snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Soapbox Derby (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Federal judge blocks new Trump travel ban (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=95492)

TallGeekyGirl 16 March 2017 12:11 AM

Federal judge blocks new Trump travel ban
 
Quote:

<cite class="el-editorial-source">(CNN)</cite>A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the ban was set to go into effect.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politi...l-ban-blocked/


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kdOPBP9vuZA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

crocoduck_hunter 16 March 2017 12:34 AM

Saw that coming. :p

Mouse 16 March 2017 01:36 AM

Is it wrong that I'm wondering about the racial makeup of the judge in question? It probably is, but I am kind of curious. Because if it turns out that said judge is so white, he blinds passers-by with the glare coming off his skin, it would be entertaining to watch Trump lose his shit. Though he would lose his shit no matter what; it'd just be nice to force him to resort to some other defense besides "His ethnicity inherently biases him against me," like he did towards that one Hispanic judge. :rolleyes:

thorny locust 16 March 2017 01:44 AM

From this article, which I was just coming here to post:

Quote:

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson ruled that the state of Hawaii and a local Muslim leader had “a strong likelihood of success on their claim” that Trump’s order intentionally targets Muslims and therefore violates the Constitution’s guarantee against establishment of religion.

Watson bluntly rejected the federal government's claims that the new directive does not target Islam because it is focused on six countries that account for less than 9 percent of the world's Muslims.

"The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable," wrote Watson, an appointee of President Barack Obama. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise."
Go Watson!

Don Enrico 16 March 2017 07:11 AM

For those wondering whether Trump can attack the ethnicity of Judge Watson, here is his page at the US District Court:

http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/dsp_bio....&pid=5&mid=103

ChasFink 16 March 2017 02:04 PM

A part of me feels really strange doing research on someone's race, but here's more info via CNN, emphasis added:

Quote:

When Watson was confirmed, he was the fourth person of Native Hawaiian descent to serve as an Article III judge in the United States, according to the Congressional Asian Pacific Americans Caucus.

Don Enrico 16 March 2017 02:25 PM

So Judge Watson is - if you allow the term for the sake of the argument - much more American than third-generation immigrant President Trump.

Although neither of them might see it that way.

UEL 16 March 2017 03:38 PM

I heard it on the radio coming to work this morning that a Maryland judge blocked the travel ban as well. Apparently, it happened this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politi...ner/index.html

CNN has a line about it in this article.

Unfortunately, President Trump won't take the hint and start focussing his energy into resolving the issues that are really impacting Americans.

dfresh 16 March 2017 05:21 PM

UEL, those are complex and require a lot of hard choices and work. It is a lot easier to ban those people and "Lock her up!"

Lainie 16 March 2017 05:30 PM

That would require admitting he was wrong, which doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

Shockingly, adding the words "this is not religious discrimination" to the order did not magically make it not religious discrimination.

GenYus234 16 March 2017 05:49 PM

Scary sign of the times we live in #1: I had to do a Google search for the full text of the new travel ban because I couldn't automatically dismiss such a ridiculous notion as an obvious joke.

Scary sign of the times we live in #2: It isn't.

erwins 16 March 2017 06:23 PM

"'Let me tell you something: I think we should go back to the first one and go all the way,' President Donald Trump said at a rally in Nashville. 'This ruling makes us look weak.'"

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-the-first-one

Brilliant!

thorny locust 16 March 2017 07:36 PM

You are weak, O Donald.

Not as weak as I wish you were, true. But what's making you look weak is your own self; not judicial decisions made by people brave enough not to be terrified by your fear-mongering.

WildaBeast 16 March 2017 10:39 PM

Remember that picture that circulated some years ago that was supposed to be Barack and Michelle Obama saluting with their left hands, but was really obviously just flipped in Photoshop? Snopes pointed out a few things that made it obvious that it was flipped, like their wedding rings being on the wrong hands. Then someone Photoshopped it to "fix" the things that were wrong with it and recirculated it, except that person literally only fixed the few things snopes mentioned in his article and none of the other things that were also wrong but snopes didn't bother mentioning. So then snopes debunked it again by updating the article to point some of those other things.

Well that's what the new travel ban reminds me of. Granted I haven't actually read the full text, but it seems like all they really did was remove the things that people complained the most vocally about in the first ban. Then when the new version got blocked as well they were just shocked that there were other things wrong with it as well.

DrRocket 16 March 2017 11:39 PM

Analysis: Trump learning that in White House, words matter
 
Donald Trump is learning a harsh lesson: In the White House, words matter.

The new president's rhetoric, along with commentary from his advisers and associates, was at the heart of two federal judges' orders this week blocking his controversial refugee and immigration ban for a second time. And on Capitol Hill, his tweets alleging that his predecessor wiretapped his New York skyscraper have brought Democrats and Republicans together in rare agreement: They've seen no evidence to back up Trump's provocative claims

http://www.startribune.com/analysis-...ter/416376154/

His campaign nonsense is coming back to bite him. I find that especially delicious.

Mouse 17 March 2017 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 1944540)
You are weak, O Donald.

Not as weak as I wish you were, true. But what's making you look weak is your own self; not judicial decisions made by people brave enough not to be terrified by your fear-mongering.

Always seems a thing with Fascists: their hypermasculinity always overshadows deep-rooted insecurities. Because if they were secure in their manliness and strength, they wouldn't have to constantly assert how strong and manly they are. :rolleyes:

Hence why we should follow Samantha Bee's strategy: Keep Pissing Trump Off. Totally onboard with that idea. Piss Trump off in ways great and small, make him so busy throwing tantrums on Twitter that he can't find time to erode civil liberties and run roughshod over human rights, while fellating Putin. :rolleyes:

Don Enrico 27 June 2017 10:34 AM

Trump travel ban: US supreme court partially lifts block on order

Quote:

The US supreme court handed a partial victory to the Trump administration on Monday as it lifted significant elements of lower court orders blocking the president’s controversial travel ban targeting visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rtially-lifted

If I remember correctly, the first travel ban, meant to last 90 days, was issued in January to gain time to allow new immigration vetting procedures to come into force. It was blocked by courts. The next travel ban, again for 90 days, was introduced in March. It was blocked again, and part of that block has now been lifted.

The administration had - despite there being no travel ban - far more than 90 days since January to introduce new immigration vetting procedures. Did they? And if they didn't, did they at least say anything about what better procedures that are supposed to be? Did anybody at least talk about immigration vetting procedures?

thorny locust 27 June 2017 02:51 PM

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what the Supremes are up to on this. (Of course, it's likely they're not all up to the same thing.)

In October, maybe they're going to say 'you said you needed 90 days to revamp procedures, you've had over 90 days, why are you in here trying to keep these regulations? Obviously they weren't in order to give you 90 days and that must have been a coverup for your real, unconstitutional, intended purpose.'

Or maybe not.

In the meantime, while they did require letting some people in, others are going to be at best delayed -- and, in some cases, those delays are likely to mean deaths.

And, for that matter, some who are entitled to come in under the Supremes' qualifications will be delayed while they have to try to prove their entitlement. See above.

GenYus234 27 June 2017 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Enrico (Post 1952560)
The administration had - despite there being no travel ban - far more than 90 days since January to introduce new immigration vetting procedures. Did they? And if they didn't, did they at least say anything about what better procedures that are supposed to be? Did anybody at least talk about immigration vetting procedures?

You're talking about the same political party who has been "planning" to replace the Affordable Care Act for 7+ years but just got around to writing the legislation a few months ago.

thorny locust 27 June 2017 03:52 PM

And has not successfully written it yet.

Last I looked they were bleeding just enough votes on both ends of the party in the Senate to prevent passing the latest disaster. I hope.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.