Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation
webfact

Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect

Recommended Posts

It seemed a bit more than coincidence that Obama flew unannounced to Hawaii two days before Judge Watson issued his restraining order against President Trump. Judge Watson is either a really fast writer or this was all set up well ahead of time, no doubt the latter.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-17/online-observers-accuse-obama-improper-intervention-hawaii-immigration-ruling

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stander said:

It seemed a bit more than coincidence that Obama flew unannounced to Hawaii two days before Judge Watson issued his restraining order against President Trump. Judge Watson is either a really fast writer or this was all set up well ahead of time, no doubt the latter.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-17/online-observers-accuse-obama-improper-intervention-hawaii-immigration-ruling

I see you're still living inside the fake news bubble.

Reporter quits news site over Obama conspiracy story

The congressional reporter for Independent Journal Review, the conservative website whose profile has risen during the Trump administration, quit on Thursday over disagreements with the website's direction, people familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

Joe Perticone felt as though his credibility as a congressional reporter was damaged by the actions of other writers on the millennial-focused viral news site, people familiar with the situation said. Perticone removed reference to IJR from his Twitter profile on Thursday afternoon.

The last straw, they said, was a post published earlier on Thursday connecting former President Barack Obama's visit to Hawaii with a Hawaiian federal judge's ruling against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/03/independent-journal-review-joe-perticone-reporter-resigns-236147

 

Obama island trip links Hawaiian Judge against Travel Ban? Independent Journal Review Retracts, Reporter Quits -

The Independent Journal Review published an article attempting to link former Pres. Barack Obama’s trip to Hawaii this month to a Hawaiian federal judge’s ruling against Pres. Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The conservative website has retracted the article, and the author of the piece apologized for publishing the story, but one reporter, Joe Perticone, resigned.

IJR’s retraction said the article didn’t “meet our editorial standards.”

http://www.imediaethics.org/obama-island-trip-links-hawaiian-judge-travel-ban-independent-journal-review-retracts-reporter-quits/#sthash.P1rBKgyp.dpuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you have any use for facts at all? Really, you should get acquainted with something called google.


"Immigrants, Asians, and Latinos account for growing shares of the economy and electorate in Hawaii. Over 1 in 6 residents of Hawaii are immigrants (foreign-born), and more than half of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.

The foreign-born share of Hawaii’s population rose from 14.7% in 1990, to 17.5% in 2000, to 17.6% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii was home to 246,464 immigrants in 2013."

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-hawaii

And your ad hominem attacks on the judge are just ridiculous. How is it relevant that lives in Obama's home town and went to Harvard with Obama? Do you think they signed a secret pact at law school?

Japanese retirees do not come from the 6 banned countries...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you have any use for facts at all? Really, you should get acquainted with something called google.


"Immigrants, Asians, and Latinos account for growing shares of the economy and electorate in Hawaii. Over 1 in 6 residents of Hawaii are immigrants (foreign-born), and more than half of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.

The foreign-born share of Hawaii’s population rose from 14.7% in 1990, to 17.5% in 2000, to 17.6% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii was home to 246,464 immigrants in 2013."

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-hawaii

And your ad hominem attacks on the judge are just ridiculous. How is it relevant that lives in Obama's home town and went to Harvard with Obama? Do you think they signed a secret pact at law school?

 

2 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

Japanese retirees do not come from the 6 banned countries...

Let me cite to you again exactly what I was responding to. 

"But Hawaii does not take in refugees or any meaningful amount of immigrants."

 

And the first part "But Hawaii does not take in refugees" is simply false.

http://www.newsweek.com/where-every-state-stands-accepting-or-refusing-syrian-refugees-395050

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2017 at 10:21 AM, Andaman Al said:

How can what Trump said on the campaign trail be inadmissible? Are you serious with that statement? If you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig! Trump wanted a Muslim ban and however he dresses that up now is irrelevant, this is still the instrument of his Muslim ban. I am far from liberal and am definitely right of centre, but that does not prevent me from seeing an oxygen thief when I know one, and for the life of me I cannot understand how any of you lot can defend Trump for a moment.

I wasn't defending Trump and I am not interested in debating whether he is an "oxygen thief" or any other subjectivity. .

I am simply trying to decide the merits between the difference residing in 2 methods of interpreting law that seems to conflict and what is allowable under law. Sorry I am not a lawyer as I previously said so my terminology is probably shaky, but there seems to be 2 schools of thought on this issue: One being that law can only be applied within it's own boundaries i.e.according to the letter of set law, or two, rulings on intent that can embrace subjective interpretations of historically related data. My concern is how far outside the letter of the law can rulings travel to allow politically motivated decisions.

 

I would expect that the nomination and confirmation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court being an originalist would also mean a greater protection of the Constitution which in the end would make it harder for Trump to act outside of the law in any dictatorial sense.

 

I am happy for Waywardwind who I think said he was  lawyer also said "The protections of the Constitution will always control when examining any law, regulation, executive order, etc."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2017 at 9:34 PM, darksidedog said:

And Thanks to free speech, that is what is happening. It's not offensive. It's democracy at work.

I think this is offensive; smashing up shops and university property, beatings and mob violence ,torching cars and disallowing free speech, is what is also happening and from the left, not from the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 20 November 2017 13:05
Sponsors
×