- 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
re: Trump Challenges Hawaii's Judge: Hawaii Judge rejects Trump Admin request
Posted on 3/19/17 at 10:42 pm to Crimson1st
Posted on 3/19/17 at 10:42 pm to Crimson1st
quote:More like replying to them.
Like reading your posts?
0
Posted on 3/19/17 at 11:09 pm to kcon70
quote:
Elshikh says the ban prevents his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, from visiting family in Hawaii
I imagine there's a great deal of people in the US that wish they could use a travel ban to keep their MIL away...
Posted on 3/19/17 at 11:20 pm to kcon70
quote:
How is this exactly "religious" discrimination?
Even if it was, it is still LEGAL. The 1st amendment does not extend to people in Syria or Yemen.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 11:27 pm to boosiebadazz
I misread that article. My bad. Trump eliminated a country in this entire new EO that has nothing to do with with the MIL in Hawaii from Syria.
This goes to SCOTUS, so it doesn't really matter-- it is sickening how politically charged it is.
This goes to SCOTUS, so it doesn't really matter-- it is sickening how politically charged it is.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 11:41 pm to AUstar
quote:No, but they aren't the ones who they are arguing for standing in this situation. Although it would be hard to make the case in THIS situation, the establishment clause refers the government policy itself. A policy still can't favor one religion over the other regardless, which is why the EO bans certain countries instead.
Even if it was, it is still LEGAL. The 1st amendment does not extend to people in Syria or Yemen.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 11:56 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
No, but they aren't the ones who they are arguing for standing in this situation. Although it would be hard to make the case in THIS situation, the establishment clause refers the government policy itself. A policy still can't favor one religion over the other regardless, which is why the EO bans certain countries instead.
Not really. As many have pointed out already, what happens if Trump or any other president wants to bomb some terrorist camp in Yemen? Is a district judge going to order a TRS on military action because it violates the the 1st amendment of the terrorists on foreign soil? You see where this is going, right?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:10 am to AUstar
quote:Sure, which is why something that would blatantly unconstitutional domestically, would be debatable as it pertains to immigration. But immigration isn't completely foreign nor domestic policy related. It's an interesting overlap. The government still can't make policies that prohibit or promote a religion.
Not really. As many have pointed out already, what happens if Trump or any other president wants to bomb some terrorist camp in Yemen? Is a district judge going to order a TRS on military action because it violates the the 1st amendment of the terrorists on foreign soil? You see where this is going, right?
Again. I don't think that's the case here, but if he had explicitly banned a religion, or banned all but a single religion, I think he would have lost that case pretty easily.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News