In a decision published Thursday morning, another federal judge in Maryland specifically blocked the 90-day ban on immigration for citizens of six Muslim-majority countries.

Source

Now three judges have ruled against the new ban so I assume Trump's team failed to do their homework properly?

The more this goes on, the more I'm on Trumps' side. How can it be that a single (unelected) judge with an axe to grind can decide what is ok and what is not? Based on "considering context", one judge considers it "ok" and another judge considers the same thing to be "not ok". This is becoming less about the law and more about personal opinion. (Not in Trumps case of course, it always was personal).

If the President is not above the law, then neither are the Judges. This is no longer about interpretations of the law.

It's quite a bit more complicated. The ruling doesn't use old news, instead it uses past statements as supporting evidence for one possible intent behind the EO.

Consider someone accusing you of personal violence. If you have in the past repeatedly threatened to beat said person up, those statements are likely to be considered in court and increase the chance of a verdict against you. Likewise the POTUS' public announcements of a muslim ban.

The government says the EO is a matter of national security but fails to provide sufficient evidence. Since the EO is based on religion it potentially infringes on the first amendment; given past statements by DT makes it likely that this is the actual intent so it needs to be blocked.

It's worth noting that, in other words and as I understand it, infringing on the 1st amendment may actually be Ok provided there's a strong enough objective reason.

As for a ruling by a single judge:
It's three to zero by now, that's pretty convincing in itself. If that were an issue the verdict could be challenged and taken to the federal court, where it would be ruled on by multiple judges, all elected by former POTUS (by then it may include Trump-elected federal judge Gorsuch).

Its exactly about interpretations of the law.

Trump is not an expert on the Law regarding his EOs. He has a team that is. But, since his team are so close to him (and chosen by him), it makes no sense to only have them checking the legality of EOs. He and his team simply do not understand the body and nuances of Law well enough to be able to interpret laws into EOs.

It is precisely because the judges are not elected officials but rather appointed experts, that they are free to challenge Trump without significant repercussion - if they were subject to repercussion, they would not be able to interpret law without fear and with impartiality. They have no fear of upsetting him, because he cannot fire them like he can fire his own team. Thus, they need not pander to his whims.

These are men and women who have studied law to a degree high enough to be considered experts by the elected officials. They are far more knowledgeable that trump or his team, which is why they have the power to stay the EOs.

It represents the 3 branches of government keeping each other in check - in this case it is the Judicial Branch keeping the Executive Branch in check.

@Urs Max and @J2488 - thanks for taking the time to explain it.

It still seems to be a case of "I like the guy so I interpret the EO this way" and "I don't like the guy so I interpret the EO this way..."

Now, we all do this to a certain extent, but this could become dangerous. Trump may as well resign now because he said enough things in the recent past to upset just about everybody.

Here's an interesting depiction of the preliminary budget proposal.


Definitely a lot of topics to argue over


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...2018-proposal/


A couple I like, a bunch I don't like, but a lot of information up for debate.

I'll start by saying I'm not a constitutional expert. But this question has been raised recently, mostly with respect to Hillary Clinton and whether she could pardon herself if elected.

Pardon - Yes, at least in theory Trump could pardon himself for crimes against the federal government, but he could still be tried for state offenses. No president has ever pardoned himself, although Ford pardoned Nixon. Clinton could have pardoned himself for his perjury, but he didn't.

Impeached and removed from office - Yes, because the pardon clause in the constitution specifically excludes impeachment.

Here are a few interesting reads:
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/if-hillar...t-be-helpless/

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-President-pardon-himself

Now, Trump has shown himself to be unconventional on many levels. I would not be surprised if he pardoned himself from all past and future crimes when he leaves office

McDonald's Bantz:

Just more fake news by loz giving the impression this was sent by McD.

I believe it.

I mean, theres loads of photos of his hands, They are embarrassingly small.

It was sent out by Maccys. I never implied anything.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...rump/99246946/
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/16/mcdon...ump-tweet.html

"one judge considers it "ok" " Do you have a source for your statement, I have not seen any judge rule this is OK so far?

"single (unelected) judge" unelected? U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson; the Senate unanimously confirmed Watson's appointment in a 94-to-0 vote.

"This is no longer about interpretations of the law." Can you support your statement in any way or is it simply your view?

Lol...one of the twitter responses is, and i am deadly serious:

"I'm boycotting McDonalds. I dont eat there anyway".

from a gent named "Phins/Yanks/MAGA"

Which just exemplifies the level of basic vocabulary knowledge the average trump supporter has.

I do not see anything about improving the infrastructure which I thought was a good Trump idea; maybe it is buried in there somewhere?

Lol. The very first words of your link say:

Hacked Account...

By that logic, if I stole Charlton Heston's gun and shot Snoop Dogg, then I'm off the hook, as Charlton did it.

I disagree. Remember when Sarah Palin put crosshairs on certain districts leading inadvertently to one of those district politicians being shot? I feel Snoop's video can have the same affect.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-pa...n-target-list/

I heard that the judge considered Trump's words during his campaign and specially that he asked Guillani "how can I make this (Muslim ban) legal?"

Stephen Miller is scary!

I am a progressive liberal. Can anyone recommend some reputable conservative (centre right) publications/sites/shows in US to check my natural bias. I've found my go-tos on progressive left.

Adding to 3 Wishes' post:

I, too, am not an expert in anything, certainly not law, much less the very complex field of US constitutional law. So for some insights to the question, I'll direct you to 9 people who actually are:

Summary of the Supreme Court decision in Clinton v Jones, 1997:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html

(Links to the full opinion, delivered by Justice Stevens, and the concurring opinion by Justice Breyer.)

Quoting from the article:

"The court explained that the President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens, that no case had been found in which an official was granted immunity from suit for his unofficial acts, and that the rationale for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue. The court also rejected the argument that, unless immunity is available, the threat of judicial interference with the Executive Branch would violate separation of powers."


Wikipedia gives a pretty clear and concise background to the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Note that the constitutional question before the SC was not the suit itself, but whether or not a sitting president could be sued for actions unrelated to his official duties as president.

However, one should note that another case where a sitting president is sued over events not related to his official activities as president, or for events that took place prior to taking office, would likely be looked at on it's individual circumstances and merits.

Ahh the unabashed snobbery.

Isn't that what gifted DJT the presidency?

The Trump/Russia story keeps giving
Source