Muslim Ban Lite has exactly the same amount of animus against one religion as the first one.

[Fred Sanders]

Legal experts have weighed in and have reviewed Muslim Ban 2.0 and the Hawaii legal intervention that reviews the new ban and the conclusions seem to be these:

1. A law or rule directed to discriminating against one religion with animus is still a violation of the Constitution, duh!

2. A streamlined or cleaned up EO not removing the animus is still a violation of the Constitution. Who knew discriminating and violating the Constitution would be so complex?

3. The President, also known as the Executive Branch, has literally proclaimed in the past, several times, that he intended to impose an absolute ban against all Muslims entering the country, to remain in effect at his whim. Video tape is, literally, as good evidence as any lawyer could hope for to prove animus or malice aforethought.

4. The evidence regarding animus is on video, straight from the horse's mouth.

5. The refugee ban, effecting even refugees already having passed a long and intense vetting process, has no rational explanation or basis in fact, and is evidence of the animus. If the refugees were vetted any more you would have to invent a new word or phrase for what that might be, one with no real meaning like 'extreme vetting' for example. The '300 refugees under investigation by the FBI' claim is a vague statement that, unfortunately for the claimers, the Courts will require some of that same pesky evidence about again.

6. In conclusion, Judges are not idiots, so this ban is going to be struck down also.


All I can add is, once again, is if you do not speak when they came for the Muslims and when they came for the planet....you know the rest.

[jmg257]

1. I thought the new ban removed the religious BS?

Haven't read it yet, but...

"It removes out language in the original order that indefinitely banned Syrian refugees and called for prioritizing the admission of refugees who are religious minorities in their home countries."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/06/politics/trump-travel-ban-iraq/index.html

[Fred Sanders]

4. The Syrian ban and the Christian priority ban were egregious and clearly unlawful. That does not fix

the ban.

The part in the EO regarding directing all departments to develop and apply "all necessary rules" to enforce the ban is vague and will lead once again into confusion and chaos as each department will use different rules to enforce the animus towards one religion.

[gratuitous]

2. Now with 100% less Iraq!

Isn't it odd that the original "beautifully written" executive order included an entire country that now seems to have been wholly superfluous in v2.0? If the original order was so good and vital to our nation's security (Remember Trump's dire tweet that the nation was in danger?), why did it include a country that wasn't necessary? Or did Iraq suddenly transform into a beacon of democracy, wholly free of terrorism?

No explanation from President Trump. Kinda makes me think the whole thing is bullshit.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Backdoor lobbying by the Iraqis and Mattis....a purely political gesture that proves the whole thing

is a purely political move intended to inflame passions, and is based on hatred towards one religion, a hatred Bannon has literally stated he has.

[gopiscrap]

3. yup still unconstitutional

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. Rank and file republicans care so much about racism and hatred of gay people they

will stand by and let the country be destroyed and maybe the human race.

They will.

So how do we circumvent them?