Trump must initiate a travel ban for all millionaires coming from Mesquite Nevada.
1
It’s unusual for a judge to essentially admit that his mind was made up before the case was heard.
1
Yesterday’s CNN poll brole out the percentages of his supporters (37%). In response to the question, “The way Donald Trump is handling his job as president” the breakdown of his supporters are: registered voters (38%), lean republican (82%), conservative (51%), white non-college (49%), men (47%), $50k + (42%), age 50-64 (36%). Those are his majority supporters. Anyone else should be contacting Congress and VP Pence for his removal!
So, if tomorrow in a fit Mr. Trump signed an executive order banning guns, I expect the same people fussing about the judicial branch right now would be filing law suit to block the EO and be perfectly happy to hear that a federal judge blocked it nationwide for being un-Constitutional. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
Far from a problem - in this climate, an invaluable tool in the face of insanity.
Culture warriors have no business being a travel agent.
Over the past few years, it's only been US-born citizens that have killed their fellow Americans and made the country unsafe. How does Trump plan to deal with them?
Why would we want to do anything more to prevent terrorists from entering the country? It's silly to think that national security could possibly be improved. and why pick on these countries? I mean, look at all of the terrorist groups in Canada and Greenland. Why do they get a free pass? Next thing you know, we'll be banning travel from Disney World.
4
Everyone wants to stop terrorism, but taking random actions like banning 150 million people who happen to have been born in 6 countries makes no sense, especially since there is no case of anyone ever committing a terrorist act from any of those countries.
1
This rogue Judge has greatly exceeded his authority.
The Supreme Court needs to rule, definitively and quickly. If not, the integrity and function of the Federal judiciary is threatened. There are about 670 district judges in the US. If all are permitted to issue highly suspect rulings that they apply nationally the result will be chaos.
If SCOTUS does not act - and I expect they will - I (a non-lawyer) believe there are two "nuclear" options that should be considered.
The first is to amend the Judiciary Act of 1789. Our Constitution does not define most of the rules and regulations under which the Federal courts (except for SCOTUS itself) operate. Rather, the Founders left this job to Congress, which, in 1789, passed the Judiciary Act. Congress has the power to amend this law, and has done so on multiple occasions. It may do so again. See Article III of the Constitution. With the Republicans holding majorities in both houses of Congress, amending the Act is possible, and though a last resort, not out of the question.
The second "nuclear" option, which I myself don't like, but which may have to be considered, is to impeach Judge Watson. It's very bad precedent to impeach a sitting Federal judge, but given that this judge is violating the clear direction of the SCOTUS stay of his previous ruling, perhaps it should be considered.
I don't like these two options. Hopefully SCOTUS will act rapidly, the best way of resolving this situation.
Judge Watson must be impeached immediately. He clearly thinks that his own personal politics are the compass by which this country should be judged, no matter how many times SCOTUS strikes him down.
3
Sanity again, from Hawaii
3
pathetic partisanship again by this Obama appointed judge i.e. 9th circuit should consider punishment LOL
2
“undercuts the President’s efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security standards for entry into the United States,”
Can we do something about this please?
OCTOBER 1, 2017 59 killed, more than 500 injured: Las Vegas
JUNE 14, 2017 3 killed: San Francisco
JUNE 5, 2017 5 killed: Orange County, Fla.
JAN. 6, 2017 5 killed, 6 injured: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
...
...
...
2
I’ve travelled the world and this fool Trump is making the country less safe - you want to make the country safer maybe you should look at guns and the white men who use them in this country that commit the vast majority of mass shootings?
I live in NYC where 12 Saudi Arabians took down the world trade centers - where’s the ban on that country - it all a political reality show for Trump - at our expense
3
The judge's ruling is legally correct, not political. The responses from conservative activists is political, not legally correct. What part of "no religious tests" escapes them?
3
Insanity is often correlated with people who perform the same behavior expecting that they will get different results.
Another box checked for removing the guy who keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results.
1
The reporting highlighted Judge Watson's methodical approach to dismantling a clearly insulting and un-American attempt to have underlying bigotry be put in place by a group of mean people who got elected and named to positions of power.
Thank you, Judge, for your carefully analyzed and thoughtful decision.
2
I hope this decision stands, but whether it does or not, we can expect the imposter in the White House to unload his chaotic thoughts about this judge, on everything from his ethnic background to his fitness for the bench.
As for the Mitch McConnell photo op earlier this week? How does it feel to sell your soul, Mitch?
2
He is another leftist Judge whose decision will be reversed.
8
Appointed to the federal bench in 2012 and 2013 by President Barack Obama...if you haven't looked around lately, the country cannot sustain the influx of anyone, be they from Syria, Europe or Pluto...we are the equivalent of a jumbo jet with people on the wings, cargo hold and grasping like a gremlin on the tail...
5
it's so sad to see how blind so many people are. There blinded by hate yet clam they are the answer to our problems. I will take Trump any day over all the anger and blind hate. God forbid but if you were the next victim your story would change very rapidly. Please wake up and help protect your country and stop bashing every thing Trump does. Your all over looking the real enemy.
6
This is the third time the ban has been blocked, and will be the third time the SCOTOS will over turn the judges ruling. Judge Watson needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred. Clearly the SCOTUS has demonstrated Judge Watson's incompetence in the past, and they will a third time. He needs to be removed.
6
Have Trump voters gotten tired of all his "winning" yet?
The GOP controls Congress and ten months in and not one piece of significant legislation has been signed into law. Plus many of Trumps Executive Orders are farcical or, as this judge again reminds the President, are unConstitutional.
The GOP-led clown car is a sad joke. Hopefully American voters tell the RNC that enough is enough come 2018.
5
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
That's the quote released by his campaign in July of 2016. There is no question, no argument, no legal precedent, that can make this constitutional. It is prima facie evidence of illegal intent to discriminate based on religion.
3
if Judge Watson feels so strongly about this, he should run for elected office and change the policies, not from the bench. This is not in his purview as already decided by SCOTUS and is a naked political move He is a perfect example of why the country is fast losing its respect for its institutions.
6
It is amazing that protecting America has become a political issue. The previous administration's immigration policy was to throw the doors open and tell the border guards to stand down making it a free for all style of immigration policy.
7
With this much division in the United States executive power the security of the United States is in danger, because if a single incompetent judge can confront the presidential authority and interpret the law to his liking, then obviously US administration has no means to control the country in an event of a foreign diversion, sabotage or military conflict. The military will follow the president's orders, but in the event of war, the entire US territory will be at threat and foreign terrorist and agency disposal. This is something US president needs to address immediately, as terrorists now not only target the very fabric of US society by fueling divisive capitalist ideology to the detriment of US citizens, but as US power weakens, foreign agents will proceed to its nuclear launchers and other military facilities if this legal mess at a mercy of one judge carries on. Like post Soviet Russia in the 1990s, today US is turning into a lawless rogue country and this in itself is a major global threat that may lead to serious consequences not only for America but for the entire Global Community.
1
I guess the legislative branch cant do anything that doesn’t make sense to one circuit court judge. That doesn’t make sense.
As a matter of law just what are the “principles of this nation”? Who wrote them? When did they become law? What are they, what I say they are, what he says they are? Just for my reference where they are they codified so I can refer to them and avoid prosecution? The gentleman is not an impartial judge, he is a political operative posing as a judge.
2
This is the epitome of an activist judge.
He is using his position to make political statements.
This is a waste of taxpayer money, time and goodwill.
Shame on this man.
5
Yes their all activist judges until you like the decision - right?
1
from the article: The judge’s order “undercuts the President’s efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security standards for entry into the United States,” the White House said in a statement.
Funny, I would have thought the president is more of a threat to the safety of the American people. Heaven help us if during a Twitting Frenzy, he presses that red button next to him, instead of the "Send" button on Twitter.
3
I must have missed something, but which of the banned countries was the Las Vegas mass murderer from? Oh, right, he wasn’t foreign born or an immigrant. Maybe travel bans aren’t the answer, but gun bans might be.
3
What this article fails to mention is the SCOTUS has already deemed the previous travel bans as LEGAL. This judge is likely to receive a stern warning from the higher court for playing games with the system.
10
Actually, SCOTUS lifted part of the temporary injunction issued by other courts and had scheduled a hearing on the matter. They had not yet heard the case much less issued a ruling.
3
So far, the score stands thus:
Constitution--3
So-Called president--0
12
You are funny.
On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court overturned decisions from lower courts, in favor of the President.
4
I thought that cases were supposed to be assigned to judges at random. How is it that Judge Watson keeps getting these cases?
10
Because lefty grievance Trump hating lawyers know they can count on a disgruntled lefty judge to stomp all over his oath like a baby who cant take the word no.
1
I don't think I can ever recall an administration being so openly hostile to how a federal judge has ruled. And to have the DOJ allow one of its spokepersons to denigrate the order as violating the separation of powers is rich indeed, knowing full well that judges are not allowed to publicly respond to such attacks. This kind of language, tone and response undermines the rule of law.
13
I weep for the future. Your perspective simply understands nothing about the constitution authority to the president and the separation of powers. You are basically advocating for overturning these constitutional principals.
The judge is following the Constitution. He knows Trump and ilk are not. If they really were trying to protect Americans, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list? And why are countries that have never attacked us on the list? We all know the vetting we do is very thorough; it's harder to get into the US than any other country. We accept far less refugees than any other country. Glad to see a judge with integrity who follows the rule of law.
17
The judge's previous (and very similar) decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. The judge's decisions were found to be wrong.
How is he then following the Consitution? He is presuming authority exclusively given to the legislative and executive branches of government.
2
No, it wasn't overturned. They allowed a part of it and are reviewing it at a later date. Read their ruling carefully. It is not legal to discriminate against people based on religious tests or nationality. To pretend that this was enacted to 'keep Americans safe' is false. They provided no convincing evidence. Adding in two non-Muslim countries does not make it a non-religious ban. Ignoring countries with terrorists who actually attacked us, like Saudi Arabia and Russia, also makes their motivations glaringly obvious.
Thanks Judge Watson- we need intelligent people who understand what makes this country a great democracy to hold the line against Trump and the rest of the bigots he surrounds himself with.
As a man who was worked and traveled around the world, I can tell you the damage Trump is doing to the respect and integrity of this country is criminal- and day by day he makes us all less safe.
Let's get out the vote, change Congress next year and get this fool Trump out of office as fast as possible.
16
Judge Watson is out of control. He is committing impeachable acts in the name of legitimacy.
3
Oh now a judge upholding the constitution is a crime - and when Trump runs over our constitution it’s all good? Your living in the wrong country my friend you’d be better off in Russia -
1
Boko Haram of Nigeria has killed more people then any other group, just under seven thousand, and they aren't on the list. They've pledged to ISIS. Why isn't this country on the list if terrorism is the true aim?
12
Isn't the Chief Justice suppose to make sure other federal courts follow the Supreme courts ruling? Has watson not gotten the news this case has been decided, move on
8
You need to catch up and read exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled. You only add confusion to the subject when you comment and don't have the facts straight. And no, I'm not proving my statement. Google it yourself.
1
Not true, Tho Mas. Read the ruling carefully; a small part of it was allowed, the rest is under review.
Where did you get your information? The only thing known is that Trump has lost in court now three times -
I must say, I am extremely grateful that federal judges like Derrick Watson have stepped up. Although it might seem like a good enough justification for Trump supporters to say things like: "Muslims are a threat to national security," in the real world you're supposed to back your arguments by empirical evidence, which in this case and previous ones Trump HAS NOT. I am not expecting the federal Supreme Court to take this unless other federal judges disagree with Derrick Watson, which I do not see either, as those judges would be ostracized by their colleagues for siding with an Executive Branch that deals with federal law the same way it deals with Trump supporters: make a bunch of broad statements and appeal to the irrational fear Trump supporters have of foreigners
11
If I remember correctly a three judge panel of an Appelate Court unanimously upheld this judge's previous ruling.
That 3 judge panel included Clinton, Obama and Bush appointees.
I would like to ask those upset that a judge ruled against Trump the following.
Why were they not outraged that Trump with his Arpaio pardon effectively said that it is legal to disobey a judge's order if Trump disagrees with that order.
13
That was overruled by the US Supreme court in you missed it.
4
Parts of it were overruled, not all of it.
2
He is costing the US millions of dollars, traveling back and forth to play golf and he should be banned from doing so at our expense.
8
When I encounter this sort of episodes in the US I wonder why Douglas MacArthur didn't insert an article of guaranteeing tenure for judges in the post-war constitution of Japan. (Judges can survive only for ten years.) Did he already realize this as a problem (as a Republican)? Anyway thanks to this the judges are being castrated here.
Can we also ban those Russians with links to Putin and Putin's gangsters? Oh, what, they're OK, Trump says? As long as they bring money and lots of it?
13
Under our system of laws, the president has almost plenary powers over immigration. Our system also provides that the Supreme Court is superior to district courts. Why do liberals hate our system of government so much?
8
Why do you keep blaming Liberals for the idiocy of conservative politicians?
There's not a thing to complain about here. Nothing.
Why do YOU hate our system of government so much?
This is exactly what is supposed to happen:
- Somebody makes a law/order/ruling
-Somebody doesn't like it, and takes it to court.
-The court rules as it believes it should.
-Anyone who disagrees can appeal the decision.
-A bigger, tougher court rules on the appeal.
If you can't follow that, you're not an American, you're not a patriot, and you're not rational.
12
except what you describe already happened. The Supreme Court decided an injunction was improper. Then the same judge who has his injunction overturned decided to ignore the Supreme Court and issue another injunction in a basically identical circumstance as when the Supreme Court lifted the injunction.
1
These judges are out of control. The activist, fringe groups forum shop to find the most liberal, or during the Obama years, most conservative, federal jurisdiction and then knowing that the judges are radicalized and hardly erudite, impartial arbiters of the law. The end result is that the executive branch, no matter who is in power, gets completely hamstrung and thwarted from carrying out its agenda.
6
Well, yes if the executive branch attempts to do things that are illegal and/or unconstitutional, then yes they will be blocked. As well they should be.
11
Two fundamental problems with your opinion: 1. Judges are obliged to offer a rationale for their ruling which is why a it has to be recorded in writing. I do not read that this judge’s rationale in anyway being unreasonable.
2. An executive branch does not have a birth right to implement its agenda. The courts are a part of checks and balance created by the system to prevent that executive branch from making absurd assumptions-such as this selective travel ban- about their power.
It appears that Trump supporters are often the ones who are radicalized by a constant feed of misleading information portraying him as a power above all. He is only a president; at the end of day his agenda really wont count for much if it appears to be like content made for 90mins of showtime.
9
Incorrect. The 'Executive branch' is the highest branch of government when it comes to immigration matters.
3
Just more ammunition for Trump to claim his opponents are not acting in the best interests of the country. In this case, he's right. The lengths to which his opponents will go keeps expanding. The SCOTUS will, once again, have to rein in this judge.
10
Indeed they will. Won't take long.
4
Reading their last ruling, seems it is the Administration it reigned in, as only a small part of the last ruling was allowed to go forward. Guess you didn't bother to read the actual ruling.
Trump can add Iceland and Tonga to the list and it would still only be a feeble attempt to disguise a Muslim ban.
Since most of the deaths caused by Islamic terrorists were committed by Saudis and Egyptians, none by Syrian refugees or Iranians, why not take the last two off the list and put the first two on.
Oh, I forgot, those brutal repressive regimes (who also spawn terrorists, especially the Wahhabi Saudis) are our (sic) allies.
16
And also the Trump companies are doing business in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
6
Is it any wonder that this "judge" is an Obama appointee. The President cannot appoint and the Senate cannot confirm judges fast enough.
7
It is disheartening that the responses are grounded in partisan politics. The question is whether or not the travel ban has the potential to accomplish its stated goal of increased security. There are valid arguments that it does not, let alone whether or not such a travel ban embodies our values as a nation.
14
thoughtful:
It's hard to understand what "value" could possibly support allowing someone into our country who comes from a lawless region of the Middle East where few to no records exist, and no real validation of an identity can be conducted.
What "value" could possibly support ignoring the quite publicly stated intent to attack Americans? These are certainly not my "values", nor are they the "values" of rational Americans.
I've yet to hear better ideas from Trump's critics in office.
4
The United States has a very tough vetting process and we don't let anyone in that is a threat. We vet harder than all other countries and let it is a two year long process. It hasn't failed yet, so why all the fear?
'Ol Derrick Watson, the activist judge who makes living constitutionalists sound like originalists.
This is the same guy who was so paranoid that the last ban was a Muslim ban that he actually justified it by saying that because Muslims exist in America citizens of foreign countries by extension also have First Amendment rights.
Judges like this, be them liberals or conservatives, are toxic to the republic in part because they fail so monumentally at recognizing precedents that can and will be used to harm Americans in the future and cut them out of the democratic process.
10
You need to read the Constitution. The judge is spot on as far as the law is concerned.
1
So, how does one go about impeaching a Judge? This guy is far, far to partisan to wear the robes.
8
What is 'partisan' about finding blanket travel bans on entire countries to be unconstitutional? I thought defending the constitution was a patriot's duty. It defies politics.
7
Just as with the president, you would have to prove official miscondoct of treason, bribery or high crimes, etc.
gretab -
Actually, no. Impeachment is a political act and any reason is sufficient. This would be a reasonable and very appropriate use of impeachment. It would depend whether the Congress believes the judge has crossed the line.
Note: there is no appeal from an impeachment and removal.
My compliments to Judge Watson for drawing attention to what this country is, given that so many in the Trump administration have forgotten that knowledge or never had it.
The Justice Department said the judge’s order failed to “properly respect the separation of powers”? Huh? Trump apparently has never recognized that there IS a separations of powers and that a president really is not a king. He cannot unilaterally decide that he alone is to make these decisions. Can some library please donate an 8th-grade Civics textbook to this administration?
“These restrictions are vital to ensuring that foreign nations comply with the minimum security standards required for the integrity of our immigration system and the security of our nation.” So they comply by not coming here? And yet Trump does nothing about our own homegrown terrorists, such as Stephen Paddock? Not even mention a ban on certain types of guns?
These xenophobic restrictions were adopted after an “extensive worldwide security review.” But of course no one can tell us anything. We just need to trust Trump & Co., since the justifying information is hush-hush. Unfortunately we've lived through George W. Bush, who got us into a useless war because the evidence was so hush-hush that it didn't exist.
Stop supposedly "protecting" us, Trump. You're the main one we need to be protected from.
Thank God for the judiciary.
21
You’re confusing what is good policy with what is good law. A judge should never strike down a law because it is the wrong policy. We have elections to decide on policy. And the Republicans won the last one.
7
The judge rightfully and convincingly ruled on law based on our Constitution, Frank, not policy.
1
Many law school professors, the most liberal bunch of people in America, agree that the ban is Constitutional. I go to law school no, and I am inundated everyday with anti-Trump conferences, talks, symposia, etc. When law school professors agree with Trump, that means a lot.
Any one who thwarts Trump is on the correct path. Whether you disagree or not, the checks and balances are working just swell.
9
If guns shouldn't be regulated because there is no regulation that will prevent all gun violence, then perhaps aliens shouldn't be banned because the ban won't prevent all terror incidents, as we unfortunately saw recently in Las Vegas.
7
This is very worrisome, and a serious threat to our democracy and separation of powers. This represents usurpation of clear presidential authority by a Federal district judge. Congress has clearly given the President the authority to regulate many aspects of immigration, and President Trump was acting within his legal authority, just as Judge Watson is exceeding his.
America is a democracy. Like him or not, Donald Trump was legally elected our President. Judge Watson was never elected. Since Federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure, it is cause for great concern when judges abuse their authority, and start making law, rather than interpreting it. In addition, it is rare that District judges issue rulings which they apply nationwide. There are about 678 district judges; if all were to act as Judge Watson and apply their rulings nationally, rulings would soon collide, and we would have chaos.
Judge Watson’s statement that the travel rules “plainly discriminates based on nationality” is nonsensical; most immigration law in the history of this nation have included preferences based on nationality.
SCOTUS ducked the issue on Judge Watson’s prior rulings, declaring the cases moot as the bans expired. It did however make its intent known by staying most of previous district court bans on enforcement. Now, SCOTUS should quickly issue a definitive ruling on District court authority, and whether our Constitution’s protection of religious freedom extends to and beyond our borders
23
Get it in your head, Trumpers. This is not judicial activism. It is the judicial doing it's job stopping the President from willfully violating the letter of the law. Sorry that you feel your president should be able to hate without intervention from the judiciary or regards to laws passed by congress and signed by his predecessors.
18
SCOTUS wasn't elected either. Do you see the hypocrisy of your words? The judge ruled on the basis of our Constitution and laws. Nothing partisan or activist about it.
1
We will see what happens on appeal.
One thing for sure --
The Supreme Court needs to keep a tight rein on lower court judges in cases that have nationwide significance.
Also, this kind of sweeping action by a single lower court judge ought to be a lesson for the entire federal judiciary appointment process.
No reason whatsoever for Presidents -- nor the Senate as a whole --to give deference (as they used to do) to individual Senators from local jurisdictions when making lower level judicial appointments and confirmations.
Finally, on the "merits" --
it is, of course, up to the Supreme Court to consider "Constitutional" issues.
However, in cases involving foreign nations -- and citizens of foreign nations --
it seems to me that the federal courts -- including even the Supreme Court --
ought to be reluctant to superimpose "Constitutional" doctrine.
This case ought to be decided as a matter of the interplay of Presidential and Congressional actions
In short -- are Trump's actions either validated or prohibited by laws enacted by Congress?
One of the most important roles of the federal Courts ought to be to keep Presidents -- and all their executive power -- within the confines of authority granted -- or withheld -- by the Congress.
But, if the Congress grants authority to the President, and he acts within the authority granted by the Congress, then the Courts ought to be very reluctant to act against both the President and the Congress in matters involving foreign nations.
10
To the Amen Chorus in these comments, my fellow liberal sisters and brothers:
As much as we dislike, even despise Mr. Trump is as much as Republicans disliked and even despised Mr. Obama. This ripping at each other's throats is precisely what the founding fathers anticipated and why they included checks and balances to moderate it all. This federal judge is but one example of slowing down the president.
To those who say impeaching the president over political disagreements, the nuclear option, is THE preferable choice; to those who say void the Electoral College to get what we want; to void the 2nd Amendment; etc., the Constitution has multiple safeguards to delimit and slow down any despot. It was the very design: checks and balances. Slow, to assure moderation and consensus.
We need to take a very deep breath in our politics. It is clear that extreme liberals are as dangerous to the fabric of this country - the Constitution - as are extreme conservatives: extremism knows no party despite what you may feel.
We are a long, long way from an autocracy in Mr. Trump because of, not in spite of, the Constitution and we need to protect that arrangement and avoid amendments, etc. What we can do to conservatives, they can do back to us. We are all Americans, first and foremost, not Democrats and Republicans.
11
Thank you. We, republicans, lived through the hatred and vitriol when Bush was president, but Trump hatred has been elevated to an entirely different level.
I would remind Trump haters that Obama was, in fact, reviled just as much as Trump is today for his expansion of the federal government, which to many Americans was a serious threat to our nation's foundation. Never did anyone behave this way.
The angry left is out of control. It is behaving as though it is the only group to ever truly despise a president. It has convinced itself that since it abhors this president, our nation is about to implode at any moment. It cannot stop itself from trashing Trump at every opportunity, after which we're all regularly treated to its complete lack of self-awareness with the claim that Trump is "divisive".
Seriously, the left needs to get itself a giant mirror and take a good long look. It is dividing this country with its hatred and vitriol, which is usually quite vulgar (again, followed by criticism that Trump is the vulgar one).
We don't all share this negativity. Many like this president, if not personally, the job he is doing. Certainly no one needs to hear this nonstop anger.
3
And I say Amen to your last sentence, something the outrage machine has forgotten, whether at Fox News or the NY Times opinion pages.
1
Although I believe that travel restrictions on potential threats to our national security are essential, I do not believe that a travel ban of the type ordered by President Trump is the proper way to do so. People much smarter than me will have to figure out the best way.
However, as an attorney, and as a matter of principle, I am gravely concerned when a court execercises a judgement on what policies should be applied in the interests of national security. The executive and legislative branches of the government have this responsibility under the constitution, and no court should be opining on the justification of a national security policy. That is dangerous because it allows a court, which is not privy to any of the deliberations and complex details of national security issues, to summarily empower itself to be a final arbiter of such issues. No court has the consitional authority under our separation of powrers, nor even the basic skill, to make such determinations.
Moreover, to the extent that the order would apply to foreign citizens having no nexis to the United States, those foreign citizens do not have the rights to protections under our constitution.
It appears that the decision by the court was predetermined and was an exercise in overeaching judicial activism.
14
Checks and balances. The President was never the law of the land. But he does have to follow our laws. I am glad the judge is following the law because the President isn't.
1
The law is - the President and Congress make foreign policy. Not the courts.
This is silly, adolescent stuff. His ruling is completely incorrect for the third time that he could be called out for clear bias. He has zero credibility as a impartial jurist. Time for SCOTUS to over turn him once again and to provide definitive guidance for everyone, including him, regarding the Constitution and the Executive's Authority regarding immigration.
12
@Toni
"Time for SCOTUS to over turn him once again"
SCOTUS has yet to "turn him over" EVER. So far they have not issues even one opinion ON THE MERITS. The dismissed on case without any opinion, because the first ban (issued January 27, 2017) had EXPIRED.
If the SCOTUS had ruled already, no ruling by a federal judge that would run counter to the decision of the Supreme Court on the same points of law would stand.
8
Re-read the ruling last time.
There is no "over-ruling", in fact.
Re-read the Constitutional law history on executive steps that seem likely to prove biased against people for religious and not practical reasons.
Re-read Trump's own words on his intentions.
Just read before you write. Or before you make a decision.
The judge did.
This Judge at this point is acting as a political hack I would expect a fast decision. Since Obama appointed him it si not surprising that he refuses to follow precedent...after all Obama knew that the healthcare payments where unconstitutional but issued them anyway.Watson is surely and Obama appointment.
11
This Hawaii judge should be personally held responsible if we start getting the problems they are having in Europe, Middle East and etc. Like or not like our President, he is trying his best to keep us safer versus what is going on in Europe, Middle East and etc and our US media TV stations and newspapers hardly report.
10
Hawaii is not as threatened by terrorism as the mainland is.
It's harder to smuggle weaponry and explosives on a plane into the islands.
There is always the possibility of a boat but it is a very long boat trip to get there.
4
Judges are obligated to follow the Constitution. Some may have biases but they aren’t allowed to let personal biases affect their judgements. If they do, you can be sure their decisions will be appealed to the next highest court. No judge wants to see any of his cases overruled in the appellate courts.
4
TB: so a judicial ruling should be made based on the geographical location of the judge? pray tell me how a judge based in Hawaii is any less qualified than a judge in the continental US to issue this ruling.
Trump and our government are concerned about our well-being, keeping us safe from terrorists and national security threats? That’s becoming as tired a cliché as cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy will provide more jobs, better paying jobs and boost economic growth. Get rid of the 2nd amendment. I’m more frightened by the arsenal of guns my neighbor may have than terrorists. Stop trying to deny me health insurance or making it so expensive that I can’t afford it and then I’ll believe my government cares about my safety. Stop attacking the press. Stop attacking people who disagree with you or protest peacefully. Stop dictating the rights of women to make personal decisions. Stop encouraging racists. Then resign your office voluntarily so that we can rest more easily that annihilation of all life on earth by nuclear weapons or environmental catastrophe will not be instigated by the U.S government. Prove to us Trump that you truly care for our wellbeing.
21
Thank you Paul Cohen I couldn’t have said it better myself ! Even if this judge is overstepping his authority, Trump’s nonsensical travel ban needs more scrutiny. Well-known sponsors of terrorism like Saudi and Qatar are not on the list, because of business interests. So what is the point ? We haven’t had issues with nationals from the countries on the list, but we all know where the 9/11 hijackers came from and who financed them. The hypocrisy is what gets me...The travel ban like other things is to satisfy his base ( there are many fine people there). Everything he does, and every sentence that comes out of his uneducated mouth, is for his base. When will he start caring about ALL Americans?
9
You get it. Thank you.
2
Nothing like a petulant and hasty decision: Issuing a 3rd ban before the Supreme Court could here the 2nd one. Now one of the same justices who issued a ban on #2, issues a temporary ban on #3. It will be affirmed. No doubt this administration will demand an emergency hearing from the Supremes; will they be so inclined to accommodate? At some point, this administration will run out of "Obama undoings" and have to come up with some original ideas.
7
I hate to say that I am starting to understand what right-wingers mean when they complain about "activist judges". Is Watson interpreting the law or just expressing his political opinion?
12
Listen to some of the comments made by Justice Ginsberg. She sounds like a political talking head instead of a SCOTUS judge. If you didn't know it, you would think she were a guest on MSNBC.
2
I hate to say it, but I am starting to believe Breitbart's Alt right was sent here to spam the boards with the same political nonsense you see on their sites. Read the Constitution; "no religious tests."
After passing some sort of tax reform, it seems to me that the Senate needs to commence impeachment proceedings against an out of control judge. For sure, the SC will overrule him once again, and my,guess is that this time there will be some comments made about him not listening to their previous ruling. After all, if they allowed some portions of the original ruling to be implemented, doesn't that mean they overruled him on some portions? The good news is that this policy is permanent, at least for the next three or seven years, rather than temporary.
Left wing judges seem to be unaware that voters in both the YS and Europe(Austria this past weekend) are making it clear that they are sick and tired of officials letting in any idiot that wishes to come. We have no legal obligation to do so. Whether or not that would be a good policy,is a completely different matter.
5
Putin loves nothing more than chaos in the US and, by sheer coincidence, Trump excels in generating that. Hard to understand what it takes for GOP to disown this facade!!!
13
it great that 1 judge has more power than the 3 parts of the federal government
7
The judge/court IS one part of the federal government. And the job of the judge/court is to determine the validity (in this case, the Constitutionality) of the law.
Trump's EO orders all failed to meet that test.
8
I am grateful to Judge Watson.
14
This continues to be wonderfully entertaining. It bring me great joy knowing the hissy-fit Trump must be throwing right now.
14
It would seem that Americans are more at risk due to US citizens who are free to purchase weapons of mass destruction such as used in Las Vegas than from immigrants from any of the banned countries.
27
I feel this action might have more credence if the judge in Hawaii let somebody else take a turn.
10
Thankfully we have a third branch of government!
7
"No no no! Nobody can stop me! I am the Almighty Donald! That Mexican judge will never be allowed on my golf courses or hotels!"
10
Hawaii again. President Obama's birthplace. Isn't Hawaii also where Trump sent his "investigators" to dig up the "dirt" on President Obama's birth certificate and which to this day Trump never told us what was found? Irony.
4
It quite often happens that we see the what is in front of us, and not what is in the background. We become, in a sense, blind to the larger picture (a principle worked out by gestalt psychology). Blaming the judge here is an example. It's important to remember that much of the legal basis against the ban was rooted in Trump's favorite activity, Twitter. He tweeted it was a Muslim ban, which implies it is a religious test. Our country does not allow religious discrimination, or it should not. It's no wonder Trump can say he's not at fault for any legislative failures..he kind of knows that a minority of the population will take him on that deal, and never hold him responsible. As a NJ resident, I would say our governor is a good template: once admired, it's now hard to find someone who likes the job he has done. It takes a while sometimes to see the light; for now some of us are only seeing what we are told to see..it works marvelously in Trump's favor as he tells them when to jump and they comply. Eventually it will catch up with him...it's a familiar pattern.
11
Three strikes and he’s out.
3
Isn’t Hawaii an island in the middle of a very large ocean? Then we know what tweet will be coming next from the one who doesn’t recognize the 50th state as part of the US. Counting 10, 9, 8...
8
The separation of powers in the U.S. is protection from unelected despots like Trump.
As long as there is an independent judiciary, the light of freedom shall continue to shine for the world.
Through the darkness of hate, bigotry, ignorance, and evil.
13
Unelected?
2
He was elected president, who took an oath to uphold the Constutution and all of our laws. He was not elected king, he is only 1/3 of the constitutional government.
1
No surprise Watson is a radical liberal democrat appointed by Obama. His ruling is political and will ruin the country if not overturned.
Look at what has happened to Britain and other European countries that allowed uncontrolled immigration.
6
Can you be more specific regarding what "happened" to Britain and the other European countries?
It's stunning who some feel this judge shouldn't issue national blockade on this exhausting issue. I'm sure some article of law might shed light on that authority. I mean at least he's exercising his authority of the very branch that Trump and Associates have repeatedly shown disregard for.
We can't let this Admin keep undermining institutions that have exist since before them and want them to only work in their favour!
Do what you need to do,Judge Watson!
10
Honolulu is inundated with homeless crazies coming in all the time. We bailed on the cesspool when we saw it coming. And our native Hawaiian pals are fed up with the onslot of foreigners.
4
Er... how many of those "foreigners" were from North Korea?
Here's the deal: Trump's stupid religion-based travel ban does NOTHING to protect us against ACTUAL terrorists (ie Saudi Arabians who were 18 of the 20 hikackers, and which country has sponsored radical jihadist Islam through four administrations).
Nor does it protect American jobs (when was the last time a North Korean took a job in your industry? Basically never).
All it does is provide cheap propaganda for the masses.
Which, if you've been paying attention, is the only thing Trump knows HOW to do: provide cheap propaganda.
It was terrible legal precedent and on its face unconstitutional.
So complain about immigrants all you want, it's totally beside the point. The point the judge made is that nobody, not even the president, gets a hall pass on religious intolerance in the name of national security.
Sorry!
4
Thank goodness! This administration has gone too far with their biased agenda.
10
One problem is that Trump made stupid and unlawful promises during his campaign, the bigger problem is that he would have not been nominated by Republicans if he would have not made those promises.
He had to promise destroying American's health care, unwinding Iran's nuclear deal, fighting immigrants, and discrimination against muslims. Otherwise, the base in the Republican party would have never approved him.
I think, discrimination against muslims is among rather smaller Trump's problem. He has to deal with N. Korea, hurricane, tax cut, health care, and most importantly tweeting againstUS politicians, actors, and media.
Now, Trump's only hope for muslim ban is his puppet, Gorsuch in the SCOTUS.
7
Sadly, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the travel ban and misinterpeting the President's attempt to protect us from evil as racism. It is not his fault that these countries do not have diplomatic ties with the United States.
It is a 'privilege' to be an ally with the United States and these countries are far from doing from is democratically correct for their own people.
America can not be a revolving door for evil. Action needs to be taken and this President has the fortitude to take the first steps in protecting us.
Unfortunately, President Obama was too laxed on vetting and didn't want to hurt people's feelings and rock the boast so he did little to nothing about our borders.
Now after 8 plus years of this laxed approach, there is much more to do today than should be.
3
You are very wrong on our vetting koi immigrants. The vetting ids thorough and takes at least 2 years. I sense there is a rollout of pro Trump people getting their say regardless of the merits of their argument.
1
Hawaii, again!
The first travel ban was for 90 days. This was supposedly to give the Trump administration enough time to go through the vetting process and tightened it up where needed. It was been 9 months. They still haven't presented a new and improved vetting process to us? Why not? Could it be the fascists lied to us about the real purpose of the ban and the idiots underestimated the integrity of our courts? Thank you Hawaii! Thank you for the courage and character of your federal judges, senators and representatives!
P.S. Thank your President for us too!
9
Expect an explosive tantrum from yours truly, very, very shortly...
4
I'm not a lawyer ... can someone please explain what legal basis gives the president the right to unilaterally ban travel to the US from any country? By this same token, couldn't Obama have said, 'Nope, no Mexicans have been involved in terrorist plots, so we're not putting any restrictions on entry from Mexico - come live in America!'
It seems like immigration is something that should be regulated by congress, not the executive. If there's a serious and proven threat from these countries, why is there no bill in congress to make entry from them illegal?
Trump likes to complain about the courts blocking his actions ... maybe he should revisit the possibility that what he wants isn't legally possible, therefore the only way forward is to introduce a new law and work with congress (you know, the guys who are SUPPOSED to be legislating in this country).
7
The President has some executive powers that allow him to act unilaterally, however, those powers are generally in times of great crisis or need, when we don't have time for Congress to come together, debate and vote. That's part of the problem here, America is not in dire need of immigration reform. There's no proof that 1 million Americans will die tomorrow if we ban all Muslims from coming here.
3
Tee, hee. Well said.
Congress passed a law giving the president that exact power.
2
Interesting, Judge Watson; Judge Gorsuch; and President Obama were all in the same Harvard Law School Class. And President Obama appointed Watson to the federal judiciary; while President Trump appointed Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch joined the majority to strike down parts of Watson's decision earlier this year.
Here you have 3 individuals who all graduated the same year from the same law school, presumably with the same professors. Did Watson and Obama skip out on the mandatory first-year class on Constitutional Law; or was it the other way around, Gorsuch skipping out? Or do none of them care and just pick the version of the law that best complies with the political party that sponsored them?
7
Obama implemented DACA without congressional approval. He imposed illegal health care subsidies without congressional approval. He implemented the Iran treaty without congressional approval. Obama is a smart man. He knows the constitution. He also knew exactly how he was breaking it when he implemented all of these illegal activities. Only Congress can confer rights. Only Congress can allow spending. Only Congress can ratify treaties. The constitution is clear on these matters
4
On the same Internet page today, the Times has twin stories about two types of federal judges. A sitting one, here, upholds one of our most generous democratic ideals by at least slowing institutionalized bigotry; the other type in the other story will, rest assured, further the GOP's cynical stabs against that ideal. In this story, Judge Derrick Watson has again ruled against the latest iteration of Trump's travel ban, which would effectively and indiscriminately halt Muslims and refugees from reaching family, prosperity and rescue on our shores. In the other article, the President and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell gleefully promise to instill a conservative bias in our judicial fabric with scores of pending jurist appointments. To become nominees, these candidates must first prove an existing prejudice against many immigrants, among other conservative targets. So on the one hand, we have a judge seeking to affirm fairness in one of America's most charitable capacities -- that of granting equitable chances at immigration. On the other, we see a process being hijacked to turn out what will be lifetime appointments that will alter our national soul for a generation. How are individual judges like Watson to hold the line against all sorts of overt discrimination ushered in with this administration at the same time that a crush of Trump-nominated and soon-to-be-GOP-approved jurists are to start rigging the system in these politicians' favor.
10
THAT is the very reason that the republicans wouldn't hold even a hearing on the Supreme Court justice and refused over a hundred federal judge appointees. They're orchestrating a right wing bias that will last for decades.
1
The framers designed a system in which three separate branches have equal power, can check on another and assure that hardly anything can get done! The latest halt will be overturned but shows how politicized the circuit courts are. For all the faults that President Trump has, it can not be a didactic point to counter every presidential order. The president has a right to restrict immigration into the United States and to call his order a muslim ban is hyperbolic and not based on legal reason but on the art of sophistry. As commander and chief of a nation that is engaged in a war against radical Islamists; and as Isis strongholds in Syria and Iraq have been destroyed; would be terrorist will look toward the US to continue their reign of terror. Its only makes sense to add a protective layer against any potential further threats. Judge Watson decision will be overturned and it would better serve the public if the judge serve as the interpreter of law rather than the obstructor of law.
6
Which constitution have you been reading?
4
@ Parajaritomt, same question!!!
1
Good. This forces the SC to rule on the case instead of declaring it moot.
We need to know what the rule of our land is.
Will it be enough for Judge Watson to resign, for getting it wrong so many times?
How many of us — surgeons, pilots, engineers, etc. — can afford to make the same mistake in our jobs so many times?
5
Linda Greenhouse, could you please do a column that straightens out the legal issues in this ruling? Many commenters seem confused.
As to the merits, if this was truly about banning terrorists, it would include England and France, where citizens have engaged in terrible acts of terrorism. There simply is no way to ignore the stated reason for each of these three bans - to exclude muslims from our country. This is not American.
10
Thank you, Judge Watson, for having a moral compass. No version of this clearly religiously motivated ban should be allowed to take effect, no matter how much language is tweeked. We know it is intended to ban Muslims because Trump himself said so, remember? He can't walk that back; no one can.
100
It is important that Muslim immigrants in the United States be informed that they are under no obligation to follow Islam. Many of them practice their religion out of fear - apostasy is punishable by death in a number of Muslim-majority countries. I have personally encouraged a number off Muslim immigrants to abandon their faith - that apostasy is perfectly acceptable in Western society. Their relief is palpable.
2
Don't worry, folks. Trump will have plenty of opportunity to stack the judicial deck with conservative justices. He might not make it a full term in office, but his choices will hamstring the country for decades.
11
In brushing off the SCOTUS ruling and engaging in a bit of publicity, looks like Watson is burnishing his judicial record for a run for higher office to me
6
The bar for entry into higher office is pretty low these days. He might be overqualified.
4
Fine by me. He looks like juat the sort of feisty, smart, sensible human I'd vote for.
There was a time that members of the communist party from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, USSR, etc. we're banned entry into our nation, but not all citizens from those nation. But things change, for example
Viktor Knavs was a registered Communist Party member who eventually got a visa to enter the US, I believe to visit his daughter, Melania Trump. So, what s wrong with learning from this and consider allowing people in on a case by case basis, instead of a total ban?
7
Some crackpot with an Arsenal shoots up downtown Las Vegas and Trump supporters are still ruminating about imaginary terrorists that Trump cooks up in his fever swamp. There sure are a lot of people that know exactly what the Supreme Court is thinking. But on to the next red herring. That's how Trump keeps the contributions rolling in to pay the legal fees for him and Don Jr.
14
Why doesn't Trump simply ban all immigration? He doesn't seem to like anyone anyway.
12
I know you are being facetious, but a lot of people in this country would certainly support the temporary ban on all immigration until we deal with illegal immigration, and bring in immigration laws that stop "chain migration" and "birthright citizenship".
4
For all of those who think and are writing here that President Trump wants a ban because he's a racist, need to wake up and smell reality. Our borders are porous. We need extreme vetting on all fronts.
The President is just trying to protect the U.S. but liberals take it the wrong way, and see only what they want to see.
Sady, it will likely take another major terrorist event in our beloved United States for all of you to wake up to reality of the world we live in today.
47
We have extreme vetting. Anyways, vetting doesn’t mean refusing entry to everybody, regardless of what kind of travel documents they have. And his ban is based on religion and country of origin. Muslim is not a race.
8
THe last terrorist event occurred 2 weeks ago in Las Vegas by an American.
10
Rugnir: All the reputable studies of the propensity for crime by illegal immigrants agree that the crime rate among illegals is lower that that of the Citizens of the USA. Other than 911 all the terrorist attacks in the US have been by people legally here. The latest and most horrific attack in Las Vegas was by a US Citizen who was born here.
8
Guns and opioids kill far more people in this country than any Muslim has.
What is Trump doing to keep our country safe from these threats?
37
I fully agree with President Trump. To keep Americans safe we have a right to restrict the travel of those that might do us harm. Or at the very least subject them to additional background checks to ensure they harbor no ill will to our citizens. So, in support or our President I'd like to suggest we expand his ban further. I would like to restrict the travel of Republicans anywhere in the United States without extensive background checks. We know these people have an unhealthy affinity to guns and like to carry them. We don't need dangerous people like this freely roaming around. I would further recommend we make all Christian Evangelicals predominately wear crosses so we know who they are. These people believe in and claim to live by the most violent scriptures. Their "bible" advocates enslavement, genocide, incest and misogyny and murder. In keeping their faith some of them have committed murder and bombings of healthcare workers in the name of their god. We do not need to be put at risk having them among us. Save us from these people President Trump.
31
Speechless... love this!! Well done, Gary, well done!!
1
Trump will next pack our courts with people like Roy Moore.
7
DT, tired of winning ? Obviously not ! Tired of whinning? Not that either !
14
Somewhere Stephen Miller weeps.
12
"Tuesday’s ruling was yet another legal setback..." No, it's yet another attempt by some judge in a corner of the US to control the rest of us by judicial fiat. In the end the Supreme Court will overrule all this kind of nonsense and hopefully rebuke rogue judges who think that any ruling they make should apply to the whole country.
15
Actually, it's yet another attempt by the judicial branch to check the out-of-control executive branch – or at least the madman trying to control the rest of us by executive order.
The judge, at least, earned his title through honest, hard work. The madman earned his title through lies, lies, and more lies.
Also, "in a corner of the US" – The U.S. has no corners. It has states and territories, and every citizen in every state has an equal voice in our country.
11
I don't know how other readers feel. But for me it feels like being caught in a wormhole of infinite insanity versus sanity events. And said but true - the originally enjoyable lecture of the nytimes has become more of a daily duty to just stay informed about how things go wrong. It leaves me frustrated and all the negative news dominate so much that there is no muse in me left for the "good news/essays" - the stories "beyond politics and disaster".
Interestingly the digital nytimes supports the feeling of overwhelmingly negative news as "negative" news are trending top stories.
Reading the print is refreshingly different: there you find even on the title page non-political stories beyond the Trump-dominated world. It's much less biased (in terms of "what does readers interest") than online. Less echo chamber of negative reaffirmation.
6
And, yet, the bias is still there in print. There is no way The Times would have deprived Obama of his successes the way it has deprived Trump of his. Today, The Times reported that since Pakistan had to be pressured to rescue those American captives, it wasn't the victory Trump was claiming. Really?
James O'Keefe that rogue reporter who creates those highly controversial hidden videos has a NYT editor (low level?) on camera saying they put all those negative stories of Trump on the front page during the election hoping readers would say, "Oh, wow!" and realize he's unworthy of the presidency. They're still at it. The problem is that millions of Americans don't agree with them and don't need their deciding these matters.
Some of us just want the news.
1
A ban on selling military-style weapons to anyone with the money would do far more to 'keep the American people safe' than banning travel to the US from anywhere.
229
If you'd like to see the real numbers, please see the latest FBI report for 2016 released recently of murders in the US. It is available, just Google it. 4 times as many people were murdered by bladed weapons than by a rifle of ANY KIND. And the majority of rifles out there are not what you like to call "military style". Those numbers would be even smaller. Nearly twice as many people were killed by being "beaten by hands, legs, and feet" than by rifles of any kind. Might as well outlaw human beings and pocket knives, they are far more deadly than a gun, looking at the statistics
sandshark350
You are cherrypicking.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/knives-kill-more-people-each-year-th...
"In 2013, knives or other cutting instruments were used to kill 1,490 victims. In contrast, rifles were the cause of death of 285 murder victims. Shotguns were used in 308 murders."
"In 2013, there were 5,782 murders by handgun in the U.S."
So gun murders EXCEEDED knife murders by a wide margin, when you add in the handguns.
That fails to account for accidental deaths and suicides, which are much more frequent when a gun is used than when a knife is used.
As I said, great job cherrypicking your facts.
We also generate our own homegrown white terrorists right here in the US, for example: Timothy McVeigh (168 deaths), Stephen Paddock (58 deaths), Adam Lanza (26 death), Harris and Klebold (13 deaths), James Holmes (12 deaths), Dylan Roof (9 deaths). There are more that I could list, too many more.
Maybe we should ban white guys from entering the US. They are dangerous. (I am a white guy.)
3
3000 dead in 9/11 Islamic Terrorism. And there's no reason we can't take sensible measures against both forms of terror.
1
Judge Derrick K. Watson, Thank you Your Honor.
20
It will never be reversed, as all lawyers know
2
Trump needs to meet with the President of Hawaii to straighten Judge Watson out. . .
21
We should ascertain all strains of Trump's ancestry and permanently and retroactively ban all travel from those countries.
17
I believe that every judge who has voted against Trump's travel ban is a Democrat. And every one who has voted in favor is a Republican. Democrats have been outraged about losing a Supreme Court seat for this very reason. Obviously the political affiliation of the judge determines this issue. It's not about whether the travel ban is constitutional. It's about who is deciding the issue. Fair-minded people acknowledge that the legality of the ban has yet to get a fair hearing.
10
That's inaccurate, the judge in Washington State who ruled against the original travel ban was a Republican appointed by Bush.
2
I think judges can read between lines and see what everyone else can see. Discrimination based on race, religion and country of origin. The onus is on Trump to prove that all those parents who cannot visit their newborn grandchildren, are guilty as charged. He should also prove why countries directly involved in terrorist attacks of the past are not included, to clarify if Trump hotels are more important than security of the American people.
18
The kids bailed on their own parents when they left their home countries to start a new life in the US. Why and how is that Trump's fault?
1
Praise be for sane judges like Derrick K. Watson who not only recognizes the racist intention of the lunatic in the WH but has the guts to stop his insane measures aimed at implementing his racist ideology on the pretense of "protecting" the American people. Not only is DT mentally incompetent, he's a paranoid idiot who doesn't have a clue about being a judicious president.
20
Good!
7
Given that SCOTUS already reinstated much of what went into the second Travel Ban, I'm a bit surprised but not shocked that Judge Watson, once again, blocked the third Travel Ban. You'd think he would at least mirror what SCOTUS reinstated, but, nope, Judge Watson presumes to be both Congress and the Executive branches.
This isn't a check on power. This is a judge who is going to try and impose his will regardless of SCOTUS or the law.
61
In a way, it's similar to "corporations are people too", isn't it?
In your opinion.
One one also think that Trump would keep sending in the same Presidential Order in over and over with only slight changes when the first one was overturned and the second one was largely overturned.
It's all in how you look at it.
This is the way the courts have of debating and settling issues of law. This is the way things work in the courts.
2
In his ruling, Judge Watson has usurped no oversight or other function from the Supreme Court, Congress or the executive branch. Whether or not we agree with his decision, he is playing exactly the right role and the one to which he was appointed. Trump signed an executive order, while doing his own assigned job. When litigants successfully challenge this or any such federal order, a lower-court judge normally decides if it meets tests of legality and constitutionality. What purpose would any courts -- and our democracy -- serve if the President had unfettered right to pass any old order that suited him, and there was no recourse to judicial review? It doesn't matter how many times he signs such an order; until the the Supremes are heard, it remains open to challenge. It's the same with laws passed by Congress. After a ruling such as Watson's, the government can bring the case to an appeals court and/or the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter can ultimately choose to decide the soundness of a lower court's ruling and the final standing of such an order. But SCOTUS has yet to do that. Congress can also decide -- although it has not to date -- to pass a bill that would embody the essence of the travel ban. Be it law or order, if successfully brought to court, it would undergo just this judicial scrutiny. I know that had zero judges ruled against the travel ban, I would be unhappy. But the solution is not to lash out at the very system that guarantees such grievances be heard.
3
Stephen Miller crafted (?) this latest farce as a means to justify his place at the White House and his taxpayer-funded paycheck. Otherwise, he's the same loser he was in Santa Monica High inciting false divisions within the student ranks.
Trump's mistake, always "biggly" ones, is to sign off on such Watergate-style tricks and stupid behaviors.
Time for Miller to pack his bags for Manhattan Pier. Hang ten!
15
If this President is so concerned with "keep(ing) the American people safe," maybe he could address the issue of native-born, white, male shooters instead, seeing as one of them killed more people two weeks ago in Las Vegas than I'm willing to bet visitors from all of these countries combined have in decades (if ever).
59
That Saudi Arabia, the worst terrorist encouragers, were not included shows what a sham this ban is.
72
Saudi Arabia has a relatively decent handle on who is in its country. You cannot compare its systems with those in Syria. Moreover, we have diplomatic relations with the Saudis.
A lot has changed since 9/11. Time to move on.
It's unseemly for a grown man, much less a sitting judge, to throw temper tantrums every time he is reversed.
You are free to cry until you're blue in the face. Only don't do it on taxpayer time and $. I'm sure the nearest Kindergarten class will welcome you warmly.
14
I think Mr. Trump is the one who belongs in the kindergarten class.
13
You seem to be referring to Judge Watson, but your description is far more applicable to our pathetic president.
19
Replace "judge" with "president."
There, I fixed it for you.
11
If NY Times reporters have the opportunity, please ask Trump some questions about the Constitution. As the president, he should be familiar with the document.
How can he "preserve, protect and defend" something if he doesn't even know what it is?
19
Obama was a constitutional law professor and still violated the constitution repeatedly. I view that as worse than ignorance
6
The only thing the "Trumpster" is interested in preserving, protecting and defending is that atrocious combover of his................
3
The Vulgarian can fool the "undereducated voters" he announced he loves, but not a smart federal judge. Where's Saudi Arabia, from whence so many of the 9-11 attackers came? That tells a lot about the Vulgarian's concerns - his private business interests, not terror; appealing to baser instincts of his base, just like after Charlottesville, not protecting us. Lincoln is getting so much exercise in his grave. 'Tis such a pity, such a shame on us.
20
again???
That 'uneducated' rhetoric is what cost Hillary and arrogance voters like you the election.
2
Tis such a shame you categorize those who voted for Trump as 'uneducated' voters. There were many reasons people voted for Donald Trump. National security was one of those reasons. The president is doing his job to protect you. Tis a shame you do not see this.
1
Judge Watson just handed a relection victory to Trump in 2020.
9
You can’t run as a convicted felon sitting in a jail cell.
6
@ s K
Let me guess.
You're president of the Long Island Optimists Club.
Right?....................
1
Integrity, ethics, justice, virtue, courage, thoughtful intelligence....
Derrick K. Watson for President.
33
What a wonderfully horrible web we are weaving.
Trump and The current Republican leaders new requirement for justices anywhere?
Pre- Yes Trump Rulings.
Let us hope to God as it were there are some less radical conservatives in the future courts. Maybe the requirement for any Judge should be 50/50 approval ratings. Maybe they will be deicided by the networks and pay to view/vote We'll See.
Imagine if #45 had thrown this nasty, bigoted hardball to Congress to begin with and the media had to get busy explaining Marbury v Madison to the citizenry.
As it is, it seems a bit of a stretch for many commenters here to understand the fundamental concept of checks and balances in our republic.
8
That there are any checks and balances left at all now, what with a "unified" Congress, a reliably conservative Court, and new Trump federal judges being confirmed all the time, is remarkable. Leaves a lot of work for Judge Watson.
4
I have found it interesting throughout this travel ban business that Trump doesn't ban Saudis -- the main instigators of the 9/11 attacks. Guess our principles and our concern for American citizens' safety only go so far. (Not that I support the Muslim travel ban -- I don't -- but it is glaring in its selectiveness.)
There are many people in this country who believe that it is a white, Christian country, and no one else is legit, especially Muslims (right now). They also think Jesus was white. Wrong on both counts.
9
Here could be the next move of President Trump to get rid of judge Watson. Sell Hawaii to Japan.
Also did the 90-day suspension was supposed to be use to put in place an extreme system of barriers for entry?
Hey, if we did that, then Puerto Rico could become the 50th state! Or Washington DC!
The countries covered by the policy are all states the US does not have diplomatic relations with and/or are failed nation states involved in terrorism or in the midst of war. Does anyone really believe that we can effectively screen people from Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran or North Korea? Common sense should inform even the most committed Trump resister the answer is “No.” on this basis alone, the policy is within the president’s discretion. That most of the affected countries are Muslim majority is meaningless because all non-Muslims are affected by the policy. The judge’s order stands for now but it will be reversed in short order by a higher and more sensible court. In fact, when the case gets to the Supreme Court it is probable that some of the liberal justices will join their conservative colleagues to uphold the policy.
47
We shall see. I still don't believe humans are capable of predicting the future. Even conservatives.
Your definition of 'meaningless' is meaningless since Muslim-majority countries are just that and when Trump tweets 'Muslim ban' judges are forced to make a good faith analysis of intent ...because blatant religious discrimination makes the totality of this policy impossible to uphold.
2
This president has no discretion. It is an insult to those of us that do to imply this.
What he has is an irrational desire to flail his arms and erstwhile power as President to prove to those that care that he has the power to do anything he wants. He has no goals, no agenda, no ideology, just CHAOS!
1
To quote Yogi Berra, its deja vu all over again. Even though the new order is substantially different, contains new language, limits travel from different countries, contains findings on the need for the order and the Supreme Court struck some portions of Judge Watson' s order prior to hearing the case (which was later dismissed) Judge Watson, without holding a hearing immediately imposed virtually the same temporary restraining order (including language that the Supreme Court struck) enjoining the order. I Although Judge Watson is undoubtedly acting in good faith, I doubt that Judge Watson would uphold any order excluding a class of immigrants at this point and one senses a game of ping pong between the Ninth Circuit district and circuit judges and the administration. The operative statute at issue grants broad discretion to the President to exclude any class of aliens from nay nation on grounds of national security. The parties filing these actions, which are a mix of liberal groups, blue states and universities, undoubtedly desire that Hilary Clinton prevailed in the election. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide this debate and should step in soon to hear these cases.
9
If if only Trump didn’t become so emboldened by the partial version of his ban going into effect, this would be a non-issue. However, he took the SCOTUS decision to allow a partial ban to double down and issue a more far-reaching ban than the original one. Like everything else, Trump apparently never read the ruling.
So now this judge is addressing that more severe aspect of Trump’s executive order. Some readers who have commented here also fail to see the difference.
7
Supreme Court opinions can't be carved down to one page with less than ten bullets. So no, Trump wouldn't have read it.
4
This will be reversed, 9-0. Not even Sotomayor can countenance this kind of lawlessness.
29
Justice Sotomayor is not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is where this case is going next.
9
There is no such ruling by the Supremes. Guess facts can get very scrambled between here and Moscow.
7
Uh, excuse me? trump is more or less a party to this litigation. He should keep his mouth shut. That is why we have courts.
9
This is the same judge whose decision on the travel ban was reversed previously by the Supreme Court. Exactly how long do taxpayers have to continue to pay the salary of someone the highest court in the land has to correct repeatedly?
87
No, it was not reversed. It was upheld by the COA, then the S Ct allowed part of the ban to go into effect while the appeal process proceeded. And there was not, and will not be, any decision by the S Ct on the earlier ruling, since it's now moot.
4
Perhaps you didn't read the article? "Judge Watson’s earlier ruling blocking the second version of the travel ban was upheld by an appeals court, but the Supreme Court allowed portions of that version to take effect." A sane person would hardly call that a reversal.
14
You summarized the history of this completely incorrectly. If it was the same issue, Judge Watson would have dismissed the case.
5
Government of checks and balances. Executive, legislative, judicial.
Constitutional government.
And then we have...
Checks and balance for the unbalanced.
Who finds President Donald Trump well balanced?
Perhaps Steve Bannon finds the president well balanced.
Or Anthony Scaramucci.
23
Ah scaramooch we miss and he could do the fandango!
3
Judge Watson equals sanity for our country. Not only sanity, but justice to prevail.
We are embarrassed by the actions, behavior, and words of Donald Trump. To the rest of the world - he does not, no how, no way represent all of us and we apologize for him.
278
So what's your grand plan to keep out the bad guys, especially from countries we have no diplomatic relationships with?
You're not thinking clearly.
1
I think it's pretty well understood in this world that an apology made "for" someone else isn't really an apology at all. A genuine apology seems to require that the individual involved state that s/he understands the hurt that was caused, regrets having caused it, and will make every effort not to repeat the offense. We don't see those events happening in this instance, do we?
Rugnir
The bad guys, like Stephen Paddock, right?
MIMA
1
Time to remove this clown faux deplorable judge from the bench. He is nothing more than an obama planted activist. It boggles my mind that some insignificant judge sitting in the middle of the Pacific can make such an arbitrary ruling to disrupt the country. Trump needs to act like obama and start ignoring court rulings that didnt go his way.
20
@ bob NYC
Spoken like a true follower of The Donald! Apparently, according to #45, places surrounded by water aren't really worthy of notice?
To refresh your understanding:
Hawaii, like Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and Guam are islands sitting out in the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic oceans -- all home to U.S. citizens.
And watch your back -- Manhattan is also an island, sitting in the ocean, surrounded by water.
Unfortunately, until we have some new definition of what it means to be part of America, and a new definition of the American system of government (which, in case you hadn't noticed, involves a system of checks and balances among the three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive) #45 and his followers will have to live with what the Founders gave us.
8
What is the definition of an "activist judge?" One whose decision you don't like.
14
He sits in our country. What does "in the middle of the Pacific" have to do with it? Our entire country sits in the middle of two oceans.
I haven't read the decision. I suspect he took the last Supreme Court decision into account in writing it. You, and they, may not agree with his reasoning. Remains to be seen.
8
same judge makes it laughable
14
I'll bet the air is blue in the White House!
3
Oh no!! It’s that “I'm 'amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific” Judge again. Well I’ll be danged, he did it again.
Atta go Judge Watson!!
48
An "island in the Pacific." Wow, amazing how any court or any law was able to get off of it and get to mainland US. That is true, you know, because, for example we on the mainland can't get aid to that island in the Atlantic (aka Puerto Rico, an island actually in the Caribbean). Well, the natives probably have drums, I would image Mr. "President."
5
Remember, it's an island, surrounded by water. A lot of water.
5
Thank you Judge Watson.
61
Mahalo nui loa, Judge Watson.
12
What a poser this Judge is. He knows perfectly well his ruling will be overturned.
24
Don't waste my time.
Judge Watson has been reversed so many times he puts on his robe backwards.
SCOTUS will come soon enough. Put a lid on it until then.
18
Please give me the figures on how often Judge Watson has been reversed, or a link. He was upheld by the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court will not rule on the earlier decision because of mootness.
6
The crooked scotus, with the cheatingly appointed jurist?
4
Wait.
Hawaii is an island in the middle of an ocean.
A really big ocean.
How does someone there get to block Tsar Trump Royal Edicts?
Boy.
Wait until a hurricane hits there.
You think Puerto Rico is slow, inhumane and incompetent!!
13
Hooray for Judge Watson! That makes it strike three for the president's discriminatory and unconstitutional Muslim travel ban. A lot of swinging but no winning.
32
This judge is personalizing his decision.
Dirty Donald will win re-election when a terrorist attack kills hundreds of innocent people in the United States.
6
Curtis, sounds like you have some insider information on an upcoming terrorist attack? If so, I am sure the FBI or Homeland Security would be glad to hear about it.
In fact however, there have been no major terrorist attacks with hundreds of deaths in the U.S. since 9/11 -- an NONE at all perpetrated by citizens from any of the countries listed on Trump's travel ban. North Korea? Venezuela? What a joke.
Now, the gunman in Las Vegas: that was a major attack, with at least 58 dead and more than 500 wounded. Maybe Trump should turn his attention more to crazy Americans with stockpiles of guns and ammunition...
5
You mean like in Las Vegas?
4
Oh, you mean like Las Vegas?
4
Travel ban is a solution in search of a problem. Designed only to appeal to Trump’s most racist base.
129
President Trump couldn't win over the Democratic party, what are you talking about?
3
I guess this is what winning and winning until you're sick of winning looks like.
16
Trump's absurd stunt bans mollify his rabid base but are often ineffective in actually changing anything. He doesn't care one way or the other.
As long as he can hold up his steakhouse-menu leatherette-bound executive orders with his insane signature, he's happy.
27
Mahalo, Your Honor.
26
I fear that this will change once it gets to the supreme court with gorsuck on board.
3
I am not ashamed by the smile creeping across my face at imagining how mad this must make this petty, petty man.
33
Hooray for the Aloha State.
25
Thank God for our judges and justices!!! You're keeping our country American!!!!
23
RE: The third executive order went further than the original [...]
Legally indefensible and morally repugnant.
11
This is a respite, albeit brief, from the lunacy. Thank you, Judge Watson.
The vetting was always fine. Actual safety was never the problem. The motivations for Trump and his supporters are just what they appear to be: racism, xenophobia, and paranoia.
As most know, the president's immigrant enforcement arm ICE has begun nighttime raids specifically in sanctuary cities. DACA folks among them.
Vetting should be done for guns that kill more than 30,000 every year. Vetting should be done for neo-Nazis and white supremacists who have perpetrated two thirds of the terrorist acts on American soil since 9/11.
263
What is wrong with vetting (extreme or not based on the circumstances in each country)? As a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen I did not mind being vetted by different US government agencies starting with the consulate in my country of origin.
1
Uh, it does nothing but waste time and money.
Nothing is wrong with vetting. My meaning was, we were already doing a good job with vetting before Trump was inaugurated. We did not need a travel ban for the purpose of using the time to improve vetting.
Iblue writes:
"What is wrong with vetting (extreme or not based on the circumstances in each country)? ..."
Thank you, Judge Derrick K Watson. I hope I live to see you elevated to the US Supreme Court. That way, I could die in peace.
Robert Mueller, PLEASE build an impeccable case that is worthy of your reputation for integrity and extraordinary detailed evidence. It is VERY difficult to live in America due to Comrade Trump's ugly mandates. He is an ongoing threat tour great nation, and he frightens women and children in particular. Many children (and adults) have nightmares about Trump. Children recognize evil when they hear it . . . and Trump, Bannon, and Miller are nothing less than bullying cowards who are running fast & loose with our democracy's sacred principles.
Please.
29
Chalk one up for the intelligent, lucid, reasonable thinkers of this country.
14
My sincere compliments.
12
Long live the resistance! I am concerned whether the Stolen Seat Supreme Court will uphold this lower court, but ordinary citizens must continue to peaceably protest every attempt to normalize Trump and his brand of hate.
25
As deplorable as Trump is in undermining Obama, just because it was Obama's idea - these liberal judges are just as deplorable with respect to Trump.
4
How is Trump undermining Obama? Obama is a private citizen.
6
This is why dictators and fascist strongmen the world over eliminate an independent judiciary soon after taking power, along with the free press. Trump has already publicly derided both. I won't be surprised when his supporters start screaming "Fake Judge!" on social media. We need to understand that with a spineless GOP willing to sell out the country for a tax cut for the wealthy, the judicial branch is our last line of defense against this madman.
15
So the DOJ will appeal this to the liberal 9th Circuit, which will affirm the District Judge ruling, and then the DOJ will request certiorari before the SCOTUS, which will hear the case and reverse the trial judge.
The end.
7
Or throw it out again
4
Another sad setback for President Never and the Party of No.
13
Checked and balanced -- maybe there is hope for our government.
14
Given his history, Trump wouldn’t surprise us if he made a terrible disparaging verbal attack on Federal judge Watson who is Hawaiian and who was appointed by Obama.
Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch as well as Obama were in the same graduating class at Harvard. All first class constitutional lawyers beyond reproach in any legal matter. Trump doesn’t understand the fine minds that are part of our system.
10
As Gorsuch has been outted as a cheater at Harvard; has been pretty much blackballed for his fraudulent claim of "charity work" @ the Harvard review (NOT), your argument holds no water to reputable members of the SCOTUS
3
Three cheers for this brave judge. I think this also shows how important it is/will be for Democrats to block as many of Trump's judicial appointees as possible. The Republicans are trying to stack the courts with as many right-wingers as they possibly can--the effect of which will be felt long after Trump is out of office.
16
The judge is a social activist, not a judge. There is nothing illegal about this ban. The judge should be impeached, and held personally liable if something should happen as a result of this. Someone might be injured by not being allowed to emigrate here???? Where do they have a constitutional right to come here?
11
They have a constitutional right to be free from governmental discrimination on the basis of religion.
1
Yes, they do not have a right to come here. But once they do, they have a right not to be discriminated against.
1
I don't know whether you're really a surgeon, but it's clear you're not a lawyer -- or, possibly, even a graduate of a middle-school civics class.
11
The decision from Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii is not only sure to be appealed; it is also certain to be overturned, as was his previous ruling on travel restrictions. The judge’s ruling that Trump has authority to suspend travel from predominantly atheistic countries, such as North Korea, and predominantly Catholic countries, such as Venezuela, but not countries that are predominantly Muslim is ridiculous.
66
@William Case
You see things through a glass, darkly -- and not as the Constitution sees them. The POTUS does have the right to suspend travel to the US in interests of national security -- but that does NOT allow suspension of travel based solely on religious belief, whether you like that or not.
As a matter of fact, the US is filled with atheists, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Protestants who are NOT evangelicals, and even believers in Wicca and Satanism.
Are you interested in going after them as well?
12
Actually the last travel ban case appealed from Judge Watson's court was not overturned, it was upheld by the 9th Circuit.
And what are these "predominantly athiestic" and "predominantly Catholic" countries? You only list one of each. The word "countries" is plural.
6
Judge Watson's previous decision (regarding Trump's second immigration ban) was only partially overturned. The rest of it was allowed to stay in effect. Then Trump filed a third somewhat different immigration ban. It seems normal that when the Attorney General of Hawaii, once again filed suit against Trump's 3rd attempt at an immigrant ban, he would file suit against it in the federal court of Hawaii, not New York or New Jersey. And Judge Watson works in the Federal Court of Hawaii. All of this seems normal to me. Trump keeps trying to pass the same or similar orders and the Attorney General of Hawaii thinks they are bad for his state so he keeps filing suits against them. He won the first suit and partially won the second one. The third order by Trump is only slightly different from the previous two. Why wouldn't this Attorney General keep filing suits against them? Surely the Attorney General will continue to fight these Presidential Orders until the Courts settle the whole issue or Trump quits filing them. Why the outrage?
6
The Trumpian pyrotechnics on Twitter will be awesome to behold! Yet another judge with judicial integrity instead of a mindless judicial robe beholden to the GOP.
44
Trump will say he’s a lousy judge.
What a guy!
6
I expect a very nasty vitriolic tweet later today from the President of some of the United States, directed at 'the country of Hawaii' for this block. I never thought I'd see the day when the presidential office of the United States would be so disrespected by its occupier.
30
This Federal judge has been reversed on this same issue, on the same grounds, twice before. Time to impeach him for misconduct and remove him from the bench, he has demonstrated that he lacks the temperament to serve on the Federal bench.
18
You shouldn't press for impeachment just because you don't like a federal judge's ruling. I have very little doubt he'll be reversed (though I'm not predicting 9-0, as one commenter does), but "impeachment" is a bit much.
2
Please elaborate on this so called misconduct?
5
You're confusing Judge Derrick K. Watson with President Trump, whose time has come to be impeached for being unfit to lead.
8
I wish this article had given more context. This same federal judge had previously issued a nationwide order against the earlier ban. What is not stated is that US Supreme Court reviewed his decision and by a unanimous vote of 9-0 allowed Trumps ban to be implemented.
We may all hate Trump but he has the constitutional right to ban immigrants from certain countries from entering. Trump's racist, islamophobic rants aside, he still has the constitutional power to implement this ban. This new ban again will be shot down by SCOTUS 9-0.
22
Perhaps it will. But in the meantime, we need to do everything humanly possible to stop--or at least slow to a crawl--everything Trump does. Learned that tactic from Mitch.
5
Obviously the President's authority is limited by the Bill of Rights, though.
1
The article says "the Supreme Court allowed PORTIONS of that travel ban to take effect."
If you leave something out in your argument, that is called lying by omission.
4
This is clearly the way Trump is choosing to operate during his Presidency. If he can get away with simply tweeting a policy (e.g, transgender in the military) without actually implementing something, he'll do it. If the topic requires a little more clout, he'll issue an order of the type he has now issued three times with respect to travel. He's appears to be tough on terrorism for those who care about that. He appears to be tough on Muslims for those who care about that. He's angered all the right people. (Yes, their criticism actually plays well with many of his supporters). But again, he hasn't really implemented anything. He hasn't fought particularly hard for either of the two previously blocked bans and he probably won't on this one either. He doesn't have to. His propaganda needs have been met without having to do any of the heavy lifting associated with making something workable.
52
One of the cable people--Rachel Maddow maybe--touched on this and said it'd actually be nice to think that this was all part of a strategy, but the likelihood is that the breadth and depth of his knowledge on most any policy issue keeps him dabbling around the edges of all of them instead of taking them on substantively. Even so, you'd think he'd make an effort to make something of a team out of the people he needs to get actual work done instead of alienating them to the point of going Corker or Jolley on him.
5
SJG perfectly sums up the Trump modus operandi with this comment. I hope everyone reads it. It is succinct and eloquent.
1
"Professional athletes mirror the federal government in this respect: they operate within a set of rules, and when one among them forsakes those rules in favor of his own, problems ensue,” Judge Watson wrote...."
I agree with you, Judge Watson.
Taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest a cause while at work, alienating business customers of my boss who pays me, bothers me, too.
8
The NFL will gain as many fans as they lose over the long run, and the people who are "alienated?" Most of them don't know what the word means and anyway, who cares?
8
There is no rule against taking a knee.
10
To Pat:
Au contraire.
There are rules now governing football players while at work. While taking a knee during the National anthem is not yet clearly proscribed, when it is, then that rule will govern.
"And when one athlete forsakes the rules, problems ensue...."
1
There's a good chance that conditions in the US were headed downhill long before Trump was elected. After all, if education were not so broken, the citizens would have had enough sense and judgment not to vote for the man. many of the indices of healthy development [e.g. mortality rates, general health] have weakened over the last decade or longer. Trump is a symptom of our decline.
38
I've been saying for a long time that we brought this on ourselves by arguing about education policy instead of actually educating our kids. The chickens have come home to roost.
6
I agree the U.S. and its citizens are in decline. I have said the many times and shall continue to say so. Of course, the fault lies with our education system, having one of the lowest standards of all western industrial nations. No one seems to want to say that out loud, except for a few statisticians to whom no one pays attention because we are a great country that does not need improvement, so the story goes.
6
In any event, empires or empire-like countries die slow deaths. So there's still a while to go. I agree on the reference to education and other declines but perhaps Trump (and Bannon for that matter) are the wrong messengers for the right message. I don't mean a move to the right or anarchy but about it being time to shake things up.
1
This is a serious problem with our government. Not only that a single judge can control federal policy for weeks, but that you can keep going back to the same judge over and over again.
Normally, you're supposed to have to file a new case and get randomly assigned to a judge. A structural check on the judiciary is that a judge can't rule unless the case has been properly assigned to him. Without this requirement, a judge anywhere in the country could just rule on any case he/she happens to care about.
The Supreme Court dismissed the old travel ban case as moot -- meaning that it viewed the new policy as different enough to warrant going through the meat-grinder again. The ACLU shouldn't be able to get around filing a new case by "amending their complaint" and just giving it to the same judge again.
I don't think that Kennedy is going to go for this.
91
Why shouldn't federal judges rule on questions of federal law? I don't get it.
The Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal of the old travel ban case from its own docket reflected the Court's interest in not wasting time deciding on an outdated policy. It was not an order directing the parties to go back to square one. The President certainly hasn't gone back to square one, and that's one of the main flaws in his travel ban.
2
I suggest that you read the Constitution. The Federal courts are an equal branch of government. The SC dropped the case because the travel ban expired and there was a new one so there was no longer a case to consider.
3
The Constitution actually only establishes the Supreme Court, and gives it original jurisdiction over a small number of cases. All the lower courts were created by Congress, and they can be modified, abolished, or limited by Congress whenever it so chooses.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says a single district judge anywhere in the country can block an entire policy nationwide for weeks. This practice has evolved because Congress and the president have been obsequious and allowed lower federal courts to arrogate to themselves authority that no one ever intended them to have.
In this particular case, the Supreme Court could have said that the new policy is substantively a continuation of the old policy and therefore they can still decide the case. But they didn't. Now that the old case is dead, the Plaintiffs should have to file a new lawsuit and have it assigned randomly to a judge. Not just return to a judge who's obviously sympathetic and just ask him to help them out again.
Even if 20 district judges dismiss a lawsuit, a single judge anywhere can still issue a nationwide injunction, and the current system expects the government to comply with it.
Congress needs to intervene and put an end to it.
4
Trump’s newly revised "new" Travel Ban is essentially the last Travel Ban with minor modifications to give it the appearance of legal justification. But like before, the new Travel Ban is neither legally justified nor intellectually honest.
The Travel Ban not only violates Section 1182 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, because its effect exceeds its authorization, it also violates the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trumps-newly-revised-new-travel-ban-mauri...
31
Trump could not possibly ever be "intellectually honest".
8
Read your link. Have absolutely no idea how Trumps travel ban "violates the spirit of the First Amendment." Are you saying that by not allowing certain immigrants into the US, we have abridged their rights to free speech?
4
We are not at war with these countries, we simply supply other countries with weapons of mass destruction against them.
Meanwhile, the current republican administration stacks the deck in courtrooms all over the country with like minded judges for later use.
And Erik Prince and other private armies collect together in order to get the U.S. taxpayers to front the bill for old fashioned protection money due to these kind of aggressive dealings.
Bottom line, Americans are paying in blood and tax dollars as if there is an investment advantage for the average citizen. There's not. Not even close.
21
Time for a public discussion. Having the Executive and a Federal judge bat this issue back and forth is not serving Americans. The alleged intent of the ban is security - which Americans are always skeptical of, until something bad happens.
These are countries whose governments are anti-American, but whose people we might still welcome. Just having a higher level of review for entry might be in order. On the other hand, the Executive is supposed to know much more about the actual threat than I do...
4
".. supposed to know more...". Sadly, we have a President who doesn't know the basics about pretty much EVERYTHING that has to do with governing a country.
5
My bet is that this executive does NOT know much more about the actual threat than you do.
3
The problem here is the judicial overreach on the executive branch whether we like the president or not. President can be political but a random judge cannot be.
9
Can a federal judge be considered a "random judge"?
7
Why is this overreach? Trump continues to violate the Constitution. This isn’t some “random” judge. He’s a federal judge, sworn to uphold the law. And no, the president doesn’t get a pass to be only political. He has to obey the law. It’s the role of the judicial branch to check that overreach. Period.
10
It's good to see checks and balances working for a change to moderate our commander in grief.
65
We honor you, Judge Watson. Thank you for protecting a primary American ideal.
84
This due process rule of law thing sure is tough!
47
Guaranteed there'll be a tweet from you-know-who about 'so-called' judges ruining his day. Is Hawaii part of the USA? They don't look right to me, better check with my generals.
90
It's hard to know much about Hawai'i.
Its an island, you know, surrounded by water. Big water.
Many people are saying that its even more than one island. And every one of them is surrounded by water!
10
"Is Hawaii part of the USA? They don't look right to me, better check with my generals." Yes, and Obama was born in Hawaii too!! Looks like we have a real conspiracy here -- watch for it on Sean Hannity and Breitbart News...
9
Too busy tweeting threats to America's most respected war veteran, Sen McCain, for speaking candidly about the dangers of nationalism.
3
thank goodness for those who actually serve the public good.
158
This judge should be impeached. He is not a judge, but instead a social activist.
17
You'd probably say that about *any* judge who rendered a judgment with which you disagreed.
26
Who should be impeached? I'll keep the one who observes the rule of law.
14
Unless he had ruled in favor of the ban? Then he wouldn't be?
14
General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III must again be "...amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power."
39
Thank you, Judge Watson.
Today, I needed to know that somewhere an educated and courageous American was willing to tell Trump that his ethnocentric hate was not acceptable, legally or otherwise, based on the rule of law.
203
Here you go. . . this ought to cheer you a bit: John McCain's (10 minute) speech accepting the Liberty medal last night.
www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/10/17/john-mccain-full-speech-liberty-m...
2
I know it is wrong to think this way but secretly I hope these "blocks" are giving Trump ulcers. I certainly know that everyday I wake thinking "what's it gonna be now?" and dread the news of where this man has gone off the edge since I laid my head to rest. So I'll take some simple pleasures in knowing that at least for the moment he can't always have everything the way he wants it immediately, which I'm sure is the way he has always seen it.
102
Looks like democracy is working as intended. Bravo judge Watson!
129
"democracy is working"? When was judge Watson elected? How many voted for him?
2
What a glorious day! To read about a bipartisan compromise w Obamacare after Trump had tried to derail it (once again) and to see this judge take another stand against our narcissistic dictator makes me feel hopeful (be it ever so temporal).
93
I love checks and balances.
126
Yes--they are great. As long as Justice Roberts remembers HIS branch of government is equal--not subordinate to--the so-called president's branch.
1
He will keep trying, nevertheless. I can't wait for the next tweet condemning the so-called Judge. This nightmare has no end (for now).
30
I trust you mean that Trump may call him a "so-called" judge?
1
Thank heavens there is still an independent judiciary in this country!
95
There really isn't, especially when one focuses on the Supreme Court as well as on upcoming judicial appointments. An independent judiciary is the sine qua non for a democracy - we are losing ours.
6
He’s working on that - he & McConnell are going to install tons of radical christian conservative judges. Folks that they are planning to be on the bench for upwards of 40 years. These are the folks that will reshape the country. They are one seat away from taking control of SCOTUS for a generation. Does not bode well for civil rights and separation of church and state.
3
Daycare Donnie gets another elementary lesson on the United States Constitution, public policy and due process.
"Nobody knew the rule of law could be so complicated"
Has anyone seen Donnie's nanny ?
We have an unattended child waiting to be picked up.
209
We'll see how long before SCOTUS ok's it.
15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis....and yet are still allowed to roam free in the US anyone scared yet?
9
The law does not give the president unlimited authority to legislate.
9
Is there anything that this President does that benefits your great country?
Anything he appears to do causes many people to be upset and disillusioned with Mr. Trump.
He's so mean-spirited and counter-productive, that all I read about are issues that are contentious and non-productive for the USA and its' people.
It's been almost 10 months that this man has been president, and all I read about, and justifiable so, is how nothing is getting done in the USA. Everything appears to be getting broken down or directed for the benefit for Big sectors of the economy (Big Oil, Big Pharma) or Republican-minded people.
It's sad to see your great country i this state of chaos and non-production!
291
Nothing a single thing that I am aware of. This miscreant clearly appears to do things that bring great harm to its own people.
18
....and Canada is so absolutely perfect.
If it was not for the cold winters we would all come and live up there!
2
Majortrout
You can imagine how we in this country feel, especially since those of us who agree with you are in the majority. Sometimes, a great country has to reevaluate its election process when times change, but their is little hope of that with the conservative majority in Congress and the Judiciary.
12