U.S. Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Immigration Order Nationwide

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-immigration-order-nationwide-n716706


A federal judge in Washington state on Friday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's executive order that put a hold on entry to the U.S. of people from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

The temporary restraining order applies nationwide, Attorney General Bob Ferguson's office said.

"The Constitution prevailed today," Ferguson said in a statement. "No one is above the law — not even the President."

The restraining order will be in effect until U.S. District Court Senior Judge James L. Robart considers a legal challenge filed by the attorney general, Ferguson's office said.

The White House press secretary said the administration will seek an emergency stay at the earliest possible time, and initially called the judge's action an "outrageous order." An updated statement issued a short time later dropped the term "outrageous."

"The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people," both statements said.

A Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News that the judge's order will have no immediate practical effect. All previously issued visas from the seven affected countries were canceled by last week's executive order, the official said, meaning people would have to reapply.

Related: Around 60,000 Visas Revoked by Trump's Immigration Order, State Dept. Says

The order Trump signed on Jan. 27 suspends entry for 90 days of nationals of Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Trump said the order was necessary to keep Americans safe from terrorism. Critics have called it a "Muslim ban," which the president has denied.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Friday that the "pause" does not apply to lawful permanent residents or dual citizens.

[CPUd]

827720295381348352
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/827720295381348352

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

]



Aren't you a foreigner?

[CPUd]

827703476654374917
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/827703476654374917

[Chester Copperpot]

the court cannot enforce this... it is out of their purview

[timosman]

Another one bites the dust.

[TheCount]

the court cannot enforce this... it is out of their purviewBecause?

[LibertyRevolution]

Trumps executive order is legal and justified as there is already precedent for another president doing this...

Please see: 8 U.S. Code 1182

Who was it done against last time? Iran. Who ordered it? Jimmy Carter, a democrat president.

But now that trump is doing it... OH NO!!! YOU CANT DO THAT!! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! LOL

[GunnyFreedom]

the court cannot enforce this... it is out of their purview


Because?

Because the Constitution would appear to indicate that the judiciary has no authority to form an opinion without first some cause of action (court case or lawsuit) being brought to the court by an individual with standing, or a State --- which if it's a State has to go to SCOTUS first.

The courts have no constitutional authority to render a decision when there isn't even a question before the courts. There is no provision in the Constitution for the courts to just say, "Huh, I don't like that law/eo/whatever so I'm just going to say 'no.'"

I'm not defending the EO, I'm just asserting Constitutional procedure. If the courts want to preside over this issue then they either need an individual complainant to bring the case to circuit court, or a State complainant to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

[GunnyFreedom]

Trumps executive order is legal and justified as there is already precedent for another president doing this...

Please see: 8 U.S. Code 1182

Who was it done against last time? Iran. Who ordered it? Jimmy Carter, a democrat president.

But now that trump is doing it... OH NO!!! YOU CANT DO THAT!! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! LOL

Do you seriously believe that, "but the democrats did it too!" is in any way shape or form a meaningful argument on these forums?

[tod evans]

More of that good ol' "Just-Us"....

Bickering about who a decision favors does nothing about the fact that citizens are crying to the courts.

The idea that "We are a nation of laws." is ludicrous at this point in time. Which law interpreted which way by which court might support your position today?

The nation as a whole is too big, too complex and too diverse for this charade to continue much longer.

[timosman]

Do you seriously believe that, "but the democrats did it too!" is in any way shape or form a meaningful argument on these forums?

Now you have to clarify: RPF'2007 or RPF'2017?

[FSP-Rebel]

fake news

Pretty bold posting fools gold from none other than Barf feed itself. You're always on top of the latest lefty looney tune twitter feeds, so it's perfectly clear what genre you follow.
However, I appreciate this judge's constructive efforts and egotistical inflation rather than just merely rioting in the streets.

[nikcers]

Trumps executive order is legal and justified as there is already precedent for another president doing this...

Please see: 8 U.S. Code 1182

Who was it done against last time? Iran. Who ordered it? Jimmy Carter, a democrat president.

But now that trump is doing it... OH NO!!! YOU CANT DO THAT!! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! LOL

There is also legal precedent of a president owning slaves. Trump does not get excused for doing things other presidents do, in fact he deserves scorn because he ran as an outsider and censored Ron and Rand Paul's presidential runs.

[Ender]

Do you seriously believe that, "but the democrats did it too!" is in any way shape or form a meaningful argument on these forums?

Only when it supports your own dictator. ;)

Presidents have been doing a lot of unlawful things for years- such as unconstitutional wars, like our current ME presence.

[TheCount]

Because the Constitution would appear to indicate that the judiciary has no authority to form an opinion without first some cause of action (court case or lawsuit) being brought to the court by an individual with standing, or a State --- which if it's a State has to go to SCOTUS first.There are plenty of lawsuits already. The Washington lawsuit (in the OP) was brought by Amazon and Expedia.

[Chester Copperpot]

Because the Constitution would appear to indicate that the judiciary has no authority to form an opinion without first some cause of action (court case or lawsuit) being brought to the court by an individual with standing, or a State --- which if it's a State has to go to SCOTUS first.

The courts have no constitutional authority to render a decision when there isn't even a question before the courts. There is no provision in the Constitution for the courts to just say, "Huh, I don't like that law/eo/whatever so I'm just going to say 'no.'"

I'm not defending the EO, I'm just asserting Constitutional procedure. If the courts want to preside over this issue then they either need an individual complainant to bring the case to circuit court, or a State complainant to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

yeah they basically have no army to enforce their decree... im glad you resonded to the count

[silverhandorder]

It's going to be overturned.

[CPUd]

828000261704675328
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/828000261704675328

[timosman]

CPUd and Zippy are licking their chops. Hey, I told you so!:cool:

[Ender]

CPUd and Zippy are licking their chops. Hey, I told you so!:cool:

You don't like Justin? :confused:

[timosman]

You don't like Justin? :confused:

Apologies for not including your name. CPUd, Zippy and Ender. :cool:

[CPUd]

827877064405610497
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/827877064405610497

[timosman]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/827877064405610497

THIS IS HARD TROLLING. Are we outnumbered?


He's done pro bono work with refugees

This screams conflict of interest. He should recuse himself.

[CPUd]

827897934708617217
https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/827897934708617217

[timosman]

Is CPUd able to form an opinion and share it? :confused:

[klamath]

Probably less of a conflict of interest than trump not adding the Saudis to the banned list because of the millions he has tied up there..... Seems funny that the country that supplied the most deadly terrorist didn't make the list. Hmmmm.

[timosman]

Probably less of a conflict of interest than trump not adding the Saudis to the banned list because of the millions he has tied up there..... Seems funny that the country that supplied the most deadly terrorist didn't make the list. Hmmmm.

Can we stick to the topic? I did not ask for more trolls on this thread. :cool:

[klamath]

Can we stick to the topic? I did not ask for more trolls on this thread. :cool:No.

[LibertyEagle]

Probably less of a conflict of interest than trump not adding the Saudis to the banned list because of the millions he has tied up there..... Seems funny that the country that supplied the most deadly terrorist didn't make the list. Hmmmm.

Saudi should have been there. Hopefully, they will be added. What Trump started with was the list that Obama had made. I'm sure thinking that there wouldn't be much panty twisting since the magic Nobel Peace Prize winner created the list.

[CPUd]

Trump won't ban Saudis, he wants to do a deal with them to build "safe zones" for Syrian refugees.

[timosman]

Saudi should have been there. Hopefully, they will be added. What Trump started with was the list that Obama had made. I'm sure thinking that there wouldn't be much panty twisting since the magic Nobel Peace Prize winner created the list.

That's the problem with the trolls - they never read anything, they post so much they never have time to read anything. This question has been answered at least twice before but we can ask again. :cool:

[timosman]

Trump won't ban Saudis, he wants to do a deal with them to build "safe zones" for Syrian refugees.

Why are we discussing Saudis?:rolleyes:

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/lgiq5Wm.png

[klamath]

Saudi should have been there. Hopefully, they will be added. What Trump started with was the list that Obama had made. I'm sure thinking that there wouldn't be much panty twisting since the magic Nobel Peace Prize winner created the list. Do you really think I am going to buy the argument, He couldn't because Obama made the list? Obama also set the vetting yet somehow he changed that?? Why did we invade nearly every country EXCEPT the country that supplied the most terrorists....??? I think I am seeing wisps of green swamp gas emanating for Trumps behind....
Or maybe just maybe because he had the number one neocon write the thing it just didn't include the Saudis???? http://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally-2017-1. Big belch of swamp gas came out that time!!

[Schifference]

Trump should just write a new EO with wording that would pass scrutiny.

[TheCount]

Trump should just write a new EO with wording that would pass scrutiny.First he would have to be capable of admitting that he was wrong.

[klamath]

I see the worst. Trump is trying to overturn the decision, not by arguing that it is a not a violation of the second amendment but that the executive power to fight the muslim military bases in the US, trumps the bill of rights.

[CPUd]

828210585598836737
https://twitter.com/AP/status/828210585598836737

[silverhandorder]

I see the worst. Trump is trying to overturn the decision, not by arguing that it is a not a violation of the second amendment but that the executive power to fight the muslim military bases in the US, trumps the bill of rights.

What does bill of rights have to do with this?

[CPUd]

827657255235366912
https://twitter.com/EssexKIRO7/status/827657255235366912

[klamath]

What does bill of rights have to do with this? Ban's based on Religion. Grant the President more power to target groups for security reasons and that will soon apply to domestic rights as well. It has been done in the past, (Japanese americans) but keep adding bricks to the power of the imperial presidency and lots more whining is going to occur when the dems get back in.