Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Issued a Restraining Order

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump Issued a Restraining Order



    US judge temporarily blocks Trump's travel ban nationwide
    By MARTHA BELLISLE
    Feb. 3, 2017 7:04 PM EST

    SEATTLE (AP) — A U.S. judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's ban on people from seven predominantly Muslim countries after Washington state and Minnesota urged a nationwide hold on the executive order that has launched legal battles across the country.

    U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled against government lawyers' claims that the states did not have the standing to challenge Trump's order and said they showed their case was likely to succeed.

    "The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury," Robart said.

    Trump's order last week sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer.

    Washington became the first state to sue, with Attorney General Bob Ferguson saying the order was causing significant harm to residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the suit this week.

    The two states won a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which says key sections of Trump's order are illegal and unconstitutional. Court challenges have been filed nationwide from states and advocacy groups, with some other hearings also held Friday.

    "Washington has a profound interest in protecting its residents from the harms caused by the irrational discrimination embodied in the order," Ferguson said in a brief.

    Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the president authority to make decisions on national security and admitting immigrants.

    The lawsuit says Trump campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from coming to the U.S. and kept up that rhetoric while defending the travel ban. Lawyers pointed to dozens of exhibits of speeches and statements Trump has made.

    "The executive order effectively mandates that the states engage in discrimination based on national origin and/or religion, thereby rescinding the states' historic protection of civil rights and religious freedom," the complaint said, calling it a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    The lawsuit ultimately seeks to permanently block parts of the executive order that suspend immigration from the seven Muslim-majority countries, put the U.S. refugee admissions program on hold and halt entry of Syrian refugees.

    Ferguson said the order is causing significant harm to Washington residents, businesses and its education system. It will reduce tax revenue and impose significant costs on state agencies, as well as make it impossible for some state employees and students to travel, he said.

    Washington-based businesses Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft support the state's efforts to stop the order. They say it's hurting their operations, too.







    Last edited by SBFORDTECH; 02-04-2017, 10:13 AM.

  • #2
    Minnesota is little Somalia.
    Fuck you. We're going to Costco.

    Comment


    • #3
      Political judges making rulings for political ends.

      The President absolutely has this authority.

      Comment


      • #4
        This has always been power given to the federal government and it should be. It's freaking nuts they are even talking about this. The fed protects our border and governs war. Federal government needs to stay out of everything else except interstate commerce and other powers reserved to to it.

        Even the deal with California voting to become a sanctuary state....there is also a law on the books that says it's a felony to assist and harbor illegal aliens...yet they're trying to vote to become a sanctuary state? Madness. Im stuck on the fact that 75% of Californias voted against sanctuary cities, yet this. I believe California is basically under siege, and the federal government should be engaged in liberating it as part of its duty. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. The opposition to the travel pause is further evidence of the same orchestrated effort to undermine the sovereignty and supremacy of the United States.


        Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

        Comment


        • #5
          california suffers from TURD.

          Comment


          • #6
            California, as a sanctuary state, could import, house, and feed an army while we pay for it.

            Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KBScobravert View Post
              Minnesota is little Somalia.
              Troof.
              If you've flown out of MSP in the last 15-ish years, the plane was cleaned and catered by Somalians.
              "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by helosailor View Post
                Troof.
                If you've flown out of MSP in the last 15-ish years, the plane was cleaned and catered by Somalians.
                Yep. last month I flew through MSP. I was expecting someone to light their underwear bomb on the plane.
                Fuck you. We're going to Costco.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Fastback View Post
                  California, as a sanctuary state, could import, house, and feed an army while we pay for it.

                  Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
                  Once they secede, they won't be covered under the third amendment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by sc281 View Post
                    Once they secede, they won't be covered under the third amendment.
                    True dat, we could put troops in, too. But, I don't think real Californians (vs foreign nationals and brainwashed publicity stunt-prone idiots) want any of it...like 75% voted. They are under siege. Don't you agree? If we let an enemy take over California under the guise of "letting them secede".....that's not cool---we'd effectively give away territory and lose the access California gives to the Pacific etc.

                    BTW, in the interest of being politically correct, I am trying to use the term "foreign national" instead of "immigrant".

                    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      there is no way the us is going to give up the coast and docks. cal is fucked. they are broke and gov moonbeam is taxing the shit out of them. they will be the first to reach the breaking point.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bubbaearl View Post
                        there is no way the us is going to give up the coast and docks. cal is fucked. they are broke and gov moonbeam is taxing the shit out of them. they will be the first to reach the breaking point.
                        I'm seeing conflicting evidence on whether or not California is broke. Whenever Trump started threatening to withhold federal funds due to sanctuaries, California said they only receive like 78cents back on the dollar. They said they would in turn withhold their payments to the federal govt.

                        I then checked to see if this was true and it turns out Texas is broker than we were...that is we take in more from the federal govt. than we pay. Apparently this changed for Texas something like 5 years ago. Talk about a buzz kill. I still would like to see the itemization for this math.

                        Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X