- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Another Obama appointee blocks Trump Travel ban.. same language as 1st judge
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:07 am
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:07 am
quote:
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland said Trump's travel ban was still meant to discriminate against Muslims. He pointed to the president's own comments to defend the ruling, The Washington Post reported.
And here are the words.....
quote:
“The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.
quote:
“In this highly unique case,” he wrote, “the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.”
On September 25, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Chuang to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
14
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:10 am to Jjdoc
The ban is stupid, pointless, and will not have any positive effect.
Having said that, the blatantly partisan response by these judges to Trumps orders is disturbing to say the least.
"I'm a judge and I think Trump really means it's a Muslim ban, so I'm going to block it." That a legal professional could utter those words, with the knowledge that the overwhelming number of Muslims in the world are completely unaffected by these orders, is sickening.
Having said that, the blatantly partisan response by these judges to Trumps orders is disturbing to say the least.
"I'm a judge and I think Trump really means it's a Muslim ban, so I'm going to block it." That a legal professional could utter those words, with the knowledge that the overwhelming number of Muslims in the world are completely unaffected by these orders, is sickening.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:14 am to Centinel
perhaps Trump should not trot out surrogates that say...
Trump asked me how we could ban Muslims legally (paraphrasing).
and then trot out a Muslim ban.
if the country of origin is the issue why dont we ban countries like France and England, Belgium and Germany where Muslim terrorist hidden within refugees would have an easier route to get to America.
Trump asked me how we could ban Muslims legally (paraphrasing).
and then trot out a Muslim ban.
if the country of origin is the issue why dont we ban countries like France and England, Belgium and Germany where Muslim terrorist hidden within refugees would have an easier route to get to America.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:15 am to Jjdoc
It sounds like Sessions needs to order some more pink slips.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:16 am to Cruiserhog
Cruiserhog, to judge a law based on words not IN the actual law is a disgrace to the legal profession and opens up a terrible can of worms.
Should a law that prevents public funds from going to religious schools be shot down because the person who write it once said In a speech that religion should be outlawed?
Should a law that prevents public funds from going to religious schools be shot down because the person who write it once said In a speech that religion should be outlawed?
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:17 am to Jjdoc
quote:
“The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.
Well that's not the law, so...
quote:
“In this highly unique case,” he wrote, “the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.”
Jesus tap dancing Christ
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:17 am to Centinel
quote:
The ban is stupid, pointless, and will not have any positive effect.
Well sir, that's YOUR opinion.
quote:
Having said that, the blatantly partisan response by these judges to Trumps orders is disturbing to say the least.
The same language.... It shows collusion.
quote:
"I'm a judge and I think Trump really means it's a Muslim ban, so I'm going to block it." That a legal professional could utter those words, with the knowledge that the overwhelming number of Muslims in the world are completely unaffected by these orders, is sickening.
Correct.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:18 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
and then trot out a Muslim ban
Except it's not a Muslim ban. Indonesia (largest population of Muslims in the world) says hi.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:19 am to Jjdoc
Aren't judges supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of the law/EO and not some supposed desires of the lawmakers/EO-signers?
A judge can use any sort of subjective interpretation of statements unrelated to a law/EO to justify any decision they make on it. It's not right.
A judge can use any sort of subjective interpretation of statements unrelated to a law/EO to justify any decision they make on it. It's not right.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:19 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Well sir, that's YOUR opinion.
Yes, it is. My primary reason for stating this is to stave off the "UR JUST A STUPID RACIST TRUMPKIN!!!!" responses from the usual proggy statist suspects in here.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:20 am to Centinel
quote:
"I'm a judge and I think Trump really means it's a Muslim ban, so I'm going to block it." That a legal professional could utter those words, with the knowledge that the overwhelming number of Muslims in the world are completely unaffected by these orders, is sickening.
It is a bastardization of the entire legal system to its very core, not to mention an affront to the very system of checks and balances. This issue needs to be dragged before SCOTUS as soon as possible. Although knowing the activist judges on that bench, it will likely end up in a 4-4 split confirming the jacked up 9th Circuit.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:21 am to Jjdoc
I thought we appoint judges of the law, not fricking monarchs.
This post was edited on 3/16/17 at 10:21 am
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:21 am to Jjdoc
Cant the President replace and all of the judges against him?
I don't think these judges sit on the bench until death like the supreme court right?
nvm
Like Justices of the US Supreme Court and judges of the US Circuit Courts of Appeals, US District Court judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the US Senate, and serve with life tenure. ... Federal justices and judges may only be removed by impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors.
I don't think these judges sit on the bench until death like the supreme court right?
nvm
Like Justices of the US Supreme Court and judges of the US Circuit Courts of Appeals, US District Court judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the US Senate, and serve with life tenure. ... Federal justices and judges may only be removed by impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors.
This post was edited on 3/16/17 at 10:23 am
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:22 am to WHS
quote:
I don't think these judges sit on the bench until death like the supreme court right?
Wrong. Federal district judges are a lifetime appointment.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:22 am to Centinel
quote:
quote:
Well sir, that's YOUR opinion.
Yes, it is.
And I'm ok with your opinion.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:23 am to Damone
can another federal judge disallow the current stay presented by the federal judges in question?
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:24 am to Jjdoc
Trump just needs to take this to the supreme court and get it over with.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:26 am to WHS
quote:
Trump just needs to take this to the supreme court and get it over with.
A) It has to go to the Circuit Court of Appeals first.
B) SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case
C) Until another Justice gets appointed, I can almost guarantee you it will end in a 4-4 split, resulting in the Court of Appeals ruling standing. There's a reason why the judges who stayed these orders are located in the regions they are.
It's politics. Unadulterated, hyperpartisan politics.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:27 am to Jjdoc
None of this should shock anyone.
Proggies have long hinted that even when proven that their enemy didn't actually "say/do" something, the next defense is always "well I bet they were thinking it anyway!"
We are seeing that here with this judge and their assessment.
Proggies are the ultimate thought police and are acting on that notion.
This will only get worse as they continue to lose power.
Proggies have long hinted that even when proven that their enemy didn't actually "say/do" something, the next defense is always "well I bet they were thinking it anyway!"
We are seeing that here with this judge and their assessment.
Proggies are the ultimate thought police and are acting on that notion.
This will only get worse as they continue to lose power.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:28 am to Centinel
quote:
I'm a judge and I think Trump really means it's a Muslim ban, so I'm going to block it." That a legal professional could utter those words, with the knowledge that the overwhelming number of Muslims in the world are completely unaffected by these orders, is sickening.
Or maybe they're considering the "there shall be no religious test" constitutional thingy.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News