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

[J842P]

You clearly do not understand what a rhetorical ploy means. Your argument is based on a false premise (that the words must match the intent) and faulty reasoning (see below).

Regardless, my conclusion is not based on any faulty reasoning

More faulty reasoning. Shrimp nets are intended to catch shrimp. The fact they catch other types of fish and shell fish does not negate the intent to catch shrimp. So an action that is intended to ban Muslims ends up banning Muslims and non-Muslims does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims. It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous.

That's a great way to put it. Using James Madison's reasoning, a shrimp net is not a shrimp net because it also catches other fish.

 

[J842P]

Thank you for the accommodation, one should cease the irrational argument of imputing intent upon the text of the EO, indeed substituting the intent for the words of the EO. The characterization isn't accurate and never will be as it pertains to this EO.

This is silly. Words are merely symbols for human intent. You might as well say that the EO is not a Muslim ban because it is merely ink on paper.

 

[fast]

Thank you for the accommodation, one should cease the irrational argument of imputing intent upon the text of the EO, indeed substituting the intent for the words of the EO. The characterization isn't accurate and never will be as it pertains to this EO.

This is silly. Words are merely symbols for human intent. You might as well say that the EO is not a Muslim ban because it is merely ink on paper.

Words denote meaning and are used to convey meaning. The lexical meaning of words are independent of what we want them to mean, for such meaning is a function of fluent collective usage instead of individual usage and intent.

 

[James Madison]

Thank you for the accommodation, one should cease the irrational argument of imputing intent upon the text of the EO, indeed substituting the intent for the words of the EO. The characterization isn't accurate and never will be as it pertains to this EO.

This is silly. Words are merely symbols for human intent. You might as well say that the EO is not a Muslim ban because it is merely ink on paper.

Your proposition above is silly. In fact, what you just said doesn't make any damn sense! Did you read what in the hell you just wrote?

The EO is not a Muslim ban because of the very words used in the EO! Ya know, those words in the EO that have an accompanying meaning and when combined together with others words and their meaning in a phrase, sentence, and paragraphs they express a freaking message.

You are familiar with this concept. After all, you engage in the exercise of using words, and their meaning, to express a message, just like the EO. Yes, as freaking impossible it is for you to fathom but everyone of your damn posts is an exercise in using words, along with their meaning, to express a message, just like the EO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fast]

You clearly do not understand what a rhetorical ploy means. Your argument is based on a false premise (that the words must match the intent) and faulty reasoning (see below).
More faulty reasoning. Shrimp nets are intended to catch shrimp. The fact they catch other types of fish and shell fish does not negate the intent to catch shrimp. So an action that is intended to ban Muslims ends up banning Muslims and non-Muslims does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims. It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous.

That's a great way to put it. Using James Madison's reasoning, a shrimp net is not a shrimp net because it also catches other fish.

A shrimp net that catches more than just shrimp is of course a shrimp net, but that's a necessary truth dependent not on intent but original function and design. A broken television being used to keep a door ajar can evidently have a secondary purpose, but used as a door stop as it might be, it is not what we'd find on an isle designed to primarily serve that purpose.

 

[James Madison]

You clearly do not understand what a rhetorical ploy means. Your argument is based on a false premise (that the words must match the intent) and faulty reasoning (see below).
More faulty reasoning. Shrimp nets are intended to catch shrimp. The fact they catch other types of fish and shell fish does not negate the intent to catch shrimp. So an action that is intended to ban Muslims ends up banning Muslims and non-Muslims does not mean that the intent was not to ban Muslims. It simply means the action/EO is poorly worded or the EO is disingenuous.

That's a great way to put it. Using James Madison's reasoning, a shrimp net is not a shrimp net because it also catches other fish.

No. The shrimp net isn't analogous. Comparing a fish net, which isn't a writing, to the EO, which is a writing, is not a parallel comparison.

And my reasoning is related to a written text and what the text says. Hence, my reasoning isn't applicable to a fish net, an object that doesn't contain any written text.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That doesn't explain anything. Why would it apply to a non-text filter but not to a text filter? You need to explain why this is not a distinction without a difference.

 

[RavenSky]

Restraining order to stay in nationwide effect until Judge Robart considers challenge

Seattle judge halts further implementation of Trump travel ban
Restraining order to stay in nationwide effect until Judge Robart considers challenge

US District Judge James Robart, who was appointed to the bench in 2003 by former President George W Bush, granted a request by Washington’s state attorney-general to stop implementation of Mr Trump’s ban on refugees and travellers from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The judge’s temporary restraining order will remain in nationwide effect until Mr Robart considers the state’s challenge to the president’s January 27 travel ban as illegal and unconstitutional.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” said Bob Ferguson, the state attorney-general. “No one is above the law — not even the president.”

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

 

[whichphilosophy]

US District Judge James Robart, who was appointed to the bench in 2003 by former President George W Bush, granted a request by Washington’s state attorney-general to stop implementation of Mr Trump’s ban on refugees and travellers from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The judge’s temporary restraining order will remain in nationwide effect until Mr Robart considers the state’s challenge to the president’s January 27 travel ban as illegal and unconstitutional.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” said Bob Ferguson, the state attorney-general. “No one is above the law — not even the president.”

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

From the point of view of civil rights, especially in countries practising Case Law, banning people who have already been granted permission, (citing no particular reason) would be unfair thus opening an easy way to remove the ban in such cases.

As for a freeze on future visas that could be easier as the US has a right to accept who it wants. However experts on constitutional law can hopefully contribute to comments on such threads.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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

From the point of view of civil rights, especially in countries practising Case Law, banning people who have already been granted permission, (citing no particular reason) would be unfair thus opening an easy way to remove the ban in such cases.

As for a freeze on future visas that could be easier as the US has a right to accept who it wants. However experts on constitutional law can hopefully contribute to comments on such threads.

That is the sad truth of it. As for the good folks currently stranded, Trump will loose any appeal as I do not think they can not counter what Judge Robarts said: For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

 

[James Madison]

US District Judge James Robart, who was appointed to the bench in 2003 by former President George W Bush, granted a request by Washington’s state attorney-general to stop implementation of Mr Trump’s ban on refugees and travellers from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The judge’s temporary restraining order will remain in nationwide effect until Mr Robart considers the state’s challenge to the president’s January 27 travel ban as illegal and unconstitutional.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” said Bob Ferguson, the state attorney-general. “No one is above the law — not even the president.”

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

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

 

[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

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

 

[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

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

If you get time maybe you might find this interesting.
Trump's Executive Order Calls for Concentration Camps for Undocumented Immigrants

 

[Elixir]

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.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

 

[Elixir]

Why don't you take it up with the Obama administration as well though Trump added more countries and expanded the ban.

Why don't you give up on blaming Obama for all of Cheato's bumbling incompetence? Try reading the responses last time you tried that diversion.