Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

[WaywardWind]

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. 

Obama did not "...identify these countries in 2015 and 2016."

 

Here is what happened: a Tea Party Republican from Michigan introduced legislation to ban immigration from several named countries.  The legislation failed. When the Omnibus Appropriations Act was being assembled and debated, the Republicans slipped a slightly watered down version of the anti-immigration legislation onto the appropriations bill as an amendment. Since the appropriations bill is what gives the US authority to spend the next year's budget, it is considered a "must pass" bill, and is virtually veto proof. Could Obama have vetoed the Appropriations Act over this amendment?  Technically yes, but the result would be shutting down the entire government, as he doesn't have line item veto power in these types of legislation.

[stevenl]

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

I don't think so, legality here would be quite clear. The party line decisions tend to be open to interpretation, this one I think is not.

sent using Tapatalk

[WaywardWind]

25 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

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

I would venture to guess that it will indeed wind up in the Supreme Court, probably more than once; there will no doubt be an intermediate appeal of the restraining order by the government to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where, if history is any guide, they will not be favored - it is likely the most progressive of all the circuits. Then that decision would go to the S. Ct. Once the Supremes waded in and made a decision (or not) then the matter would go back to the District Court for a decision on the merits of the case which, of course, could result in another round of appeals up the ladder.

[Get Real]

Nice to see that some of the judges in US still have some brain left, because recently it seriously lacks in some of the white houses I´ve heard

[midas]

Why is this so President Trump?

[onthesoi]

4 minutes ago, midas said:

Why is this so President Trump?

 

The Saudi numbers are too low, 9/11 death toll was 3000 unless they deducted those not holding US passports, even then it still seems too low.

 

& what about the number of Iranians killed by US citizens? eg, When the US navy decided to bring down an Iranian passenger plane, Airbus A300, flight 655, resulting in the deaths of some 300 civilians?

Edited February 4, 2017 by onthesoi

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

 

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.

I only referred to Iran as a rogue state. But the others are in pretty bad shape also!

[Dagnabbit]

 
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.

Nope. This judgement is the result of a democrat attorney general taking the case to a friendly court.

It's politics and won't stand.

As for your hope that the CEO if your employer can subvert a democratically elected leader. Good luck with that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ulysses G.]

4 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?

 

Because these particular countries are either in chaos or so hostile to the US that it is very difficult to effectively vet refugees. There is also state sponsored counterfeiting of documents going on.

[ilostmypassword]

29 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

Nope. This judgement is the result of a democrat attorney general taking the case to a friendly court.

It's politics and won't stand.

As for your hope that the CEO if your employer can subvert a democratically elected leader. Good luck with that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It figures that a trump supporter would equate "  legal actions the company were taking to block Trump " with subversion. Nasty, nasty rule of law.President Bannon, I mean Trump, will soon see to that.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

Because these particular countries are either in chaos or so hostile to the US that it is very difficult to effectively vet refugees. There is also state sponsored counterfeiting of documents going on.

Utter nonsense. The intelligence services who know about such things were left out of the decision making process that led to this ban. This was strictly political.

[Opl]

Very presidential .. Trump thinks he has SCOTUS in his Pocket with such contempt for a federal judge.. Trump's tweet is a real awkwardness in a country that venerates the judicial institution.

( Trump is a dangerous man because powerful ignorant and megalomaniac)

 

 

Donald J. Trump

 

✔ @realDonaldTrump

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

14:12 - 4 Févr 2017

Edited February 4, 2017 by Opl

[Ulysses G.]

7 minutes ago, Opl said:

Very presidential .. Trump thinks he has SCOTUS in his Pocket with such contempt for a federal judge

 

Donald J. Trump

 

✔ @realDonaldTrump

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

14:12 - 4 Févr 2017

 

Trump is correct on both counts. However, maybe he could have pointed it out a little more gently.

[Opl]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Trump is correct on both counts. However, maybe he could have pointed it out a little more gently.

But of course!  So-called President Trump should suspend the civil "justice" and temporarily establish military justice throughout the US territory and for all crimes. The time for an extensive anti-corruption investigation to be conducted on all civil judges.
We (the people)   must take the power that these judges have stolen and return it to its legitimate owner: the People, and its representant : so-called President Trump

 

Beginning of the confrontation between  SCOTUS and  POTUS. Let's see, who is really big

Edited February 4, 2017 by Opl

[Dagnabbit]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It figures that a trump supporter would equate "  legal actions the company were taking to block Trump " with subversion. Nasty, nasty rule of law.President Bannon, I mean Trump, will soon see to that.

The law is on Trumps side - as you will soon see.

 

Trump is merely fulfilling his election promises, which is very refreshing as no president in living history has done that before, let alone so quickly.

 

Butthurt democrats will of course try to block everything he does through the courts, something that won't work for them.

 

As mentioned earlier - enjoy your little victory lap.

[Dagnabbit]

4 minutes ago, Opl said:

But of course! President Trump should suspend the civil "justice" and temporarily establish military justice throughout the US territory and for all crimes. The time for an extensive anti-corruption investigation to be conducted on all civil judges.
We (the people)   must take the power that these judges have stolen and return it to its legitimate owner: the People.

 

Beginning of the confrontation between the SCOTUS and the POTUS. Let's see, who is really big

No - he'll just go to a higher court where a biased judge won't be making a decision.

 

In this case, the judge should have recused himself because of his own conflicts of interest. He wasn't the man to make the decision.

 

[Dagnabbit]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

It figures that a trump supporter would equate "  legal actions the company were taking to block Trump " with subversion. Nasty, nasty rule of law.President Bannon, I mean Trump, will soon see to that.

 

Thanks for the heads up by the way - I've just sent an email to Amazon and told them why I will not be using them again.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/30/jeff-bezos-donald-trump-immigration-ban/

 

Also mentioned this to any friends that don't know about it already. Some have already sent messages to Amazon too.

 

Companies subverting democracy is just part of the swamp-draining that needs to take place.  Of course, this is really about Bezos fear that Trump will go after companies like Amazon for tax avoidance. 

 

http://time.com/money/4566339/amazon-stock-donald-trump-president-white-house-trade-taxes/

[geriatrickid]

8 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.

 

Childish comment and one that shows your lack of respect for the rule of law.

In the civilized, developed world, the proper place to contest a political decision one believes is unlawful is within the court system. Opponents of the executive order did just that: They followed the rules and worked within the sytem and here you are calling them losers. That speaks volumes about you.

 

If the executive order is lawful, then the courts will decide accordingly. Until then, the provisions of the US Constitution prevail.

 

Apparently, you wish to over turn the  US Constitution and its judicial system. You attack the basis upon which the USA is  built.  Mr. Trump supports the death penalty for treason. Chew on that.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

39 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

Thanks for the heads up by the way - I've just sent an email to Amazon and told them why I will not be using them again.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/30/jeff-bezos-donald-trump-immigration-ban/

 

Also mentioned this to any friends that don't know about it already. Some have already sent messages to Amazon too.

 

Companies subverting democracy is just part of the swamp-draining that needs to take place.  Of course, this is really about Bezos fear that Trump will go after companies like Amazon for tax avoidance. 

 

http://time.com/money/4566339/amazon-stock-donald-trump-president-white-house-trade-taxes/

 

Amazon is avoiding a lot of taxes to be sure, but they are till now avoiding those taxes lawfully. Hopefully the law will be changed. The area to go after Amazon is the anti-trust area.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Opl said:

 

Beginning of the confrontation between  SCOTUS and  POTUS. Let's see, who is really big

The Supreme Court will uphold the President's executive order. It is  legal. It is reasonable and Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed soon. President Trump will control the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court.

Lefty loser politicians and crybabies will be impotent for years and all the riots, protests and hissy fits in the world will not change that.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[onthesoi]

51 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

Of course, this is really about Bezos fear that Trump will go after companies like Amazon for tax avoidance.

Does this mean Trump will have to start paying taxes?

Edited February 4, 2017 by onthesoi

[Dagnabbit]

45 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Childish comment and one that shows your lack of respect for the rule of law.

In the civilized, developed world, the proper place to contest a political decision one believes is unlawful is within the court system. Opponents of the executive order did just that: They followed the rules and worked within the sytem and here you are calling them losers. That speaks volumes about you.

 

If the executive order is lawful, then the courts will decide accordingly. Until then, the provisions of the US Constitution prevail.

 

Apparently, you wish to over turn the  US Constitution and its judicial system. You attack the basis upon which the USA is  built.  Mr. Trump supports the death penalty for treason. Chew on that.

 

 

 

Opponents of the executive order found a judge that works with refugees. He does pro-bono work for them.

 

As such, the judge should have recused himself from the case. 

 

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-recusal-what-does-it-mean-for-a-judge-to-recuse-herself/

 

Quote

There are several reasons a judge may recuse herself, or why a plaintiff, defendant or attorney might ask a judge to consider recusing herself.  For instance, the judge may have a conflict of interest: a party in the case might be a company in whom the judge has invested heavily, or may be a friend or family member.  An attorney or witness whom the judge knows personally may be involved in the case.  Or the judge may feel that, for personal reasons, she will not be able to act impartially in the case.  For instance, a judge who lost a child in a drunk driving accident may choose to recuse herself from a drunk-driving case in which a child was killed, even if the case she has to hear is not related to the situation that killed her child, because she believes her loss will prevent her from treating the defendant fairly.

 

They certainly worked the system and that's why it won't stand. It is my respect for the law that sees this for what it is.  A political move kicked off by a democrat attorney general who found a biased judge.

 

You are happy for the law to be politicized. So I would put it to you that it's YOU that have no respect for the law. Impartiality is essential.

 

[Alan Deer]

Trump is still testing the water - he's just seeing how far he can go..........then the "state of emergency" degrees etc will appear and his powers will increase - this has all happened before in Germany. maybe the US electorate will wake up and do something before it gets out of hand.

[jerojero]

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 

But but but... He's only a so-called federal judge. Much like a so-called rigged election. And Trump who so-called represents the common man.

[dexterm]

Judge's ruling against the "so-called President's" ban is interesting...

 

"The Judge asked the federal government lawyer, Michelle Bennett, if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Mr Trump's order since 9/11. Ms Bennet said she did not know.

 

"The answer is none. You're here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there's no support for that," Judge Robart said. 

 

For President Trump's order to be constitutional, Judge Robart said, it had to be "based in fact, as opposed to fiction." 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-lastest-executive-order-travel-immigration-refugee-iraq-syria-a7562461.html

 

 

[Scott]

A few off-topic posts have been removed along with replies.   The thread isn't about Trump's taxes.  

[lostlink]

The judge's ruling will be kicked to the curb...........

 

 

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

 

[Credo]

I think the key here is the following:

 

.... finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States ....

 

There is a difference between a finding and a prejudicial belief and that may be the crux of this argument.   I don't know that Trump has any particular 'finding'.   

[WaywardWind]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

No. He is avoiding them because of a loss of income in the past. It is perfectly legal.

How do you know that he is avoiding payment of taxes based on past losses?

[Ulysses G.]

16 minutes ago, Credo said:

I think the key here is the following:

 

.... finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States ....

 

There is a difference between a finding and a prejudicial belief and that may be the crux of this argument.   I don't know that Trump has any particular 'finding'.   

 

You deleted the most important part of the rule: that "he may deem to be appropriate". It is up to the President.