quote:
A lawsuit challenging the order was filed by groups that have accepted grants from Soros’s two main philanthropies, Open Society Institute (now called Open Society Foundations) and the Foundation to Promote Open Society.

According to a philanthropy database, groups involved in the litigation have received substantial funding from Soros in recent years. Among them are the National Immigration Law Center ($4.6 million), American Civil Liberties Union and affiliates (at least $35.5 million), and the International Refugee Assistance Project (formerly Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project) at the Urban Justice Center ($621,000 to the UJC).

Three years ago the New York Times noted that “immigrant rights groups” underwritten by Soros influenced President Obama’s immigration policies. The three-day-old executive order is part of President Trump’s program to undo the immigration chaos Soros has underwritten.

Apparently a number of federal judges issued injunctions pertaining to Trump’s executive order but the judicial officer receiving heavy media attention is Obama appointee U.S. District Court Judge Ann M. Donnelly. She sits on the bench in the Eastern District of New York, which encompasses three of the five New York City boroughs – Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island – along with Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island.

LINK

quote:
Lawsuits ready to fight Trump's immigration orders - The San Diego Union-Tribune
LINK

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by buckeye_vol

Member since Jul 2014

35242 posts

Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:40 am to bhtigerfan

quote:
he wrote, “the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.”

I actually don't really think this will be that useful to our national security, especially given who's not included, BUT I hate when regular people think they know the intentions of others based on random information. Sometimes people people hardly know the underlying intentions for their own behavior.

But it's concerning to see a legal decision based on that same flawed reasoning, expecially with very random and indirect statements that weren't specifically related to the ban, and not even proximally related in time.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by skiptumahloo

Member since Mar 2017

714 posts

Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:57 am to Centinel

quote:
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.

The ban only applies to muslim majority countries, and no one in the US has ever been killed by a terrorist from those countries. Meanwhile, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are NOT on the list despite nearly all terrorists to attack in the US coming from one of those three. No reasonable person could possible conclude that the motivation for this ban is national security.

Even if he'd never said a word about a muslim ban during the election, it'd be obvious what this was really about. Of course, the fact that Trump DID repeatedly promise a muslim ban during the campaign is absolutely relevant to the case, so there's no reason the judges shouldn't mention it in their decisions.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay

Member since Feb 2017

12458 posts

Posted on 3/16/17 at 12:06 pm to buckeye_vol

quote:
m just saying that every legal authority is constrained by the Constitution, even when it's sole authority. Again, maybe we're on the same page, but when the initial ban was instituted, some people seem to think that a sole authority was somehow immune from the Constitution.

Nah, we're on the same page here. Obviously Congress can't and shouldnt' be able to authorize the President to do something unconstitutional.

But when something is CLEARLY within the President's authority to do, can't we all just be grown up and say "okay I don't like that, I don't see a need for it, but clearly he has the authority to do it?"

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by udtiger

Over your left shoulder

Member since Nov 2006

99127 posts

Posted on 3/16/17 at 12:08 pm to Damone

quote:
Federal district judges are a lifetime appointment.

Well...the solution sort of presents itself, doesn't it?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by ljhog

Lake Jackson, Tx.

Member since Apr 2009

19088 posts

Posted on 3/16/17 at 12:09 pm to Jjdoc

quote:
Another

kill 'em both. past time to stop tolerating this nonsense.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by buckeye_vol

Member since Jul 2014

35242 posts

Posted on 3/16/17 at 12:18 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay

quote:
Obviously Congress can't and shouldnt' be able to authorize the President to do something unconstitutional.

Yes. But even if the authority given is constitutional, the enforcement could be unconstitutional--which had happened on numerous occasions, although only a few EO's have ever been challenged on constitutional grounds.

quote:
But when something is CLEARLY within the President's authority to do, can't we all just be grown up and say "okay I don't like that, I don't see a need for it, but clearly he has the authority to do it?"

Yeah. They can fight back against things, but they're just wasting time here.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by gthog61