Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, March 12, 2017

A U.S. judge has declined to issue an emergency order banning President Donald Trump's revised travel ban. The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban. Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation. The new 90-day ban on citizens of six mostly Muslim nations is due to come into effect on Thursday but has sparked legal action in a number of states. Lawyers in Washington state had asked Judge Robart to extend his decision on the first ban to cover the second. But the judge cited procedural reasons for not doing so.





Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It can't ever be simple. That wouldn't cost enough.

#1 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-03-13 01:22 AM | Reply

Judge is now scared of the President. Welcome to the Third World.

#2 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-03-13 01:49 AM | Reply

Judge is beginning to see the error of his ways, as it should be.

#3 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-13 10:15 AM | Reply

Sorry, but the Executive Branch can control immigration or travel from any country for any reason. One can not say that this is a Muslim ban when 80% of Muslims are not effected by the ban. Why did Trump pick the notorious five? Those countries are state sponsors of terrorism or have large areas that the government does not control, as identified by the Obama administration. Considering that several organizations which use terrorism as a political tool have announced their intention publicly to infiltrate the flow of refugees to put their agents inside our country to commit such acts. His decision may be prudent. What this country does not need is a few more attacks by crazies screaming Allah Akbar. The primary victims will be Muslims living here. Americans don't scare too easily, usually they just get angry.

#4 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-03-13 11:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Yea Yea Yea he knew he was incorrect and now the order quotes the law he was ignoring.

Perhaps he is afraid of being impeached.

#5 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-03-13 12:14 PM | Reply

@#3 Judge is beginning to see the error of his ways, as it should be.

According to the article, the Judge said that the states did not provide the proper evidence and, as a result, made a procedural error.

There was no "error of his ways" mentioned.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-03-13 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


Since this is a new EO, they need to refile with separate evidence to support their application for a new TRO, he is exactly correct in telling them to refile, it has nothing to do with his prior order.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-13 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 | Posted by tmaster

Doubtful. See that is why there is 3 branches to government and why there are life time terms for federal judges - so they don't have to worry about politics. They do what they interpret the law as being. There would be no reason to "impeach" him unless he was guilty of misconduct. And there is an appeals process. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 gives the president the power to suspend visas from immigrants of certain countries when the U.S. is at war with those countries. We aren't at war. There is no emergency. There is a VERY thorough vetting process in place for all those countries mentioned in the EO.

#8 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-13 04:44 PM | Reply

To go on... Why don't they just fix the vetting process if they think it is so broken? This is simply pandering the LCD voters. If they put half the effort into changing the process there would be no need for an EO other than to pander.

That said if he would quit taking so many vacations and get his house in order he would this taken care of and have a lot more people in the pipe to fill all these vacancies just to name a couple items. I mean wow. Clearly was not ready to be President. Clearly is too old or unfit for the job if he can't work even the first month without multiple mini-vacations.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-13 04:48 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by docnjo

So explain what this ban is about? It is not about terrorism or state sponsors of terrorism. That is outright laughable. North Korea is not on the list. Saudi Arabia is not on the list. Nor are places like Egypt, Morroco, Tunisia, South Sudan, Congo, Philippines, Pakistan or China. They all fit your description. It is a populist feed the frenzy move period. It is his implementation of a Muslim ban because these are places without any power over him and minimal impact for the US that his followers actually recognize.

FYI - it is not so clear that the President controls immigration. There are a number of laws on the books that actually control immigration and not the President. What I find most funny is the Amnesties for Illegal aliens all came under the Republican lead periods. That in itself says something about immigration and updates to the controls that are needed.

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-13 05:00 PM | Reply



So explain what this ban is about? It is not about terrorism or state sponsors of terrorism. That is outright laughable. North Korea is not on the list. Saudi Arabia is not on the list. Nor are places like Egypt, Morroco, Tunisia, South Sudan, Congo, Philippines, Pakistan or China.

You should probably ask the Obama Administration, it is the list of countries identified as "Countries of Concern" by President Obama.

How the Trump administration chose the 7 countries in the immigration executive order

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-13 05:28 PM | Reply

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete Well, I guess Trump could just pick and choose what laws he will enforce as Obama did. Problem for you the nations involved ether have a large insurgencies with training camps run by organizations that proclaim their intent to carry out terrorist attacks here. Because they control large areas beyond government control. Or terrorism is a policy by the ruling government. North Korea does not send terrorist here nor do they have the ability to do much, it isn't called the hermit kingdom for no reason. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have terrorist in their mist and they ruthlessly prosecute them. Same with Morocco, Tunisia, and others. The Philippines is fighting an Islamic insurgency on Mindanao which has been going on for more than a century. China has their own problems with Islamic terrorism. South Sudan is a dogs breakfast, mostly caused by 30 years of raids by the Muslim majority from the north. What the anti- Trump side fails to say is the ban is temporary, until we can vet those who want to come here. Of course you can sponsor some "refugees" from Syria to prove your open mindedness.

#12 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-03-13 05:28 PM | Reply

You should probably ask the Obama Administration

So you elected donald to just copy everything Obama did?

Seems kind of pointless.

#13 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-03-13 05:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter

Oh I see... "Obama's Fault".

#14 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-14 07:56 AM | Reply

#12 | Posted by docnjo

Actually, that's pretty much what I see Trump going for overall - picking and choosing his laws to enforce. But was Obama perfect in his choices? HELL NO. Especially in this. He didn't pick countries for the SOME of the same reason Donnie isn't. Donnie has added issues in the form of YUUUUGE investments in many of them.

Saudi Arabia - They just export them. Besides does 911 or Osama bin Laden ring any bells? I mean really how many of the big terrorist were Saudi after all?
Egypt - Has ISIS training bases and an ISIS insurgency. Besides that name some of the big non-OSB players in al Qaeda? All Egyptian.
Morocco - Really? Look at the history of terrorists.
Tunisia - Again ISIS and the same problems you mentioned about lack of control and training camps.
Philippines and China - no kidding why do you think I named them? Throw Russia in as well hey?
South Sudan - Apparently you are out of touch. They have an ethnic civil war going on.
Congo - I forgot to mention them... There are others as well.

Vetting - already DAMNED thorough. What do you think Obama's DHS was doing? Just opening the doors? If Donnie boy has spent the time he wasted on EO's working on the vetting process this wouldn't be an issue. He has been in office almost 60 days mind you. The problem is he doesn't know how to govern.

On another note the lack of tacking care of those that helped our military is disturbing to me. That's a Republican issue. We have over 14,000 Afghans trying to get here because their lives are in danger now because they helped us. How about we take care of them.

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-14 08:10 AM | Reply

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete, As I remember those Egyptians and Saudis who made up Al Quida were not in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, they were in Afghanistan. They would have been dead in their own countries. We have home grown terrorist too, and when we catch them we put them in prison. South Sudan IS in a civil war, ask why? Maybe it has something to do with their immediate history. The difference is the countries you list do not export or willingly harbor terrorist, nor do they announce their intent to attack us. Those on the list do. We had many more Iraqis that helped us, worked with us and fought along side us. Obama abandoned them all. Maybe they can slip across the border to another country, a majority are Pastuin, and those people extends into India and Pakistan. Tribalism beats nationalism in a lot of the world, just like in South Sudan.

#16 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-03-14 09:44 AM | Reply

#16 | Posted by docnjo
What's the difference on the al-Qaeda heads? They are the who that attacked us. They had Saudi and Egyptian nationalities/ids. So you remember at least a bit wrong. And as I list this out pretty much completely wrong.

The Egyptians in al-Qaeda left Egypt after their release from prison for Afghanistan. The were not expelled though.

The rats that tried to take out the Twin Towers the first time were also here legally and in good standing at home. Except of course the blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman was expelled from Egypt true but somehow still came into the country while on the terror watch list. Yes he would have been in prison or dead if he had gone back to Egypt but not his followers as far as I know.

Osama bin Laden? He was a hero of the mujaheddin (funneling them money, guns and people), hero to Arabs and a CIA pet. He was banished when he formed al-Qaeda in 88. So ya at the point of 911 he was as good as dead at home.

Exported terrorists?

911 - The Saudis actually involved in 911 attack for example were here as mainly students from Saudi Arabia they weren't as good as dead at home...

The Russian brothers that bombed the Boston Marathon? Here legally. Not "good as dead at home".

Richard Colvin Reid - the shoe bomber. British.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - the underwear bomber. Nigerian.

I mean shall I go on?

#17 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-14 07:51 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort