03-09-2017, 05:35 AM
Well, this topic has gone about as expected. My two cents is that:
1) the proposed executive order doesn't demonstrate a sound nexus between the supposed harms and the proposed benefits; otherwise, Saudi Arabia would be included;
2) any laws that are premised on ones religion are unconstitutional, and from the context of everything the President has said and done for the last year, my personal opinion is that I think this law is based on religion, even if it casts a wider net than that;
3) Hawaii does seem to have bigger fish to fry, and it's not as if a state with much larger funds (e.g. California) wouldn't have made this same lawsuit.
1) the proposed executive order doesn't demonstrate a sound nexus between the supposed harms and the proposed benefits; otherwise, Saudi Arabia would be included;
2) any laws that are premised on ones religion are unconstitutional, and from the context of everything the President has said and done for the last year, my personal opinion is that I think this law is based on religion, even if it casts a wider net than that;
3) Hawaii does seem to have bigger fish to fry, and it's not as if a state with much larger funds (e.g. California) wouldn't have made this same lawsuit.
Leilani Estates, 2011 to Present