Another court issues injunction against travel ban

T

Timshel

New member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...der-because-it-discriminates-against-muslims/

Earlier today, Virginia federal district court Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order on immigration, based on the fact that it discriminates against Muslims. Judge Brinkema’s opinion is especially notable because it is the first judicial ruling against the order based on the issue of religious discrimination.

... The recent Ninth Circuit appellate court ruling against Trump also concluded that these statements were relevant, but did not reach the question of whether the religious discrimination claim was strong enough to prove a “likelihood of success” on the merits; it instead based its ruling against Trump on the Due Process Clause.


http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/azizpi.pdf
 
Now tsuke is going to tell you a bunch of bullshit about what it means, but he failed to understand that the other courts had made no conclusions on religious discrimination. He either did not actually read the rulings, has no capacity to comprehend them or he is just purposefully misrepresenting it.

I can post threads again, I guess.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Now tsuke is going to tell you a bunch of bullshit about what it means, but he failed to understand that the other courts had made no conclusions on religious discrimination. He either did not actually read the rulings, has no capacity to comprehend them or he is just purposefully misrepresenting it.

I can post threads again, I guess.
Click to expand...

Grind is merciful.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Now tsuke is going to tell you a bunch of bullshit about what it means, but he failed to understand that the other courts had made no conclusions on religious discrimination. He either did not actually read the rulings, has no capacity to comprehend them or he is just purposefully misrepresenting it.

I can post threads again, I guess.
Click to expand...

Yippeee another court oversteps its bounds and wants to apply the US Constitution to foreigners.

Tell me why you want these muslimes here so badly?

What is in it for us?
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Now tsuke is going to tell you a bunch of bullshit about what it means, but he failed to understand that the other courts had made no conclusions on religious discrimination. He either did not actually read the rulings, has no capacity to comprehend them or he is just purposefully misrepresenting it.

I can post threads again, I guess.
Click to expand...

what it means and as this judge admits is that they are getting intent based on something he said in the campaign and not on the eo itself.

which then means that any EO on the same subject will face the same challenge thereby removing the authority of the president to set immigration policy on this subject.
 
As for tsuke's claim that it would prohibit all actions against Muslim nations...

Finally, defendants argue that the evidence on which Commonwealth relies proves too much, because it would render every policy that the president makes related to Muslim majority countries open to challenge. This fear is exaggerated. The Court's conclusion rests on the highly particular "sequence of events" leading to this specific EO and the dearth of evidence indicating a national security purpose. See McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862. The evidence in this record focuses on the president's statements about a "Muslim ban" and the link Giuliani established between those statements and the EO. Based on that evidence, at this preliminary of the litigation, the Court finds that the Commonwealth has established a likelihood of success on the merits.

McCreary is another case establishing that the courts may consider intent and not just the latest one offered.
 
The court's First Amendment objection is particularly weak.

How are we supposed to 'not' discriminate on religious grounds when Islamic terrorists are Muslim virtually 100% of the time?

They can cite precedent till the cows come home but their ruling is devoid of logic.
 
tsuke said:
what it means and as this judge admits is that they are getting intent based on something he said in the campaign and not on the eo itself.

which then means that any EO on the same subject will face the same challenge thereby removing the authority of the president to set immigration policy on this subject.
Click to expand...

They absolutely are considering what was said during the campaign. There are many cases supporting such considerations in establishment clause cases.

He's going to have a very hard time getting a "Muslim ban." He will have to be more targeted and have some legitimate proof of a national security interest. He can still set immigration policy.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
They absolutely are considering what was said during the campaign. There are many cases supporting such considerations in establishment clause cases.

He's going to have a very hard time getting a "Muslim ban." He will have to be more targeted and have some legitimate proof of a national security interest. He can still set immigration policy.
Click to expand...

fyi if the number one concern truly was he wanted it to disproportionately affect muslims then the proper step would be to strike down or place a tro on the portions that allow you to make an exception.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
They absolutely are considering what was said during the campaign. There are many cases supporting such considerations in establishment clause cases.

He's going to have a very hard time getting a "Muslim ban." He will have to be more targeted and have some legitimate proof of a national security interest. He can still set immigration policy.
Click to expand...

Omg, it's not a Muslim ban regardless of what he said lol.

How are we supposed to set policy to keep Islamic terrorists out if we can't mention the words 'Muslim' or 'Islam'. Do we go back to the ridiculous euphemisms?
 
Dick from the Internet said:
They absolutely are considering what was said during the campaign. There are many cases supporting such considerations in establishment clause cases.

He's going to have a very hard time getting a "Muslim ban." He will have to be more targeted and have some legitimate proof of a national security interest. He can still set immigration policy.
Click to expand...

Dear idiot; it isn't a Muslim ban and campaign comments have NOTHING to do with the law.

One has to wonder at the glaring lack of intelligence and level of dishonesty of leftist dimwit.

You idiots think you're still winning. :rofl2:
 
The leftist dimwits don't even know that this is not a ruling of law or against the proposed ban on particular nations who promote terrorism.
 
Darth Omar said:
Omg, it's not a Muslim ban regardless of what he said lol.

How are we supposed to set policy to keep Islamic terrorists out if we can't mention the words 'Muslim' or 'Islam'. Do we go back to the ridiculous euphemisms?
Click to expand...

Why not have a policy to keep terrorists out? Who gives a fuck if they are Islamic?

No court would stop the Trump administration if they had a legitimate national security interest but they have not provided one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top