Friday, March 17, 2017

Seven most important considerations pertaining to Judge Watson's ruling on the travel ban

1.) Where is any reference to previous cases, or the Constitution?

2.) Hawaii has no refugees from the six countries specified in Trump's executive order.

3.) It further obliterates the president's clear legal authority to decide what kinds of persons get to enter our country, and under what terms.

4.) It further obscures the plain fact that non-citizens have no rights that can be guaranteed by US law.

5.) What the hell does Hawaii's tourism industry or its university system have to do with the legal question being decided here?

6.) Ditto whether Hawaii has a "pluralistic and inclusive society"?

7.) How are statements by Trump from when he was a candidate legally relevant to this case?


  1. Read the entire text of Judge Watson's Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order here at

    It's replete with references to the Constitution and references to case law. Where did you get your information?

  2. It's OK, Trump will get this through. He is gonna keep a lot of lawyers and judges busy. Are you gonna cry foul every time you're ruled against, Mr. Now Non-Republican Rightist Always Right, Sir?

  3. I'm going to sound the alarm that West-hating judges are endangering national security and ripping executive authority to shreds every time some ruling like this comes down.

  4. Given- the President to deny entry to a non resident, this non resident has no civil statute rights. Denial of Entry based of place of origin, not given to President, Congressional statute law applies.

  5. It's a 1st Amendment issue that will likely be resolved in Triump's favor.

  6. And Trump is a madman, deserving of being fought in court every step of the way. I know you now disown both him and your former party but, hey where's his evidence for his outrageous tweet that Obama illegally tapped his phones. I hope his Great Wall gets fought in court too. It will certainly be protested, which of course means more fodder for your bile to obscure the issue.

  7. I am not sure it is a 1st amendment issue. I appears to fall under the war power provisions, only congress may intact war. The denial of a countries citizens could be considered a hostile act, there falling under act to declare war.

  8. Michael may not be sure about whether it's a first amemendment issue, but he clearly did not read the Order linked in the first comment above. And also, in response to another of the bloggie's continual fears expressed above, parroting the en vogue view of the Tea Party-like rubes that "West-hating judges are endangering national security and ripping executive authority to shreds," may I present exhibit A from Judge Gorusch's confirmation hearings today: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch seeks distance from Trump administration, says attacks on federal judges 'disheartening.' "I find that demoralizing because I know the truth."