quote:

There is more judicial tyranny to warn you about. The latest - Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii - he blocked President Trump's temporary immigration ban.

Click here to get a signed & personalized copy of Todd's new book - "The Deplorables' Guide to Making America Great Again!"

The president called Judge Watson's decision unprecedented judicial overreach.

Critics say it's a ban on Muslims. But that's not true. It's a ban on refugees from countries infested with jihadists.

What in the name of Don Ho is wrong with these people?

Judge Watson's decision puts all of us in grave danger.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions says around three hundred of the FBI's active domestic terror investigations involve people who came here as refugees. That's a lot of potential jihadists.

How many more Americans must die in the name of political correctness?

So I say send all the refugees to Honolulu. Every last one of them.

Let them put on a grass skirt, toss back a Mai-Tai and sing Tiny Bubbles on Waikiki Beach. Just keep them out of the Lower 48.

Aloha, America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Send the Refugees to Hawaii"

quote:

There is more judicial tyranny to warn you about. The latest - Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii - he blocked President Trump's temporary immigration ban.

Click here to get a signed & personalized copy of Todd's new book - "The Deplorables' Guide to Making America Great Again!"

The president called Judge Watson's decision unprecedented judicial overreach.

Critics say it's a ban on Muslims. But that's not true. It's a ban on refugees from countries infested with jihadists.

What in the name of Don Ho is wrong with these people?

Judge Watson's decision puts all of us in grave danger.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions says around three hundred of the FBI's active domestic terror investigations involve people who came here as refugees. That's a lot of potential jihadists.

How many more Americans must die in the name of political correctness?

So I say send all the refugees to Honolulu. Every last one of them.

Let them put on a grass skirt, toss back a Mai-Tai and sing Tiny Bubbles on Waikiki Beach. Just keep them out of the Lower 48.

Aloha, America.

https://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2017/03/16/send-the-refugees-to-hawaii-n2299967

quote:

Anyone who understands the modern left could not be shocked by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson's issuance of a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's executively invoked travel ban -- but that doesn't make the order any less outrageous.
The ruling was not just an exercise in judicial tyranny, as many have commented, but an act of jurisprudential nihilism and anarchy. Courts are not policymaking bodies but judicial tribunals that decide actual disputes on the basis of the facts and the law.

For decades, the courts have arrogated to themselves the power to act outside their constitutional authority by usurping the legislative function of writing and rewriting, rather than interpreting, laws and adjudicating their constitutionality.

Judicial activism overwhelmingly comes from left-wing judges, many of whom see their role as advancing a progressive policy agenda and exhibit little respect for the Constitution and rule of law when they might interfere with that agenda.

When President Trump issued his original travel ban, it was wholly predictable that some court would attempt to nullify it. In that case, its job was made easier by the arguable clumsiness of the rollout, even though most honest commentators believed that the underlying order passed constitutional muster.

Phony critics pretended the ban was stricken only because it was illegally crafted and opined that had Trump used greater care in composing the order, he would have faced no judicial obstacles. Others recognized this as a convenient excuse and said Trump would not be able to circumvent judicial obstruction merely by drafting a more precise order.

Alas, when the president issued a new order, it suffered the same fate as the first. Once a plaintiff was recruited for the cause, it wasn't hard to find a court to eradicate Trump Travel Ban 2.0.

What was less predictable, though, was the transparent speciousness of the court's reasoning in striking down Trump's lawful order. A self-respecting judge would be embarrassed by this sophistry, unless he derived his professional self-concept from his devotion to political causes through bastardization of his sworn judicial oath.

Chief Justice John Marshall, in establishing the judiciary's prerogative of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, said, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." He did not say, "The judiciary is superior to the legislative and executive branches, and accordingly, we have the right to just make stuff up."

Yet that's precisely what Judge Watson did. He issued the temporary restraining order mainly because the executive order purportedly violated the establishment clause, which Watson reduced to this formulation: "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." But even Watson admitted it is undisputed that the order "does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion, or for or against religion versus non-religion." So it's not Trump's executive order that arguably violates the establishment clause; it's his alleged intent behind the order, which Trump supposedly revealed in his statements during the presidential campaign and otherwise concerning Muslims.

The judge says that to determine whether the order violates this clause, a court must apply the three-part "Lemon test." To show it has not run afoul of the clause, the government action must satisfy all three prongs of the test: 1) It must have a primary secular purpose. 2) It may not have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. 3) It may not foster excessive entanglement with religion.

Watson concluded that the order fails the first test -- the "secular purpose" prong -- so a court wouldn't even have to consider the other two tests. But it is painfully obvious that the primary purpose of Trump's executive order is secular; he has exercised his sovereign duty to protect Americans and America's national security interests. It is laughable and outrageous to suggest there was any other purpose -- much less a religiously discriminatory purpose -- to invoke the order.

On Page 32 of his 43-page screed, Watson cited the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that "official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality."

But nothing in the order targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment! The order doesn't address any aspect of Muslim religious conduct, unless Watson was arguing that terrorism is protected religious conduct. The ban applies to just six nations whose entrants are believed to present a higher risk of harm to the United States. This is not about religion but about national security. The five pillars of Islam are wholly unthreatened by Trump's order.

Particularly disingenuous was Watson's statement, on Page 36, that "any reasonable, objective observer would conclude ... that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims." This is astonishing, even for a radical jurist. No reasonable person -- apart from a mixed-up, virtue-signaling leftist -- would conclude that the stated secular purpose is secondary. If you're going to consider Trump's statements, he is nothing if not a national security hawk. Moreover, Americans who voted for him based on national security concerns see this order as a national security imperative. They know, even if pointy-headed leftist judges do not, that presidents have a duty to protect the United States and that the greatest threat to its national security presently is from terrorists. I repeat: There is no religious objective to this order at all, much less a primary one. It doesn't apply just to Muslims, and it doesn't "target religious conduct" of Muslims.

On top of all this, Watson conceded that to issue the temporary restraining order, he had to determine that the plaintiffs had met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, yet he never explained how there is a small likelihood, much less a strong likelihood, of success, especially considering that this would be, according to liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a case of first impression.

The judge has written 43 pages of words -- just words -- designed to obfuscate the issue and justify the unjustifiable judicial usurpation of the sovereign power of the executive branch over national security.

This will not stand. Watson's order cannot stand.

quote:

Late Wednesday evening, news broke that another liberal judge had put a temporary hold on the implementation of President Donald Trump’s travel ban. And during CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, commentator Van Jones voiced his approval. “An action can be ruled unconstitutional if it's on the face of it, it looks like it's a good thing but there's an intent that's unconstitutional,” he argued, “There's a discriminatory intent here. And the discriminatory intent of the Trump administration is clear.”



According to Jones, the reason the travel ban is discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional, is because during the election Trump announced he wanted a Muslim ban. “Donald Trump has said a gazillion and 50 times, I counted, that he wants a Muslim ban,” Jones joked, drawing laughter from the rest of the panel, both left and right-wingers.

But Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz (who disagrees with Trump on the travel ban) found a major conflict in reasoning if the Supreme Court ruled on Trump’s intent as Jones framed it. “If it does, it will have to decide that words in an order can be constitutional when issue by Barack Obama but the very same words unconstitutional when issued by Donald Trump. That makes it very, very personal,” he explained.

Dershowitz reminded viewers that President Obama had selected all of the counties mentioned in the ban for needing additional scrutiny. “Well-motivated not on the basis of a Muslim ban, on the basis of a desire to protect the United States,” he continued, “but that becomes unconstitutional because of what [Trump] said during the campaign.”

Bizarrely, Jones seemed to ignore what Dershowitz had just said and the facts of the matter, as he claimed that:

I am no fool to get into a fistfight on national television with Professor Dershowitz. But I have to say that what President Obama was doing with those seven countries is not related to what Donald Trump is trying to do. Listen, the explanation that the Trump administration is giving is completely arbitrary and irrational. There are other countries that should be included under the rationale he's putting forward. The only thing that holds these countries together are majority Muslim countries. There’s no other criteria that holds up.

Sounding confused, Dershowitz quickly asked, “Name a country that's not Muslim that would come under a ban at this time?” Without hesitation, Jones started rattling off names of European countries, asserting that “if what you're concerned about is countries that have a history of extremism, there are European countries that do, yet none of them are included.”

The Harvard professor shot him down in a heartbeat with the fact that “The European countries have mechanisms for sorting out dangerous people that these countries, President Obama said, don't have the appropriate mechanism.”

Dershowitz did agree that if Trump’s campaign comments were taken into account he would lose in court, noting that “The question is, is that the jurisprudence that the Supreme Court will apply? That's a tough argument to make.” But he ultimately believed that the Supreme Court would uphold the President’s travel ban.

quote:

New York Assemblyman Unveils Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech

In a bill aimed at securing a "right to be forgotten," introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others...

Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
“all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
“and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
“ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
“which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
“is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
“especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
“with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”

Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-16/new-york-assemblyman-unveils-bill-suppress-non-government-approved-free-speech

quote:

Famed civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz said a federal judge's decision Wednesday to halt President Donald Trump's revised travel ban proved "the whole effort to try to clean it up was futile."

"I'm not surprised, because the attitude of the court is there can't be any lawful order as long as candidate Trump said what he said…

"That makes anything that happens thereafter simply a cover for a Muslim ban," he said. "Taking out the religious part of it, which gave religious preference, discriminated against certain groups…

But Dershowitz added that the Trump administration could eventually win at the Supreme Court, since the justices have taken "exactly the opposite attitude when it comes to looking at motive and intent.

"They said you don't look at motive and intent. You look at the word of the regulation — and that's what the Supreme Court will ultimately hold."

"Even with eight justices, they have a very good chance of winning at the Supreme Court, and if they get their ninth justice in there in a timely way.

"It's almost a certainty they would uphold at least the core of this newly revised travel prohibition," Dershowitz told Burnett. "There's a difference between something being bad as a matter of policy and being unconstitutional."

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

New York Assemblyman Unveils Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech

In a bill aimed at securing a "right to be forgotten," introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others...

Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
“all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
“and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
“ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
“which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
“is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
“especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
“with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”

Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-16/new-york-assemblyman-unveils-bill-suppress-non-government-approved-free-speech

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

These threads bore me, like brain poverty, and bints who spit as opposed to gulp down the fine semen of glory so it may warm their cock hungry bellies.

Death by bee sting in America 600ish pa x 40 is 3,000
Death by Johnny terrorists from 6 uncivilised lands = Zero x 40 plus years