union, but so be it. Yet again, Trump is making it happen.

We are going to get our showdown! Whitehouse thinks it is "outrageous" they are being defied. Heh.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-white-house-calls-federal-court-order-1486184283-htmlstory.html

CBOEtrader says

For those of us too lazy too look up the full quote, please fill in the blanks.

CBOEtrader says

how is this different than on immigration quotas based on regions?

They don't break it down by country, it's by general geo-graphic region.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

Good synopsis here on the legal challenge:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/trump_s_executive_order_is_an_unconstitutional_attack_on_muslims.html

"The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” As the Supreme Court explained in 1982’s Larson v. Valente, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” This constitutional requirement, the court noted, is “inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause,” guaranteeing religious liberty for all by barring “favoritism among sects.” The court has also declared that the government may not “aid or oppose any religion. This prohibition is absolute.”"

So... POTUS Pence? Buh bye abortion

Muslims in the minority here in the States can feel free to apply for "oppressed status" immigration to Yemen.

Wait a second: Soviet Jews were granted asylum in US based on them being Jewish. Later Baptists from various ex-Soviet countries were granted asylum based on them being persecuted for their religion. And now it turns out all that was unconstitutional. Therefore Brin's citizenship is null and void. Same for TL. Same for tens of thousands of Jews and Baptists. Oops.

So, now Constitutional rights extend to wannabe immigrants not even on our soil, legal or illegal. Why don't we just put flowers in the barrels of the invading armies, we aren't a country anymore.

A restraining order based on a hypothesis of "irreparable harm". So, with this hysterical foundation, why not just issue restraining orders for every imagined future harm, except, of course, the harm to our actual citizens?

I would think that the counter argument is that if Trump wanted to ban based on religious grounds, then the litmus would apply to all muslim countries (others have pointed that out - thread is moving fast) and certainly "should" include a question to the individual applicant asking specifically their religious convictions. I don't know if that is being done - anyone know?

Also what's funny about the President's Assassination list is that the trial-less execution of full US citizens is justified on grounds of national security

But we can't revoke Green Cards or ban Nationals of Countries due to endemic sectarian violence, because it looks likeracism and religious bigotry. That would be unconstitutional.

That's some unbelievable twisting of knots.

Can I say just how very much I love the language our Whitehouse is using? Keep it up Trump!
"outrageous"
"so-called judge"
"ridiculous" ruling

This right here tells you everything you need to know about Trump's understanding of America ...

...he understands perfectly well the concept of Venue Shopping and Pontificating Judges.

This thing is going to be shot down faster than McCain's A-4 over Vietnam.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/91f4e7610ff247898db4114f44851c6d/seattle-judge-derided-trump-known-conservative-views

Unfortunately, Trump is going to win on this one. He may "lose" in the sense that the courts moderate his actions, but you are going to have most people (rep/indep) basically saying what is the point of having elections if changes are stymied by courts. Sure, we have a three legged system of government. But, sorry, restricting inflows from these particular countries is not going to bother 80% of the US voting base. That is Trump's plan and the left doesn't get it yet. He is picking a fight he cannot lose.

As he continues to try and make change and is continually stymied, then he can take the FDR approach: stack the courts.

rando says

I don't see it what's unconstitutional about restricting immigration to people who are actually being persecuted on the basis of religion. Doesn't say which religion either.

The president clearly has the right to restrict immigration how he sees fit.

I think there is a lot of room to interpret Trump's intent as favoritism toward a religion, though unnamed, in the fact that the ban was applied specifically to Muslim majority countries. I think we have all heard him on the campaign stump as well, essentially calling for a Muslim ban.

From Slate:

"The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” As the Supreme Court explained in 1982’s Larson v. Valente, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” This constitutional requirement, the court noted, is “inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause,” guaranteeing religious liberty for all by barring “favoritism among sects.” The court has also declared that the government may not “aid or oppose any religion. This prohibition is absolute.”"

Why didn't he ban all 53 Muslim majority nations? As a racist, impeachable act, Trump's Immigration Ban seriously misses the mark. He's got to step-up his game if he's going to live up to all of these charges.

The temporarily travel ban is a perfectly legal executive order and was not instituted solely on the basis of religion.

It applies to foreign nationals. This is international law. The U.S. Constitution Is non sequitur is this case. It doesn't apply to foreign nationals "intending" to travel to the United States.

The judge should be immediatly suspended from duty, removed and disbarred. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to citizens of foreign nations, located in foreign nations. Period. End of story.

Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or speaking purely from emotional bigotry.

Is there a website to bet money on the final outcome?

Personally, I think the TRO resulted from the sudden implementation, which DHS lawyers had reportedly warned against. Airline passengers had bought tickets relying on the prior rule, and then got banned effectively ex post facto while in midair. I suppose the administration may have decided that decisive action justified the litigation risk, and might provide some useful over-reactions from the opposition. The final result will almost certainly uphold the authority of the POTUS to ban non-resident aliens from specific territories, and even specifically non-resident alien Muslims. Although I hesitate to link Wikipedia, it does have an entire article detailing the long history of "Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law".

The 1st amendment protects both speech and religion, but does not provide absolute power to religions. Nobody has a right to kill the disbelievers, even if their religion commands them specifically to do that (as Islam does). The only way I can imagine the administration losing this case is if the religious fundamentalists in the administration (e.g. Pence) take a dive, blowing the case intentionally to elevate religion over laws of general application. Even then, the result would probably not bind future administrations. Non-resident aliens have never had a constitutional right to immigrate, regardless of where they come from, let alone bring with them a doctrine that commands them to kill us.