So some obscure Judge from Hawaii puts a USA wide block on President Trumps latest travel ban. Now I know I'm making a wild assumption here, but after the debacle of the first travel ban I assumed that his legal people would get the wording right this time. So either the DoJ is incompetent or US Judges can just do whatever they want.....which is it......
If they had put this bill up first and not made some of the campaign claims that they did, my reading is it would have had a good chance to go through as presidents have wide discretion on immigration.
However, when you talk for several months about wanting a Muslim ban, then made statements on TV that your first bill is just to get round the legalities against having a Muslim ban (Newt Gingrich) and then for the second bill say the intent is the same as the first bill but just with better writing (Trump aide Steve Miller) you raise legitimate questions about what the purpose of the law is.
However this bill will go through a few more courts, with different rulings, and likely end up at the Supreme court for a decision one way or the other.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-revised-travel-ban-judge-hearing-236086
"These statements, which include explicit, direct statements of President Trump's animus towards Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States, present a convincing case that the First Executive Order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump's promised Muslim ban," Chuang wrote.
Chuang's
decision flatly dismissed the federal government's arguments that Trump's comments before he took office should not be considered in assessing the executive order's purpose.
"Simply because a decisionmaker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them from the 'reasonable memory' of a 'reasonable observer,'" the judge wrote, pointing to a federal appeals court decision that considered "billboards and campaign commercials" for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in concluding that he was motivated by religion when he had a Ten Commandments display installed at a state courthouse
Chuang said the conclusion that anti-Muslim sentiment was the primarily reason behind the travel ban was supported by the fact that it seemed to be a poor fit for known terrorist threats.
"In this highly unique case, the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban," the judge wrote. "While the travel ban bears no resemblance to any response to a national security risk in recent history, it bears a clear resemblance to the precise action that President Trump described as effectuating his Muslim ban."
