You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
US appeals court says Trump’s travel ban motivated by 'religious intolerance'
2017-05-26
[RT] President Donald Trump’s travel ban unfairly discriminated against Muslims, a federal appeals court ruled, upholding most of the previously issued injunction against it.

Trump’s executive order from January 27 “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,” wrote Chief Judge Roger Gregory of the Virginia-based US Appeals Court in the 4th circuit.

In a 10-3 decision, the majority of judges ruled that they were “unconvinced” the executive order was motivated by national security concerns rather than a “Muslim ban.”

Posted by:Fred

#9  Just curious. How many court orders did Obama simply ingore (and the media said noting...)? I seem to recall a couple from that gulf oil spill alone.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2017-05-26 20:39  

#8  The same argument could have been used to nullify Obama's (but not Clinton's and GWB's) waivers of the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

Obama supported the notion of a Muslim Jerusalem in in Cairo speech by approvingly citing the Sura Al-Izra which states that the Muslim(!) prophets Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined peacefully in prayer in Jerusalem.

Also he committed the US government to a general defence of Islamic doctrine in his "The Future Must Not Belong ..." speech before the UN.

Applying the appeals court's standard Obama's waivers should have been null and void because they were political moves establishing a state religion.
Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660   2017-05-26 16:33  

#7  10 more reasons why this shouldn't be a lifetime appointment and their needs to be a method for the people or the states under their circuit to recall their stupid asses.
Posted by: DarthVader   2017-05-26 12:00  

#6  It would be a shame if concerned citizens got in the habit of having unscheduled "talks" with members of the judiciary that demonstrated they were risking our lives without the legal justification to do so.
Posted by: Crusader   2017-05-26 11:54  

#5  10 Dem, 3 Rep nominees
Posted by: Frank G   2017-05-26 11:21  

#4  Makes one wonder if the lawyers on both sides are part of the 'deep state'.
Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance   2017-05-26 10:36  

#3  Even though there remains less than no evidence of any of that within the written travel moratorium, it would not be enough to override the law signed by Harry Truman 65 years ago. It gives the President broad sweeping powers over immigrants, PERIOD.
'When the President decides...'. It does not say that he must decide for a good reason or reason that the self appointed like, only that he decide. Whether they like it or not, religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination' are well within presidential authority. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't but it IS. This is not how you change the Law.
Posted by: Cesare   2017-05-26 09:55  

#2  Except it only effected about 8 Muslim countries out of dozens. Ergo anyone with half a brain can understand it doesn't effect all Muslims. This is just the exercise of power under the guise of ritual. Long past ending life time appointments to our aristocracy, aka judiciary.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2017-05-26 08:48  

#1  Who appointed this miscreants as royalty?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2017-05-26 01:25  

00:00