U.S. judge grants bid to narrow Trump travel ban

By Dan Levine

 

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday granted the state of Hawaii's bid to exempt grandparents and other relatives from President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on residents from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees.

 

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu had been asked to narrowly interpret a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that revived parts of Trump's March 6 executive order banning people from those countries for 90 days. Watson on Thursday declined to put on hold his ruling exempting grandparents from the ban.

 

A Justice Department representative could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court last month let the ban on travel from the six countries go forward with a limited scope, saying it could not apply to anyone with a credible "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity.

 

The Trump administration then decided that spouses, parents, children, fiancés and siblings would be exempt from the ban, while grandparents and other family members traveling from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be barred.

 

The Trump administration also said that all refugees without a close family tie would be blocked from the country for four months.

 

Trump said the measure was necessary to prevent attacks. However, opponents including states and refugee advocacy groups, sued to stop it, disputing its security rationale and saying it discriminated against Muslims.

 

Hawaii's attorney general Douglas Chin asked Watson to issue an injunction allowing grandparents and other family members to travel to the United States.Hawaii and refugee groups argue that resettlement agencies have a "bona fide" relationship with the refugees they help, sometimes over the course of years.

 

The Justice Department said its rules were properly grounded in immigration law.

 

In his ruling, Watson said the government had an "unduly restrictive reading" of what constituted a close family relationship.

 

The roll-out of the narrowed version of the ban was more subdued than in January, when Trump first signed a more expansive version of the order. That sparked protests and chaos at airports around the country and the world.

 

(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-14

It never ceases to amase me how a single judge in America can make a ruling that influences the whole nation. Should something as powerful as that be allowed to any wing nut who managed to get a judge position. It should at the least be put in front of a committee of judges before being put in place. A single judge can be bought like any one else in the world and it only takes one judge on the take to make rulings that affect all Americans.in a negative way.

19 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Should something as powerful as that be allowed to any wing nut who managed to get a judge position.

 

Couldn't resist inserting your infantile insult could you?

 

A nation of laws is what makes America great.

33 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

It never ceases to amase me how a single judge in America can make a ruling that influences the whole nation. Should something as powerful as that be allowed to any wing nut who managed to get a judge position. It should at the least be put in front of a committee of judges before being put in place. A single judge can be bought like any one else in the world and it only takes one judge on the take to make rulings that affect all Americans.in a negative way.

Maybe the US should do something like have a panel of judges review an individual judge's rulings when challenged. I even have an idea for a name for said panel. It would be called a Court of Appeals. 

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

It never ceases to amase me how a single judge in America can make a ruling that influences the whole nation. Should something as powerful as that be allowed to any wing nut who managed to get a judge position. It should at the least be put in front of a committee of judges before being put in place. A single judge can be bought like any one else in the world and it only takes one judge on the take to make rulings that affect all Americans.in a negative way.

Maybe you should do some research on this.  It's not just any judge, but a US Federal judge, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  Hardly a wingnut. 

 

How about the wing nut who started all this in the first place? The travel ban is disliked by a majority of Americans.  Kinda like the wing nut who started this. LOL

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Maybe you should do some research on this.  It's not just any judge, but a US Federal judge, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  Hardly a wingnut. 

 

How about the wing nut who started all this in the first place? The travel ban is disliked by a majority of Americans.  Kinda like the wing nut who started this. LOL

Actually, it's not disliked by a majority of Americans. Quite the contrary:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-travel-ban-poll-voters-240215

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, it's not disliked by a majority of Americans. Quite the contrary:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-travel-ban-poll-voters-240215

It's been swinging quite a bit.  Not long ago, it was 50/50.  From what I've read, a majority support a limited travel ban.  Not the one originally proposed by Trump.

 

Polls....LOL

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336579-poll-half-support-trump-travel-ban

Just now, craigt3365 said:

It's been swinging quite a bit.  Not long ago, it was 50/50.  From what I've read, a majority support a limited travel ban.  Not the one originally proposed by Trump.

 

Polls....LOL

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336579-poll-half-support-trump-travel-ban

Apparently the results depend on whether the question mentions Trump's name. When it does, the approval drops.

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Apparently the results depend on whether the question mentions Trump's name. When it does, the approval drops.

I took a class in college about polls.  Change the wording just a bit can have drastic effects on the results!

 

We live in crazy times.

48 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe the US should do something like have a panel of judges review an individual judge's rulings when challenged. I even have an idea for a name for said panel. It would be called a Court of Appeals. 

If I was American I would want it reviewed before being applied. not after the fact.

Just now, lovelomsak said:

If I was American I would want it reviewed before being applied. not after the fact.

That would add a huge burden to the American court system since most decisions aren't challenged.

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

That would add a huge burden to the American court system since most decisions aren't challenged.

Perhaps judges would not be able to make rash judgements huh.

Just now, lovelomsak said:

Perhaps judges would not be able to make rash judgements huh.

Perhaps presidents shouldn't be allowed to make rash executive orders?  No proper legal check was done by Trump and crew before this mess started.

33 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps presidents shouldn't be allowed to make rash executive orders?  No proper legal check was done by Trump and crew before this mess started.

Who says it was rash? The response surely was. 

 Perhaps this had been on the back burner waiting to be applied by the president.

 Well we are using perhaps. 

Perhaps he did what other presidents before did not have the balls to do or the thick skin.

Perhaps he did what was needed to done but left undone.

3 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Who says it was rash? The response surely was. 

Perhaps this had been on the back burner waiting to be applied by the president.

 

Right.

Just like the Health Care Bill.

The well thought out Wall.

 

And the "defeat ISIS" In 30 days gibberish...

 

7 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Right.

Just like the Health Care Bill.

The well thought out Wall.

 

And the "defeat ISIS" In 30 days gibberish...

 

15 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Who says it was rash? The response surely was. 

 Perhaps this had been on the back burner waiting to be applied by the president.

 Well we are using perhaps. 

Perhaps he did what other presidents before did not have the balls to do or the thick skin.

Perhaps he did what was needed to done but left undone.

Easy to research what the problems were with the ban.  It solves nothing other than getting Americans pumped up...and voting for him. 

 

19 children are shot every day due to gun violence.  Way worse than a few terrorists who sneak in.  Why didn't he go after that?  The travel ban has been a massive waste of time and money.  But it did get his based fired up for him. Politics at it's worst.

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Easy to research what the problems were with the ban.  It solves nothing other than getting Americans pumped up...and voting for him. 

 

19 children are shot every day due to gun violence.  Way worse than a few terrorists who sneak in.  Why didn't he go after that?  The travel ban has been a massive waste of time and money.  But it did get his based fired up for him. Politics at it's worst.

He is doing something, he wants to ensure that those 19 kids would have guns to fight back

1 hour ago, tonray said:

He is doing something, he wants to ensure that those 19 kids would have guns to fight back

I don't know many kids under 4 who can hold and shoot a gun.  But nice try.

Surprise surprise, another Obama appointed Judge.

12 minutes ago, jb61 said:

Surprise surprise, another Obama appointed Judge.

And approved by the Republican controlled senate.  Nice try.

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe the US should do something like have a panel of judges review an individual judge's rulings when challenged. I even have an idea for a name for said panel. It would be called a Court of Appeals. 

Courts of Appeals

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals.  The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Learn more about the courts of appeals. 

4 hours ago, tonray said:

It's ok when it's the toofless rednecks, right?  LOL.

 

5 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

Perhaps judges would not be able to make rash judgements huh.

but how do you decide what is a rash judgement

2 hours ago, yardrunner said:

but how do you decide what is a rash judgement

Same way as  you determine fake news, if it doesn't fit your narrative , it must be fake

It's a ninety day ban but the liberals filing the cases have made this go on and on in the courts.  It seems somewhat of a waste of time and money when in fact it would have been over by now had they just let the thing run its course.  Seems more reasonable to be challenging the new rules of vetting rather than a temporary travel ban.  Just a lot of people with too much time on their hands.  I am beginning to wonder whether the left would just like to do away with any restrictions as to entering the US. Maybe they would like urban ghettos (which already exist in the US) to just become worse.  The very principle of assimilation into American society is already almost nonexistent so just open the flood gates already. That's what they want. When the US finally reaches the point where there are more people on social programs than working to support them the next generation will just say give me the benefits and I will go to the beach. 

20 minutes ago, Trouble said:

It's a ninety day ban but the liberals filing the cases have made this go on and on in the courts.  It seems somewhat of a waste of time and money when in fact it would have been over by now had they just let the thing run its course.  Seems more reasonable to be challenging the new rules of vetting rather than a temporary travel ban.  Just a lot of people with too much time on their hands.  I am beginning to wonder whether the left would just like to do away with any restrictions as to entering the US. Maybe they would like urban ghettos (which already exist in the US) to just become worse.  The very principle of assimilation into American society is already almost nonexistent so just open the flood gates already. That's what they want. When the US finally reaches the point where there are more people on social programs than working to support them the next generation will just say give me the benefits and I will go to the beach. 

"The very principle of assimilation into American society is already almost nonexistent so just open the flood gates already."

I"m sure you can back that up with proof. Why don't you?

8 hours ago, Trouble said:

It's a ninety day ban but the liberals filing the cases have made this go on and on in the courts.  It seems somewhat of a waste of time and money when in fact it would have been over by now had they just let the thing run its course.  Seems more reasonable to be challenging the new rules of vetting rather than a temporary travel ban.  Just a lot of people with too much time on their hands.  I am beginning to wonder whether the left would just like to do away with any restrictions as to entering the US. Maybe they would like urban ghettos (which already exist in the US) to just become worse.  The very principle of assimilation into American society is already almost nonexistent so just open the flood gates already. That's what they want. When the US finally reaches the point where there are more people on social programs than working to support them the next generation will just say give me the benefits and I will go to the beach. 

Place the blame properly.  Trump blew this one.  It wasn't researched properly nor vetted by government lawyers.  Even Trump admitted this.  It was a bad EO done just to try and appease Trump's hardcore supporters. 

 

This has nothing to do with the left.  What Trump initially proposed violated the US constitution.  Pretty stupid to release an EO that does this.  Right?

 

You've obviously got no idea about the US or never been there.  The US is all about assimilation. And this ban will do nothing to either help ghettos or make them worse.  Just a bad EO.

20 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

If I was American I would want it reviewed before being applied. not after the fact.

Such a review would be (and probably was) done by Trump's Attorney General Sessions. But Sessions has politicized the Office to advance Trump's agenda and unlikely to criticize Trump's travel ban. Fortunately, the US Federal Court system truly remains independent.

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Such a review would be (and probably was) done by Trump's Attorney General Sessions. But Sessions has politicized the Office to advance Trump's agenda and unlikely to criticize Trump's travel ban. Fortunately, the US Federal Court system truly remains independent.

sessions politicized the office?  you're acting like it's not been happening for the last half century, at least... wake up, man.  the usa federal courts are independent?  have you ever heard of a grand jury?  you're living in a fantasy world.