Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump's travel ban

Frederick Foresight · May 25, 2017

A federal appeals court has largely upheld the nationwide block of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

The ruling came from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It upholds the suspension of a revised version of the executive order that the Trump administration crafted to better hold up to legal scrutiny than an earlier version.

Trump has insisted that the measure is necessary to prevent possible terrorist attacks. But courts in previous rulings blocking its enforcement have cited past statements from Trump and his advisors signaling that it may single out Muslims.

After previous legal setbacks for his executive order, Trump has signaled that the federal government will take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/federal-appeals-court-upholds-block-on-trumps-travel-ban-nbcnews.html

Maybe The Donald just got tired of all that winning...

Optionpro007 · May 25, 2017

Frederick Foresight said:
Maybe The Donald just got tired of all that winning...

java · May 25, 2017

Think about what you are saying. It is being decided on what he said in his campaign speeches. And then it takes some subjective opinion to make it sound like you think it probably is. I'll give you this one, it's when they come after me you won't be around anymore to help. I didn't do anything because I was not LGBT, then they came for the Blacks who have Lives that Matter, and I did nothing because I don't have a life.......

CaptainObvious · May 25, 2017

Why even bother with having a president, or congress for that matter? Screw these elections too. Let's just have these no name, unelected, nobody knows who the hell they are judges run the country. Can't go wrong with that.

java · May 25, 2017

CaptainObvious said:
Why even bother with having a president, or congress for that matter? Screw these elections too. Let's just have these no name, unelected, nobody knows who the hell they are judges run the country. Can't go wrong with that.

I am 100% in favor of our courts having the last word on any legislature those nutcase politicians can pass, it's just the way this one is being decided that is already a slippery slope and there really would be no way of stopping it. As a judge I can base my decision on your law based on what I think your intent is. You really want to go there just to beat Trump? (not you, I mean them.)

java · May 25, 2017

And this is the very thing I didn't agree with the Supreme court on about the mandate. Mandate illegal, but we know you meant tax. They should have made them rewrite the law with the word mandate changed to tax and then have a vote on it. If it passes ok.

newwurldmn · May 25, 2017

java said:
I am 100% in favor of our courts having the last word on any legislature those nutcase politicians can pass, it's just the way this one is being decided that is already a slippery slope and there really would be no way of stopping it. As a judge I can base my decision on your law based on what I think your intent is. You really want to go there just to beat Trump? (not you, I mean them.)

For example, Freedom of assembly in practice is entirely about intent. If the government prevents people from entering A park as a security measure, its one thing. If the goal is to prevent people from assembling to practice their religion, it's another.

Hate crimes are about intent. In fact Most crimes are About intent: if someone runs someone over with their car, it's manslaughter. If they say they will do it and then do it, It's murder 1.

java · May 25, 2017

newwurldmn said:
For example, Freedom of assembly in practice is entirely about intent. If the government prevents people from entering A park as a security measure, its one thing. If the goal is to prevent people from assembling to practice their religion, it's another.

Hate crimes are about intent. In fact Most crimes are About intent: if someone runs someone over with their car, it's manslaughter. If they say they will do it and then do it, It's murder 1.

The law shouldn't be decided based on intent. It is supposed to be decided upon the constitution. The intent can be as unconstitutional as possible, but if the actual law is not unconstitutional then there should be no reason to repeal it. I'm not going to defend this stupid poorly written law but I will defend it's legality concerning intent. What is the REAL reason tax rates are 28%? Only the priest knows for sure and he lives very well for a priest.

jem · May 25, 2017

its a ridiculous ruling. if the supreme ct lets its stand, its the end of our system of govt.

newwurldmn said:
For example, Freedom of assembly in practice is entirely about intent. If the government prevents people from entering A park as a security measure, its one thing. If the goal is to prevent people from assembling to practice their religion, it's another.

Hate crimes are about intent. In fact Most crimes are About intent: if someone runs someone over with their car, it's manslaughter. If they say they will do it and then do it, It's murder 1.

AAAintheBeltway · May 25, 2017

newwurldmn said:
For example, Freedom of assembly in practice is entirely about intent. If the government prevents people from entering A park as a security measure, its one thing. If the goal is to prevent people from assembling to practice their religion, it's another.

Hate crimes are about intent. In fact Most crimes are About intent: if someone runs someone over with their car, it's manslaughter. If they say they will do it and then do it, It's murder 1.

False analogy, even if your assumptions are accepted.

The Judicial Branch has no constitutional right to review immigration policy. His intent is irrelevant. In any case he has the inherent right to ban any group he wants for any reason. Foreigners do not have a constitutional right to immigrate here. All these cases involve elaborate ruses to get around that issue.

Trump has a clear constitutional right and duty to defend the country. That is what the court is attempting to interfere with. Trump might want to continue with the appeals, but whatever he decides he should announce that he is ignoring the decisions. Let the courts try to do something. He could have them arrested on sedition charges. He won the election on this issue, and I don't think any of his voters have changed their minds lately. Call the bluff of the congressional cuck republicans. Do they want to go into midterms fighting their president over muslim immigration?