Appeals Court up holds the stay preventing the Trump Immigration ban

[seer]

The court already gave the opinion as to what Trump intended and stated in his campaign is an issue in the court decisions.

But intentions do not make law, there is nothing in the EO that singles out Muslims. And Trump perfectly followed the 1952 law passed by congress and the 9th court did not even take that law into consideration or even reference it. Trump's past "intentions" have nothing to do with the EO as written. But being a card carrying leftist, you do not care about the law.

[Mountain Man]

The ruling is based on what Trump actually did and stated what his intent was in his Royal Decree.

In that case, you won't have any problem quoting from the executive order itself where it establishes a religious test for immigrants, so hop to it, champ.

[Sparko]

This analogy misrepresents the argument. The final sentence should read: "But the officer on the scene says that he believes you intended to break the law, because you have publicly stated on several occasions that this is your intention, so the court finds you guilty!

This isn't the Minority Report. You can't be found guilty on what you intend to do, only what you actually have done.

[Mountain Man]

This isn't the Minority Report. You can't be found guilty on what you intend to do, only what you actually have done.

He basically wants to punish people for their thoughts. It's very Orwellian.

[JimL]

But that is not what the EO said Shuny, and what he said on the campaign trail has nothing to do with the EO, which says nothing about Muslims, and it applies to Christians in those countries as well. So the court refused to follow the law.

It says nothing about Muslims because doing so would deep six the EO. Thats why as Giuliani said the President asked him to word it in a way that got the same result, i.e a muslim ban, but legally. Trump also publically stated that the ban would show favoritism to Christians, all of which I'm sure the court took into consideration when staying the ban. If Trump had gone through the proper channels, made sure it was constitutional, then he wouldn't be having this problem which, if as he says, it is an immediate matter of concern to national security, is what he should do now. If he waits for months on end for this challenge to go through the courts, then he is admitting that it isn't a matter of immediate national security, but a political stunt.

[Sparko]

He basically wants to punish people for their thoughts. It's very Orwellian.

flat,800x800,075,f.u1.jpg

[Mountain Man]

It says nothing about Muslims because doing so would deep six the EO. Thats why as Giuliani said the President asked him to word it in a way that got the same result, i.e a muslim ban, but legally.

So... what you're saying is, the order is not actually illegal?

[JimL]

So... what you're saying is, the order is not actually illegal?

Nope, I'm not a constitutional scholar, and do not understand all of the details of the EO, so it is not for me to decide on its legality. Thats why it went to the court.

[Mountain Man]

Nope, I'm not a constitutional scholar, and do not understand all of the details of the EO, so it is not for me to decide on its legality. Thats why it went to the court.

It's really very simple: you can't hold somebody accountable for intent to break the law if they never actually broke the law. On the flipside, you can't exonerate someone who broke the law by claiming lack of intent. These aren't complicated legal principles. Even a child could understand it.

[seer]

It says nothing about Muslims because doing so would deep six the EO. Thats why as Giuliani said the President asked him to word it in a way that got the same result, i.e a muslim ban, but legally. Trump also publically stated that the ban would show favoritism to Christians, all of which I'm sure the court took into consideration when staying the ban. If Trump had gone through the proper channels, made sure it was constitutional, then he wouldn't be having this problem which, if as he says, it is an immediate matter of concern to national security, is what he should do now. If he waits for months on end for this challenge to go through the courts, then he is admitting that it isn't a matter of immediate national security, but a political stunt.

Jim, the EO is perfectly Constitutional. It follows, to the letter, the 1952 law passed by congress. It doesn't matter what Giuliani said or even what Trump said - it only matter what the EO says, and Muslims are not singled out. And since when do non-citizens in other countries get our Constitutional protections?

[Roy]

It's really very simple: you can't hold somebody accountable for intent to break the law if they never actually broke the law. On the flipside, you can't exonerate someone who broke the law by claiming lack of intent

Uh, what? Of course you can. That's why all the legal principles concerning diminished responsibility, insanity, involuntary intoxication, sleepwalking, etc exist.

These aren't complicated legal principles. Even a child could understand it.

Then why don't you?

[Mountain Man]

Uh, what? Of course you can. That's why all the legal principles concerning diminished responsibility, insanity, involuntary intoxication, sleepwalking, etc exist.

Really? So you think that someone who didn't actually break the law can be held accountable for breaking the law if you can prove "intent"? Please cite legal precedent.

And, no, lack of intent doesn't get you off the hook. It might get you a lesser charge -- for instance, manslaughter instead of murder in the case of a homicide -- but you're still held accountable for breaking the law.

[JimL]

Jim, the EO is perfectly Constitutional. It follows, to the letter, the 1952 law passed by congress. It doesn't matter what Giuliani said or even what Trump said - it only matter what the EO says, and Muslims are not singled out. And since when do non-citizens in other countries get our Constitutional protections?

Well, that is your opinion seer, I don't feel as though I am knowledgeable enough to come to that conclusion on my own, so I'll wait for those who are to explain why it is or isn't legal. The problem now is that Trump said that it was a matter of immediate concern to national security, so he should either redraft the EO, or admit that it isn't of immediate concern to national security and wait for it to be adjudicated, in which case he would be admitting that it is nothing but a political stunt with no regard to its consequences.

[Roy]

Really? So you think that someone who didn't actually break the law can be held accountable for breaking the law if you can prove "intent"? Please cite legal precedent.

No, I think you can sometimes exonerate someone who broke the law by claiming lack of intent - as should be obvious from my reply. Your quoting only the other claim you made is blatantly dishonest.

And, no, lack of intent doesn't get you off the hook.

It can get people off the hook, and in many cases it has. And no, I'm not going to find them for you - I only help honest enquirers, and you have just shown yourself to be anything but.

[Mountain Man]

No, I think you can sometimes exonerate someone who broke the law by claiming lack of intent - as should be obvious from my reply. You are being blatantly dishonest.

Not being dishonest at all. Cool the jets, champ. I made two claims:

1) you can't hold somebody accountable for intent to break the law if they never actually broke the law.
2) you can't exonerate someone who broke the law by claiming lack of intent.

You replied, "Uh, what? Of course you can. That's why all the legal principles concerning diminished responsibility, insanity, involuntary intoxication, sleepwalking, etc exist."

I took the "Of course you can" to apply to both statements. I'm not being dishonest. Your response just wasn't precise.

It can get people off the hook, and in many cases it has. And no, I'm not going to find them for you - I only help honest enquirers, and you have just shown yourself to be anything but.

Depends on what you mean by "off the hook". Reduced charges, yes, but full exoneration? Unlikely. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a well known legal principle. Here's what one legal website has to say: "It must be noted that lack of intent is not always a complete defence. People are often charged on the basis that their actions were reckless, and fault is attributed on that basis." But you're claiming otherwise, so the burden is yours to prove it.