Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

[rooster59]

Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

By Dan Levine and Scott Malone

 

Migrants sit in the chapel at the Juan Bosco migrant shelter after being deported from the U.S., in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, February 1, 2017. Picture taken February 1, 2017. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

 

SEATTLE/BOSTON (Reuters) - A federal judge in Seattle on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major challenge to Trump's action, although his administration could still appeal the ruling and have the policy upheld.

The Seattle judge, James Robart, made his ruling effective immediately on Friday, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted straight away.

"It's a wonderful day for the rule of law in this country," said Washington state solicitor general Noah Purcell.

The state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said: "This decision shuts down the executive order right now." He said he expected the federal government to honour the ruling.

The new Republican president's order signed on Jan. 27 triggered chaos at U.S. airports last weekend. Some travellers abroad were turned back from flights into the United States, crowds of hundreds of people packed into arrival areas to protest and legal objections were filed across the country.

The challenge was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The Seattle judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging Trump's executive order. The Trump administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labelled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the United States from countries affected by Trump's three-month ban.

Also on Friday in Virginia, a federal judge ordered the White House to provide a list of all people stopped from entering the United States by the travel ban.

The State Department said on Friday that fewer than 60,000 visas previously issued to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had been invalidated as a result of the order. That disclosure followed media reports that government lawyers were citing a figure of 100,000.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of "all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States."

The state of Hawaii on Friday joined the challenge to the order, filing a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country.

The order also temporarily stopped the entry of all refugees into the country and indefinitely halted the settlement of Syrian refugees.

On Friday the Department of Homeland Security issued additional clarification of the order, stating that there were no plans to extend it beyond the seven countries. The DHS also reiterated that the ban did not apply to permanent residents, or green card holders, and some others, such as those who have helped the U.S. military.

In the Boston case, U.S. District Judge Nathan Gorton denied the request, after expressing skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group's claim that Trump's order represented religious discrimination.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-04

[khwaibah]

The cracker A-Holes are puckering. BTW this will end up in the Supreme Court.

[dblaisde]

Yay Judge

[lannarebirth]

Trump is easier to understand than all the people who were concerned about Trump. The system is designed to stop these kinds of illegal excesses. Why would they be concerned about Trump destroying the nation's institutions if they don't seem to have an underlying belief in the institutions themselves? Authoritarianism will find no sustenance from America's legal and legislative institutions.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Scott
Removed post edited out

[craigt3365]

And that's exactly why the US has a good system of checks and balances.  So those in authority can't just do anything they want.  Especially if it's illegal.  Which this ban may very well be.

 

Either way, Trump's wasting a lot of resources for nothing.  As you know, not one citizen from these countries has killed an American on US soil.  Total waste of time.  Just pumps up the masses into a feeding frenzy.

[pegman]

47 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

a momentary setback…the donald eats such judges for brekkie.

Trump's press office put out a statement calling the restraining order "outrageous". That was quickly followed with another deleting the "outrageous" part. Seems like one of the DJ lawyers reminded these fools that the Feds still need to argue the merits of the case before that same judge. 555

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

And that's exactly why the US has a good system of checks and balances.  So those in authority can't just do anything they want.  Especially if it's illegal.  Which this ban may very well be.

 

Either way, Trump's wasting a lot of resources for nothing.  As you know, not one citizen from these countries has killed an American on US soil.  Total waste of time.  Just pumps up the masses into a feeding frenzy.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, Chicog said:

You mean the massacre that never happened? LOL

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/politics/bowling-green-massacre-kellyanne-conway.html

 

Quote

 

Kellyanne Conway Admits ‘Bowling Green Massacre’ Error

 

Kellyanne Conway, the adviser to President Trump who coined the phrase “alternative facts,” is facing another round of criticism and fact-checking after she falsely spoke of a “Bowling Green massacre” by Iraqi refugees. She acknowledged and corrected her statement Friday morning on Twitter.

 

 

[Dagnabbit]

This 'victory' will be short lived.

Obviously, the Democrats still haven't learnt anything. Trump is always 2 steps ahead.

As it is, Trump can sideswipe this judgement if he simply claims it's needed for national security.

Celebrate your hollow victory while you can, losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

This 'victory' will be short lived.

Obviously, the Democrats still haven't learnt anything. Trump is always 2 steps ahead.

As it is, Trump can sideswipe this judgement if he simply claims it's needed for national security.

Celebrate your hollow victory while you can, losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really?  He can just claim national security and override the judicial branch of government?

It's clear you're not an American.

Celebrate your ignorance while you can.

[Pib]

Donald better get this federal court ruling overturned triple ASAP, because there is another terrorist heading towards the U.S. "again." 

 

http://us.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/travel-ban-iranian-baby-heart-surgery-trnd/index.html

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Pib said:

Donald better get this federal court ruling overturned triple ASAP, because there is another terrorist heading towards the U.S. "again." 

 

http://us.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/travel-ban-iranian-baby-heart-surgery-trnd/index.html

 

Well, she's soon going to be a toddler and in 2015 more Americans were killed by toddlers than by terrorists. She's a double threat.

[Dagnabbit]

Really?  He can just claim national security and override the judicial branch of government?
It's clear you're not an American.
Celebrate your ignorance while you can.

Watch and learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yardrunner]

perhaps it is about time the Donald followed the rule of law, let him appeal if he thinks he is right, and if not let him just accept the judgement 

[louse1953]

5 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

a momentary setback…the donald eats such judges for brekkie.

Well let's hope he chokes on them,there are plenty and more to come.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

And that's exactly why the US has a good system of checks and balances.  So those in authority can't just do anything they want.  Especially if it's illegal.  Which this ban may very well be.

 

Either way, Trump's wasting a lot of resources for nothing.  As you know, not one citizen from these countries has killed an American on US soil.  Total waste of time.  Just pumps up the masses into a feeding frenzy.

 

Having independent non political judiciary and checks and balances is fundamental to democracy. 

 

But as a non American, if that is the case, and no citizen from the named countries has committed a terrorist act on US soil, why did Obama identify these countries in 2015 and 2016? Could it be that intelligence suggests there will be in the near future? And why did no one protest at Obama's actions?

 

Also, from what I've read Trump has signed an order banning all people from those countries, whether they are Muslim or not? If so and he is banning people based on nationality then he isn't banning Muslims, which most protesters seem to be suggesting.

 

Whilst the will be some interesting issues with Trump it does seem that there is an organized campaign to protest things out of context which in this case as turned it into an anti Muslim campaign, when it's not. 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Baerboxer

[dunroaming]

3 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

This 'victory' will be short lived.

Obviously, the Democrats still haven't learnt anything. Trump is always 2 steps ahead.

As it is, Trump can sideswipe this judgement if he simply claims it's needed for national security.

Celebrate your hollow victory while you can, losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the meantime the ban is off and the airlines are all accepting the flights.  So the "temporary" ban seemed to be working fine.  Maybe when Trump turns this around (as you think he will) he can add Egypt  and UAE. Why? Well the latest terrorist attack in Paris was committed by an Egyptian who flew in on a tourist visa from Dubai.  Of course Trump won't because of his "business" interests.

 

Keeping the Americans safe?

[new2here]

I like the fact that a Federal magistrate has acted... not because I am either pro or con on the issue or that I think it is, or is not legal... I like it because to me it signals we still have a robust system of power check and balances - so that no one "party" be that legislate, judicial or executive can take actions on a wholly unilateral basis without other parties involvement

On the ban itself- I am of the mindset that we do need and must have a strong border and that includes the proper and thorough vetting of those who seek entry. I also acknowledge that there are people outside our borders who do seek to "harm" us- in the same vein I also agree that there are similar people who seek do us harm, but are "domestic" and are already in country.j

To that end, I am under no illusion that any ban applies to those OUTside will magically solve the issue, is just not rooted in reality.. but I do think it is, and should be, part of a >larger
What gives me more concern is the interjection of religion -- any religion - into the larger conversation. Only because while it may be, or appear to be, a problem that centers around religion X, I think the issue is with the individual person - and not their chosen faith or other issues similarly.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

a momentary setback…the donald eats such judges for brekkie.

Let's see if the much vaunted American constitution stands up to Trump's asinine attempts to circumvent it. Well done judge!

[onthesoi]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

 As you know, not one citizen from these countries has killed an American on US soil.  Total waste of time.  Just pumps up the masses into a feeding frenzy.

 

I wish you would make up your mind, only yesterday you were referring to these countries as rogue states and accusing them of colluding with terrorists.

[Grouse]

I note the oligarchs from those ME countries spared Trump's ill advised travel ban have come out in support of Trump! 

 

I'll tell you something, Trump is strengthening the hand of EU politicians who are pro liberal democratic views. This isn't going to assist his desire (with Putin) to undermine the EU

[up-country_sinclair]

31 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Let's see if the much vaunted American constitution stands up 

Yes, it's still early days yet in this one.  It will be interesting to see how the courts come down on it.  The US Supreme Court might not be able to reach a decision as they currently sit with eight justices.  

[Grouse]

14 minutes ago, up-country_sinclair said:

Yes, it's still early days yet in this one.  It will be interesting to see how the courts come down on it.  The US Supreme Court might not be able to reach a decision as they currently sit with eight justices.  

Question for you as I am not American. I understand that 60 senate votes are required to appoint a new Supreme Court judge; can Trump change this law?

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, khwaibah said:

The cracker A-Holes are puckering. BTW this will end up in the Supreme Court.

If it ends up in the Supreme court it could be a split decision along party lines. 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Having independent non political judiciary and checks and balances is fundamental to democracy. 

 

But as a non American, if that is the case, and no citizen from the named countries has committed a terrorist act on US soil, why did Obama identify these countries in 2015 and 2016? Could it be that intelligence suggests there will be in the near future? And why did no one protest at Obama's actions?

 

Also, from what I've read Trump has signed an order banning all people from those countries, whether they are Muslim or not? If so and he is banning people based on nationality then he isn't banning Muslims, which most protesters seem to be suggesting.

 

Whilst the will be some interesting issues with Trump it does seem that there is an organized campaign to protest things out of context which in this case as turned it into an anti Muslim campaign, when it's not. 

Discretion 

 

Trump would not understand

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Grouse

[onthesoi]

37 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I note the oligarchs from those ME countries spared Trump's ill advised travel ban have come out in support of Trump!

 

I noticed the US oligarchs are not very happy.  I have a contract with a US corporation, one of the largest and most successful companies in the world.  Last week a high level email was sent to every employee saying the company was on their side not Trump's and they would do everything possible to fight Trump.  I wondered at the time if it was maybe sent out by a random, high level, maverick manager acting alone, but a few days later another email was sent out to everyone by the owner and founder, a very prominent and powerful American, the email went into great detail on the legal actions the company were taking to block Trump ...I wouldn't be surprised if this judgement is the outcome of that!

 

I don't recall anything like this in my lifetime, global corporations tend to be apolitical and keeps their heads down when it comes to such matters.

Edited February 4, 2017 by onthesoi

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, onthesoi said:

 

I noticed the US oligarchs are not very happy either.  I have a contract with a US corporation, one of the largest and most successful companies in the world.  Last week a high level email was sent to every employee saying the company was on their side not Trump's and they would do everything possible to fight Trump.  I wondered at the time if it was maybe sent out by a random, high level, maverick manager acting alone, but a few days later another email was sent out to everyone by the owner and founder, a very prominent and powerful American, the email went into great detail on the legal actions the company were taking to block Trump ...I wouldn't be surprised if this judgement is the outcome of that!

 

I don't recall anything like this in my lifetime, global corporations tend to be apolitical and keeps their heads down when it comes to such matters.

I take comfort from that.

 

I have NEVER been so worried about global instability as now.

[onthesoi]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

I have NEVER been so worried about global instability as now.

Trolling Iran and North Korea is bad enough, but poking China is insanity!

 

Is seems the unsolvable problem of ISIS isn't enough for Trump he wants to reboot the cold war also, except this time it might not be so cold!

[WaywardWind]

28 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Question for you as I am not American. I understand that 60 senate votes are required to appoint a new Supreme Court judge; can Trump change this law?

Trump has nothing to do with it.

 

It takes 60 votes because any Senator can filibuster against legislation and it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. The filibuster is in the Senate rules, and is not a law. The Republicans could, with their current majority, vote to change the rules and end the use of filibusters in instances where a nominee for the Supreme Court  being considered.  That is would be what is commonly referred to as the "nuclear option." The Republicans would be loathe to do so, because they are well aware that if they were ever the minority party in the Senate, the loss of the ability to filibuster legislation would leave them very vulnerable.

Edited February 4, 2017 by WaywardWind

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

Trump has nothing to do with it.

 

It takes 60 votes because any Senator an filibuster against legislation and it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. The filibuster is in the Senate rules, and is not a law. The Republicans could, with their current majority, vote to change the rules and end the use of filibusters in instances where a nominee for the Supreme Court  being considered.  That is would be what is commonly referred to as the "nuclear option." The Republicans would be loathe to do so, because they are well aware that if they were ever the minority party in the Senate, the loss of the ability to filibuster legislation would leave them very vulnerable.

Thank you!

 

I was hoping the 60 rule was unbreakable ?