Support NeoGAF

[BoogieWoogie]

Bad wording on my part... point is still that judging the intent based on external statements (as opposed to the actual order) could leave this decision open to appeal.

Well then he has to prove that these countries are in fact a security risk, which he never has. This thing's dead.

 

[LiK]

pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee

Everyone pause to give a slow clap for Stephen Miller, strategic genius, giving court reason to strike down White House travel ban.

he looks like a scummy villain

 

[MrSaturn99]

OH YEAH the rally's tonight, isn't it?

that'll be fun

 

[Black Mamba]

pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee

Everyone pause to give a slow clap for Stephen Miller, strategic genius, giving court reason to strike down White House travel ban.

 

[RDreamer]

It's very possible that this decision could be overturned on appeal, since it's based on statements made during the election process, which judges could easily declare inadmissible or irrelevant. It doesn't really critique the law itself so much as the intent.

It's possible, but I think in order to do that the government has to show that there's a reason outside of that for the ban, and there really isn't anything. Nothing they can show, anyway, and saying it's super secret doesn't really work either because the government's actions throughout have shown it's not really an emergency.

 

[Unison]

Discriminatory intent makes the EO illegal.

The Supreme Court doesn't historically consider intent of laws.

 

[pigeon]

It's very possible that this decision could be overturned on appeal, since it's based on statements made during the election process, which judges could easily declare inadmissible or irrelevant. It doesn't really critique the law itself so much as the intent.

That's the relevant question.

 

[cdyhybrid]

I guess Obama was from Washington State too.

Obama has spies everywhere!

 

[whyamihere]

The Supreme Court doesn't historically consider intent of laws.

To be fair, most politicians aren't this blatant.

 

[Unison]

It's possible, but I think in order to do that the government has to show that there's a reason outside of that for the ban, and there really isn't anything. Nothing they can show, anyway, and saying it's super secret doesn't really work either because the government's actions throughout have shown it's not really an emergency.

Yeah, I hope that an inability to show why these specific countries were chosen is the downfall here, but I could see things theoretically flipping on appeal, especially if there are 5 conservative Supreme Court judges.

Point is, we shouldn't see this as a done deal.

 

[Fancyarcher]

Lol. Is he speaking in Nashville yet?

Will Kidman show up to give him her support?

 

[pigeon]

The Supreme Court doesn't historically consider intent of laws.

Only a few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit commanded otherwise: “It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” Washington, 847 F.3d at 1167–68 (citing Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254–55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose)). The Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not “turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.” McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 866 (2005) (citation and quotation signals omitted).13

Not only do they sometimes, they must in this instance.

 

[Plasmid]

Checks and balances mother fucker. Can't wait to see how he reacts.

 

[jmdajr]

Heh

 

[RDreamer]

This is so good lmao:

And once more because it's still amazing:

 

[Gruco]

You guys I don't want to rush to judgement here but I am beginning to wonder if maybe Donald J Trump, alleged billionaire, reality TV host, and loud twitter enthusiast, maybe just isn't cut out for the job of presidenting.

 

[Squire]

pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee

Everyone pause to give a slow clap for Stephen Miller, strategic genius, giving court reason to strike down White House travel ban.

L

 

[VeryGooster]

Hahaha, Stephen Miller fucked them too. Oh god this is too much schadenfreude!

dat 8th dimensional chess checkers Othello Battleship Connect Four?

 

[Slime]

I don't see how it doesn't go into effect regardless, but at least this will ruin Trump's week.

 

[BronsonLee]

I don't see how it doesn't go into effect regardless, but at least this will ruin Trump's week.

They kinda need the OK from judges to do it

 

[Acorn]

he looks like a scummy villain

*Crummy

He's the James Bond bad guys in real life. Giving away the key to foiling his plans when he thinks he's won.

 

[CreeperBlocks]

Beware the Ides of March Donnie

 

[ezekial45]

I don't see how it doesn't go into effect regardless, but at least this will ruin Trump's week.

This can't go through without federal judges giving the go ahead for this.

 

[KHarvey16]

I don't see how it doesn't go into effect regardless, but at least this will ruin Trump's week.

It can't go into effect with this order in place.

 

[Marquis]

You guys I don't want to rush to judgement here but I am beginning to wonder if maybe Donald J Trump, alleged billionaire, reality TV host, and loud twitter enthusiast, maybe just isn't cut out for the job of presidenting.

Give him another chance ! I really feel like he is getting the hang of this old president thing.

 

[TankRizzo]

Fuck yeah. Hang 10 Hawaii 🤙🏽

 

[Rawr Its Ry]

My state flying dat W
Cheeeeeee

 

[Linkark07]

It sucks to win so much. Trump is such a dealmaker.

 

[Spine_Ripper]

This is so good lmao:

And once more because it's still amazing:

That's the educated way of saying

 

[wisdom0wl]

L

 

[WedgeX]

Damn good.

 

[BlackGhost]

these campaign style rallies though......

 

[Carn82]

To quote Ice-T: Talk shit, get shot.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

You guys I don't want to rush to judgement here but I am beginning to wonder if maybe Donald J Trump, alleged billionaire, reality TV host, and loud twitter enthusiast, maybe just isn't cut out for the job of presidenting.

Hold your horses...let's at least give the guy a chance first.

 

[Tamanon]

Excellent

 

[Trouble]

 

[Slime]

They kinda need the OK from judges to do it

It's not likely to survive an appeal though, is it? I thought this one was airtight and the intent argument would just keep it blocked temporarily.

 

[Justin Bailey]

For the first time in his life, Trump is seeing that the words he says actually have consequences. He's never been accountable to anything before.

This almost makes me happy he's president. It's the only way he would learn this lesson (that the rest of us learned in kindergarten).

 

[KHarvey16]

It's not likely to survive an appeal though, is it? I thought this one was airtight and the intent argument would just keep it blocked temporarily.

If it were objectively "air tight" we wouldn't have this ruling.

 

[BlazinSkatinAxel]

To quote Ice-T: Talk shit, get shot.

It's Lemonade.

L.

 

[Applesauce]

Juuuuuust a bit outside, he tried the corner and missed

 

[pigeon]

It's not likely to survive an appeal though, is it? I thought this one was airtight and the intent argument would just keep it blocked temporarily.

The court is finding that the EO is likely to be found in violation of the Establishment Clause because the intent is to discriminate based on religion.

That's not going to go away. It is actually illegal to discriminate based on religion!

 

[BronsonLee]

It's not likely to survive an appeal though, is it? I thought this one was airtight and the intent argument would just keep it blocked temporarily.

Nah this is just them trying again but they're fucked for right now

It's Lemonade.

L.

Read the sign

READ IT

 

[Dai101]

dat 8th dimensional chess checkers Othello Battleship Connect Four?

You mean tic-tac-toe

 

[Slime]

If it were objectively "air tight" we wouldn't have this ruling.

The court is finding that the EO is likely to be found in violation of the Establishment Clause because the intent is to discriminate based on religion.

That's not going to go away. It is actually illegal to discriminate based on religion!

Nah this is just them trying again but they're fucked for right now

Good to know.

 

[metalslimer]

Lmao the lack of logic being palpable. Throwing those ls down hard

 

[How About No]

pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee

Everyone pause to give a slow clap for Stephen Miller, strategic genius, giving court reason to strike down White House travel ban.

Steve Miller Band > Steve Miller's Ban! AHAHA

loloolloolololool

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

Noice!

 

[MetroidPrimeRib]

lol the statement is essentially "We read this and its extremely apparent in how unconstitutional it still is"

 

[rokkerkory]

Oops best negotiator