District Court Again Blocks Trump's Muslim Ban

Time for Trump to attack the courts again. Poor baby! When will he learn? Never I'm sure.

 

Liberals are going to challenge anything President Trump does. This was totally expected. Get over it, you little snowflakes.

Your little hate-filled hearts know no bounds. Republicans are just going to move along with their agenda regardless of what you say or do. You might as well get on the ride, it's going to be great!

 

Ah ha ha ha.... Sounds like sour grapes. And you might want to start referring to us as a big old fucking blizzard. LOL.

Hawaii just showed Trump America's birth certificate. Suck on that you hate-filled religious bigots.

Are you tired of "winning" yet? Ah ha ha ha.

 

Snowflakes or blizzard. Either way, they all melt when the sun shines on them.

 

Trump has now lost 4 court rulings in just under 50 days. Most presidents never lose court challenges. Sick of winning yet? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ooooooh, a court ruling from some unknown judge in liberal Hawaii.. So scary... so very scary. Did you ever hear that obama lost his Supreme Court case over the NLRB appointments? Now, THAT was one for the ages...!

 

Oh... and don't forget Hobby Lobby. I'll bet that one's still upsetting you....

 

4 loses in 50 days. That has to be a record especially for a guy that claimed his supporters would be sick of winning. Perhaps by winning he actually meant losing, yeah, people like you must be sick of losing all the time. That makes more sense.

 

Your "winnings" may soon end permanently. That could prove interesting.

 

Yeah, scotty's comin' after you with his purse.

 

Muslim ban? Hardly.

 

Really? So you say. But what does Donald and his surrogates say?



Rudy Giuliani Admits It Is a Muslim Ban


Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling

 

So much winning....

Trump’s Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Continues To Haunt His Travel Ban In Court
A federal judge says Trump’s own words provide “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus.”
By Ryan J. Reilly

Donald Trump’s new travel ban, the federal government would like the courts to ignore the anti-Muslim statements he made on the campaign trail. But on Wednesday, Trump’s rhetoric came back to bite him again, with a federal judge saying Trump’s own words “betray” his administration’s claim that his travel ban doesn’t target Muslims.

In placing a nationwide hold on aspects of Trump’s executive order Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu said it was very clear why Justice Department lawyers would like him to ignore statements Trump made about Islam in the past.

“A review of the historical background here makes plain why the Government wishes to focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context. The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor,” Watson wrote.

Watson found parts of the new travel ban, which targeted non-visa holders from six countries with Muslim majorities and halts refugee resettlement programs, likely violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which makes it unconstitutional for the government to disfavor certain religions. Citing Trump’s interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in March 2016 (when he said “Islam hates us”), a July 2016 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” (when he insisted he wasn’t rolling back the Muslim ban) and Trump’s comments during the Oct. 9 presidential debate (when he argued his Muslim ban idea had “morphed” into “extreme vetting”), Watson said there was a “remarkable” set of facts that made the purpose of the travel ban clear.

For example, “there is nothing ‘veiled’ about a press release titled ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’” Watson wrote, linking directly to a December 2015 statement that is still available on Trump’s campaign website.


JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS
President Donald Trump, at a rally Wednesday in Nashville, says he’d prefer to go back to his original travel ban.
Watson also cited statements by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who said Trump asked him how to give his Muslim ban legal cover, and by White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, who said that the second version of the executive order would “have the same basic policy outcome” as the first executive order.

“These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose,” Watson wrote. Any “reasonable, objective observer” would conclude “that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.”

Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric as a presidential candidate has armed travel ban opponents in other federal courts across the country. Wednesday morning, an ACLU lawyer argued before a federal court in Maryland that the judge could not “turn a blind eye” to Trump’s words on the campaign trail, which the ACLU said provided evidence that the ban targets Muslims.

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who was fired by Trump in January after refusing to defend his first executive order on travel, had expressed specific concerns about how rhetoric from Trump administration officials and surrogates that “may bear on the order’s purpose” would make the executive order difficult to defend.

At a campaign-style rally in Nashville on Wednesday evening, Trump may have provided opponents of his executive order with yet more evidence. Trump called the second travel ban a “watered-down version of the first order” and said he’d prefer to go back to the original version.

 

Then why are only a few nations & only about 3% of the world's Muslim population included?
Maybe the original idea was to vet every Muslim entering the country by that's certainly not what President Trump has enacted.

 

As the court ruled, you don't have to discriminate against every single person in a group to qualify as discrimination. You should really read the ruling before you comment on it instead of just parroting Reich-wing talking points.

Banning all Muslims from entering the country is exactly what Trump and his surrogates said. In cases like these, the intent is taken into consideration. An example would be like a city passing an ordinance that barred people from shoveling their sidewalks on Saturdays with the intent of making Jewish people have a more difficult time going to Synagogue. The city certainly can pass a law saying that sidewalks cannot be shoveled on Saturdays but they cannot pass that law with the intent of targeting of religious group. Trump and his surrogates have made their intend perfectly clear. This IS a Muslim ban. Next time, maybe Trump and his idiot surrogates will shut their collective big mouth. Just sayin'.

 

Of course he said that the first time too and nothing happened. What a blowhard!

Trump vows to appeal against travel ban ruling to Supreme Court
16 MAR 2017 AT 09:09 ET

A defiant Donald Trump has pledged to appeal against a federal judge’s order placing an immediate halt on his revised travel ban, describing the ruling as judicial overreach that made the United States look weak.

In granting the temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit by the state of Hawaii, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson found on Wednesday that “a reasonable, objective observer … would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

Early on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in a similar case in Maryland brought by refugee resettlement agencies represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

Chuang ruled that the agencies were likely to succeed in proving that the travel ban portion of the executive order was intended to be a ban on Muslims and, as a result, violates the U.S. Constitution’s religious freedom protection.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/trump-vows-to-appeal-against-travel-ban-ruling-to-supreme-court/

 

So much for the argument that this ban only affected a small percentage of Muslims.

Judges use Trump’s own words in ruling against revised travel ban
Two federal judges halt the president’s second attempt at his executive order, citing Trump’s prior vows to seek a Muslim ban.
By JOSH GERSTEIN 03/15/17 01:56 PM EDT

A federal judge in Hawaii issued a worldwide restraining order against enforcement of key parts of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban executive order just hours before the directive was set to kick in, backed up by a second federal judge in Maryland who put out his own ruling blocking parts of the order.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson ruled Wednesday that the state of Hawaii and a local Muslim leader had “a strong likelihood of success on their claim” that Trump’s order intentionally targets Muslims and therefore violates the Constitution’s guarantee against establishment of religion.

Watson bluntly rejected the federal government's claims that the new directive does not target Islam because it is focused on six countries that account for less than 9 percent of the world's Muslims.

"The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable," wrote Watson, an appointee of President Barack Obama. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise."

Hours after that opinion emerged, a federal judge in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang — also an Obama appointee and a former Department of Homeland Security deputy counsel — held that Trump's order appeared to violate a specific provision in federal law by blocking the issuance of immigrant visas from the six targeted countries.

The rulings are another serious blow to Trump’s attempt to limit immigration as part of what he claims is an effort to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Trump slammed the decision during a speech to a campaign rally in Nashville on Wednesday a short time after the new restraining order was issued.

"This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. ... This ruling makes us look weak," the president declared before appearing to vow to take the issue to the Supreme Court. "This is a watered-down version of the first one. ... I think we should go back to the first one and go all the way which is what I wanted to do in the first place."

“Trump’s statements tonight? He should just continue talking, because he’s making our arguments for us,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

A spokewoman for the Department of Justice called the ruling "flawed both in reasoning and in scope," adding that the administration will "continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts."

 

I guess we need to send all the Jews back to Germany/Poland.

BTW, the courts are only to rule on the law. Previous comments have no bearing on the law.

Oh, and how as BO' banning Iraqis legal while Trump's illegal?