JUST hours before it was set to go into effect at the stroke of midnight on March 16th, Donald Trump’s second try at an executive order to pause travel from several Muslim-majority countries was batted down by a federal district court in Hawaii. Judge Derrick Watson, nominated to the bench by Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2013, was unimpressed with Mr Trump’s attempt to immunise his revised ban from its illicit discriminatory origin. The 43-page order did not mince words. “The illogic of the Government’s contentions”, Mr Watson wrote, “is palpable”.
So, politically minded judges rule the US, rather than its elected President.
This one has a good grasp of political correctness and sarcasm.
Are you upset because the judge tool that stance?
It’d pay you to wait for the edit time to run out. Some of us are a bit slow up top.
Good thing it’s only 20 minutes.
Your typing was so fast that “k” ended up as “l”. But, in that regard, we all live in glass houses. :shrug:
Yes. you’re right. And a lot of others would agree. It’s been said a lot of times that the Judiciary (now) runs your country (applicable only if you live in the US, of course)
If some (Islam-connected) terrorist act occurs in Hawaii some time in the future, maybe that judge will reconsider his myopia. :shrug:
Of course, let’s hope it doesn’t happen.
Lol damn phone. It auto corrected my correction.
But, we are a land of laws. Well that’s at least what Trump and republicans make things out to be. If a judge sees something wrong with the order, what is the problem with him stopping it?
Because taking this to its logical conclusion, the courts are the most powerful branch in the government, and that was not the intent of the framers. That is how we get the right to enslave African Americans, or kill our offspring. Using your argument, those were the correct decisions, legally, right?
Just because a court says something doesn’t mean they are correct. Most legal experts I had seen from both sides of the aisle said this order was very tight legally and clearly within the scope of the President’s power. And yet, here we are. This will go to the USSC at this point, and Trump will likely wait until Gorsuch is appointed since he, unlike the 9th circuit, understands the Constitution and the role of jurists.
Personally, I don’t much care whether or not this EO exists either way. I and many others are fearful of a biased court system being able to wield as much power as some are, effectively acting as legislators and executors. No country can survive in a banana republic like that.
But courts have also put bad criminals in prison for a long time, courts have also brought justice. So what do you mean about slaves and killing :shrug::shrug::shrug: bad argument.
So, Gorsuch knows the constitution more than the other judges? Wow, if saying that makes you feel better go right ahead.
So basically, what you are saying is no US law or court verdict is absolutely correct or incorrect, since who are we to say what is right, in a legal sense? Who am I to oppose Dred Scott?
Viva la Roe!
I’m not sure I follow your argument here. The court is not acting with undue power here. It is providing a check on executive power, not attempting to instate some alternate order. This is precisely what our three branch system is designed to do. No one branch, the executive included, should have unchecked power.
It is pretty obvious (to those without TDS) that this judge was not ruling on the EO itself, but on things said during the campaign which have nothing to do with the EO and how it was written. I, for one, am tired of the activist judges in this country. They often find things in the constitution that simply are not there in order to accomodate their personal political leanings.
I agree. This judge did two things. First, he based a decision, not on the practical effect of a presidential order, but on the subjective intent of the president and others as he imagined it to be. Second, he extended constitutional rights to all foreign persons in other countries. If that’s to be upheld, then where does it end? Is the military to present the case of every enemy combatant to a grand jury before shooting or capturing him? If the military captures ground in war, does the government have to compensate the owner?
I doubt this judge believes all articles of the Bill of Rights apply to foreigners outside this country. He just arbitrarily picked Article One and applied it to the whole world, and without having anything but his own imagination and bias to underlie his belief it was being violated.
If that’s the case Trump has no one else to blame but himself.
Correction, we’ve become a land of Judges. Dredd is next
Nonsense. One remembers John Roberts’ ignoring the Obama rhetoric which first declared the Obamacare penalty a “fine” instead of a “tax”, then turned around and claimed it was a “tax”, not a “fine”. Roberts could have struck down Obamacare, root and branch, had he done what this judge did. Some, of course, claim he should have. But he didn’t do that. He looked at the effect of the law, not the rhetoric surrounding it.
No, appeals are allowed.
Obamacare has nothing to do with this case.
The conversation between Trump and Juiliani apparently had long term effects.
This is EXACTLY why Trump should have defended (and won) travel ban. The SC would have sided with him given thier penchant for letting a president excercise executive powers. Obama and Bush created the environment of rule of executive power. The courts have backed them, but with Trump… ideology plays into the judicial.
Backing out on defending the first ban by changing the wording is in my opinion, the first mistake of the Trump administration.
Appeals take time to be heard: lots of it. Meanwhile, back at the border…or the airport…
Should a political office-holder not be as subject to the law as anyone else?
How is it ‘political correctness’ to oppose religious discrimination?
So as long as they get Trump, you don’t care how they do it?