• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal Judge in Hawaii puts revised federal travel ban on hold

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
Unison said:
Bad wording on my part... point is still that judging the intent based on external statements (as opposed to the actual order) could leave this decision open to appeal.
Click to expand...

Well then he has to prove that these countries are in fact a security risk, which he never has. This thing's dead.
 
L

LiK

Member
GK86 said:
pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee

Everyone pause to give a slow clap for Stephen Miller, strategic genius, giving court reason to strike down White House travel ban.

DlVMHNL.jpg
Click to expand...

he looks like a scummy villain
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Unison said:
It's very possible that this decision could be overturned on appeal, since it's based on statements made during the election process, which judges could easily declare inadmissible or irrelevant. It doesn't really critique the law itself so much as the intent.
Click to expand...

It's possible, but I think in order to do that the government has to show that there's a reason outside of that for the ban, and there really isn't anything. Nothing they can show, anyway, and saying it's super secret doesn't really work either because the government's actions throughout have shown it's not really an emergency.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Unison said:
It's very possible that this decision could be overturned on appeal, since it's based on statements made during the election process, which judges could easily declare inadmissible or irrelevant. It doesn't really critique the law itself so much as the intent.
Click to expand...

That's the relevant question.
 
U

Unison

Member
RDreamer said:
It's possible, but I think in order to do that the government has to show that there's a reason outside of that for the ban, and there really isn't anything. Nothing they can show, anyway, and saying it's super secret doesn't really work either because the government's actions throughout have shown it's not really an emergency.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hope that an inability to show why these specific countries were chosen is the downfall here, but I could see things theoretically flipping on appeal, especially if there are 5 conservative Supreme Court judges.

Point is, we shouldn't see this as a done deal.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Unison said:
The Supreme Court doesn't historically consider intent of laws.
Click to expand...

order entering tro said:
Only a few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit commanded otherwise: “It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” Washington, 847 F.3d at 1167–68 (citing Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254–55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose)). The Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not “turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.” McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 866 (2005) (citation and quotation signals omitted).13
Click to expand...

Not only do they sometimes, they must in this instance.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
You guys I don't want to rush to judgement here but I am beginning to wonder if maybe Donald J Trump, alleged billionaire, reality TV host, and loud twitter enthusiast, maybe just isn't cut out for the job of presidenting.
 
M

Marquis

Banned
Gruco said:
You guys I don't want to rush to judgement here but I am beginning to wonder if maybe Donald J Trump, alleged billionaire, reality TV host, and loud twitter enthusiast, maybe just isn't cut out for the job of presidenting.
Click to expand...

Give him another chance ! I really feel like he is getting the hang of this old president thing.
 
V

Vincent Alexander

Member
Gruco said:
You guys I don't want to rush to judgement here but I am beginning to wonder if maybe Donald J Trump, alleged billionaire, reality TV host, and loud twitter enthusiast, maybe just isn't cut out for the job of presidenting.
Click to expand...
Hold your horses...let's at least give the guy a chance first.
 
J

Justin Bailey

------ ------
For the first time in his life, Trump is seeing that the words he says actually have consequences. He's never been accountable to anything before.

This almost makes me happy he's president. It's the only way he would learn this lesson (that the rest of us learned in kindergarten).
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Slime said:
It's not likely to survive an appeal though, is it? I thought this one was airtight and the intent argument would just keep it blocked temporarily.
Click to expand...

The court is finding that the EO is likely to be found in violation of the Establishment Clause because the intent is to discriminate based on religion.

That's not going to go away. It is actually illegal to discriminate based on religion!
 
S

Slime

Banned
KHarvey16 said:
If it were objectively "air tight" we wouldn't have this ruling.
Click to expand...

pigeon said:
The court is finding that the EO is likely to be found in violation of the Establishment Clause because the intent is to discriminate based on religion.

That's not going to go away. It is actually illegal to discriminate based on religion!
Click to expand...

BronsonLee said:
Nah this is just them trying again but they're fucked for right now
Click to expand...

Good to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Supreme Court rules in favor for Trump in 'Muslim' travel ban
2
83
6K
ic3cait replied
Federal Judge Limits Trump Administration Travel Ban Enforcement Rules
39
5K
Futurevoid replied
Federal judge blocks Trump’s third travel ban
29
6K
Dev1lXYZ replied
  • Locked
Hawaii judge extends hold on travel ban to U.S.
14
3K
Derwind replied
9th Circuit narrows scope of Trump travel ban
13
4K
Samy replied
Top Bottom