In Major Blow to ACLU, Judge Finds Trump Immigration Ban Doesn't Discriminate Against Muslims

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-in-major-blow-to-aclu-judge-finds-trump-immigration-ban-doesnt-discriminate-against-muslims/ ^ | 6:05 pm, February 3rd, 2017 | by Rachel Stockman

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

Arghavan Louhghalam et al v. Trump 5
Uploaded by LawNewz

https://www.scribd.com/document/338353094/Arghavan-Louhghalam-et-al-v-Trump-5#from_embed

[jazminerose]

Well, it’s obvious in its face that it doesn’t discriminate against muslims.

[manc]

So why are we abiding by the Seattle judge who clearly is doing this for political reasons?

[PJBankard]

“The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is largely immune from judicial control,” the judge wrote (citations omitted). In other words, the President has the right to make immigration decisions, without interference from the courts.

Most important part.

[Reno89519]

Tell that to the 9th Circuit.

[stormhill]

Makes you wonder if ACLU actually understands the concept of "Law" I mean, which part of "Plenary Power" is it that these Marxists don't understand?

"Election have consequences" anyone?

[butlerweave]

Tell that to the 9th Circuit

Oh come on ,the 9th Circuit have to consult with Master Soros before they do anything

[ZULU]

This happened BEFORE the judge in WASHINGTON State ordered the 90 day hold.

[ZULU]

This happened BEFORE the judge in WASHINGTON State ordered the 90 day hold.

[Yo-Yo]

So why are we abiding by the Seattle judge who clearly is doing this for political reasons?

Good flippin' question.

And what gives a Seattle federal judge jurisdiction over DC?

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

I posted this to post case transcript

Planned admissions of refugees to U.S. for fiscal year 2017
is 110,000

The temporary ban for 120 days ending May 27th does not affect American citizens:
The order didn’t affect immigrants from the seven countries who had U.S. citizenship and travelled with their American passports.

Green card holders: In the ban’s initial days, there was much confusion over whether citizens of the seven countries with documents proving U.S. permanent residency – widely known as “green cards” – would be barred or not. Border officials detained several green-card holders at airports, but after public outcry over the executive order, the White House and Homeland Security changed tack, saying permanent residents could still cross the border. But the order also gave border officials broad powers to screen and question visitors, and Mr. Kelly, the Homeland Security chief, said permanent residency would be a “dispositive factor in our case-by-case determination.”

[Carry me back]

We can discriminate against any group we want to. They aren’t protected under the constitution.

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

I’m curious id the 120 hold will begin AFTER 90 day hold?

[manc]

My question too. A Seattle judge overrules the President about immigration law , and then states his ruling is for the country!!!

[arthurus]

IT DOESN”T MATTER!!!!!Non citizens do not have any right to be treated equally or fairly. They are not CITIZENS.

[arthurus]

ACLU is big on “Critical Law” from “Critical Legal Studies” which course every aspiring attorney is required to take. CLS is a course in how to use the Law to destroy the whole concept of Law and convert the legal system into the Rules of the Case system.

[DoughtyOne]

They understand fully.

Out of 100 cases filed, they’ll get five idiots that don’t know the laws of the land.

Then they score.

[Principled]

I hope his judge has some kind of deterrent consequence for making a ruling not based on law but politics.

[lodi90]

LawNewz is garbage, IMO.