Discussion: Appeals Court Rules Against Trump's Revised Travel Ban

Winning! More winning!

I guess Trump will have to break up the 4th Circuit too!

8 Likes

“No fair using what I say against me. Fake News!”

6 Likes

Awwww. The guy just can’t catch a break. Shame. LOL

2 Likes

The Ninth Circuit is one thing, but losing in the Fourth Circuit is a major loss.

And it should be noted that this ruling is en banc meaning every judge heard the appeal and not simply a three judge panel.

Trump lost hard.

16 Likes

It won’t be long before he is making statements deriding the courts again. I wonder how that will play out when he winds up facing impeachment and criminal charges for all of his corruption.

6 Likes

Just started reading – it took a long time to load the opinion from the Fourth Circuit’s website, perhaps because everyone is trying to read it! But it looks like a doozy. Opinion written by the Chief Judge, only 3 dissenters. Opening paragraph:

The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the
Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles—that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court’s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2© of the challenged Executive Order.

12 Likes

Hammered:
As we previously determined, the Government’s asserted national security interest in enforcing Section 2© appears to be a post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country. We remain unconvinced that Section 2© has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban. We do not discount that EO-2 may have some national security purpose, nor do we disclaim that the injunction may have some impact on the Government. But our inquiry, whether for determining Section 2©’s primary purpose or for weighing the harm to the parties, is one of balance, and on balance, we cannot say that the Government’s asserted national security interest outweighs the competing harm to Plaintiffs of the likely Establishment Clause violation.

7 Likes

Remember that the 90-day review called for in the original so-called “temporary” ban would have finished a month ago with nary a peep of results.

By their own rhetoric they’ve endangered the country for weeks by not forging ahead with the review.

6 Likes

Fourth Circuit en banc! This one’s going to hurt. :sunglasses:

9 Likes

I wonder if trump supporters are tired of all their “winning” yet.

2 Likes

Trump: What about my right to be an Islamaphobe? White Constitution clearly spells it out that as POTUS I can block anyone, anywhere etc just because I can.

4 Likes

the preferred code words for discrimination is “religious objections”. Try to stay current.

2 Likes

Damn that Constitution!

1 Like

Trump welcomed in Belgium with -----

6 Likes

3 Likes

6 Likes

My heart is FULL!!!

2 Likes

Donald Trump: Presidential Loser.

3 Likes

Germany terrible----------------because cars

3 Likes