Judge blocks Donald Trump’s immigration ban nationwide

This morning Trump declares it to be a ruling by a "so-called judge" and that it will be overturned.

Evidently Trump intends to blame the failure of his muddled and badly thought-through (and executed) orders onto the judges. He may be President, but he "isn't part of the establishment" - the line being offered to his supporters. Probably this is all part of the Bannon game plan - the idea is to whip the mob up into continued anti-government hysteria and total disregard for the constitution he just swore to uphold.

It could not be plainer that their aim is a sort of total national collapse into libertarian anarchy. They are trying to destroy the US government.

We are getting close to the end of civilisation as we know it, if this becomes a real thing, which they intend it to be.

Reply 2

Ladbants

The judge was influenced by his anti-Trump agenda. You can tell from what he said that he merely hates Trump's idea because of Trump, not because it was 'unconstitutional'. If it was unconstitutional, why didn't anyone rule against Obama's one month ban on Iraqis?

I'm sick and tired of judges interfering with the will of the people- it's happened with the triggering of Article 50 here and with Trump in the US. Trump was elected to do what he campaigned for. He campaigned for a ban. Now the opposition can sit back, complain and wait till the next election!

Reply 3

StrawbAri

17

I hope this means Trump will take his time and carefully consider this, fix all the issues to do with green card holders etc
OR
Maybe even realise that home grown terrorism are a bigger problem and crack down on the Saudi funded propaganda being shoved into the country and implement strong vetting policies to control and filter people coming in from problematic countries rather than a blanket ban so it's a win win. The masses that voted for you feel safe and secure + the masses that dislike you won't really have any reason to protest/cause trouble because you've handled things in a civil and diplomatic manner.

It seems so much easier in my head than this convoluted mess that's going on right now :lol:

Reply 4

Aj12

18

Original post by Ladbants

The judge was influenced by his anti-Trump agenda. You can tell from what he said that he merely hates Trump's idea because of Trump, not because it was 'unconstitutional'. If it was unconstitutional, why didn't anyone rule against Obama's one month ban on Iraqis?

I'm sick and tired of judges interfering with the will of the people- it's happened with the triggering of Article 50 here and with Trump in the US. Trump was elected to do what he campaigned for. He campaigned for a ban. Now the opposition can sit back, complain and wait till the next election!

Well for starters Obama's policy was nothing like Trump's. http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

Secondly, I suggest you gain a modicum of understanding of what a democracy actually is. A functioning democracy is not simply I got voted in, I do what I want. That's how you end up with a state like Egypt, Russia, Venezuela, the Philippines, South Africa, and many, many others. We have Rule of Law in the West, most people with an I.Q above .5 will recognise that as a good thing.

Reply 5

Ladbants

Original post by Aj12

Well for starters Obama's policy was nothing like Trump's. http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

Secondly, I suggest you gain a modicum of understanding of what a democracy actually is. A functioning democracy is not simply I got voted in, I do what I want. That's how you end up with a state like Egypt, Russia, Venezuela, the Philippines, South Africa, and many, many others. We have Rule of Law in the West, most people with an I.Q above .5 will recognise that as a good thing.

So the will of the people should be subverted in favour of some medieval law that got passed ages ago? Great, that's such a good thing.

Reply 6

Aj12

18

Original post by Ladbants

So the will of the people should be subverted in favour of some medieval law that got passed ages ago? Great, that's such a good thing.

"The will of the people" I don't think Trump's a fascist but you certainly sound like something that crawled out of the 1930's.

Leaders, institutions, companies, and individuals should act with regard to democratic and legal norms, like respecting the legislation draw up and passed by other elected officials. This should not be a controversial sentiment.

As for "medieval laws", the laws Trump is being stopped by were passed in the 1950's, 1960's and have been tested repeatedly in court. They are not some arcane tradition that should be dropped because a loud mouth populist didn't want to spend ten minutes talking to a lawyer before throwing out executive orders.

Reply 7

jape

16

It's a temporary suspension of a temporary suspension. Nothing exciting going on here.

Reply 8

InnerTemple

This is obviously brilliant news. And Trump's reaction just makes it even better.

Reply 9

IamJacksContempt

16

Original post by Ladbants

The judge was influenced by his anti-Trump agenda. You can tell from what he said that he merely hates Trump's idea because of Trump, not because it was 'unconstitutional'. If it was unconstitutional, why didn't anyone rule against Obama's one month ban on Iraqis?

I'm sick and tired of judges interfering with the will of the people- it's happened with the triggering of Article 50 here and with Trump in the US. Trump was elected to do what he campaigned for. He campaigned for a ban. Now the opposition can sit back, complain and wait till the next election!

Utter stupidity.

I'd also like it if people stopped trying to compare this to Obama temporarily banning REFUGEE applications from Iraq. Completely different to banning greencard holders and US citizens.

Reply 10

MrSuavetopia

19

Original post by Ladbants

I'm sick and tired of judges interfering with the will of the people- it's happened with the triggering of Article 50 here and with Trump in the US

In regards to here, as ever, let the British courts decide on British issues or whatever it was Brexiters bleated on about.
In regards to the US, that's checks and balances for you. Enjoy.

Reply 11

Original post by Ladbants

Trump was elected to do what he campaigned for. He campaigned for a ban.

Trump campaigned for a ban on Muslims coming to America. Trump says this isn't a ban on Muslims.

Reply 12

Allie4

Uh-oh, here comes the whiney tantrum from Trump...

Reply 13

the bear

Original post by Ladbants

I'm sick and tired of judges interfering with the will of the people-

it is only the will of a certain segment of the people. in the case of the Brexiters it is a segment of ill-informed and bitter people.

Reply 14

Original post by jape

It's a temporary suspension of a temporary suspension. Nothing exciting going on here.

But Trump is now going to seek a stay of that temporary suspension of a temporary suspension :smile:

I think it is fair to point out that none of these judges are deciding whether than ban is unconstitutional of not. They are only deciding whether to suspend the Order whilst that is determined.

This is the judge who lifted the suspension in Massachusetts

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3445314/Boston-TRO-Expires.pdf

This is the judge who granted a suspension about an hour later in Washington

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3446215/Washington-v-Trump-Order.pdf

If you look at the Washington Order the judge nowhere says why he thinks the Plaintiff States are likely to succeed on their claims.

If you look at the Massachusetts Order and Count 1 there is no rational basis why the standard of review of whether a facially neutral provision is motivated by unlawful animus in breach of the Fifth Amendment should be different if the decision is made by the Federal Government to if it is made by a State government. Strict scrutiny clearly applies here and Trump's decision is likely to fail that standard.

So the Massachusetts decision looks to be substantively wrong on one narrow ground whilst the Washington decision should be set aside and redetermined because no finding has been made on a key issue, in my humble opinion.

Reply 15

MagicNMedicine

If Trump doesn't want to fit in and respect the law of his country he's free to **** off to another country.

Reply 16

yudothis

Original post by Ladbants

The judge was influenced by his anti-Trump agenda. You can tell from what he said that he merely hates Trump's idea because of Trump, not because it was 'unconstitutional'. If it was unconstitutional, why didn't anyone rule against Obama's one month ban on Iraqis?

I'm sick and tired of judges interfering with the will of the people- it's happened with the triggering of Article 50 here and with Trump in the US. Trump was elected to do what he campaigned for. He campaigned for a ban. Now the opposition can sit back, complain and wait till the next election!

The judge is a Republican judge.

And why are you tired of judges? You don't want them to uphold the law? You think the "will of the people" which btw was not a majority, is above the law?

Reply 17

Bid for a stay on the suspension refused

This is the application

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/04/17-35105%20motion.pdf

and this the order

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/05/17-35105.pdf

I do not think the federal government is going to get anywhere with the locus standi argument.

There is a real problem that the judge in Washington hasn't said why he thinks the challenging states will win; but noticeably the federal government hasn't addressed the key argument that the stated reasons for the Executive Order are a sham (see
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally)

Reply 18

Fullofsurprises

Original post by MagicNMedicine

If Trump doesn't want to fit in and respect the law of his country he's free to **** off to another country.

I'm sure he would be more than welcome in Mexico.

Reply 19