Trump's 2nd Travel ban halted

not a good day for the aut-right kek. Geert lost. Now this

Notable excerpts from the 43 page ruling
politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000

Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim

[…]

Indeed, the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text—“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. […] The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population[…]

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. […] Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries.

Addressing the gov't position on "neutrality"

"A review of the historical background here makes plain why the Government wishes to focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context. The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor. For example— (here they cite a Trump quote about the West being at war with Islam, that we shouldn't let these people in)

[…]

The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” […] Nor is there anything “secret” about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order (here they cite Giuliani's statement about Trump asking him to do a Muslim ban "legally")

[…]

On February 21, 2017, commenting on the then-upcoming revision to the Executive Order, the President’s Senior Adviser, Stephen Miller, stated, “Fundamentally, [despite “technical” revisions meant to address the Ninth Circuit’s concerns in Washington,] you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome [as the first].”

[…]

When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO is hereby GRANTED.

tldr: Trump and co. incessantly promised a Muslim ban, argues this isn't it. Court doesn't buy it. Gavel down.

check out Holla Forums guys, he's mad.

Holla Forums false flag plz go

Loving it so far Comrades!

Actually rather interesting to examine what would happen here. Generally the court would order the marshals to enforce it but strictly speaking the president pays the marshals' checks. If he just fired anyone who enforced the court order they would then probably fall on ordering state police to enforce the order. Certainly in blue states that would probably be followed by red states might follow trump. If things got REALLY bad you might end up with the supreme court ordering the united states accounts frozen until they comply.

i should be used to the hypocrisy by now but i'm not

So much for le tolerant left

they're just beta cucks who get hard at the sight of a powerful law-enforcement apparatus. in the end that's what conservatives (even the most cucky cuckservatives) like.

When judges do things they don't like it's "ACTIVIST JUDGES REEEEEE"

Even though they go against everything the founding fathers stood for and if they existed in the 1700s they'd probably be hanged

Interested in seeing if this holds up. The ruling is basically that the EO would be lawful if a different president passed it, but trump has made public statements about Muslims and therefor the court needs to read between the lines, in a sense. Unusual for sure. Also this all comes down to a 90 day ban. It's reaching the limit where trumps original EO would have expired.

The republicans have hated the courts for longer than you have been alive mate. They see the judges as acting beyond the power granted to them, reinterpreting the constitution to suit their partisan beliefs, and surpassing all checks on their power as the judiciary, which depends on them acting in an objective way.

Sup with the Aku memes?

Lmao looks like Giuliani is partially responsible for the court's decision.

Another fucking trash Leftypol meme. This board just needs to fucking stop trying, its memes are dogshit.

That's not even a meme it's just a reaction image

Must be because the new season is out. It's breddy gud :DDD

This is how we keep losing, and I'm not even referring to the travel ban here, I'm referring to your blind opposition to anything conservatives say even when they get one right about corrupt government authority.

This is why, as much as I would like to see Trump out of power, him getting impeached (which is unlikely to ever happen anyway) would probably make things even worse. Trump and the rest of them bootlicking dipshits are completely incompetent. If we had Pence in office, he would enact mostly the same policy but he'd actually know what he's doing and get shit done.

...

What's that this? is an Aku meme thread now?

Because they pretty much do, see: Roe v Wade aka "How to get legal abortions out of the commerce clause"

Fuck, if Marxists actually managed against all the odds to topple the US government I'm sure the People's Court could easily find a reason why "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" actually supports people's ownership of the means of production (CHECKMATE, CAPITALISTS)

I mean it's honestly hilarious as a foreigner watching this strange kabuki theater that Americans do regarding the Supreme Court
>The Supreme Court objectively interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but for mysterious reasons known to God alone Republicans and Democrats seem to salivate over the prospect of SC judges dying or retiring during their president's term

So what exactly is it you want?

The problem is that you think the first premise, regarding objectivity, is something anyone truly believes

It may just be, although he is a slave owning pig.

Did I actually start a meme thread with my reaction picture?

To be honest, I helped. Maybe we can make Aku automate all the manual labor away into luxury communism the end of season 5 with meme magic?

It's terrible! A real mess!

back to Holla Forums

t. butthurt Holla Forumsyp. You're only mad because its a meme from our side that doesn't make fun of jews and blacks. Suck a dick.

I mean this is all well and good but, Buzzfeed?

How do I know this is true?

call him an autist and report

Hades posting and now Aku posting… Holla Forums has some quality taste in villains…

Dudes with flaming hair are pretty dank. Maybe we should make a template?

Sounds good, but i think Aku with a soviet hat/ anarchist cap would look crappy…

The 43 page document/pdf on this case is here.

He's been made into a pepe before so there's that.

Basically "laws aren't real", the law.

Also its was try pointing: the U.S. is bombing most of those countries on the ban list. For the lady twenty years the U.S. has exclusively bombed Muslim majority countries. I never hear anyone frame U.S. foreign wars this war. I don't expect the courts to notice the more striking similarity between those banned countries than their Muslim population, either (being bombed by the U.S.)

The President has all the powers he needs in black and white, judges saying this is prejudiced against muslims are fucking idiots, of course it is, that is the point. If he said ALL muslims it would still be legal, 6 countries, is certainly legal.

The judge thinks saying it was a muslim ban before he even entered office, is good enough to defeat Executive muh privilege, is playing into republican hands, it's judicial activism.

Are you actually retarded? Nobody thinks any judges are objective, the Supreme Court is a political institution

How about you don't fucking do that?

I smell Holla Forums

I agree

Hey look it's a faggot Fascist

[spolier]I'm shitposting; I am a[/spoiler][spolier] baby leftist (ex liberal)[/spoiler]

Fuck it I messed up