Federal judge temporarily halts Trump travel ban nationwide

[Dakine10 5,452]

A federal judge temporarily halted President Donald Trump's immigration executive order effective nationwide Friday, a significant setback for the controversial travel ban.

Federal Judge James Robart, who presides in Washington state and was appointed by former President George W. Bush, orally granted the temporary restraining order. A written order was issued later in the evening, and Customs and Border Protection alerted airlines it would begin reinstating visas quickly.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/index.html

 

 

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

It's because he's on vacation isn't it 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

..and the WH removes the word "outrageous" from their first statement...  When are they going to start thinking first and acting later.. C'mooonnnn!!! I taught the importance of not typing in affect to my undergraduates!!!

Edited February 4, 2017 by Suss&Camm

[jg121783 3,921]

I wish judges would stop legislating from the bench. The travel bans are compliant with the law. The president is allowed to block the entry of any group of immigrants if they are deemed a threat to national security. 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

6 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I wish judges would stop legislating from the bench. The travel bans are compliant with the law. The president is allowed to block the entry of any group of immigrants if they are deemed a threat to national security. 

 

If federal judges can not even agree on this executive order, I'm afraid your opinion is nothing more than opinion.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I tend to trust the opinions of seasoned members of the judiciary over a reality TV host when it comes to constitutional interpretation, but that's just me. As we know from Marbury v. Madison, it is the purview of the judiciary branch to say what the law is, not the other branches. Marbury also established judicial review, to which executive orders are certainly subject. If this administration wants to make these restrictions stick, they need to go back to the drawing board and make the order compliant with the Constitution.

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

7 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I tend to trust the opinions of seasoned members of the judiciary over a reality TV host when it comes to constitutional interpretation, but that's just me. As we know from Marbury v. Madison, it is the purview of the judiciary branch to say what the law is, not the other branches. Marbury also established judicial review, to which executive orders are certainly subject. If this administration wants to make these restrictions stick, they need to go back to the drawing board and make the order compliant with the Constitution.

Exactly! All in all, I'd say this is proof that the American legal system and it's "checks and balances" (that I've been hearing so much about) works. Regardless the outcome, if this many ppl, legal professionals and otherwise feel that something is wrong and can't agree, I'd say we all should be extremely happy that all this is happening. It means that a raving, crazy totalitarian president (speaking in general not specific) can't get power and do as he likes at a whim.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Suss&Camm

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 minute ago, Suss&Camm said:

Exactly! All in all, I'd say this is proof that the American legal system and it's "checks and balances" (that I've been hearing so much about) works. Regardless the outcome, if this many ppl, legal professionals and otherwise feel that something is wrong and can't agree, I'd say we all should be extremely happy that all this is happening. It means that a raving, crazy totalitarian president (speaking in general not specific) can't get power and do as he likes at a whim.

I highly recommend reading my post on Federalist 51 and the link to the text then if you really feel like getting down with some separation of powers juju this evening.

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

5 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I highly recommend reading my post on Federalist 51 and the link to the text then if you really feel like getting down with some separation of powers juju this evening.

I think that might be more of a Sunday reading ...   I'm chillin with some red wine on this particular Friday and I doubt I'll actually retain anything for future use hahahaha BUT pls send that link! I'm very interested in learning more. I thought I knew a lot about the US, but when it comes to government and the history thereof, I all of a sudden feel like a preschooler!! 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Suss&Camm

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Federalist 51: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp

 

The whole of The Federalist Papers (a multi-Sunday read): http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp

 

I'm doing a Whole30 right now so no booze.  I haven't had a single drink during the entire Trump administration, which is a feat of some willpower.

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

2 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Federalist 51: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp

 

The whole of The Federalist Papers (a multi-Sunday read): http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp

 

I'm doing a Whole30 right now so no booze.  I haven't had a single drink during the entire Trump administration, which is a feat of some willpower.

 omfg I just spit my wine, you poor thing!!!!!!!!! All power to you!

 

also made a "to read" folder in my bookmark-folders

[jg121783 3,921]

No one seemed to have a problem when other presidents used the same law in a similar manner. But it's Trump now so everything he does is bad I guess.

[Dakine10 5,452]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

No one seemed to have a problem when other presidents used the same law in a similar manner. But it's Trump now so everything he does is bad I guess.

  It's not necessarily that it's bad because Trump is doing it. It's more along the lines of it's bad because Trump doesn't know what he's doing.

[Lemonslice 5,064]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

No one seemed to have a problem when other presidents used the same law in a similar manner. But it's Trump now so everything he does is bad I guess.

Which law are you talking about and in which manner? I'm confused. 

[Suss&Camm 2,213]

7 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

No one seemed to have a problem when other presidents used the same law in a similar manner. But it's Trump now so everything he does is bad I guess.

"a similar manner" is one way to put it... but not an accurate way... Had other presidents used them to potentially violate the constitution, that too would/could have been challenged. The fact that it wasn't is really all the proof you need that it wasn't in fact "a similar manner".

Edited February 4, 2017 by Suss&Camm