Federal judge in Seattle puts nationwide halt to Trump’s ban (drugs, weapon)

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by unihills

Please point out where the Constitution says we only respect religious freedoms of certain qualified religions.

Bonus points if you point us to the list of Constitutionally approved "good" religions.

The constitution has nothing to do with any religion, neither does the EO.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by stburr91

No reasonable judge will buy the intent argument.

The order applies to all equally, in the end, that is what makes it legal.

After all his comments wanting to ban Muslims this action had no intent. evidently some are more equal than others


There is tremendous support for overturning his ban on refugees.

The groups note that as evangelicals who work extensively with refugees, they are “troubled” by Trump’s executive order and urged the White House to “reconsider these decisions, allowing for resettlement of refugees to resume immediately.” In addition to the temporary halt on immigrants from the seven predominantly Muslim nations, the Trump order halts all refugees into the United States for 120 days and indefinitely bars refugees from Syria.

Christian groups oppose Trump's preference for Christian refugees - POLITICO

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

After all his comments wanting to ban Muslims this action had no intent. evidently some are more equal than others


There is tremendous support for overturning his ban on refugees.




Christian groups oppose Trump's preference for Christian refugees - POLITICO

Did you not realize that Trump was elected to the office because the following campaign promises:

1. Get rid of illegals
2. Vet refugees properly and reduce their numbers.
3. Nominate a SC judge who will rule by the law
4. Put America first

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by southbel

Just note, the 9th circuit will of course rule against Trump. After all, they're the court who loves to be overturned given they do it sooo much. Most political court in this country.

That being said, it's not even about actually executing the EO anymore, it's about affirming the executive branch's power over issuance of visas. The court is treading dangerously toward completely and utterly rewriting law if they say Trump doesn't have the power to enact this EO. He does, it's constitutional, and now will have to go to SCOTUS to affirm this. Otherwise, it's not just a limitation or issue for Trump but for all future presidents as this decision would otherwise become case law.

So yes, I fully expect the 9th circuit to rule against Trump. I fully expect the appeal to go to SCOTUS where I fully expect Trump to prevail.

We have 3 liberal hacks sitting in the high court. Without Gorsuch, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The problem is if the court rules the other way, I can't imagine what would be like. So anybody who gets a visa has the constitutional right to enter?

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

After all his comments wanting to ban Muslims this action had no intent. evidently some are more equal than others


There is tremendous support for overturning his ban on refugees.




Christian groups oppose Trump's preference for Christian refugees - POLITICO

Democrats not liking something doesn't make it unconstitutional.

The fact remains, whatever Trump said during the campaign is irrelevant, the order applies to everyone equally, so it is constitutional.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

We have 3 liberal hacks sitting in the high court. Without Gorsuch, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The problem is if the court rules the other way, I can't imagine what would be like. So anybody who gets a visa has the constitutional right to enter?

How about anybody who goes through the extensive vetting process and is awarded a visa is entitled to a reason for having that visa revoked?

[lionking]

I think the reason the progressive left are so willing to stand up for muslims is because Islam represents the rival to Christians and to a lesser extent the jewish. A case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend . Then take into account that most muslims are not white, and that makes it a civil rights issue against racism in their mind.


If it were Christians being banned I believe there would be a lot less fanfare from the left. Because Christians represent evil to them because of gay rights and abortion two of the biggest issues for progressive liberals which some Christians oppose. It doesn't really matter to them that muslims also oppose gay and women rights because right now Christian surround liberals in this country so they are enemy number one right now.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by lionking

I think the reason the progressive left are so willing to stand up for muslims is because Islam represents the rival to Christians and to a lesser extent the jewish. A case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend . Then take into account that most muslims are not white, and that makes it a civil rights issue against racism in their mind.


If it were Christians being banned I believe there would be a lot less fanfare from the left. Because Christians represent evil to them because of gay rights and abortion two of the biggest issues for progressive liberals which some Christians oppose. It doesn't really matter to them that muslims also oppose gay and women rights because right now Christian surround liberals in this country so they are enemy number one right now.

Right, because an appreciation for the principle of freedom of religion just doesn't carry any weight with you.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

How about anybody who goes through the extensive vetting process and is awarded a visa is entitled to a reason for having that visa revoked?

You can petition the congress to pass such a law.

No such law exists in this country.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

You can petition the congress to pass such a law.

No such law exists in this country.

Hmmmm.....

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/...-0-0-1928.html

Immigration law, so complex.