A.M. Links: Federal Judge in Hawaii Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Trump's Immigration Order, North Carolina Lawmakers Expected to Repeal Transgender Bathroom Law, Trump's Approval Ratings Hit New Low

|

  • Gage Skidmore

    A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump's revised executive order banning travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

  • North Carolina lawmakers are expected to announce legislation repealing the state's transgender bathroom law.
  • President Trump will host Chinese President Xi Jinping in Palm Beach, Florida, next week.
  • "Senate Democratic leaders are giving centrist colleagues space on Neil Gorsuch despite strong pressure from the liberal base to sink President Trump's Supreme Court nominee."
  • According to Gallup, President Trump's approval ratings have hit a new low of 35 percent.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Apparent forged court order for the benefit of a New Britain (Conn.) volunteer city commissioner

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s revised executive order banning travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

    HE’S DONE NEGOTIATING WITH YOU JUDGES.

    1. Hello.

      Activist judge, huh.

      You’re fired!

      1. What was it that Andrew Jackson said about a Supreme Court decision he didn’t like?

        “They’ve made their decision now let them enforce it”.

  2. North Carolina lawmakers are expected to announce legislation repealing the state’s transgender bathroom law.

    In the pocket of Big Adult Diaper.

  3. According to Gallup, President Trump’s approval ratings have hit a new low of 35 percent.

    His room to improval ratings must be through the roof though.

  4. President Trump will host Chinese President Xi Jinping in Palm Beach, Florida, next week.

    And then send him a bill.

  5. “Senate Democratic leaders are giving centrist colleagues space on Neil Gorsuch despite strong pressure from the liberal base to sink President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.”

    Nuclearophobes.

    1. Well, there are some Democratic senators like Manchin from WV who need to show their mostly conservative constituents that they aren’t total douche bags – – – in the end, they’re just there for the pork.

      1. There are ten Democrat Senators up for reelection in 2018 in states Trump won. 5 of them are from states Trump won by over 10%. I wouldn’t be surprised if 8 Dems are scared enough to let Gorsuch through.

        In order for the Democrats to get a Senate majority, they need to hold all ten of the seats in Trump states and win Nevada, Arizona, and Texas from Republican incumbents. The fact is that Republicans will have the Presidency and the Senate for 4 years, and the Dems will be powerless to stop any judicial appointments. They are in absolute denial that this is actually happening. It’s almost sad.

        1. “I wouldn’t be surprised if 8 Dems are scared enough to let Gorsuch through.”

          They could always just switch parties. The principled lot they are & all.

          And hey, guaranteed re-election!

    2. Fake news. There are no centrist Democrats anymore.

  6. Senate Democratic leaders are giving centrist colleagues space on Neil Gorsuch

    It’s not us it’s them.

    1. You’re giving them the it’s not us it’s them speech? They invented it’s not us it’s them.

  7. According to Gallup, President Trump’s approval ratings have hit a new low of 35 percent.

    And that’s just among his Twitters followers.

  8. President Trump will host Chinese President Xi Jinping in Palm Beach, Florida, next week

    A trip to Mar a Rago? The Chinese must reary rove Frorida.

  9. According to Gallup, President Trump’s approval ratings have hit a new low of 35 percent.

    More fake news, right?

    1. Yes. It’s all fake. It’s impossible to know anything about anything, so we shouldn’t even try.

      1. I don’t think that’s accurate.

        1. It’s an accurate parody.

          1. Is parody even possible anymore? I am not convinced that reality isn’t spoofing itself, and yes, that might be a masturbation euphemism.

            1. Is parody even possible anymore?

              Unfortunately not for this elitist wannabe leftist poser nativist collectivist.

              1. My secular thoughts and prayers are with you.

            2. “Is parody even possible anymore?”

              I say no.

              Conduct a blind taste test of CNN vs. The Onion (bring mints). Many would be fooled, I predict.

      2. Heck, we don’t even know if there’s anything to know or not know.

  10. According to Gallup, President Trump’s approval ratings have hit a new low of 35 percent.

    You can Gallup your fake poll right on out of here.

    /DJT

  11. A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s revised executive order banning travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

    Under what pretext? (again…)

    violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by disfavoring Muslims.

    Ah. Except, to my knowledge, the EO does not say anything about muslims.

    1. Muslims the race, not muslims the religion followers.

      1. Muslims the race

        “Muslims” are followers of Islam. I think you mean “Arabs”, and they are not mentioned either. To my knowledge (feel free to prove me wrong) the EO references countries, not any group of people within said countries.

        1. Everyone knows that all people from the Middle East are Muslims. Except for people from Israel, they’re all Jews.

        2. It does mention special treatment for religious minorities. While it doesn’t mention specific religions, it is pretty clear that it is aimed mainly at Christians in Muslim countries.

          I have no opinion on whether or not that makes the order illegal or unconstitutional.

          1. It does mention special treatment for religious minorities.

            I thought that part was removed.

            1. You are right. I was reading the one from 27 January.

          2. That part was removed, because genocide is totes cool on the Left now (if it is committed against the ‘right people’).

    2. Last time, they cited Trump’s campaign rhetoric–as if that were a valid means by which to declare perfectly constitutional text unconstitutional.

      “But in a pointed decision that repeatedly invoked Mr. Trump’s public comments, Judge Derrick K. Watson, of Federal District Court in Honolulu, wrote that a “reasonable, objective observer” would view even the new order as “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

      —-New York Times

      http://tinyurl.com/gsrv4bq

      1. in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.

        This was particularly egregious. The EO says what the EO says. And what it says is what should be judged. Campaign rhetoric is not relevant from a judicial perspective.

        1. Since when do we consider the constitutionality of text based on campaign rhetoric?

          The Federalist Papers was campaign rhetoric of a sort, but it was about ratifying the Constitution. It was about the text of the Constitution itself and why it needed to be the way it was.

          That’s a little different. Other than that, how far do we want to open that can of worms? If a President ever told a Pollock joke, does that mean he can never write a valid order that in some way impacts Poland or Polish people anywhere?

          You look at the text. Is the text Constitutional?

          1. You look at the text. Is the text Constitutional?

            I was agreeing with you. Judge the text of the actual legally binding document.

            1. I was agreeing with you, too.

    3. When is that judge going to issue an injunction against the no fly list?

  12. “Senate Democratic leaders are giving centrist colleagues space on Neil Gorsuch despite strong pressure from the liberal base to sink President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.”

    Nuke ’em, I say. Bc fuck Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and the rest of the Team Blue hypocrites.

    1. “Senate Democratic leaders are giving centrist colleagues space on Neil Gorsuch despite strong pressure from the liberal base to sink President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.”

      Just image the level of shrieking from the left if the nominee had been Janice Rogers Brown instead of Gorsuch.

      1. She is too old.

  13. So, I assume the reply button actually sends an email to the squirrels, which they then manually transcribe into the database. In hex. That’s the only explanation I can think of for the slow update rates on this forum.

    1. they’re just continuing the war of attrition with the hope that someday nobody will want to comment here

  14. President Trump will host Chinese President Xi Jinping in Palm Beach, Florida, next week.

    Because what visitor to America wouldn’t jump at the chance to visit the fabulous Mar-A-Lago Resort rather than the White House? The White House has very little in the way of gold leaf accents, no golf course, no taco bowl on the menu – and have you seen the size of that tiny flag they fly at the White House? No, Mar-A-Lago is where you want to go when you’re trying to impress visiting dignitaries with the size of your whatever.

  15. “A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s revised executive order banning travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.”

    Here are two other equally valid ways that sentence could have been written:

    1) “A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s revised executive order [that doesn’t ban] travelers from [39] Muslim-majority countries.”

    2) “A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s revised executive order banning travelers from six [countries that are rife with anti-American terrorist activity].”

    1. Or you could say that it doesn’t ban travelers from 190 countries. Or you could name each country that isn’t “banned” individually to make sure there is no confusion.

      1. Watch out, Ken is prolix enough to actually do that.

        1. Thank you for this.

          In return, I offer you the word squatitives.

          1. I had to look up “squatitives,” or else go on assuming it to be some kind of nutritional supplement for Warty.

      2. But why emphasize that it bans travelers from “six” Muslim majority countries when it doesn’t ban travelers from 39 other Muslim majority countries?

        Applying Occam’s razor, here, probably isn’t flattering to the objectivity of the original sentence. Making it about discrimination is picking a side.

        It is entirely possible to both oppose discrimination on the basis of religion and think Trump’s order is perfectly constitutional–because it does no such thing. In fact, there is at least one person in this very thread who holds precisely that position.

        Whether Trump’s order is desirable is another question, but just because something may be undesirable by no means makes it unconstitutional.

        In short, IF IF IF the executive order discriminates on the basis of religion, I believe it is unconstitutional. However, as much as the anti-Islam crowd (or call them Islamophobes, whatever floats your boat) wants to believe this is a ban on Muslims and supports it for that reason, they’re wrong. The executive order as revised does not discriminate on the basis of religion–and it doesn’t violate the due process rights of people who already have visas either.

        1. Yes, you are right. I was making a joke about the awkwardness of your option #1. #2 would be a fine way to say it. But the Muslimness of those countries does have something to do with their being on the list.

    2. What about option (3), where they describe it as an executive order that doesn’t ban travelers from several countries that are rife with anti-American terrorist activity? It’s the best of both worlds.

    3. Equally valid to Root’s sentence, you mean?

  16. According to Gallup, President Trump’s approval ratings have hit a new low of 35 percent.

    And Hilldawg has a 99% chance of winning the election.

    1. How do we know she didn’t? Things with a 1% chance of happening happen sometimes.

      Serious question, why do you (and other people, though you can’t answer for them) simply dismiss the popularity polling results out of hand? I’m not trying to say that the numbers are necessarily absolutely correct, but with consistent methodology, it seems like trends in the numbers should at least be somewhat meaningful.

      Is the criticism that polls are inherently useless, or that they are always agenda driven, or what?

      1. Serious question, why do you (and other people, though you can’t answer for them) simply dismiss the popularity polling results out of hand?

        I’m not sure it’s the numbers but rather the people collecting the numbers. I think the general feeling is that these polling places are either cherry-picking respondents or asking loaded questions instead of trying to actually target a fair, unbiased sample. But that’s just my take.

        1. polling places are either cherry-picking respondents or asking loaded questions

          This.

      2. why do you (and other people, though you can’t answer for them) simply dismiss the popularity polling results out of hand?

        I defer to skepticism giving the absolute bs that polls have turned out to be as of late.

        1. So, is it possible to know anything about what people, broadly, think about anything? Or do we just have to sit here and accept that the popularity of the president is simply unknowable?

          1. Or do we just have to sit here and accept that the popularity of the president is simply unknowable?

            Yes. It’s just like Tarski’s undefinability theorem, or Ben Affleck’s appeal.

            1. Yeah, I think it fits well within the confines of a wicked problem.

              I think the individual uniqueness of wicked problems is key. Otherwise, you poll numbers could/would be like a ‘Grand Unified Theory’ of Democracy(ies) and you could take what you learn/know from accurately/rightly predicting approval ratings and reduce a president/administration/government to a sum of his/it’s policies.

              At this point in history, I’m fairly certain the question ‘Do 300+M people broadly think about anything?’ is closer to ‘no’ rather than ‘yes’ and I think this is kinda critical to Hayek’s work that this is the case.

              1. Looks like ya gat a wicked prahblem theah, chief. Would be a pissa if ya can’t get it sahved.

          2. Again, this is my opinion. I personally wouldn’t say unknowable. I would say, though, that their 3-5% margin of error should more likely be treated as a 15-20% margin. They can certainly come up with polling results, I just don’t think we can accept their stated accuracy.

          3. “So, is it possible to know anything about what people, broadly, think about anything? Or do we just have to sit here and accept that the popularity of the president is simply unknowable?”

            I prefer to ask, who gives a fuck what “people” think “broadly” about anything? And even more specifically, who cares what they think on a daily basis and if it is a %point different from last week?

            And if the answer is: Lots of people care and it matters. Then, that can explain skepticism about the motives and integrity of the polling process.

            1. Why does anyone give a fuck about anything? Beyond providing for the essentials of life, mostly for their own edification and/or amusement.

              I’d like to know simply because I am interested. And I think if you are going to give a crap about politics, it’s good to know more than just what individuals with whom you directly interact think.

              Yeah, some polls are complete BS. But I think Gallup does a pretty good job. The day to day shifts don’t matter. People are fickle. But every few months it’s interesting to see how the polls change.

              Trump’s election probably revealed more about the views of the voting public than any poll does. But that only happened once.

              1. Trump is the worst president. Except for all the others.

  17. Good news, Reason Commenters: Scientific Studies Show Women Really Do Like Guys With Dad Bods More

    A new study in coming out of Yale University states that women are more attracted to men who have a little extra meat on their bones, as it provides for a little more cushion for the pushin’. That’s right, dad bods.

    What used to be a social stigmata has now flourished into cultural celebration of a more realistic perception of male physique. Dad bod’s are no longer the epitaph on a long, fruitful romantic life, and instead comes with its own attractive attributes to women.

    Have an extra bag of Doritos at lunch today to celebrate.

    1. What used to be a social stigmata has now flourished into cultural celebration of a more realistic perception of male physique

      Women prefer to be disappointed right out of the gate rather than at some point down the road.

    2. I’m gonna go home and sleep with my wife!

    3. “Stigmata” is plural.

    4. a social stigmata

      Bleeding from their hands, bleeding from their… wherever.

      1. Bleeding from their social status.

    5. Lol, that whole bold quote in the article was pretty funny. Personally, I think this science behind the dad bod phenomenon is a bit of a stretch, it seems to be more psychological.

      1. Sorry, to clarify, I meant it has more to do with women’s body image issues than thinking a man had great survival skills by shopping for comfier pants.

        1. Yes. Also, we do like to celebrate laziness.

          1. Ahem, it’s called efficiency now.

          2. Gotcha. Yeah, I tend to read stuff on here a little too seriously… carry on!

            1. The only thing you should take seriously on the Reason is that I am the coolest ever. Ever.

              1. Crusty’s dates are the coolest ever.

    6. LOL keep fooling yourself, dads

  18. The Treatments and Procedures “Low-Maintenance” Beauty Girls Rely On

    A growing number of women are investing in pricey beauty treatments that allow them to roll out of bed and breeze through their morning routines. The approach requires regular visits to salons and doctor’s offices ? but it does eliminate the daily tasks of penciling in brows, extending lashes, styling hair, painting nails, and breathing fresh life into dull complexions. For insight into what’s driving this trend, just consider that exhaustive list.

    1. pricey beauty treatments

      If that’s low-maintenance I shudder to think of what a high-maintenance gal is like.

      1. [foxworthy twang]

        If you have a list and it can be described as exhaustive, you might be high-maintenance.

        [/foxworthy twang]

        In fairness, Low-Maintenance is in scare-quotes.

  19. Lucky to escape human traffickers… or jumping at shadows? Mom goes viral with harrowing tale of ‘how her children were targeted by human traffickers in IKEA’

    The mother of three said she had visited IKEA to look for sofas and her daughter, aged four, and two sons, one a toddler and another just seven weeks, were playing and sleeping on one when she spotted a middle aged man lurking in the background.

    She wrote: ‘At one point he came right up to me and the boys, and instinctively I put myself between he and my mobile son. I had a bad feeling.

    ‘He continued to circle the area, staring at the kids. He occasionally picked something up, pretending to look at it but looking right over at us instead.’

    After getting home, she went on Facebook to warn other mothers to be vigilant and said she believed they could have been human traffickers.

    America, fuck yeah!

    1. Stop going to IKEA and scaring people, Crusty.

      1. I am way out of their league.

    2. There is no other possible explanation for the man’s behavior. It’s not as if he could have been looking at sofas as well or anything.

    3. Bethany Jimenez wrote: ‘Where is IKEA’s surveillance video of your family and the two men? I certainly want to believe your story. But I – and many, many people as I’ve seen based on the comments – want actual proof.’

      lolwut

      1. “I want to believe that the world is full of sick, perverted kid-hunters! I’m not crazy at all!”

      2. That’s some good Motivated Reasoning? right there

    4. “The mother of three said she had visited IKEA to look for sofas and her daughter, aged four, and two sons, one a toddler and another just seven weeks, were playing and sleeping on one when she spotted a middle aged man lurking in the background.”

      Hey, stop letting your shit-stained babies crawl all over other people’s furniture.

    5. You know who else is a human trafficker? That crossing guard lady.

  20. ‘You failed your wife, you failed your children’: Husband weeps as he gets five years in prison for killing spouse in crash after driving car into canal while drunk and high as the two had sex

    She was pronounced dead at the scene, and it was later revealed that neither Matthew or his wife were wearing seat belts at the time because they were having sexual intercourse in the driver’s seat of the car, with Amanda sitting on her husband’s lap.

    ‘No evidence of braking was detected,’ read the report, which said that the car was ‘airborne for approximately 30 feet’ before it crashed into the bank.

    1. A Florida man

      Ah.

    2. This is actually the 4th most common cause of death in Florida.

    3. I was almost in for some sympathy or leniency based on your quote above, CJ. Then I read,

      When it came time to hand down the sentence in the case, Judge Johnson noted the past offenses Matthew had been charged with, which include reckless driving, leaving the scene of a crash and multiple felonies.
      ‘This isn’t your first chance. You’ve been to jail before, you’ve been on probation,’ said Judge Johnson.

      And now I just feel sorry for those kids that actually are going to require a village.

      1. I was almost in for some sympathy or leniency

        What is the sense of putting him in prison? Her death wasn’t intentional.

        And now I just feel sorry for those kids that actually are going to require a village.

        Duh.

        1. What is the sense of putting him in prison? Her death wasn’t intentional.

          I agree it wasn’t intentional but, IMO, the issue isn’t intent. The guy has a demonstrated pattern of getting into and operating motor vehicles when he shouldn’t. Leaving him to his own devices/liberties failed. And not like ‘they were both buzzed and she unbuckled to get better access to his crotch’ failed, but like ‘The Dukes Of Hazzard is a lame instructional video’ failed.

          I don’t see jail as the optimal solution but, because of him, we’re at option H or I and cutting off his accelerator foot or requiring him to stay >50 ft. away from any/all motor vehicles or use only public transportation doesn’t seem exceedingly more feasible or actionable. I see no evidence to suggest he won’t be back again in a few years having destroyed another vehicle and/or someone else’s life and plenty of evidence to suggest he will.

          1. The judge likely saved the dude’s future wife of getting fucked to death too.

          2. The woman appears to have consented to the risk.

            His sentence should be for the reckless endangerment of others. Not for losing his wife doing what we would all love to do.

            Hell, that kind of thing gets featured in R movies.

  21. North Carolina lawmakers are expected to announce legislation identifying as repealing the state’s transgender bathroom law.

    Apparently, checking the bill’s junk reveals a different story.

    1. Get with the narrative or be a Trumpster.

      Maybe the real reason the site is now dominated by Shrike and his sock puppets is because so many of the writers, here, have come to share his black or white views.

      1. Shut up, Tulpa.

      2. Maybe the real reason the site is now dominated by Shrike and his sock puppets is because so many of the writers, here, have come to share his black or white views.

        Fixed that for you.

      3. I don’t get it. Has Trump weighed in on transgender bathroom rules?

        1. He is not a details guy. I doubt he gives a fck.

    2. I can’t wait for this tedious saga to be replayed in the other 49 states across every news outlet. Will there be enough airtime to cover it all?

      1. talking bobbleheads is an infinite resource

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.