Travel Ban Blocked by WA state Judge

POLITICS | Fri Feb 3, 2017 | 9:51pm EST

Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

Something not mentioned in this particular article was the judge used issues raised by Microsoft, Amazon and others that this ban affects their ability to recruit employees and thus, puts them at a disadvantage to the competitors around the world.

Personally, that's a shitty excuse and outs these companies who keep denying they're using the H1-b program as a reason to exclude hiring U.S. workers. Considering the thousands of tech employees who are laid off each year, and the thousands of people graduating from tech programs every year, except for certain select cases, there is no reason not to hire a U.S. worker other than the companies want to use the program to pay people less money.

Aside from that:

a0b9ndO_460s.jpg
 
These things shouldn't matter in a court of law. But I sense they also won't.

Remember this is nothing but a TRO. A judge will be too stupid to set the kind of precedent you are mentioning here: overturning a president in matters of national security. And the other part, giving foreign nationals US constitutional rights.

The whole thing is ridiculous. I think it was made on a Friday, to let certain emergencies in during the weekend, and to diffuse the uneducated/emotional based protests. And when the judge decides in favor of Trump, people will have to accept it and stay home.

You're right - a judge has never overruled a President on "giving foreign nationals US constitutional rights."

Oh, except when the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) overruled Bush's administration and said that the detainees at Gitmo DID have certain constitutional rights.

Where did you get your law degree from again? Or undergraduate degree? Oh, that's right - you couldn't understand the Bar Exam let alone pass it. Keep practicing your arm chair law based on Law and Order and NCIS episodes.
 
You're right - a judge has never overruled a President on "giving foreign nationals US constitutional rights."

Oh, except when the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) overruled Bush's administration and said that the detainees at Gitmo DID have certain constitutional rights.

Where did you get your law degree from again? Or undergraduate degree? Oh, that's right - you couldn't understand the Bar Exam let alone pass it. Keep practicing your arm chair law based on Law and Order and NCIS episodes.

That's not US constitutional rights. And the all lower courts had decided that they do not have constitutional rights.

The supreme court decided one technicality can be used - habeas corpus - which is an ancient British Monarch enacted law so as people cannot be detained for no reason across the kingdom, which is to have a valid explanation why you are detaining someone. The SC was 5-4 on it.

Not the same thing at all.

But, we can see you love your country.
 
Something not mentioned in this particular article was the judge used issues raised by Microsoft, Amazon and others that this ban affects their ability to recruit employees and thus, puts them at a disadvantage to the competitors around the world.

Personally, that's a shitty excuse and outs these companies who keep denying they're using the H1-b program as a reason to exclude hiring U.S. workers. Considering the thousands of tech employees who are laid off each year, and the thousands of people graduating from tech programs every year, except for certain select cases, there is no reason not to hire a U.S. worker other than the companies want to use the program to pay people less money.

Aside from that:

a0b9ndO_460s.jpg


Yea. Come on. You know how it is. MS and Apple are hiring Somalians and Yemenis by the hundreds each month.
 
That's not US constitutional rights. And the all lower courts had decided that they do not have constitutional rights.

The supreme court decided one technicality can be used - habeas corpus - which is an ancient British Monarch enacted law so as people cannot be detained for no reason across the kingdom, which is to have a valid explanation why you are detaining someone. The SC was 5-4 on it.

Not the same thing at all.

But, we can see you love your country.

You realize that it doesn't matter if the Supreme Court was 5-4 or 8-1, majority rules. That's how that works. And if you took the time to actually read THE ENTIRE opinion, you would have seen one of the questions addressed was:

"Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?"

Do you need me to look up what the Fifth Amendment means (aside from the freedom from self-incrimination)? I can do that. It's super easy. Here you go:

"The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So tell me again, oh wise one, they didn't address US Constitutional rights.

And you can try to belittle me by saying I don't love my country because I'm proving you're an idiot - I just happen to love making armchair attorneys look incompetent.

And by the way, the Supreme Court is the highest court. It's kind of a big deal. It doesn't matter what the lower courts say once the United States Supreme Court makes a decision. That is how that whole process works.

You should probably stop trying to act like you have any clue how that entire process works and maybe take a basic government class or at least look up the definition of federalism.
 
Something not mentioned in this particular article was the judge used issues raised by Microsoft, Amazon and others that this ban affects their ability to recruit employees and thus, puts them at a disadvantage to the competitors around the world.

Personally, that's a shitty excuse and outs these companies who keep denying they're using the H1-b program as a reason to exclude hiring U.S. workers. Considering the thousands of tech employees who are laid off each year, and the thousands of people graduating from tech programs every year, except for certain select cases, there is no reason not to hire a U.S. worker other than the companies want to use the program to pay people less money.

Aside from that:

a0b9ndO_460s.jpg

I think the difference in 1930's Germany, you didn't have Jewish extremist terrorists blowing up and shooting up stuff all over the place.
 
I doubt this will stick. If this attorney wins the case, the precedent it sets. And for who, for foreign nationals to have US constitutional rights.

Am I thinking straight? :)

Yes, you are thinking straight, but I also think permanent residents affected by this ban have reasonable grounds to complain. The ban was implemented in a very clumsy manner, and the administration, I believe, did belatedly say it did not apply to permanent residents.
 
You realize that it doesn't matter if the Supreme Court was 5-4 or 8-1, majority rules. That's how that works. And if you took the time to actually read THE ENTIRE opinion, you would have seen one of the questions addressed was:

"Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?"

Do you need me to look up what the Fifth Amendment means (aside from the freedom from self-incrimination)? I can do that. It's super easy. Here you go:

"The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So tell me again, oh wise one, they didn't address US Constitutional rights.

And you can try to belittle me by saying I don't love my country because I'm proving you're an idiot - I just happen to love making armchair attorneys look incompetent.

And by the way, the Supreme Court is the highest court. It's kind of a big deal. It doesn't matter what the lower courts say once the United States Supreme Court makes a decision. That is how that whole process works.

You should probably stop trying to act like you have any clue how that entire process works and maybe take a basic government class or at least look up the definition of federalism.

I get it. You are the expert here on the law and i'm the armchair one. So you know how to interpret the opinion, and i don't.

So it says 5th amendment, it means its addressed. Bingo. And if it was a writ of habeas corpus isn't what's relevant.


You clearly are the expert on interpretation, and you then are correct on the subject matter: Foreign nationals are protected by the US constitution and have a right to enter the US if they hold a visa. You are right, and I'm the idiot. Bravo.

I'll propose you deal with me as per the Imamu Ali quote:

"Don't ever argue with an idiot....
they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

And now i'll kindly ask you to buzz off.
 

I believed you, I just found that apple and ms had their priorities upside down, and wanted to infer that its more political than anything else.

And these students could have obtained waivers. Not go for full overturn.


Remember the no fly list? Merely having the sane name puts you also on a no fly list. And you couldn't be removed, but put on a list of ppl who can fly, even if you are on a no fly list... DHS acrobatics.

so my point was, it's political and adversarial and emotional based, than finding constructive and collaborative solutions to the exceptions from a list of countries already deemed of concern by the previous administration.
 
Yes, you are thinking straight, but I also think permanent residents affected by this ban have reasonable grounds to complain. The ban was implemented in a very clumsy manner, and the administration, I believe, did belatedly say it did not apply to permanent residents.

Permanent residents were not affected. It was assumed as such because of CNN headlines that were confusing on purpose. They even had dual citizens - meaning US citizens - thinking they are not allowed to come back into their own country (the US).

Evil has special ways of swiveling around and using people's perceptions and fears, using a few key words, and creating mayhem; or, a flawed understanding that leads to further... evil. All for self-relief and ego, not the common good.

Some posts in this very thread, are exactly that.


Thank you for reassuring me I'm thinking straight. it is getting quite confusing :)
 
I get it. You are the expert here on the law and i'm the armchair one. So you know how to interpret the opinion, and i don't.

So it says 5th amendment, it means its addressed. Bingo. And if it was a writ of habeas corpus isn't what's relevant.


You clearly are the expert on interpretation, and you then are correct on the subject matter: Foreign nationals are protected by the US constitution and have a right to enter the US if they hold a visa. You are right, and I'm the idiot. Bravo.

I'll propose you deal with me as per the Imamu Ali quote:

"Don't ever argue with an idiot....
they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

And now i'll kindly ask you to buzz off.

There is no need to interpret the opinion as it is all written out in the body of the opinion. If you have difficulty with legal jargon there are websites like Oyez and Cornell Law that actually provide case briefs on the opinions (kind of like Cliffs Notes).

And you can tell me to buzz off but I am free to post where I like. You are free to use that ignore function.
 
The latest tweet from President Trump shows that he doesn't know how international travel works. Has he never been on a plane outside of the country?

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 15m15 minutes ago

Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
 
The latest tweet from President Trump shows that he doesn't know how international travel works. Has he never been on a plane outside of the country?

The people pouring into the country already have permissions to do so - or they did have until the executive order.

But that permission could be revoked for cause.
 
James Robart is a federal judge (Washington state)

Trump responded about the ruling, mocking Robarts personally as a “so-called judge”

Tweeted

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

He (James Robart ) was nominated for a federal judgeship by George W. Bush in 2003 and confirmed by the Senate 99-0 in 2004. At that time, both Senator Ted Kennedy of Mass. and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont sat on the Committee on the Judiciary.

During his confirmation hearing, Sen Orrin Hatch of Utah, the then-Chairman of the committee, said this to Robarts, and judges Juan Sanchez and Diane Sykes, who were also up for confirmation:

“And then, you know, the Presidents sometimes put up legislation or put up suggestions or act in executive ways that sometimes are unconstitutional. So it is important to have an honest, decent judiciary to correct those ills. And I am counting on all three of you to be humble, good, honorable, intelligent judges who will help us to have the best, continue to maintain the best judiciary in the history of the world.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/02/04/judgerobart/b6BgOPKqGVMf7WhzxUB5wI/story.html

Federal Judge in Seattle Grants Nationwide Temporary Restraining Order Against Travel Ban

Judge Robart at first seemed hesitant to conclude that the president's decision was based on religious discrimination; he pointed out that only one section of the executive order explicitly made mention of religion. But an exchange with the Department of Justice attorney arguing on behalf of POTUS laid bare some of the holes in the president's defense arguments.

The temporary restraining order, which is far more substantive and wide-ranging than the stay issued by a federal judge in New York on January 28, will remain in place until a preliminary injunction hearing, which will be in the next two weeks to a month.

"We are a nation of laws," Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said at a press conference after the hearing. "Not even the president can violate our Constitution, and Judge Robart made the right decision declaring this unconstitutional, and we look forward to further proceedings."

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...emporary-restraining-order-against-travel-ban
 
It's interesting there's a court open on a saturday night and gives rulings after midnight.

What's odd for me is how come this is being tackled in this primitive fashion. Retracting a TRO is almost impossible unless you can demonstrate the judge is kind of a moron.

Rushing for a hearing and demonstrating how the ban was legal will get the TRO lifted.
 
Huh?

How would "rushing for a hearing" help?

And they've already been arguing that the "ban was legal" and that only resulted in oh yes, TROs.

You mean all they need to do is send in Sean Spicer?

You silly judges, this ban which is not a ban even though we said it was a ban is LEGAL, ok? Ok?


It's interesting there's a court open on a saturday night and gives rulings after midnight.

What's odd for me is how come this is being tackled in this primitive fashion. Retracting a TRO is almost impossible unless you can demonstrate the judge is kind of a moron.

Rushing for a hearing and demonstrating how the ban was legal will get the TRO lifted.
 
When, not if, there is a terrosits attack

in this country I hope to GOD they take this fool out instead of some innocent family!!!!
 
This would make for a great Harold & Kumar movie.

I'm religious today, people. I need a Falcons Superbowl win. I'll turn Muslim if Allah hooks me up. Allah, please be with the Falcons! And if you use a martyr on those the Infidels at the SB, please hit all the New England fans.

Hey! That gives me an idea. Why not keep all the Mexicans and Muslims and kick out New England Patriots and Dallas Cowboys fans?! It's an even trade. It's not prejudice against race, gender, age, nor religion. So, it's obviously supported by the Constitution.

Muslims cause terrorist attacks which has a low likelihood of affecting me. NE and Dallas fans are so annoying that I want to kill myself. Statistics show a much stronger argument that those fans are more of a danger to society than Muslims.

Not to mention, the Muslims will put women back in their place. :D
 
It's interesting there's a court open on a saturday night and gives rulings after midnight.

What's odd for me is how come this is being tackled in this primitive fashion. Retracting a TRO is almost impossible unless you can demonstrate the judge is kind of a moron.

Rushing for a hearing and demonstrating how the ban was legal will get the TRO lifted.

There you go again, armchair attorney. The law isn't something that is just a 9:00 to 5:00 issue. I mean there was no actual court with a bailiff and a jury sitting around in an actual courtroom waiting for the appeal and then debating the merits of the appeal and making a decision.

The DOJ filed their appeal Saturday (also not during usual business hours). No one can speak to why the ruling was issued on the early morning hours of Sunday; however, if I were to hazard a guess I would believe that several factors including the sense of urgency (on both sides) regarding the matter and the rush to get this matter off to the Supreme Court so it can finally be decided once and for all. You know....that high court where the final decisions are made.

Oh, and for the record, judges have to make decisions all the time on weekends (bail decisions, sign probable cause affidavits, arrest warrants, clemency hearings, etc). I can recommend a decent law course or two if you like.

Chris_millennial and EternalLame in the same thread. I actually think this is a couple I could get behind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm only going to watch the SB if I get to see Colin K refuse to pray


This would make for a great Harold & Kumar movie.

I'm religious today, people. I need a Falcons Superbowl win. I'll turn Muslim if Allah hooks me up. Allah, please be with the Falcons! And if you use a martyr on those the Infidels at the SB, please hit all the New England fans.

Hey! That gives me an idea. Why not keep all the Mexicans and Muslims and kick out New England Patriots and Dallas Cowboys fans?! It's an even trade. It's not prejudice against race, gender, age, nor religion. So, it's obviously supported by the Constitution.

Muslims cause terrorist attacks which has a low likelihood of affecting me. NE and Dallas fans are so annoying that I want to kill myself. Statistics show a much stronger argument that those fans are more of a danger to society than Muslims.

Not to mention, the Muslims will put women back in their place. :D
 
I doubt this will stick. If this attorney wins the case, the precedent it sets. And for who, for foreign nationals to have US constitutional rights.

Am I thinking straight? :)

Perhaps, but you're not talking/writing straight; your meaning is unclear.

Foreign nationals in this country, BTW, have always enjoyed the same constitutional rights as citizens. Apart from voting and holding office, there is only one legal right that citizens have and non-citizens have not: The right to live and work in the United States. Even convicted felons have that right if they are citizens; exile is a punishment unknown to American law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top