Active Now

Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Legal » What slippery slope has been made for us? If a judge can halt a travel ban because campaign rhetoric
O-uknow

What slippery slope has been made for us? If a judge can halt a travel ban because campaign rhetoric

makes him feel the intent is to discriminate against Muslims. Can he also reverse troop movements and halt military actions he feels are meant only to kill Muslims based on the same campaign rhetoric? Is there anything the president can do in the fight against Islamic terrorism that Liberal courts can't say is anti-Muslim?

Posted - March 18, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • I hear your concern bit in this case he said it wasn't a Muslim ban but bus own words could be used to prove it was ... maybe he should stop shooting from the lip
      March 18, 2017 12:29 PM MDT
    3

  • 5614
    Campaign rhetoric is not to be confused with White House policy.
      March 18, 2017 6:40 PM MDT
    2

  • Under  Australian law what a person says and does is considered background material to any act done  ... for example if I'm in public and acting extremely homophobic then later  " accidentally" Ron over a gay  person my previous utterances and actions will be considered   if my actions were indeed accidental in running that person over ... i don't think you guys are that different in your approach to law
      March 18, 2017 7:27 PM MDT
    1

  • Here?  Not really.   A lawyer could submit it as character evidence in certain instances but the defence would likely call an objection and the judge may or may not allow it on his discretion.  As to a specific law or decree saying it is to be considered.  No, there really isn't anything like that.
    I believe you might be thinking of some states  hate crime laws but those work a little differently than that. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 18, 2017 8:42 PM MDT
      March 18, 2017 7:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 5614
    We are not altogether different and what you say is conventional wisdom but the executive order is not a crime equated to running over a Gay person and so needs no review of previous utterances and actions. The order itself is legal outside of judiciary activist interpretation of its intent. This post was edited by O-uknow at March 18, 2017 8:23 PM MDT
      March 18, 2017 8:22 PM MDT
    0

  • I would suggest its not legal hence it being struck down
      March 18, 2017 9:19 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    "concluding that the ban was unconstitutional, a view based largely on discriminatory comments made by Trump himself."

    "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable," Watson wrote. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed."

    "Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/trump-travel-ban-order-explainer/
      March 18, 2017 1:51 PM MDT
    1

  • 5614
    The flaw is forgetting the countries listed on the ban come from a report of countries likely to support and/or promote terrorism which was accepted by the Obama administration. Trump acted accordingly to the results of the report rather than dismiss obvious conclusions. This post was edited by O-uknow at March 18, 2017 10:53 PM MDT
      March 18, 2017 6:50 PM MDT
    1

  • 5808
    Campaign rhetoric suggests,
    true motive intent.
    ...hard to ignore
    .....He is his own worst enemy
      March 18, 2017 4:44 PM MDT
    2

  • 22891
    not sure what he'll do
      March 18, 2017 4:59 PM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    Yeah sure.  That totally follows.

    You know?   Discriminating whether a person can come and go because of his name or faith is the issue, not whether or not a judge can run riot over every law on earth.



      March 18, 2017 5:03 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Well, that goes to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

    I can see where the court is cognizant of the issue of his actual intent.


    For both sides of this quote Giuliani: "Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban 'legally' go to this site:



    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally
      March 18, 2017 5:12 PM MDT
    0

  • 34450
    Exactly. If I were going to ban someone I would make sure it effected more than 15% of the one I wanted banned.
      March 18, 2017 6:55 PM MDT
    3

  • 5614
    My gal :)
      March 18, 2017 7:11 PM MDT
    1

  • I don't really understand how a judge in one state can issue a block that will affect the whole country, for instance can a judge practice law in any state without being licensed in that state? 
      March 18, 2017 10:57 PM MDT
    0

  • 3907
    Hello fan:

    FEDERAL judges, no matter WHERE their office is, judge the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the law rather than its security or political considerations.

    excon
      March 19, 2017 8:19 AM MDT
    0

  • Is this not the Constitution?

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security

      March 21, 2017 2:42 PM MDT
    0

  • 3907
    Hello O:

    What you call rhetoric, the courts call intent.. 

    That's WHY the courts ruled against North Carolina when they instigated their voter ID law..  The very FIRST thing the right wing legislators DID was study the use, by RACE, of certain voting practices. The provisions of their voter ID law "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision" and "impose cures for problems that did not exist," the judges wrote.  So, no matter HOW much they protest about needing an ID to buy beer, their INTENT was clear.. 

    In the issue above, Trumps INTENT is clear..

    excon
      March 19, 2017 8:31 AM MDT
    0