re: Hawaii judge blocks Trumps latest travel ban

Bet he wasn't born in Hawaii either.

Dude, the Supreme Court is going to end this soon

It's judicial activism period

quote:

---

Pack up current Muslims Obama brought in and ship them to Hawaii

---

Brilliant, really. +1

quote:

---

Is Sessions still, "Amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States?"

---

This judge is coming perilously close to overstepping his bounds. The executive branch is allowed to enforce immigration policy as it sees fit(prosecutorial discretion). I read his decision and if he has to contort himself in this manner again, Trump(or any President) and the justice department would be well within their rights to disregard his decision outright. They ought to do it right now because his stays are becoming gratuitous. The Supremes are going to knock this down.

He really does not demonstrate how the enforcement of this ban does irreparable harm to anyone....any state or entity. If he and the people of the the ninth circuit region don't want this then they need to get things changed at the ballot box.

quote:

---

You seem the type that would settle for bamboo splinters up under his fingernails. Would that satisfy you? No need to hang anyone.

---

Sounds GOOD!

quote:

---

Didn't the SCOTUS just rule last week that the travel ban was legal? Shouldn't that legal precedent overrule a lower Federal Court? I don't get it. Dog and Pony show political move by an Obama appointed judge.

---

As I said, they only ruled that the court case over the previous ban was moot in light of the revised order. I tried to make that clear in the previous threads, but everyone wanted to circlejerk over a nothingburger.

FWIW as I said before, when the ultimately gets to the Court on the merits they will uphold or use a technicality to leave the ban in place without commenting on the merits.

OP's article doesn't link the opinion. After several fruitless searches I finally found it on the ACLU website.

Read the opinion once and here's a hot take plus a little red meat for folks opposed to an activist judiciary.

TL;DR - The President must dance around before the court like a marionette before exercising his statutory authority to limit entry of aliens into the United States.

Judge Watson's essential finding is this:

"The actions taken by the President in the challenged sections of EO-3 require him to “first make sufficient findings that the entry of nationals from the six designated countries . . . would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 776. Because the President has not satisfied this precondition in the manner described by the Ninth Circuit before exercising his delegated authority, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the President exceeded his authority under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a)."

The EO-3 document itself lists various finding upon which the executive order is based. Judge Watson finds these 'findings' to be insufficient because they have not yet been proved in his own court. In order to pass constitutional muster Judge Watson must be personally be satisfied that The President has found that limiting entry of aliens into the United States is detrimental to our national security interest.

Citing heavily to supportive 9th circuit opinion Judge Watson implies that the term "finds" means only objectively verifiable and certain fact based conclusions. Like science. That in order to exercise his statutory authority The President must first make a case to the court for authority to exercise his statutory authority to limit the entry of aliens.

Now we'll have a footnote of Federal jurisprudence about what the definition of 'finds' means all while a District Court judge from Hawaii personally manages national immigration policy via a temporary injunction.

Also, here is dictionary definition of "finds": LINK

Which includes a number of definitions far less stringent than bearing the burden of proof to satisfy another.

Note: I'm not against Judge Watson's decision because I don't like the result.

So some shitass low rung judge can override the entire SCOTUS? frick this shite.

Got damn you people dot actually read anything beyond the headlines do you?