world

Federal judge in Hawaii extends order blocking Trump's travel ban

25 Comments
By JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

Trump's fear mongering fails again. The US does not face a Muslim threat. Interesting report in the Guardian (or could have been the Independent) this morning on a survey they did in the US where they asked people how many Muslims, percentage wise, were part of the US population. Most said that it was around 10%. The real figure?

Less than 1.0%.

So what is the security threat that Trump is trying to protect the US from? Best drop this one along with the healthcare reforms and start building that wall. Or blame it on the media. Or the democrats. Just never DT, accept you got it wrong.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The greatest number of American deaths are from gunshots by about 100 times more than from any act of terrorism foreign or domestic.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Remember, when Trump loses in court it's not because his actions are unconstitutional it's because of activist judges or conspiracy theories....

6 ( +7 / -1 )

When is this poor excuse for a judge going to be arrested for endangering American citizens by defying the president's temporary travel restrictions on several countries known to be at high risk of infiltrating terrorists in with the refugees?

Also, when is Hawaii going to start accepting refugees?

Oh my...

Judge Jeanine on travel ban block: Hawaii judge hates Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5-2bZbeng4

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

When is this poor excuse for a judge going to be arrested for endangering American citizens by defying the president's temporary travel restrictions on several countries known to be at high risk of infiltrating terrorists in with the refugees?

This is an example of checks and balances at work. It is why the President of the United States is not allowed to have authoritarian power in making any flippant law he wants. Federal judges have every right to make a decision they seem may threaten the very fabric of the Constitution on which America was founded upon. I would think a judge has (especially a Federal one) would have more knowledge of the Constitution than a businessman.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

When is this poor excuse for a judge going to be arrested for endangering American citizens by defying the president's temporary travel restrictions on several countries known to be at high risk of infiltrating terrorists in with the refugees?

And the calls for a dictatorship begin.

Near absolute security can be had by sacrificing nearly all freedoms. In our Trumpian-era, the Trumpets are now calling for this.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

13 states that dont have Obama's college buddy as the judge actually support the travel ban and say it is within the power of the President to do so:

http://valawyersweekly.com/2017/03/28/13-states-urge-4th-circuit-to-ok-trump-travel-ban/

As did Virginia:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/325635-federal-judge-in-virginia-upholds-trump-travel-ban

But yeah, Hawaii took 20 refugees in 7 years so let them decide.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

A sensible, sane judicial system will get us through this era of trump paranoia and misplaced fear. Thank you Judge.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Things will get sorted out by the Judicial Branch

The judges' first job is the Constitution, not whether or not it endangers Americans

If something helps lessen the danger to Americans but it's against the Constitution, then the judges side with the Constitution - if ya wanna make it constitutional, then amend the Constitution

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Well done, Judge !

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

President Trump should order that all the "refugees" from the ME countries that are on the list originally created by the Obama administration be routed directly to Hawaii

Dictatorship Texas style!

For all the libertarian gibberish that comes out of the South, authoritarianism sure gives them a chubby.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Republicans will literally do everything they can to make sure Gorshuch is never confirmed.

That post was stolen from Merrick Garland. There is no way whatsoever it should be given to Gorsuch without literally doing every possible thing that can be done to prevent it.

No offense to Gorschuch himself, I'm sure he's a good judge. But the position isn't for him.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The Republicans will literally do everything they can to make sure Gorshuch is never confirmed.

You mean, the Democrats. The Republicans want him, oh, do they want him.

There is no way whatsoever it should be given to Gorsuch without literally doing every possible thing that can be done to prevent it.

Well, get ready, it's going to happen as the sun will rise tomorrow in the East.

No offense to Gorschuch himself, I'm sure he's a good judge. But the position isn't for him.

But Garland would have been better? LOL The Dems wanted a judge that would vote according whatever case hits the bench and not by the constitution and to interpret the law not how he feels or thinks about it.

In that case, Gorsuch definitely belongs on that bench. The countdown begins.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

You mean, the Democrats.

Yeah.

But Garland would have been better?

I don't care if Garland would have been the worst judge ever. It was his place to be debated on and chosen. That was stolen by the Republicans.

I don't see Gorsuch being chosen without the Republicans taking 'the nuclear option'. I also don't see them taking that option, because anyone who isn't part of the Trump religion is already seeing how much of a failure the president is, and they won't want to destroy any rules that will protect Republican interests when they are elected out in the next election.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They'll use the nuclear option and change the way we vote on Supreme Court justices forever because party before country.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I don't care if Garland would have been the worst judge ever. It was his place to be debated on and chosen. That was stolen by the Republicans.

Yeeeah, about that....

https://youtu.be/uUX35gDpPA8

https://youtu.be/oVvxGa0zhWo

The Dems basically want a Supreme Court Judge that will safeguard all of their liberal policies, they could care less how the law is interpreted. Weaselly as always.

Yeah.

But Garland would have been better?

I don't care if Garland would have been the worst judge ever. It was his place to be debated on and chosen. That was stolen by the Republicans.

There is No rule that congress has to have a debate on any presidential nominee the president chooses, the Dems did it twice!! They did it to both Bush's so I don't see anything wrong with the GOP congress doing the same. The Democrats need to man up, they can dish it, but can't take it. Corner, 10 minute nap!

I don't see Gorsuch being chosen without the Republicans taking 'the nuclear option'.

But it will happen if the Dems refuse to nominate him and he will get confirmed, that's already signed, sealed and delivered.

I also don't see them taking that option, because anyone who isn't part of the Trump religion is already seeing how much of a failure the president is,

Libs would say that, of course.

and they won't want to destroy any rules that will protect Republican interests when they are elected out in the next election.

IF they are elected to the next election, good luck and I truly mean that.

They'll use the nuclear option and change the way we vote on Supreme Court justices forever because party before country

No, it's about putting the breaks on all of this crazy progressive and regressive toxic policies.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

A long post full of justification on the theft of a supreme court nomination by the Republicans.

Gorsuch will not be nominated without the nuclear option. And it's doubtful that will happen. The supreme court will remain with only eight judges.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A long post full of justification on the theft of a supreme court nomination by the Republicans.

So what's the difference between the Democrats usurping the nominee process under Bush 41 and 43 it was dirty, but not illegal, so what is the difference? Liberals have the right block a conservative presidential appointed nominee, but conservative cannot block a Democratic presidential nominee?

Gorsuch will not be nominated without the nuclear option.

That's NOT the point. The point is, HE WILL be nominated-period.

And it's doubtful that will happen. The supreme court will remain with only eight judges.

Yeah, you were wrong so many times and wait until you see his confirmation. LOL

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Stranger, they'll go nuclear. They have zero issues with changing the system to benefit their party.

Next up the "Freedom" Caucus' is demanding to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate altogether, not just for SC justices. The only thing stopping that is McConnell who is too old school. But there's still a chance it can happen, especially as the GOP sees their base shrink and needs to change the structure of our democracy to stay in power, like with voter suppression laws, gerrymandering, etc. They are also trying to change the electoral college to benefit their party/gerrymandering, so look for that to be next as well. They already stole the Supreme Court seat from a Democratic president for no reason other than him being Democrat.

I said it before and I'll say it again...if the GOP keeps shrinking then the GOP will be facing an existential threat and will do whatever it takes to keep power. We could very well see a future with a party that is 90% white entrenched in government with less than majority support, while the remainder of white people and all of the minorities will be the majority in the country but locked out of key government positions.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Stranger, they'll go nuclear. They have zero issues with changing the system to benefit their party.>

Where do you think all these activist policy making liberal judges that are blocking every Trump policy came from? They were rammed through using the nuclear option by the Dems. I would say that has worked out really well for them though, they have gotten a lot of benefit in having an overabundance of liberals in the lower courts.

I have no doubt the Repubs will go nuclear if they have to. They dont have to take any responsibility for changing anything, can just say the Dems did it first. So that one is easy.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yeah, we all know the false equivalency of using the nuclear option to fill massive numbers of vacant judge seats that the GOP voted against just because Obama wanted to appoint them.

You'll get your Supreme Court justice. I have no doubt that you will come up with some statements saying that this is fair and just because party before country. But keep in mind that in less than 2 years we will have mid-terms, which means the Democrats can play the GOP card and refuse to appoint any potential nomination by Trump. Then they can wait until Trump is voted out of office and do exactly the same thing.

It will be the new normal in politics, all brought to you by the GOP.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No, it is fair because there is nothing wrong with this judge. Other than the fact that Trump is appointing him. Schumer said he would block anyone over the next 4 years that Trump picks, because Trump wont ever pick a liberal. Elections have consequences and nothing says Trump has to pick a liberal. It is quite embarrassing watching Dems trying to pick out a legitimate reason why they dont want to vote for him. Most have given up and just said its a party decision.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yeah, we all know the false equivalency of using the nuclear option to fill massive numbers of vacant judge seats that the GOP voted against just because Obama wanted to appoint them.

If the Dems won't nominate Gorsuch, what other recourse do they have?

You'll get your Supreme Court justice. I have no doubt that you will come up with some statements saying that this is fair

It's fair in a sense, the Dems are doing everything they can to block this Judge, so the GOP should do the same, seems fair to me.

and just because party before country.

Oh, stop! Right back at you!

But keep in mind that in less than 2 years we will have mid-terms, which means the Democrats can play the GOP card and refuse to appoint any potential nomination by Trump.

Quite a few Dems are running in States where Trump won. Tread lightly now....

Then they can wait until Trump is voted out of office and do exactly the same thing.

They said that about Reagan and the right said that about Clinton, look what happened.

It will be the new normal in politics, all brought to you by the GOP.

Now, the lines were drawn for the last 8 years when the previous president said, NO to everything the GOP wanted.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Blacklabel: No, it is fair because there is nothing wrong with this judge

The part I was saying was unfair was the GOP refusing to let a President choose a justice for the simple fact that he's a Democrat.

Bass: If the Dems won't nominate Gorsuch, what other recourse do they have?

They can choose a different candidate. The GOP refused to nominate any Obama nominee, and Obama could have appointed one during a recess. Perfectly legal. But he chose country over party.

Quite a few Dems are running in States where Trump won. Tread lightly now....

Trump's approval ratings have done nothing but decline since he's been in office and are now in the mid-30%. Given that fact, wouldn't it be smart for Democrats to campaign on a platform that goes against Trump?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump's approval ratings have done nothing but decline since he's been in office and are now in the mid-30%.

Trump's approval ratings are worse than Nixon... during Watergate.

In his honeymoon stage.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites