Posted on 02/15/2018 11:52:32 AM PST by EdnaMode
A divided 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday held as unconstitutional President Donald Trump's anti-terrorist travel ban from eight countries, six of them majority-Muslim with a total population of 150 million.
In a 9-4 vote, the Richmond-based court upheld a Maryland district judge's preliminary injunction against the ban taking full effect and ruled that the travel restrictions violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which bars the government establishment of a religion.
“In sum, the face of the Proclamation, read in the context of President Trump’s official statements, fails to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose. To the objective observer, the Proclamation continues to exhibit a primarily religious anti-Muslim objective,” says the majority opinion.
The court stayed its decision pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in a Hawaii case. Last May, the Richmond-based court upheld an injunction against that version of the travel ban in a 10-3 vote.
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said it appears the U.S. Supreme Court may combine this case with one from Hawaii in which a judge ruled against the ban in a decision affirmed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit found the new restrictions failed on statutory grounds, while the 4th Circuit found it violated the Constitution.
Cecillia Wang, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case before the appeals court in December, said in a statement Thursday that, “We will continue this litigation until the Muslim ban is ended once and for all.”
“The Constitution prohibits government actions hostile to a religion," she said.
The new restrictions are aimed at immigrants and visitors from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, all majority Muslim, as well as North Korea and some Venezuelan officials.
So, suddenly the ACLU cares about freedom of religion. So that means a prayer before a football came or public cross is now OK? Right? Right?
Richmond has always been a bastion of liberal/leftist shitheads. These clowns just proved it again.
The Supreme Court will destroy their fallacious argument in about three sentences about Executive/Presidential powers on immigration, national security/defense, and common sense.
What happened to the SCOTUS ruling unequivocally affirming Trump’s EO?
They ought to face disciplinary action. This is judicial misconduct, imho.
Haven’t you heard? Everybody in the world has a constitutional right to come to America and stay. No Executive Orders, laws, or walls can stop it, and if the people don’t like it, they’re a bunch of racists anyway. Who cares what they have to say. That’s in the 55th Amendment, right after a constitutional right to kill babies in the womb (54), invent rights by judicial fiat (53), and wipe your ass on the Constitution if you shed a few tears and get all riled (52), as well as be believed if you’re a woman and alleged a man made you feel uncomfortable, and he has a career to ruin (51).
Exactly.
There is no ‘Muslim’ travel ban. There is a temporary ban against certain countries and regions whose vetting standards are deficient for revealing would-be terrorists or their accomplices.
>
You blurt this impeach nonsense as it’s just so easy. It takes what 3/4 of the Senate to impeach a judge?
Good luck with that, it’ll never happen so let’s save the comment and revert to yes Trump should ignore these rulings and go to the mic and actually proclaim it
>
Maybe you missed the righteous indignation that acknowledges Congress HASN’T done its job.
In fact, not even *tried*
As for being “nonsense”, just because they don’t DO it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be POUNDED the reminder of what they SHOULD do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.