0
2

[–] pissed 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well, it's the third arm of the government. Things like this happen to all presidents.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] aria_taint ago 

That's the point, it IS a legal executive order and 100% within his right as president to do it. This judge said it was unconstitutional and that it was a ban on muslims which is a complete falsehood. This judge is completely wrong in his ruling and I bet it's over turned very quickly.

0
1

[–] 7897161? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I wonder if it could have been written/conducted better. Maybe with a more detailed background check or literacy requirement? Ideally I'd like something that would keep out riffraff like Somalis and Sudanese but the Iran thing really bugs me.

1
1

[–] Fred 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

That "So called judge" is a GWB appointee who was voted in 99-0. Nothing so-called about him.

0
0

[–] HenryDavidThoreau ago 

Checks n' Balances

0
0

[–] aria_taint ago  (edited ago)

My question is that a judge that was appointed by Bush why now with the "your executive action is not legal" which is 100% wrong it is legal,where was this judge when Obama pushed though untold number of ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL executive orders? Sounds like this judge has a hard on for Trump.

0
0

[–] pissed ago 

A few of Obama's orders were questioned by the courts (don't know which judges) and went to the SCOTUS. Obama lost some of these cases. Off hand I don't know which ones but you could look them up.

0
0

[–] aria_taint ago 

I agree but this judge was mum on everything Obama did and only pops up when Trump passes an executive order.

0
0

[–] irregularverb ago 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Hanen Judge Hanen in Brownsville, Texas ruled against Obama. He was upheld by the Supreme Court. He once called the Department of Homeland Security a co-conspirator in human trafficking. His actual quote was ""DHS should cease telling the citizens of the United States that it is enforcing our border security laws because it is not. Even worse, it is helping those who violate these laws."

0
0

[–] irregularverb ago 

The President's Executive Order is legal. The Seattle Judge is suggesting that it is illegal because it unconstitutionally discriminates against Islam. Well, lets do a quick analysis. From the Judge's perspective the order would have to be unconstitutional on its face, i.e., the order explicitly bans Muslims, or alternatively, the order could be unconstitutional in effect by causing harm to Muslims but not other religions. Obviously, the order is NOT discriminatory on its face because the words Muslim or Islam are NEVER mentioned. So all we are left with now is the question of whether the executive order applies equally to members of all different religions. The answer appears to be that the travel was applied equally to everyone from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen without any consideration given to religion. There is no evidence that government officials even knew the religion of the persons stopped at the airport. Additionally, more Muslims live in India and Indonesia than live in the countries that are included in the ban, yet Muslims from India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and everywhere else from around the world are free to travel to the U.S. with proper documentation. There were ten of thousands of Muslims that traveled to the U.S. during the ban so it would be impossible to say that the ban targets Muslims. The ban simply targeted countries (except Iraq) where the U.S. does not have good diplomatic liaison or intel officers in country. It was intended to be a short term temporary ban to give the government time to figure out how to vet people from countries where you cannot even check with the local police to see if a person is good or bad because there is no functioning central government. Totally reasonable and prudent