Federal judge temporarily halts Trump travel ban nationwide

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Transborderwife said:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317958-pence-judge-certainly-has-right-to-halt-ban

 

let the break between pence and trump begin...

Oh Yes a major break. ALT left fake news. or rather selective editing.  

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/05/pence-will-use-all-legal-means-at-our-disposal-to-reinstate-immigration-ban.html

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

Oh Yes a major break. ALT left fake news. or rather selective editing.  

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/05/pence-will-use-all-legal-means-at-our-disposal-to-reinstate-immigration-ban.html

Alternate facts

[bcking 3,157]

59 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Oh Yes a major break. ALT left fake news. or rather selective editing.  

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/05/pence-will-use-all-legal-means-at-our-disposal-to-reinstate-immigration-ban.html

No amount of "selective editing" changes a sentence spoken by a person. 

 

If you watch the video, he clearly stated that the Judge has the right. He then goes on to say that they will fight it and try to get it changed. 

 

Honestly that is just a much more mature way to look at the situation. Trump needs to learn from other people. Instead of insulting the judge, just admit that this is all perfectly reasonable/legal but you just happen to disagree and will fight it. As much as I don't like Pence's opinions on a lot of things, at least he acts like an adult.

Edited February 5, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

No amount of "selective editing" changes a sentence spoken by a person. 

 

If you watch the video, he clearly stated that the Judge has the right. He then goes on to say that they will fight it and try to get it changed. 

 

Honestly that is just a much more mature way to look at the situation. Trump needs to learn from other people. Instead of insulting the judge, just admit that this is all perfectly reasonable/legal but you just happen to disagree and will fight it. As much as I don't like Pence's opinions on a lot of things, at least he acts like an adult.

And the poster stated "

"let the break between pence and trump begin... "

 

Which it wasn't and the article left out the rest of what the VP said about supporting this and the President 100%

 

Bend into whatever alt reality you wish , the fact remains he is behind the POTUS 100%

Edited February 5, 2017 by Nature Boy Flair

[verneforchat 139]

On 2/3/2017 at 11:43 PM, jg121783 said:

Carter banned all Iranians from entering the country. Obama banned all Iraqis from entering the country. Just a couple examples of the same actions being taken by other presidents. 

What alternate universe did this happen in?

 

[bcking 3,157]

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

And the poster stated "

"let the break between pence and trump begin... "

 

Which it wasn't and the article left out the rest of what the VP said about supporting this and the President 100%

 

Bend into whatever alt reality you wish , the fact remains he is behind the POTUS 100%

I thought you were referring to the fact that Pence said what the judge did was legal as fake news. Apologies. I agree with you Pence continues to stand by Trump. He just does so in a mature way as opposed to Trump's childish rantings.

 

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

I thought you were referring to the fact that Pence said what the judge did was legal as fake news. Apologies. I agree with you Pence continues to stand by Trump. He just does so in a mature way as opposed to Trump's childish rantings.

 

 

Exactly my point 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

I thought you were referring to the fact that Pence said what the judge did was legal as fake news. Apologies. I agree with you Pence continues to stand by Trump. He just does so in a mature way as opposed to Trump's childish rantings.

 

 

Just for the record. Trump never said what the judge did was illegal. 

[Dashinka 25,203]

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 3:18 PM, bcking said:

It might help to actually read the TRO. In the written version the key paragraph is below: (Had to type it out myself since it's a pdf and I can't copy/paste)

 

"Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court finds that the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as "parens patriae" of the residents living within their borders. In addition, the states themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the executive order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States' operations, tax bases and public funds. These harms are significant and ongoing. Accordingly, the court concludes that a TRO against Federal Defendants is necessarily until such time as the court can hear and decide the States' request for a preliminary injunction."

 

So I think one thing to keep in mind is the burden required to place a TEMPORARILY retraining order is likely different than the burden to reverse the EO completely. The judge is arguing there is enough cause to temporarily stop it so that the courts can further decide.

 

EDIT:

 

As for the "but other people did it before!" argument, people need to reenter the real world. That is a lie, plan and simple. Obama did not "ban" Iraqi's. Every single month during the 6 month period Iraqis continued to be granted visas. There was no ban. That is truth, move on.

 

So the judge only ruled on the effects of the EO and not the constitutionality of it?  Maybe next time congress raises taxes plaintiffs can go to this judge and claim irreparable harm from that action?

 

Yes Obama did not ban Iraqis, but just made it very very difficult for them to get a visa.  Carter actually had Iranians deported and visas canceled, and we all know what FDR did to the Japanese even those that were naturalized, or first generation born.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

So the judge only ruled on the effects of the EO and not the constitutionality of it?  Maybe next time congress raises taxes plaintiffs can go to this judge and claim irreparable harm from that action?

 

Yes Obama did not ban Iraqis, but just made it very very difficult for them to get a visa.  Carter actually had Iranians deported and visas canceled, and we all know what FDR did to the Japanese even those that were naturalized, or first generation born.

If you read the whole thing it explains why the TRO only requires evidence of irreparable harm. I'm not a legal scholar so I don't totally understand it.

[Dashinka 25,203]

 

2 hours ago, bcking said:

If you read the whole thing it explains why the TRO only requires evidence of irreparable harm. I'm not a legal scholar so I don't totally understand it.

I agree, but for some reason there is a lot of reporting that this judge slapped down Trump.  He did not rule on the legal/constitutional authority.  So my question still applies, if you or anyone is irreparably harmed by an action of the government (congress, the president, state or federal), can we go to this judge and get a TRO? 

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 

I agree, but for some reason there is a lot of reporting that this judge slapped down Trump.  He did not rule on the legal/constitutional authority.  So my question still applies, if you or anyone is irreparably harmed by an action of the government (congress, the president, state or federal), can we go to this judge and get a TRO? 

Well it was a State going to a Federal Judge to stop the Federal Government against causing harm to the State and the State's people. 

 

So I doubt an individual can go to the judge to get a TRO. It seems like it is a State vs. Federal government issue. Kind of funny since the "sides" seem flipped this time. You'd think more Republicans would be proud of a Judge protecting State's against big bad Federal Government (and conversly that democrats would love the Federal Government lording over States).

EDIT: I read through the whole thing again. Without looking at the prior cases, at least based on their names it doesn't seem like it is merely a State vs. Fed thing, since the case studies used for the TRO had names that sounded like businesses vs. someone else.

 

So I'm not really sure why a single citizen can't just get a TRO against a law that causes them harm. There were actually 4 criteria listed in the TRO, perhaps number 4 would apply? (It's in the public's best interest). A individual merely not liking something wouldn't necessarily be in the public's best interest to rule on.

 

Again though you could argue whether the TRO is in the public's best interest, and perhaps some other judge would argue that it is not however we give judges the right to use their "judgement" (i want to say pun intended, but it's not really a pun).

Edited February 6, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

Anyone here with more legal knowledge than me (which is a low bar) know the answer to this question? -

 

If the 9th Circuit Court sides with the states and the Feds take it to the Supreme Court, there is currently still only 8. If they hear the case and are split 4v4, then whatever the 9th Circuit decided remains.

 

How long before the case can be brought to the Supreme Court again? Do you have to wait a period of time before the hear the case again in the event of a tie? Once the new SCJ is approved and there are 9, can they just review the case immediately again?

[OriZ 3,157]

53 minutes ago, bcking said:

Anyone here with more legal knowledge than me (which is a low bar) know the answer to this question? -

 

If the 9th Circuit Court sides with the states and the Feds take it to the Supreme Court, there is currently still only 8. If they hear the case and are split 4v4, then whatever the 9th Circuit decided remains.

 

How long before the case can be brought to the Supreme Court again? Do you have to wait a period of time before the hear the case again in the event of a tie? Once the new SCJ is approved and there are 9, can they just review the case immediately again?

I am not exactly sure how fast(or slow) they can move things, but they might try to get that nuclear option done before it goes to the supreme court? I don't know the answer to your actual question though

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

I am not exactly sure how fast(or slow) they can move things, but they might try to get that nuclear option done before it goes to the supreme court? I don't know the answer to your actual question though

My gut tells me that once the SC rules on a case, unless there is some significant new information it can't be brought back to the SC quickly just because the membership of the SC changes. However maybe when there is a tie it can come back sooner, I have no idea.