In the absence of evidence for the proposition that nationals from the banned countries present a special threat, it remains very much a muslim ban. The question is whether the judges still have the courage and honesty to contradict the administration.
What legal significance is there to the fact that this is the 2nd version of a ban which was ruled illegal? Is it correct to say that the Trump administration has an extra hurdle to pass now?
Hawaii is in the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, and that is the court that came down hard on the last ban. I’m guessing Trump will have a difficult time convincing the judges this is constitutional … but tbo, I don’t know exactly where they’d draw the line and say, “This is where you might have justification, etc., for enacting a ban and here is where the constitutional/unconstitutional line is.”
Second verse:
Same as the first.
A little bit louder,
A little bit worse.
would it be appropriate to file a legal brief on the back of a copy of Obama’s birth certificate?
Hawaii? AKA the Kenyan Birth Certificate Agency…
…and any day know trump will announce the results of his investigation! It’ll be big, the biggest, the hugest, biggest, biggest, biggest, most beautiful scandal!
His investigators are sending back fabulous reports as we speak! They’re finding the most amazing things!
Repealing the ACA is going to kill far more Americans, yet it’s “constitutional” so it’s OK
I’d love to be a wire-tap on the wall when he reads those reports.
Shorter Trump: if these countries would pull an Azerbaijan, they wouldn’t be on the list.
It’s not about threats of terrorism. It’s about finding an enemy for his base to hate on, and Muslim dominant countries where he has no financial interests are ideal.
I’m confused. Why do exotic foreign countries get to file lawsuits against these Yoonited States of Umerika? We ought to bomb them for their temerity. And then steal their oil.
What is it about this New Order that makes it less discriminatory than the first try?
Six countries, all of them Muslim are still affected, while only one is dropped.
So where is the basic change that makes this version “legal” while the previous version was not?
All of this is another attempt at a “Wall” of one form or another.
“They” vs We." It reminds me of Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam going at it. (“Bunker Hill Bunny”)
I wish this hideous attempt at “Executive Rule” was anywhere near as funny as the Nightmarish Nature of “Government by Frankenputz.”
Isn’t Hawaii’s state government 100% Democratic?
Go Hawaii!!!
Ja, we won’t deny 1000’s of people their rights-all at once- If we do it by “Onezies and twozies” no one will notice.
I remember another nation that fell into that trap.
Oh well, have a nice day, and
Big Smile, Big Smile.
Of course Drumpf will claim that Obama is behind this legal challenge; after all, Obama claims he was born in HI, so he and the Hawaiian government are clearly in cahoots. Drumpf is certain that HI conspired with BO to create a fake birth certificate to hide the fact that he was really born in Kenya to alien lizard lords who eat children and puppies.
Good point on drawing the line. I think the answer to that is: You can’t draw the line anywhere if your purpose is to set up one immigration rule for Muslims and another for Christians. Limiting the ban to immigrants of a certain country is not an acceptable drawing of the line, because the enterprise remains tainted by the unlawful purpose.
His investigators are finding that “searching” for “records” in Hawaii ain’t such a bad way to spend some time… We just need a little more time, and for you to keep our expense account full… We’ll have those results for you any day now, boss…