ACLU Wins - Federal Judge Just Issued A Stay Against Trump's Muslim Ban

[RavenSky]

Meh. Cheato's EO will continue to cause pain and confusion to innocent people for as long as it bounces around the courts, and maybe far beyond. In the long run, it will likely help to disempower Cheato's cabal, come mid-term time. By then, Cheato will hopefully have made even more blundering errors that will motivate people to show up and vote out the republican yes-men who enable his insanity.

Why don't you take it up with the Obama administration as well though Trump added more countries and expanded the ban. I have earlier mentioned what seems to have been wrong with the ban regarding stopping people who have already been assured entry by way of a visa.

This, btw, is bullshit. Your claim has been thoroughly debunk, and your "alt-facts" are pathetic

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[TV and credit cards]

Denied, trumpstick and maybe contempt charges.

if federal officials did not provide the list within “a short time” — perhaps as early as Friday — he would consider filing a contempt of court complaint against the administration.

The case may emerge as the first of its kind to decide whether the Trump administration disobeyed Judge Donnelly’s ruling

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why don't you take it up with the Obama administration as well though Trump added more countries and expanded the ban. I have earlier mentioned what seems to have been wrong with the ban regarding stopping people who have already been assured entry by way of a visa.

This, btw, is bullshit. Your claim has been thoroughly debunk, and your "alt-facts" are pathetic

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

2011https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/barack-obama-travel-ban-statement-protests-trump

The US has a right to restrict who it wants but as expected the courts ruled it unconstitutional to turn back people with Visas and Green Cards. In common sense terms it's breaking a promise once given, unless there is a valid cause to reject the recipient.

This is one source. I haven't yet been able to see the legislation

http://ktla.com/2017/01/29/7-countr...ntries-of-concern-under-obama-administration/
In December 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.
Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn’t traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.
Trump’s order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.


I doubt if Trump's appeal would be a success regarding those already with visas and green cards.

James Maddison can comment on this post if he sees it as he is legally qualified in this area.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Federal Appeals court doesn't overrule the Federal judge. Trump case is over, unless a full case can be heard and done with appeals within the ban time. Sorry Trumpets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This, btw, is bullshit. Your claim has been thoroughly debunk, and your "alt-facts" are pathetic

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

2011https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/barack-obama-travel-ban-statement-protests-trump

The US has a right to restrict who it wants but as expected the courts ruled it unconstitutional to turn back people with Visas and Green Cards. In common sense terms it's breaking a promise once given, unless there is a valid cause to reject the recipient.

This is one source. I haven't yet been able to see the legislation

http://ktla.com/2017/01/29/7-countr...ntries-of-concern-under-obama-administration/
In December 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.
Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn’t traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.
Trump’s order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.


I doubt if Trump's appeal would be a success regarding those already with visas and green cards.

James Maddison can comment on this post if he sees it as he is legally qualified in this area.

James Madison didn't know what a legal search was in a case involving a warrantless tracker being placed on a car. JM's opinion was disagreed with by all 9 justices.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Department of Homeland Security said it will no longer force airlines to block those foreigners with visas from boarding planes, while the State Department also announced it has reversed the cancellation of visas under Trump's executive order.

The order had barred people carrying visas from Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days out of terrorism concerns. In addition, refugees were banned for 120 days and all Syrian refugees were stopped indefinitely from traveling to America.

The State Department had said up to 60,000 foreigners had their visas "provisionally revoked" since the order went into effect a week ago.

But the department's decision to overturn the policy essentially backs up federal court Judge James L. Robart who on Friday issued a temporary restraining order challenging Trump's executive order and giving visa-holders from the seven countries safe passage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-banned-countries-citizens-able-board-n716801

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This, btw, is bullshit. Your claim has been thoroughly debunk, and your "alt-facts" are pathetic

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

The why is Trump tweeting that it is a ban?

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

The why is Trump tweeting that it is a ban?

That's the politics of it. While nothing is certain with Obama this was a pause because afterwards the entries continued. A current 90 day ban could be politically defined as a pause if it is lifted afterwards.

However, whileUS should be able to vet who it wants the forbidding those with green cards and visas seems un-American, or not good cricket as Coln Blimp would say. I believe a court eventually would (and did) reject. In this issue I think Trump's appeal if he wants to keep these in have a strong possibility of failing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

2011https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/barack-obama-travel-ban-statement-protests-trump

The US has a right to restrict who it wants but as expected the courts ruled it unconstitutional to turn back people with Visas and Green Cards. In common sense terms it's breaking a promise once given, unless there is a valid cause to reject the recipient.

This is one source. I haven't yet been able to see the legislation

http://ktla.com/2017/01/29/7-countr...ntries-of-concern-under-obama-administration/
In December 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.
Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn’t traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.
Trump’s order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.


I doubt if Trump's appeal would be a success regarding those already with visas and green cards.

James Maddison can comment on this post if he sees it as he is legally qualified in this area.

James Madison didn't know what a legal search was in a case involving a warrantless tracker being placed on a car. JM's opinion was disagreed with by all 9 justices.

This is something which was introduced as technology and thus interpreted in law just a few years later after some deliberation. In fact this had to be debated in court so maybe it's not something someone can answer other than their opinion at the time.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The why is Trump tweeting that it is a ban?

That's the politics of it. While nothing is certain with Obama this was a pause because afterwards the entries continued. A current 90 day ban could be politically defined as a pause if it is lifted afterwards.

So it is a ban to everyone else, but you call it a pause, therefore it is not a ban because you have decreed it.

What you are doing is trying to gaslight us.

 

[James Madison]

This is from the Guardian. This was not a ban but a pause.

2011https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/barack-obama-travel-ban-statement-protests-trump

The US has a right to restrict who it wants but as expected the courts ruled it unconstitutional to turn back people with Visas and Green Cards. In common sense terms it's breaking a promise once given, unless there is a valid cause to reject the recipient.

This is one source. I haven't yet been able to see the legislation

http://ktla.com/2017/01/29/7-countr...ntries-of-concern-under-obama-administration/
In December 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.
Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn’t traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.
Trump’s order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.


I doubt if Trump's appeal would be a success regarding those already with visas and green cards.

James Maddison can comment on this post if he sees it as he is legally qualified in this area.

James Madison didn't know what a legal search was in a case involving a warrantless tracker being placed on a car. JM's opinion was disagreed with by all 9 justices.

Do you realize the considerable number of legal experts who held theview the GPS attached to the car wasn't a search? Many. And such an opinion wasn't entirely baseless since there are two Supreme Court cases, while not parallel, but are similar. The cases were State v. Knotts and State v Karo.

Furthermore, the use of a GPS device was novel, no previous opinion ever issued by the Court had addressed the use of the GPS device. The closest thing to the GPS was the beepers in Knotts and Karo. So, this wasn't an instance in which the outcome, the decision by the Court, was clearly known and the result a foregone conclusion.

It's interesting because while the decision was 9-0, not all 9 justices agreed with how Scalia arrives to the outcome. In other words, several justices, 4 to be exact, agreed to the outcome but didn't share Scalia's legal reasoning in reaching the outcome.

Indeed, by your ponderous logic, the losing attorneys before the Court, whose legal argument and reasoning the Court rejected, cannot be trusted to make a coherent, and rational legal opinion. The ACLU is an organization with an abundance of attorneys who, having their legal argument rejected by the courts and lost, cannot be trusted with a legal opinion.

Being wrong in the past about a legal opinion by virtue the a court has rejected the legal argument isn't any indication of whether someone has made a sound and rational legal argument, as you suggest. If what you suggest is true, then there isn't a lawyer in the country whose opinion on a legal matter can be trusted.

Losing an argument before a court provides no indication of whether the attorney previously, presently, or in the future, has made a sound and rational argument. Whether a legal argument is sound is based on its reasoning and use of prior decisions in a rational and reasonable manner, and not by the wins and losses column.

You have no point Higgins. Your post is nothing more than a result of your wounded hubris, having ventured an erroneous statement of the EO and the practice of law itself. And now you make another remarkably, irrational remark.

You have no logical or rational point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Federal Appeals court doesn't overrule the Federal judge. Trump case is over, unless a full case can be heard and done with appeals within the ban time. Sorry Trumpets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? Federal appellate courts exist to review a federal judges' decision and are vested with the authority to "overrule" the "Federal judge" and have, on many occasions, exercised said authority.

Furthermore, federal appellate courts can be requested to expedite the process and accelerate the time table for oral arguments. In addition, federal appellate courts have also been known to not only accelerate the form table for oral argument but have speedily issued an opinion.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Angry Floof]

That's the politics of it. While nothing is certain with Obama this was a pause because afterwards the entries continued. A current 90 day ban could be politically defined as a pause if it is lifted afterwards.

So it is a ban to everyone else, but you call it a pause, therefore it is not a ban because you have decreed it.

What you are doing is trying to gaslight us.

Cult doublespeak.

Related note: It's really no surprise that the current right wing authoritarian government would be so enthusiastically embraced by scientology cultists.

 

[fast]

Federal Appeals court doesn't overrule the Federal judge. Trump case is over, unless a full case can be heard and done with appeals within the ban time. Sorry Trumpets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think trump supporters are going to be too upset over one of his continuing plethora of darts not popping a balloon. Trump is engaging in psychological warfare, and he's winning the game he's playing by distracting others from what game is in fact being played. We haven't seen crazy yet. One would think that the administration will learn to plan better in the future, but what we're going to see instead is furthered confusion over just what his aim is. If he's good and things continue to blow up with him coming out on top instead of crumbling, that's a sign that there's some brilliance behind the insanity.

 

[Elixir]

Federal Appeals court doesn't overrule the Federal judge. Trump case is over, unless a full case can be heard and done with appeals within the ban time. Sorry Trumpets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think trump supporters are going to be too upset over one of his continuing plethora of darts not popping a balloon. Trump is engaging in psychological warfare, and he's winning the game he's playing by distracting others from what game is in fact being played. We haven't seen crazy yet. One would think that the administration will learn to plan better in the future, but what we're going to see instead is furthered confusion over just what his aim is. If he's good and things continue to blow up with him coming out on top instead of crumbling, that's a sign that there's some brilliance behind the insanity.

It will be about how "success" is measured. There will be some who lose their savings, their health insurance, their homes, their jobs - and will STILL celebrate the Great Change wrought by their tangerine hero.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Federal Appeals court doesn't overrule the Federal judge. Trump case is over, unless a full case can be heard and done with appeals within the ban time. Sorry Trumpets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? Federal appellate courts exist to review a federal judges' decision and are vested with the authority to "overrule" the "Federal judge" and have, on many occasions, exercised said authority.

I appreciate the civics lesson. I was saying the appellate court refused to overrule the stay of the ban. Though it looks like something could be rereversed on Monday or Tuesday, so maybe not so dark for the Shadow Admin.

 

[James Madison]

This week, the American Civil Liberties Union filed 18 requests under the Freedom of Information Act seeking data on the US Customs and Border Protection service’s implementation of the ban. The group said it acted following press reports that border control officers had detained and deported individuals even after federal courts had ordered a halt to the practice.

“It is imperative that the public learn if federal immigration officials are blatantly defying nationwide federal court orders that block President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban,” said Mitra Ebadolahi, a San Diego-based ACLU attorney.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a12d3e0-ea52-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

I'm interested in reading how this federal judge, or anyone of the other federal judges in which a challenge to the EO has been filed in their court, addresses the doctrine of Plenary Power in the area of immigration. Based on the existing cases, the Plenary Power doctrine will have to suffer some diminution for a court to render the entire/part of the EO as unconstitutional. Which in my opinion, in regards to the 1st Amendment, this would be an improvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the courts determined immigration policy it would be a farce. However banning someone for no specific reason who has already been allowed in by way of a visa will be more difficult to enforce.

The courts wouldn't need to determine immigration policy but simply prohibit violations of the 1st Amendment absent a rational basis to do so.

I concur with your view regarding those already visas and/or approved to receive any visa.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to have a good knowledge of this. Is it okay to ask you if you are trained in law?

I'm an attorney. I specialize in criminal law and constitutional law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So then what did you think about the previous posts (plural) in regard to due process and equal protection as it applies to persons in the country who seek citizenship/permanent residence with visas and paperwork not being able to leave and return?

The individuals already possessing visas/green cards cannot likely have them summarily revoked, terminated, and/or suspended by EO, without violating due process, absent a very important government reason to do so. See the cases of Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/254 and Matthew v Eldridge, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/319 .

The property interest being the green card and visas. A word of caution, however, is that these cases were not decided in the area of immigration, a Plenary Power of the government. However, there is an immigration case where the Court said, in DICTA, the President must enforce immigration law in a manner consistent with the procedures required by Due Process. I'll see if I can find the decision.

A more difficult factual situation to assess is all those individuals having already completed the entire process to receive a green card/visas, but have not yet received them, and are now not receiving them before of the EO. In my view, they are entitled to the visas/green cards, as the EO violates due process by summarily denying them to this group of people, unless a very important reason exists the government can cite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

This week, the American Civil Liberties Union filed 18 requests under the Freedom of Information Act seeking data on the US Customs and Border Protection service’s implementation of the ban. The group said it acted following press reports that border control officers had detained and deported individuals even after federal courts had ordered a halt to the practice.

“It is imperative that the public learn if federal immigration officials are blatantly defying nationwide federal court orders that block President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban,” said Mitra Ebadolahi, a San Diego-based ACLU attorney.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a12d3e0-ea52-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

I'm interested in reading how this federal judge, or anyone of the other federal judges in which a challenge to the EO has been filed in their court, addresses the doctrine of Plenary Power in the area of immigration. Based on the existing cases, the Plenary Power doctrine will have to suffer some diminution for a court to render the entire/part of the EO as unconstitutional. Which in my opinion, in regards to the 1st Amendment, this would be an improvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the courts determined immigration policy it would be a farce. However banning someone for no specific reason who has already been allowed in by way of a visa will be more difficult to enforce.

The courts wouldn't need to determine immigration policy but simply prohibit violations of the 1st Amendment absent a rational basis to do so.

I concur with your view regarding those already visas and/or approved to receive any visa.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to have a good knowledge of this. Is it okay to ask you if you are trained in law?

I'm an attorney. I specialize in criminal law and constitutional law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So then what did you think about the previous posts (plural) in regard to due process and equal protection as it applies to persons in the country who seek citizenship/permanent residence with visas and paperwork not being able to leave and return?

Galvan v Press, "Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process. But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government."

See also Fiallo v Bell, "At the outset, it is important to underscore the limited scope of judicial inquiry into immigration legislation. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that "over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over" the admission of aliens. Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909); accord, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 (1972). Our cases "have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control." Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953); see, e. g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952); Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889). Our recent decisions have not departed from this long-established rule. Just last Term, for example, the Court had occasion to note that "the power over aliens is of a political character and therefore subject only to narrow judicial review." Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 101 n. 21 (1976), citing Fong Yue Ting v. United States, supra, at 713; accord, Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 -82 (1976). And we observed recently that in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." Id., at 80. 4 [430 U.S. 787, 793]."

See Kleindienst v Mandel, which refused a visa because of the economic and political views of the individual. The Court upheld the government's conduct. "In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in 212 (a) (28) of the Act has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When, as in this case, the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In my view, they are entitled to the visas/green cards, as the EO violates due process by summarily denying them to this group of people, unless a very important reason exists the government can cite.

I would assume it would be on individuals rather than the entire class that such reasons need to apply.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So it is a ban to everyone else, but you call it a pause, therefore it is not a ban because you have decreed it.

What you are doing is trying to gaslight us.

Cult doublespeak.

Related note: It's really no surprise that the current right wing authoritarian government would be so enthusiastically embraced by scientology cultists.

More bleating. Trump is the least worst of the candidates, but acted rashly in this case by forbidding people who had already received visas and green cards.
The US is within its rights to stop issuing more visas and green cards or to seal its borders. The ban was actually a temporary stay for a period of time.

There are over 30 Muslim countries which are not affected by the ban