Attorney General Jeff Sessions calls Hawaii "just an island out in the pacific", anger ensues
43 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52137260]Hawaii as part of the United [B]states[/B]. Say whatever the fuck you want, but if you're really going to use that as your metric, then I guess we can disregard your state when it's important to do so
[editline]22nd April 2017[/editline]
And you'd be a hypocrite to argue against that[/QUOTE]
I mean either way, the judge can block the executive order and the process will sort it out. It is completely part of the process for any federal judge, regardless of what state their from, being able to do this.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52137306]I mean either way, the judge can block the executive order and the process will sort it out. It is completely part of the process for any federal judge, regardless of what state their from, being able to do this.[/QUOTE]
So then what is your purpose making the point that:
[quote]Hawaii has about little to no stake in what the matter pertains to though.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Paige;52137290]So you acknowledge that Hawaii is a state in the United States of America and that the judge completely had both the right and power to do what he did as a federal judge in the United States of America but you also have the same attitude that sessions has? The "oh Hawaii, you're barely part of the USA, let the real Americans deal with this since this affects us and not you" attitude?
[/QUOTE]
More like subjectively they really do have the one of the least amount of stakes in this. For example, Hawaii takes the least amount of refugees ([url=https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/fy-2015-refugees-by-state-and-country-of-origin-all-served-populations]Only 7 in 2015[/url], none from the countries in the ban), their tourism barely comes from the [url=http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/research/monthly-visitors/Visitor%20Arrivals%20from%20Middle%20East%20and%20Africa%202012-YTD%202017.pdf]Middle East where the countries in the ban are[/url] (Here is a chart for numbers from [url=http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/tourismforecast/Forecast_Arrivals_by%20market.pdf]other areas[/url] or this [url=http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/2016HTAFinalAnnualReport%20Modified%20033017.pdf]complete study[/url]), and Hawaii hasn't experienced any of the tragic events that lead-up to this action in the first place.
I mean, theoretically if there was an executive action trying to stop Chinese investors buying up west coast properties in huge numbers, and a federal judge from a state like Montana blocked it (or hell my own state of Texas) I would still say they should be able to do that, but their stake is really low.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52137306]I mean either way, the judge can block the executive order and the process will sort it out. It is completely part of the process for any federal judge, regardless of what state their from, being able to do this.[/QUOTE]
So why did [B]YOU[/B] bring up how Hawaii shouldn't really be the one to do this as they'll be, in your words "Unaffected"(Even though you have no way of knowing this, proving this, or showing this to be anything other than conjecture at this time)?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52137365]So why did [B]YOU[/B] bring up how Hawaii shouldn't really be the one to do this as they'll be, in your words "Unaffected"(Even though you have no way of knowing this, proving this, or showing this to be anything other than conjecture at this time)?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Vman;52137323]So then what is your purpose making the point that:[/QUOTE]
Sorry for the timing, just answered this above though.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52137375]Sorry for the timing, just answered this above though.[/QUOTE]
You didn't explain the point you were trying to make though.
If you agree that it's within the judge's power to strike down the order, then what's the point in claiming that their stake is low?
Unless you feel that they [I]shouldn't[/I] be allowed to strike down the order.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52136530]With about zero parcipation/be affected in matters that deal with this action that was denied.[/QUOTE]
I mean sure, whatever you say I guess
[QUOTE=The Vman;52137397]You didn't explain the point you were trying to make though.
If you agree that it's within the judge's power to strike down the order, then what's the point in claiming that their stake is low?
Unless you feel that they [I]shouldn't[/I] be allowed to strike down the order.[/QUOTE]
Mostly to point out how left field it is that Hawaii is the one to block the action.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52137405]Mostly to point out how left field it is that Hawaii is the one to block the action.[/QUOTE]
So you had no point? Just wanted to highlight something you found interesting?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52137364]More like subjectively they really do have the one of the least amount of stakes in this. For example, Hawaii takes the least amount of refugees ([url=https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/fy-2015-refugees-by-state-and-country-of-origin-all-served-populations]Only 7 in 2015[/url], none from the countries in the ban), their tourism barely comes from the [url=http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/research/monthly-visitors/Visitor%20Arrivals%20from%20Middle%20East%20and%20Africa%202012-YTD%202017.pdf]Middle East where the countries in the ban are[/url] (Here is a chart for numbers from [url=http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/tourismforecast/Forecast_Arrivals_by%20market.pdf]other areas[/url] or this [url=http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/2016HTAFinalAnnualReport%20Modified%20033017.pdf]complete study[/url]), and Hawaii hasn't experienced any of the tragic events that lead-up to this action in the first place.
I mean, theoretically if there was an executive action trying to stop Chinese investors buying up west coast properties in huge numbers, and a federal judge from a state like Montana blocked it (or hell my own state of Texas) I would still say they should be able to do that, but their stake is really low.[/QUOTE]
The stake isn't really important. They're part of the United States, which means the EO affects them, and that's all that really matters.
The idea that Sessions is putting forth here(the one it feels like you're skirting around saying "I agree with wholeheartedly" which I would like to emphasize isn't a bad thing, just a position I don't understand) is that Hawaii is just some small, unimportant island and how dare they get in the way of the AMERICAN president. It's the idea that anyone who opposes trump legally is somehow unamerican, and more so unimportant to the judicial system despite their status as a federal judge.
I mean, look at his wording:
[quote]"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific [b](minimizing Hawaiis importance and the fact they are a STATE and the judge is a FEDERAL JUDGE)[/b] can issue an order that stops the president of the United States [b](emphasizing the point of AMERICAN, as if that "small island" isn't taking orders from that president like every other state in the union)[/b] from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power," Sessions replied.[/quote]
huh, jeff sessions a racist old white southerner? maybe everybody who was screaming this at capital hill were on to something.
The funny thing is that Sessions voted "Yea" for the Judge he was referencing during their nomination hearing.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52137229]Just going to point out still that Hawaii has about little to no stake in what the matter pertains to though.[/QUOTE]
They do have a pretty sizable immigrant population though with Japanese people making up one of the largest ethnic groups in the state. And there was that internment camp stuff that happened.
They've been through this before, which is what I guess I'm saying
[QUOTE=Tudd;52137364]More like subjectively they really do have the one of the least amount of stakes in this. For example, Hawaii takes the least amount of refugees ([url=https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/fy-2015-refugees-by-state-and-country-of-origin-all-served-populations]Only 7 in 2015[/url], none from the countries in the ban), their tourism barely comes from the [url=http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/research/monthly-visitors/Visitor%20Arrivals%20from%20Middle%20East%20and%20Africa%202012-YTD%202017.pdf]Middle East where the countries in the ban are[/url] (Here is a chart for numbers from [url=http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/tourismforecast/Forecast_Arrivals_by%20market.pdf]other areas[/url] or this [url=http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/2016HTAFinalAnnualReport%20Modified%20033017.pdf]complete study[/url]), and Hawaii hasn't experienced any of the tragic events that lead-up to this action in the first place.
I mean, theoretically if there was an executive action trying to stop Chinese investors buying up west coast properties in huge numbers, and a federal judge from a state like Montana blocked it (or hell my own state of Texas) I would still say they should be able to do that, but their stake is really low.[/QUOTE]
he voted to block an unconstitutional travel ban. a US judge, voted to block a travel ban that targeted muslim countries. doesn't matter if hawaii isn't taking in as many scary brown people as the main land, theres more at stake here than that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.