2 federal judges find new Trump travel ban discriminatory

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    March 19, 2017 6:49 p.m.

    I'm afraid that many in America today would not even welcome their own ancestors, if they saw them on the street.

    The main difference is that our ancestors made life decisions, and sacrifices, for future generations. Many, today, only think of themselves.

    Immigrants are a vital part of America.

    As FDR said, the "only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Frightened people are dangerous and behave more like animals than children of God. I question whether America can still call itself the home of the brave.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 18, 2017 11:26 p.m.

    Once we get our new Supreme Court appointment this sort of political activism can stop!! The constitution and government of the people by the people is broken right now until this nonsense stops from these Obama-judges. The president does have the authority to halt immigration and the supreme court must rule and stop these lower court activisits from playing political hate-Trump games.

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    March 17, 2017 1:48 p.m.

    I find it interesting that reports that are contrary to this article are not part of local media and of course the MSM.

    A U.S. Federal circuit court judge Nathaniel Gorton upheld Trumps travel ban. An ACLU atty asked why when the president has made past derogatory remarks towards muslims.

    The judge replied, "am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after an election as part of this executive order". The Judge further asked if muslims were mentioned in the EO? The atty said no.

    The judge asked where did the list of 7 countries come from? The atty replied from the law passed in 2015 that was amended in 2016 regarding citizens of those 7 countries tied to terrorist attacks in Europe at the time.

    The judge said only 12.5% of the worlds muslims come from those 7 countries. The then said, "the EO provides reasonable and concievable state of facts concerning national security that could provide a rational basis for the classification".

    As ordered, the court declines to impose any injuctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order on jan 28, 2017.

    This proves judicial overreach in non-party injuction rulings nationwide, see my prev post's.

  • jeclar2006 Oceanside, CA
    March 17, 2017 12:34 p.m.

    I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of labeling this latest court action as 'judicial overreach' or complaining that a District Judge made a 'national' injunction on Trump's Executive Order. When a Texas District judge ordered a 'national' injunction against Obama's Executive Order on Transgender rights, and nary a word of complaint from the current crowd of complainers.

    Taxes... Social Security for years was not presented as a 'tax'... guess what... it has been a tax ever since it was put into place. Medicare is a tax. The tax associated ACA is a tax.

    If it were up to me, I'd pay taxes for medical and old age support far sooner than military adventures in far of lands, making such a mess that one has to deal with refugees in the first place.

    Refugees. The US provided safe haven for 100s of thousands of Vietnamese Refugees in the 1970s, with general benefit to all, despite the fact that 'some could be crypto communists'.

    I think many even found permanent homes in Utah.

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    March 17, 2017 10:37 a.m.

    I really hope citizens of this great country realise what is going on hear.

    This type of ruling coming down from a 9th circuit district judge is unprecidented in the fact that a district judge has no authority to pass ruling beyond that of his own district.
    Non-party nationwide injunctions are not supposed to happen, its called Principals of Comity. In this case a district court is compeled not to grant national relief to non party plaintiffs beyond those plaintiffs set before them. In doing so it would create tensions and confusion in other districts, in case where a moderately liberal judge upheld Trump's executive order in Boston.

    Further more the constitution does not protect citizens of other countries it never has. Immigrants or refugee's does not matter, the constitution only takes affect when you are here, and individuals who are not citizens do not get full constitutional rights, although the left wants us to believe that.

    Therefore president Trump is within his right constitutionally to pass executive orders to protect this country even from percieved threats no matter how controversial they are, even when its regarding immigration other presidents have.

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    March 17, 2017 9:04 a.m.

    All of these comments and post's are a perfect example of how devisive this country has become, thanks to the previous administration, and liberal school of thought.

    Lets let every tom, dick and harry from other countries where their prodominant religion specifically states to kill the infidel (thats us), and allow them into our country and take over like rats from a colonial scooner. Look at Dearborn Michigan folks if you havnt heard what is going there thanks to our liberal emmigration laws then maybe you should go pay a visit.

    Lets put it this way, Dearborn Michigan is little downtown Baghdad and if you are not a muslim then you are not welcome there. They do not allow other religions to prosolyte on the streets there, they discriminate against everyone not a muslim.

    This is what we are allowing to enter the country.

    I'm fine with emmigration, but we should expect emmigrants to comply with our laws and assymilate into our society.

    Why is it that I hear its just the liberal judges that are shooting down the travel bans. If it was so controversial and unconstitutional then why arent we hearing rulings from other judges that dont pass judgement based on political slant.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    March 17, 2017 8:30 a.m.

    @Military Mom.
    A total red herring. But, I'll play.

    Of the 93 gun deaths per day, 58 killed themselves. 1 is purely an accident, and 1 is suicide by police. Of the 33 remaining deaths, the vast majority occur in certain parts of inner cities most everyone knows to avoid. Many of these incidents involve alcohol or drugs. Additionally, minorities are involved at a much higher rate than their percentage of the population.

    So, unless you live in a dangerous part of the inner city, use drugs or alcohol, and are not white, your probability of being killed by gun are really, really significantly less than you imply.

    When you look at the details behind the red herring statistics you cite, even they don't make the point you intended to make.

  • military mom Herriman, UT
    March 17, 2017 7:30 a.m.

    Just a few inconvenient facts in response to some of the comments here:

    -since 2001, the chances of being killed by a refugee in the U.S. are 1 in 3.64 billion

    -93 people die of gun violence in the U.S. every day

    My chances of being killed by a fellow citizen with a gun in a theater or church or school or anywhere else are exponentially higher than being killed by a refugee (about 1 in 25,000). If the president is really concerned about keeping me safe (and not just banning Muslims and other refugees), his priorities should be elsewhere.

    -

  • RRB SLC, UT
    March 16, 2017 10:25 p.m.

    ABC News reported on the six month Iraqi refugee freeze in 2013, it took place in 2011.

    "As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets."

    Trumps executive action was the same as Obama's Presidential memorandum that Obama used to create the DACA, this was not a trial, but a judicial review to see if it was legal, or it hurt Hawaii. The judge ruled it hurt Hawaii.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:21 p.m.

    @RRB

    "What Trump said was in the heat of the election, the judge has to decide the case on merit. What Trump said was irrelevant to his current ban. That is what the judge has to rule on."

    Its called "Party Admission" which permits one party to offer the out-of-court statement of any opponent party. As I stated before if Trumps attorneys wanted to object to the party admission the time to do so would have been at the time in court rather then by third parties expos factos in a DN comment section. I would suspect the reason they did not do so was because they now the law and know the law and know that his comments were admissible and also know that it would weigh in the judges final decision.

    not sure how you get a reevaluation is the same as a ban and therefore "making your point,"

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:16 p.m.

    When Saudi Arabia is added to the list, it will prove trump means what he says about potential terrorists. Until then, it's just a Muslim ban.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:10 p.m.

    For those who work for someone else or whose kids attend school (most of us) adjusting our schedules is not so simple. Businesses adjusting their hours would also create major issues for those whose business requires interactions outside the immediate community.

    Those who suggest others change schedules, can just as easily change their own schedule to ignore the time change, no?

    Most polls that show a dislike for "DST" actually reveal a dislike to adjusting the clocks. Most people would like to stay on DST year round. But the federal government doesn't permit that.

    States can stay on standard time year round, or they can observe the clock change.

    Arizona is further south than Utah and so has days of more consistent length throughout the year. The extreme heat also means that much of Arizona culture is geared toward recreation after the sun sets and things cool off. Most of Utah culture prefers to have daylight after work for outdoor activities.

    DST year round would be great.

    Making the change from between Standard Time and DST on Friday instead of Saturday is an excellent idea.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    March 16, 2017 6:18 p.m.

    "Hey Gary O
    You infer Trump is a loser. Please list your accomplishments so that we can compare yours with President Trump."

    I'll bite. A successful marriage to one woman. As wise person once said, "No other success can compensate for failure in the home."

  • RRB SLC, UT
    March 16, 2017 4:20 p.m.

    Tolstoy

    Obama put a freeze on Iraq's (Muslim) for 6 months, longer than Trump wanted. Thanks for proving my point, the press just ignored it and Carter's (also Muslim).

    What Trump said was in the heat of the election, the judge has to decide the case on merit. What Trump said was irrelevant to his current ban. That is what the judge has to rule on.

    Democrats are willing to risk national security to gain a few brownie points (sorry Brownies)

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 16, 2017 3:26 p.m.

    @RRB

    Obama ordered a reevaluation of a specific group refugees following a specific report that certain terrorist had tried to infiltrated the Iraqi system and more importantly he did not go on nation television, radio stations and mass rallies calling for a total Muslim ban and then try to "walk it back," to a refugee ban.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    March 16, 2017 3:07 p.m.

    President Carter banned Iranians, who were Muslim. Obama put a temporary ban on Iraq, a Muslim country. This is cherry picking. They know that without a full Supreme Court it will probably not be overturned. It's a slap in the face to Trump, and with the majority of Americans wanting a pause on refugees until the vetting can be tightened, it just makes the resentment grow.

    There are many more Muslim countries that are not banned, proof that the ban is regioal not religious.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 16, 2017 2:58 p.m.

    @barfolomew

    Just to help clarify my earlier post

    "There's a concept in the Rules of Evidence called 'Party Admission,' " said longtime lawyer Mark MacDougall. "When you make a statement that's unfriendly to your case, it can be used against you in court. That's why all good lawyers tell their clients to keep their mouths shut. That's your first conversation."

  • roseparkT Salt Lake City, UT
    March 16, 2017 2:36 p.m.

    Countries on ban list ID'd by Obama administration as those who don't have the ability to provide verifiable information to adequately pass a back ground check by U.S. standards.

    Most Muslim countries not included on ban list and they still are able to immigrate from their respective countries due to verifiable background information. There are 49 Muslim majority countries in the world - saw 1 statistic stating 51 muslim countries in the world. 6 included in President Trump's ban, that's approx 12% folks.

    Media/liberals in this country dishonestly continuing to propagate talking points on this issue to sway public opinion.

    I don't see a problem here.

    Go Trump!! MAGA!!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 16, 2017 2:30 p.m.

    @barfolomew

    I understand what you are saying, however as a part of their argument the sates refuted the claims by the administration that the order was based on national security interest they argued that past statements by the president and his segregates demonstrated that the order was based in animus rather then national interest. If the administration wanted that strike that argument from the Judges consideration the time to objet would have been when the argument was made so the judge could rule on its admissibility. Once it becomes a part of the arguments accepted then it is not only acceptable but expected that the judge will take those arguments into consideration in their ruling.

  • Husker1 Northern Utah County, UT
    March 16, 2017 2:26 p.m.

    @Ernest "Give specific examples: How & when did President Obama lie to get around the Constitution?"

    I said Obama used lies and deceit. I already gave one example. He claimed ACA was not a tax (to sway public opinion) but the SC ruled it is a tax. We could get into dozens of issues involving free speech, the military, etc. He used XO's when he knew the other two branches of government would not support him.

    The problem is that liberals and conservatives have differing opinions of what constitutes honesty. I believe things like candor and transparency are included. Liberals will defend Obama on any issue no matter how obvious his lies and deceit.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    March 16, 2017 2:14 p.m.

    I think when I read some of these comments printed here that this country has gone completely nuts. European nations (Germany, for one) regret allowing all the Muslim refugees in their borders because those people ultimately want SHARIA LAW! That's the bottom line!

    Good grief! Get a grip! I want to uphold our Constitution. When interviewed, many of these same folks right here in the U.S. truly want to be governed by Sharia Law. I say if they don't want to assimilate as U.S. citizens and abide by our established laws, don't allow them into our country. i.e., 911, Boston Bombers, San Bernadino, Fort Hood, etc.

    Our former president did a great job of dividing our beautiful country...class against class, law enforcement against our citizens, poor vs. wealth, LBGT against normal, any minority against anyone else, liberal against conservative, entitlements, snowflakes. President Trump was elected by people to bring us back together. Give him a chance.

    And let him protect us in the mean time!

  • There You Go Again St George, UT
    March 16, 2017 1:56 p.m.

    Mr. trump the re-Publican heart, soul and face of that Political Machine/Cartel throws a tantrum because he can't bend the COTUS to suit his needs.

    Thank goodness Americans have a judiciary which does not function as a rubber stamp for trump who has the entire re-Publican Political Machine/Cartel scared spitless of him and his base.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 16, 2017 1:52 p.m.

    Hey Gary O
    You infer Trump is a loser. Please list your accomplishments so that we can compare yours with President Trump.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    March 16, 2017 1:48 p.m.

    Crits 1
    Trads 0

    But Trump is no quitter. Stay tuned for the next round.

    Meanwhile, did you hear Trump ordered all refugees to Hawaii for resettlement?

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    March 16, 2017 1:28 p.m.

    RRB quoted: "U.S. CODE: See 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.

    But they were cherry picking the scripture they wanted and ignored the "whole."

    ...another section of the law clearly bans discrimination against certain classes. 
    Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the INA states that except in cases specified by Congress in section 101(a)(27):
    …no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

    While section 212 grants the president a general power to exclude certain immigrants, section 202 limits this power. Note that this section does not prevent discrimination based on religious affiliation, political belief, or ideology, but Trump’s new policy would run afoul of at least one if not all three of those last three restrictions—nationality, place of birth, or place of residence—depending on how it was applied.

    That's why they're judges, they understand the"Whole" law and how it is, or is not, constitutional, but if you want drop outs on the radio or in alt right news to inform you than you will continue to be misled.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    March 16, 2017 1:25 p.m.

    The White House is essentially trying to replicate the executive order struck down earlier. They admit that. It's tinkering with the letter of the law to skirt the law itself.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 16, 2017 1:23 p.m.

    @husker1:
    Give specific examples: How & when did President Obama lie to get around the Constitution? Those "activist judges" that conservatives hate so much would have prevented it. Because, it's their jobs to do so.
    So, be specific, when and how did President Obama lie to get around the Constitution?
    The thing I've noticed about you guys is that you make vague claims but can never back them up with facts when pushed. That becomes the way the fake news network and AM radio victimizes the right wing, make vague claims that never include facts.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    March 16, 2017 1:10 p.m.

    The non college educated, extremist demographic once again ranting regarding "activist judges". Possibly partake in a university level political science class. Better yet obtain a law degree!

  • barfolomew TOOELE, UT
    March 16, 2017 1:04 p.m.

    @ Prometheus Platypus

    "This was all on Trump and his big mouth, quit blaming the judge for playing back what Trump and his surrogates said during the campaign, and using his own words against him."

    I think you've missed the point. A judge is obligated to rule on the merits of the case. In this instance, the merits of the Executive Order. Even more to the point, in this case, he was obligated to rule whether or not the order harmed the Hawaiian economy since that was what they claimed. To base his ruling on something the President said in the past should not be considered.

    How many times have judges thrown out evidence in criminal cases that brought up a suspect's past record or things he might have said in the past? Judges will routinely rule that the trial/hearing will be based on the merits of the case and not past circumstances.

    This (and the previous case against the prior Executive Order) were purely political rulings and have nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    March 16, 2017 12:50 p.m.

    "U.S. CODE: See 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.

    "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. "

    It's not Trump this or Trump that, it's Democrats playing politics.

  • rdean92 Los Angeles, CA
    March 16, 2017 12:26 p.m.

    First, everyone really should read the brief before commenting. and, second, it was the State of Hawaii that is looking for "relief". Not foreigners, not Muslims etc. This is how our court system works. Do you expect the judges to just say.. "oh well Trump said it so I must agree". This Judge was actually following the law (if you understand the law). Hawaii believes the "tourists" are already screened properly and imply that it is because the are Muslim that Trump has signed this 2nd order.. If we don't have what Trump said to rely on, then what do we rely on? Trump already said he wanted to keep Muslims from the USA. What if Trump said I want to ban Mormons and the judge ruled it was unconstitutional? Would you still call him an activist judge?

  • Husker1 Northern Utah County, UT
    March 16, 2017 12:26 p.m.

    @Ernest "For eight years conservative kept claiming President Obama was ignoring the Constitution yet they can't point to anything specific."

    Obama knew how to get around the Constitution with lies and deceit. See Obamacare. It's not a tax...but it is.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 16, 2017 12:21 p.m.

    Why does Donald Trump lose so often?

    The answer is obvious, isn't it?

    . . . "He's a loser." - Donald J Trump

    “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault” – Donald J Trump

    Hey Vermonter -

    RE: "These lower court judges are effectively erasing US borders, at least for politically-correct groups of people."

    Ha!

    Meanwhile, perennially INCORRECT “groups of people” respect and revere our incredibly weak and ineffective illegitimate President, Donald (I admire Putin) Trump.

    How can such a brilliant man (in the words of Donald Trump) not be a winner?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    March 16, 2017 12:04 p.m.

    I'm not sure what the right ruling is supposed to be on this. I feel like the first version was supposed to be rejected but this one is supposed to be allowed. I think it's really bad policy that would only cause more harm than it's allegedly trying to prevent, but just being a stupid idea doesn't make it unconstitutional.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    March 16, 2017 11:57 a.m.

    @bass679.
    This is different than Obamacare. Several congress-people who participated in crafting the Obamacare clearly said numerous times that payment to the government for those not purchasing health insurance was a "penalty" and not a "tax." (An Obamacare "tax" was politically unacceptable most voters back then.)

    Chief Justice Roberts, eager to avoid a political fight with President Obama, reasoned that the Obamacare "penalty" functioned like a "tax" and was therefore a tax. (If the Obamacare-required payment was a "penalty," it would have been unconstitutional and whole law would have been invalidated.)

    What CJ Roberts did not do was look at previous public statements by those who drafted Obamacare. Had he done so, Roberts would have been compelled to strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional.

    For Judge Watson and Robarts to do what CJ Roberts did, they would have had to say that the Trump travel ban functions like a Muslim ban, which is pretty absurd. All Muslims with proper visas can travel freely to the US, and the vast majority of Muslims with no visa can apply for refugee status and be granted such status if their circumstances warrant it.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    March 16, 2017 11:49 a.m.

    "Boston Bombers at least one was a Refugee."

    Yeah - he was from Russia. Trump does too much business with Russia to protect us from Russia - you know, kinda like Saudi Arabia. If you think that Trump will ever include Russia in a travel ban - I have a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl that I will sell you below invoice.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    March 16, 2017 11:39 a.m.

    Sorry Donald but nobody ever said being an Autocrat would be easy.

  • The Pug Life Lindon, UT
    March 16, 2017 11:18 a.m.

    Look, the executive order is unnecessary... refugees go through a very intense vetting process already. However, we are on terribly shaky ground when judges get to make pronouncements on law based upon how they feel about something the president said during the campaign. Trump is right on one point here: this is judicial overreach. Constitutional protections don't apply to non-citizens (immigrants) and the person who brought the suit has no standing in the legal case. The judge contorted the requirements so that the case could be brought before him, and then contorted the constitution to make it mean something it clearly does not.
    Trump's executive order, again, seems really stupid. But this judge is trampling constitutional law in order to fight something that really won't make much difference in the end. The courts are really out of order on this one.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 16, 2017 10:43 a.m.

    For eight years conservative kept claiming President Obama was ignoring the Constitution yet they can't point to anything specific.
    Now that trump is actively attacking the Constitution at ever step, they suddenly have amnesia and ignore the fact that the Courts must uphold the Constitution and not a tweet from the president.
    Let's be honest, conservatives only claim a love for the Constitution when a Dem is in the White House. When a repub tramples all over it, they suddenly blame "activist judges" for simply doing their jobs.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 16, 2017 10:34 a.m.

    the White House needs to fast forward this to the US Supreme Court and bypass all these liberal federal activist judges. This is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions needs to take the lead on this and just put this to rest. Enough with the silly games.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    March 16, 2017 10:14 a.m.

    This was all on Trump and his big mouth, quit blaming the judge for playing back what Trump and his surrogates said during the campaign, and using his own words against him.

    How many times do we have to hear you trump fans, blame everyone but the person who responsible for his own problems.

    The "He didn't say that" after we listened to him say it, or watched him shout it, isn't convincing anyone but those who still trust the most dishonest president ever.

    The thinly veiled attempt at a "Muslim Ban" by changing the name, is something a child would try and get past a parent, why do we keep tolerating such a petulant child as our president.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 16, 2017 10:02 a.m.

    Airnaut you say:The only 'muslim' terrorists from other countries were the 9/11 terrorists, who were from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is not even on the list.

    Wrong on many counts. Somali Refugee Sept 2016 in St Cloud MN. knife attack wounds nine Americans.

    Somali Refugee Ohio State University. Car attack and knife attack wounds eleven Americans.

    Boston Bombers at least one was a Refugee.

    There are more.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 16, 2017 10:02 a.m.

    Words have meaning and humans have Civil Rights.
    trump cannot get around either of those.
    @JMHO: what are the consequences going to be? None of those countries have ever produced terrorists who have attacked the US. Every country already has extensive background checks before they can come.
    This is all about a Muslim ban because trump voters don't like Muslims.
    A tweet from the president is not law. We can only hope in the next four years he finally figures that out.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    March 16, 2017 9:57 a.m.

    A defeat for Trump is a defeat for America.

    The people of Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, England, and Australia would all agree.

  • Cheesecake Salt Lake City, UT
    March 16, 2017 9:47 a.m.

    So grateful that we still have judges who uphold the constitution. At this point they are the only ones protecting us from an overzealous authoritarian executive branch. God bless political moderates who recognize the dangers of extremism on all sides of the political spectrum. And God Bless America!

  • bass679 Novi, MI
    March 16, 2017 9:40 a.m.

    @JMHO
    They did, that's actually why it was upheld. During the deliberations on the ACA there were several elements that the court said were invalid as written but that their intent was clearly different based on what had been said by the writers of the law.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 16, 2017 9:32 a.m.

    It's nice to see him get smacked down on this solution in search of a problem. He tagged it early on as a Muslim ban, and so did Rudy G.
    Maybe bragging about xenophobia wasn't a good idea, but I doubt he'll learn.

  • JMHO Kanab, UT
    March 16, 2017 9:18 a.m.

    I don't understand why the courts consider what President Trump said on the campaign trail on this ruling, but said it had to ignore what President Obama said about the ACA before it passed.

    Seems like this will be similar to the nuclear option. The liberals are all happy now, but the unintended consequences down the road are going to be outrageous.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    March 16, 2017 9:14 a.m.

    Liberal-leaning legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz said the same exact Executive Order issued by Barack Obama would be upheld by the courts reasoning since Obama never said he wanted to ban Muslims.

    The argument that the partial travel ban on immigrants from the six countries named is going to hurt the Hawaii economy is specious. Now if they decided to ban travelers from Japan and Asia, they would have quite significant point.

  • John in Denver Brighton, CO
    March 16, 2017 9:09 a.m.

    President Trump's travel bans might not have even been challenged if he hadn't stated so many times that he was going to prevent Muslims from coming into the country. And in the court challenges that have happened there would have been less cause for suspicion if he hadn't made so many anti-Muslim statements. President Trump appears to have "shot himself in the foot" on this one.

  • FelisConcolor Layton, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:39 a.m.

    "Thank goodness there are three branches of government. That way a power hungry person cannot exceed the scope of his or her office."

    Yep, that sure saved us these past 8 years, when President Obama repeatedly suffered 9-0 smackdowns at the hands of the Supreme Court when he grossly overreached his authority on issues of immigration, religious freedom, and environmental regulation.

    In fact, the Obama Administration lost more cases at the Supreme Court than any other president in recent US history. He suffered more unanimous losses (23) than George Bush (15), that supposed Despoiler of the American Way.

    His overall winning percentage in cases argued by his administration in front of the Supreme Court was a pathetic 48%, compared to Bush (60%), Clinton (63%), Bush Sr. (70%), and Reagan (75%).

    Either the Democrats have worse lawyers than Republicans, or the Obama Administration was exceptionally power-hungry and needed to be restrained more often by the courts.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 16, 2017 8:18 a.m.

    Those 'thinking' Trump is protecting you from evil terrorists with this ban are being played.

    This is not ONE shred of evidence showing refugees cause terrorism.

    The judges ruled based on Donald Trump's own words - 'a total ban on Muslims'.

    The only 'muslim' terrorists from other countries were the 9/11 terrorists, who were from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is not even on the list.

    The ban lacks legal merit.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    March 16, 2017 8:14 a.m.

    I think this just shows how politically slanted the judiciary is in every aspect. After eight years of political appointees to the bench it is leaning far to the left in activism. It does not bode well for the Republic when decisions, such as this one, absolutely flies in the face of the law.

  • raqueb Provo, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:13 a.m.

    @ute alumni
    I don't see why everyone thinks that immigrants and refugees don't already go through an intense vetting process. The vetting process in the United States already takes 1-3 years, begins with a vetting at the UN and then goes through several US security agencies. Honestly, I don't know how much more extreme we could go without violating the constitution.

  • FelisConcolor Layton, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:09 a.m.

    It's heartening to see liberals like UtahBlueDevil being honest enough to recognize that even though Trump might have lost the battle, he is going to eventually win the war.

    There is nothing unconstitutional about restricting immigration, and eventually higher courts will realize that they have no authority to overturn this policy and put a stop to these court cases. Especially since previous presidents have instituted identical travel bans in the past with nary a peep of objection.

    In the meantime, the majority of the voters will see these liberal judges acting out of pure partisan spite by blocking the popular will on border security, and trust the Democrats even less on immigration issues.

    As I have predicted several times here, Trump will win in a landslide in 2020. And the Congress will remain firmly in Republican hands in 2018. The Democrats are slowly sliding into irrelevance.

  • JLindow St George, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:09 a.m.

    Muslim Ban 2.0 is less lawless and haphazardly implemented than Muslim Ban 1.0, but it's still a Muslim ban and as such is unconstitutional.

    Judges don't even need to go back to Trump calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Muslim Ban 2.0 tips its hand by citing "honor killings."

    Also, the bans, even when struck down, have already done their damage and made us less safe by feeding the narrative that the West is at war with Islam.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 16, 2017 8:05 a.m.

    Judicial over reach pure and simple. Anyone who reads the law can not see any ambiguity. It is the President that has the discretion to ban anyone.
    It is really a treat to know that Hawaii economy is more important than our safety. It is not if, but when we will have terroris attacks in this Country. When that happens I hope that these Judges and all who are fighting this are personally affected. I am hoping that the President will use the most extreme vetting imaginable.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    March 16, 2017 7:49 a.m.

    Trump supporters say the judge in this case is a liberal or activist judge. Trump would say "so-called". Maybe he is just doing his job upholding the laws of this land and the constitution.

    Thank goodness there are three branches of government. That way a power hungry person cannot exceed the scope of his or her office.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 16, 2017 7:48 a.m.

    Trump has really cooked himself on this one. Guiliani's big mouth on Fox News made Trump's intentions evident. The Constitution appears to be a major headache for Trump. By constantly blasting the role of the judicial branch, Trump continues to display no understanding of democracy.

  • ute alumni SLC, UT
    March 16, 2017 7:43 a.m.

    The role of a judge is to interpret law according to the constitution. Politically activist judges causes anarchy. Those that are gleeful of this are also going to live to regret their short sighted underdeveloped understanding of the constitution. I wonder how happy they'll be when someone they know is injured or killed because unvettef terrorists come into this country. Hatred appears to be blinding.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    March 16, 2017 7:39 a.m.

    No surprise. Open borders proponents (largely liberal Democrats) went forum shopping to the most liberal federal courts in the nation.

    Now Trump will need to chase this one to the Supreme Court. If I were Trump, I would wait until Neil Gorsuch is confirmed. Otherwise he will likely get a 4-4 ruling that lets the lower court rulings stand (remember, the 4 liberals at SCOTUS vote in lockstep on these politically-charged issues). Even with Gorsuch on the Court, the ultimate decision will be in swing-voter, Justice Kennedy's hands. (Oh, and Justice Ginsburg should recuse herself since she publically said she despises everything about Trump and would appear to motivated by animus. But, she won't.)

    These lower court judges are effectively erasing US borders, at least for politically-correct groups of people.

    Trump should have tacitly invited someone to bring a challenge to his travel ban in the 11th Circuit. Trump needs to listen to the experts on how the legal game is played. As it is right now, Trump is getting played.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 16, 2017 7:35 a.m.

    I do agree that Trump is learning that their is a big difference between being President of a constitutionally controlled country and being President of a closely held private corporation. He doesn't have the final say as President of the US.... the constitution does.

    That said, I think Trump may have lost this individual skirmish, but ultimately he will be able to restrict the movement of people from these nations. We need to help those who are the victims of those who would abuse religion to gain personal power. But due diligence and caution should also be equally weighed.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 16, 2017 7:11 a.m.

    America is not Trumpland.
    America is not Trump Inc.

    God Bless the Constitution!

  • Freedom Seeker Riverton, UT
    March 16, 2017 7:06 a.m.

    The headline should read "Activist Judge Steps Over The Line By Stopping President Trump From Protecting Americans."

  • illuminated Kansas City, MO
    March 16, 2017 6:47 a.m.

    So according to this judge, everyone in the world has a Constitutional right to live in the USA.

    Wouldn't that make every immigration law illegal, including Trump's border wall? Does that make sense? America has no sovereign right to protect its own borders?

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    March 16, 2017 6:46 a.m.

    Trump is slowly finding out that he was elected President. Not King. And, he doesn't like it.