But that list of the countries is important because it is a major rationale for the judge’s decision to block the order, which rationale is that no one was ever arrested from those countries. The judge says Trump has to provide rationale for his order, which is wrong, but certainly the judge’s rationale for blocking it is important, and is at fault here.
The list you’re looking for is nowhere on WhiteHouse websites until Sessions gets in because Obama was hiding all this as it makes him and his policies look bad. It was released by other means and CNN has admitted the genuineness of the list and attacks:
Giving details of the list, CNN said as per White House there are as many as 78 such incidents. “It’s a head-scratcher as several of these, we here at CNN and other international news outlets, covered these extensively,” CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta said.
“All of these, you’ll recall, we covered extensively. It’s puzzling as to why the White House would include these attacks on this list when they were covered for days on end,” he alleged.
[quote=“yyy, post:230, topic:157785, full:true”]Excuse me. Your claim is that there is no precedent cited by the judge, not that there is no precedent at all. Fine, that’s your claim, with nothing to back it up. Say hello to your own onus.
[/quote]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/02/04/sauce-for-the-goose-judge-cites-anti-obama-ruling-to-block-trumps-immigration-order/2/#1fb0e7c53c9b
There is no precedent for the judge opposing or overturning this law:
The judge also asked if a federal court had ever overturned an executive order on immigration due to equal protection concerns. No, Ferguson said.
And here is the part about the religious test the judge opposes, which is established by Congressional law, not Trump’s order:
Judge Robart’s order blocks the Trump administration from enforcing most of the executive order, including Section 5 as it pertains to granting preferences to members of religious minorities. While the order itself doesn’t mention Islam or any other religion Trump’s public statements suggested he wanted to give preference to Christian minority refugees. The Washington AG argued this was an unconstitutional demonstration of animus toward Muslims.
He’s overreaching by miles.