Trump's immigration ban is so disingenuous. It wanted a 90 and 120 day ban to allow for a better vetting process. It's been approximately 120 days since inauguration. The vetting process could have been worked on during this time so why is a ban needed now ? What has the administration been doing all this time if they were so concerned about security ?
8
In the depth of our roots, we are the children of Immigrants or Refugees.
It is a pity that we are not able to accommodate our fellow human beings on the basis of imaginary lines called "boundaries" and imaginary state called "country".
The Almighty has granted us equal rights to reside at any part of the world. I too agree that hard work of one section of people, and fruits of such labor, cannot be shared with people who have come, all of a sudden, from poor parts of the world. But this is a humanitarian crisis and therefore, EU should look at this issue in that way. I do not for a moment endorse human trafficking. EU should take effective steps in identifying smugglers and punishing them. But innocent people cannot be left to rot.
By the way, who is responsible for the present chaos in Middle East. Libyans were safe under Md. Gadhafi, though he was described a tyrant. If the U.S.,Israel and allies have not intervened in places like Iraq and Libya, ISIS would not have come into existence. The present humanitarian crisis across Middle East would not have also cropped up.
It is a pity that we are not able to accommodate our fellow human beings on the basis of imaginary lines called "boundaries" and imaginary state called "country".
The Almighty has granted us equal rights to reside at any part of the world. I too agree that hard work of one section of people, and fruits of such labor, cannot be shared with people who have come, all of a sudden, from poor parts of the world. But this is a humanitarian crisis and therefore, EU should look at this issue in that way. I do not for a moment endorse human trafficking. EU should take effective steps in identifying smugglers and punishing them. But innocent people cannot be left to rot.
By the way, who is responsible for the present chaos in Middle East. Libyans were safe under Md. Gadhafi, though he was described a tyrant. If the U.S.,Israel and allies have not intervened in places like Iraq and Libya, ISIS would not have come into existence. The present humanitarian crisis across Middle East would not have also cropped up.
2
Seems to me there seems to me there's is great value in holding office holders to their campaign statements. They reveal the essence of their beliefs and plans. It is certainly the case with the pres*dent.
2
This decision, after what happened in Manchester !!???? ... just a few days ago. The New York Times article itself mentioned Libya and Syria several times throughout the article in the context of indoctrination. Yet most of the comments are celebrating this decision in the United States. All in the name of Trump bashing, and misdirected ideologies. We can't even pass a watered down version of the initial ban. This is very terrible news. Yes, I know it's not that simple. But we are talking about innocent lives lost forever.
Once again it's all about Trump. it's all about his pre-election comments and rhetoric, and *implied* racism. The travel ban won't solve the problem, but does that mean we should just let everyone in and give up? Wait for the next attack. Implement some security here and there like we have been doing for the last 10 years. The starus quo. Continue to witness massacre after massacre? If our own families and loved ones are affected by a bombing, will we continue to celebrate such decisions, even if they are not ideal solutions? Nothing is perfect.
One comment alluded to no attacks since the ban was rejected several months ago. Is that what we are waiting for? Im not being sarcastic. A travel ban is an imperfect solution to a problem that cannot be solved overnight, it's simply buying us time until we can subvert the people behind these attacks. It is to save innocent irreplaceable lives.
Once again it's all about Trump. it's all about his pre-election comments and rhetoric, and *implied* racism. The travel ban won't solve the problem, but does that mean we should just let everyone in and give up? Wait for the next attack. Implement some security here and there like we have been doing for the last 10 years. The starus quo. Continue to witness massacre after massacre? If our own families and loved ones are affected by a bombing, will we continue to celebrate such decisions, even if they are not ideal solutions? Nothing is perfect.
One comment alluded to no attacks since the ban was rejected several months ago. Is that what we are waiting for? Im not being sarcastic. A travel ban is an imperfect solution to a problem that cannot be solved overnight, it's simply buying us time until we can subvert the people behind these attacks. It is to save innocent irreplaceable lives.
2
Nope, in the name of the Constitution and against a demagogic discrimination against Muslims. It needs to be about Trump because its his Executive Order and his statements that he was interested in banning Muslims that support the decisions of the 4th and 9th Circuits.
"but does that mean we should just let everyone in and give up?"
A straw man. We already have thorough vetting for refugees and other immigrants. That's shown in the fact that most Islamist outrages in the U.S. are by people who were born here and subsequently radicalized. Trump's posturing will do nothing to address that.
"but does that mean we should just let everyone in and give up?"
A straw man. We already have thorough vetting for refugees and other immigrants. That's shown in the fact that most Islamist outrages in the U.S. are by people who were born here and subsequently radicalized. Trump's posturing will do nothing to address that.
1
The only shining light in this dark world is the Constitution of the United States. Thank God we have a free judiciary that can bring common sense into the equation based on that very same Constitution. You would trade everything for a false sense of security and safety.
3
"This decision, after what happened in Manchester !!????"
The Manchester bomber was born in the UK of Libyan parents and was a UK citizen. The Orlando murderer was born in New York of Afghan parents and was a US citizen. The 2009 shooting at Fort Hood was carried out by a US citizen and Army psychiatrist; the 2014 shooting at the same place was the act of a man born in Puerto Rico. The male shooter in the San Bernandino murders was from Chicago of Pakistani parents. Need I go on?
In a world with instant global communication terrorists don't have to come into the United States to carry out their perfidious deeds. There are American citizens willing to carry the torch for ISIS and Al-Qaeda today. Funny how the Administration never seems to acknowledge the US origins of these terrorists and plays on the xenophobia of its followers.
The Manchester bomber was born in the UK of Libyan parents and was a UK citizen. The Orlando murderer was born in New York of Afghan parents and was a US citizen. The 2009 shooting at Fort Hood was carried out by a US citizen and Army psychiatrist; the 2014 shooting at the same place was the act of a man born in Puerto Rico. The male shooter in the San Bernandino murders was from Chicago of Pakistani parents. Need I go on?
In a world with instant global communication terrorists don't have to come into the United States to carry out their perfidious deeds. There are American citizens willing to carry the torch for ISIS and Al-Qaeda today. Funny how the Administration never seems to acknowledge the US origins of these terrorists and plays on the xenophobia of its followers.
7
Apart from whether judges should act as psychologists, I hope we can agree that they should not act as theologians. Who is a Muslim (or who is a Christian, who is a Jew, etc.) is an ecclesiastical matter, which, if the Constitution means anything, it is not for the Court to establish.
1
Not the argument, though. Focus on the topic, please.
8
Ed, you're off topic. No one is deciding who is what religion, nor would they. They're only stating that religious discrimination is unconstitutional and that the courts have the right to review an executive order. Read the article.
3
Let it go to the Supreme Court. I doubt they will reverse the lower courts' decisions because the ban IS unconstitutional. Trump has made clear over and over that it is Muslims who force the US to take this step for "national security." As someone else has pointed out below, most of the worst "terrorist" attacks in the US have been committed by US citizens, most of whom are not even Muslims.
Throughout his campaign, Trump enraged his rallies against the "other," regardless of their origins. He is a xenophobe, and we have protections against xenophobes who want to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Throughout his campaign, Trump enraged his rallies against the "other," regardless of their origins. He is a xenophobe, and we have protections against xenophobes who want to discriminate on the basis of religion.
9
Trump brokered a one billion plus weapons deal to Saudi Arabia. (I wonder what his commission was?)
Selling weapons to a country which is known for breeding terrorists is an excellent way to stop world terrorism! (Sarcasm).
Selling weapons to a country which is known for breeding terrorists is an excellent way to stop world terrorism! (Sarcasm).
7
Didn't Kushner, Trump's Secretary of Everything, do the deal?
1
Now that a generally conservative court has ruled against Trump too, will he stop pushing his Muslim ban?
2
Times change. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was once famously conservative, but now it leans liberal. It has 11 Democratic appointees, seven Republican ones, and one appointee appointed by presidents from both parties. See this site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fou...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fou...
Sessions - “(the Trump Administration) will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the executive branch to protect the people of this country from danger.”
The only thing the people of this country need protection from is the Trump Administration - thank you Judge Gregory. Like most demagogues Trump played on the fears of the "poorly educated". They needed to hide under their beds because the evil Muslims were coming to get them. But, he Super Trump, would protect them. He would thwart the Muslim hordes. He would ban the evil doers from entering the country and raping and murder good people (mainly Republicans, to he!! with Democrats).
There are a few problems with the Trumpistas approach:
1. Most Americans are not such cowards they are willing to give up the 1st Amendment for some false perception of safety.
2. Terrorists are quite capable of getting false passports from countries that are not covered by the ban.
3. We are approaching the 120 days without the ban and nothing much has happened.
4. Trump's rhetoric about Muslims and the alienation of our allies puts us in greater danger of an attack.
5. Many attacks are carried out by self-radicalized citizens, not new arrivals. The primary reason for the radicalization is alienation and persecution.
6. The travel ban did not restrict Muslims from countries that ACTUALLY attacked us on 9/11 - particularly Saudi Arabia. (Couldn't possibly be because of Trump's financial interests there - no not that.)
The only thing the people of this country need protection from is the Trump Administration - thank you Judge Gregory. Like most demagogues Trump played on the fears of the "poorly educated". They needed to hide under their beds because the evil Muslims were coming to get them. But, he Super Trump, would protect them. He would thwart the Muslim hordes. He would ban the evil doers from entering the country and raping and murder good people (mainly Republicans, to he!! with Democrats).
There are a few problems with the Trumpistas approach:
1. Most Americans are not such cowards they are willing to give up the 1st Amendment for some false perception of safety.
2. Terrorists are quite capable of getting false passports from countries that are not covered by the ban.
3. We are approaching the 120 days without the ban and nothing much has happened.
4. Trump's rhetoric about Muslims and the alienation of our allies puts us in greater danger of an attack.
5. Many attacks are carried out by self-radicalized citizens, not new arrivals. The primary reason for the radicalization is alienation and persecution.
6. The travel ban did not restrict Muslims from countries that ACTUALLY attacked us on 9/11 - particularly Saudi Arabia. (Couldn't possibly be because of Trump's financial interests there - no not that.)
16
Your #3 comment is so true. In addition, if Trump really needed 90 and 120 days to improve the vetting process, he didn't have to wait for the courts to decide. The 120 days have passed so should we assume that he has been working on the vetting process during this time ? I sort of doubt it which supports the court's ruling that the ban wasn't about having time to improve the vetting process.
2
are these judges locally elected?
Of course not.
2
Campaign statements are "shorthand for larger ideas"? Ordinarily, that might be true. However, Trump doesn't think in, have an interest in, or encourage larger ideas. Moreover, he and his people do not build arguments based on evidence or logic, clearly evident in these bans. Given this context, what shred of confidence can we have in his claim that these bans are the difference between a safe and un-safe US? If Trump wants credibility, he can start by making credible arguments the rule of his administration (fat chance). In the meantime, he is the source of his own undoing.
5
The president gets less sympathy than ever after his embarrassing behavior at the NATO event. So petty and arrogant with foreign leaders. He seems so unlikable. Even the pope looked bummed out by him.
The appeals court's ruling is welcome, and he can't enforce that travel ban.
He's claimed it's needed for national security. Meanwhile, he underhandedly shared coded classified information with Russian officials---which adversely could affect our national security.
And I just stumbled onto an article written on 12/1/16 where Israeli intelligence agencies back then were in fear that top secret information that had been exposed to the US would be leaked to Russia by Mr. Trump.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4906642,00.html
And now British officials blamed US intelligence leaks on a breakdown of discipline within the Trump Administration itself, which points to poor leadership at the helm.
As if that isn't enough, on Wednesday, Mr Trump somehow was compelled to disclose the very location of our nuclear submarines to Rodrigo Duterte---the leader of the Phillipines.
The appeals court's ruling is welcome, and he can't enforce that travel ban.
He's claimed it's needed for national security. Meanwhile, he underhandedly shared coded classified information with Russian officials---which adversely could affect our national security.
And I just stumbled onto an article written on 12/1/16 where Israeli intelligence agencies back then were in fear that top secret information that had been exposed to the US would be leaked to Russia by Mr. Trump.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4906642,00.html
And now British officials blamed US intelligence leaks on a breakdown of discipline within the Trump Administration itself, which points to poor leadership at the helm.
As if that isn't enough, on Wednesday, Mr Trump somehow was compelled to disclose the very location of our nuclear submarines to Rodrigo Duterte---the leader of the Phillipines.
10
If, indeed, this goes before the SC, we will have front seats to testing of our democracy. This recent ruling clearly points to the unconstitutional nature of the travel ban. For Gorsuch, a man toted for his adherence to a strict interpretation of the constitution, this should not be a difficult decision. His ruling...all of SCOTUS ruling...will determine how safe we feel in the ability of government to balance out the three branches.
2
Thank goodness for Marbury v Madison! Judge Gregory cited the 18th century principle that federal courts' job is to interpret laws in response to the trumpian argument that the president can do whatever he wants. I would so appreciate analysis by Professor Greenhouse, because broadcast news is failing badly in framing the issues.
2
Trump can't have it both ways--make the xenophobic and racist campaign promise to expel Muslims, and then try to claim that all that hatred-laced rhetoric really didn't matter? No one was going to believe this. Now the original 90 day period has expired, and he is still beating his dead horse? This is unbelievable idiocy. He is now just trying to bloviate and satisfy his ego. But if the ban were upheld it would be utterly meaningless except as poke in the eye to the American public who overwhelmingly oppose this.
8
The illegitimate con job president, counting on Garland's purloined seat.
Counting on stolen justice to prevail,.. so he can wipe his shoes on our constitution.
Counting on stolen justice to prevail,.. so he can wipe his shoes on our constitution.
5
So 10 Obama or Clinton appointed judges ruled against Trump, and the 3 Bush or Bush appointed judges ruled for him. Pathetic.
1
In the various court ruling on this issue, many GOP-named judges also voted against it.
5
Yes, it is pathetic that the Republicans appointed judges don't understand the Constitution enough to come to the proper conclusion.
2
Our fearless leader was rubbing some weird glowing crystal ball in the country where 15 of 19 9/11 terrorists and Osama bin Laden were from, and which is not on the list of banned countries. This is demagoguery intended to manipulate Trump's base, not a policy based in any careful thought or deliberation. Give me a break already.
5
Until Islam around the world reforms itself from within, it is foolish to let hatred of president Trump to interfere with doing his job in defending America. Won't naive liberals ever glibly labeling our president's efforts racist and hateful. How many radical Islamist death-loving attacks will it take to wake up liberal Americans?
2
So far, none of the Islamist attacks on Americans have come from any of the banned countries. Instead they are coming from countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which is on the list.
It's not hatred of Trump that is driving the opposition; it's common sense.
It's not hatred of Trump that is driving the opposition; it's common sense.
11
President Trump's campaign promise to institute a "complete shutdown" of all Muslims entering the country was, of a political move - and it was effective with his fear-motivated voters, as it was intended to be. An obvious example of scapegoating.
After his election, it became a policy of the President to institute the Muslim ban to show he was delivering for his base - which is no more than 30% of Americans. Plus, the implementation was extremely sloppy. For example, both versions seek to quash entry from mainly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, but neither seems to mention Indonesia, the largest majority Muslim country, and certainly there are also other places with Muslim populations that were not mentioned at all, including countries where Trump has business interests.
Any way you look at it, this order is motivated by political posturing playing to fear, ignorance, and hatred. It clearly has nothing to do with national security other than in a fevered imagination. It also shows the Trump administration, while it surely has an agenda, simply does not know what it is doing... and goes against the most basic teachings of Rev. N. V. Peale, who was supposed to be a mentor to Mr. Trump and wrote "How to Win Friends and Influence People". This policy will win America no friends in the Muslim world, where we badly need them.
It's a show that should have closed out of town, as the courts have recognized. The Supremes should take a pass on the case.
After his election, it became a policy of the President to institute the Muslim ban to show he was delivering for his base - which is no more than 30% of Americans. Plus, the implementation was extremely sloppy. For example, both versions seek to quash entry from mainly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, but neither seems to mention Indonesia, the largest majority Muslim country, and certainly there are also other places with Muslim populations that were not mentioned at all, including countries where Trump has business interests.
Any way you look at it, this order is motivated by political posturing playing to fear, ignorance, and hatred. It clearly has nothing to do with national security other than in a fevered imagination. It also shows the Trump administration, while it surely has an agenda, simply does not know what it is doing... and goes against the most basic teachings of Rev. N. V. Peale, who was supposed to be a mentor to Mr. Trump and wrote "How to Win Friends and Influence People". This policy will win America no friends in the Muslim world, where we badly need them.
It's a show that should have closed out of town, as the courts have recognized. The Supremes should take a pass on the case.
5
Too bad Norman Vincent Peale was not able to accompany the President during the NATO meetings. Pushing a fellow head-of-state out of the way so he could do a dead-on imitation of a preening male peacock probably wasn't what Rev. Peale had in mind when it came winning friends and influencing people.
2
There are over 180 countries, yet many assume that the US should be the world's dumping ground for anybody and everybody. Some say we simply have to tolerate terrorist attacks until we can conquer hate with hugs and love. Good luck with that.
2
Jordan is home to over 600,000 registered Syrian refugees and perhaps an equal or larger number who are not registered. As of December 31st, Syrian refugees living in the United States totaled about 18,000. You simply have no idea where refugees are living, and the answer is, largely, not in the United States.
1
Open the borders, pull down the walls, fire customs guards - humanity has an inalienable right to move to the United States. To do otherwise is racist.
Does this mean we have to Trump back in?
2
Who is the real threat to this country.
The Republicans are intensely interested in classified leaks and from a moral stand point they should be interested...but their interest is so intense because of what is being released, not because of the system being abused. Historically, congress has been one of the greatest abusers of releasing classified information in this country.
A day after angrily scolding Congress for leaking classified information to the press, President Bush today called a truce with congressional leaders, withdrawing a threat to clamp down on intelligence briefings to lawmakers. [ABC]
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN ACCIDENTALLY DISCLOSED A SECRET INTELLIGENCE DEBATE
With all the focus by Republicans on leaking classified information, Democrats on the committee were stunned when, in one little-noticed moment during the five-hour hearing, a prominent Republican seemed to let slip what two members of the panel told me was a piece of classified information. [New Yorker]
The Republicans are intensely interested in classified leaks and from a moral stand point they should be interested...but their interest is so intense because of what is being released, not because of the system being abused. Historically, congress has been one of the greatest abusers of releasing classified information in this country.
A day after angrily scolding Congress for leaking classified information to the press, President Bush today called a truce with congressional leaders, withdrawing a threat to clamp down on intelligence briefings to lawmakers. [ABC]
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN ACCIDENTALLY DISCLOSED A SECRET INTELLIGENCE DEBATE
With all the focus by Republicans on leaking classified information, Democrats on the committee were stunned when, in one little-noticed moment during the five-hour hearing, a prominent Republican seemed to let slip what two members of the panel told me was a piece of classified information. [New Yorker]
1
Who's the real threat Trump of the Muslims.
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State. (WP)
President Donald Trump told Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in a phone call last month that two nuclear submarines were somewhere in the waters near North Korea (classified). [Business Insider]
I don't want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is," the Republican nominee said at an NBC-hosted commander-in-chief forum in New York. [CNBC]
So which personality among the many personalities Trump has inside of himself is giving away highly classified information?
Treason…put him in jail before he gives all of our classified to the Russians and only God knows who else.
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State. (WP)
President Donald Trump told Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in a phone call last month that two nuclear submarines were somewhere in the waters near North Korea (classified). [Business Insider]
I don't want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is," the Republican nominee said at an NBC-hosted commander-in-chief forum in New York. [CNBC]
So which personality among the many personalities Trump has inside of himself is giving away highly classified information?
Treason…put him in jail before he gives all of our classified to the Russians and only God knows who else.
3
The Supreme Court will quickly and resoundingly support the President's legal right and obligation to invoke the travel ban in the interests of National security. The politically charged Appeals Court decisions will be exposed as partisan, sleazy scams that were complicit in the Democrats' treasonous attempt to attack and denigrate the Presidency. This entire debacle was a reprehensible mockery of our American Judicial System and an affront to the Constitution. Please feel free to read this comment again after it is validated. Don't allow your searing hatred of Donald Trump to cause you to abandon reason, fairness and critical thinking.
Trump to cause you to abandon your
Trump to cause you to abandon your
3
The "Muslim Ban" enacted by Trump chills me to the bone. It serves no security purpose, it only serves to further polarize the country, while Trump and his cronies get away with "Murder". A distraction!
Please, let's not forget that the Fourth Circuit had it's dissent; 3 judges voted to overturn the lower courts ruling.
Before we celebrate, this case will most likely go to the Supreme Court where it's outcome is anybodies guess. From what I've seen, not only during the last 2 years but over the last decade, I can't help but be pessimistic. Let's hope I'm wrong but if the Court overturns the "ban", it will again legitimize Trump and lead to a further escalation of hate and violence.
Meanwhile, this Trump nightmare continues!
Please, let's not forget that the Fourth Circuit had it's dissent; 3 judges voted to overturn the lower courts ruling.
Before we celebrate, this case will most likely go to the Supreme Court where it's outcome is anybodies guess. From what I've seen, not only during the last 2 years but over the last decade, I can't help but be pessimistic. Let's hope I'm wrong but if the Court overturns the "ban", it will again legitimize Trump and lead to a further escalation of hate and violence.
Meanwhile, this Trump nightmare continues!
2
The ban would have been on six countries where it is very difficult to vet those wishing to come to the United States for many reasons. The ban was on all citizens from those countries not just Muslims. If the President bans Danes from coming to the US does that make the ban racist against "white" people because Denmark is a "predominately white country"?
2
I presume those "difficult-to-vet" persons must include, among others, children trying to be reunited with their parents in the US, and translators and other Iraqis who risked their lives to help American forces and to whom we promised asylum. Members of both these groups were denied entry to the US when the ban was first introduced, and many continue to struggle to get visas even since the ban was overturned.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/trump-immigration-ban-children-trnd/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/middleeast/trump-visa-ban-iraq-...
As we all well know, the ban was not the result of a careful policy analysis designed to cope with the problems of international terrorism. It was merely a sop to Trump's supporters to keep a campaign promise he should never have made in the first place.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/trump-immigration-ban-children-trnd/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/middleeast/trump-visa-ban-iraq-...
As we all well know, the ban was not the result of a careful policy analysis designed to cope with the problems of international terrorism. It was merely a sop to Trump's supporters to keep a campaign promise he should never have made in the first place.
1
Your reasoning is distorted. If a Presidential candidate said he was going to discriminate against whites, and then after winning, banned Europeans, the court would do the same thing. Your comments appear racial rather than logical.
2
These judges need to stay out of the way of the president and his pursuit of the rule of law when it comes to immigration. This is not about him, it's about Saturday and keeping the American people safe.
If a few feelings get hurt along the way, well, that's life....
If a few feelings get hurt along the way, well, that's life....
2
Do you understand the balance of power or the importance of an independent judiciary?
2
Question: does the 9th circuit have to issue their ruling before appeal proceeds to the Supreme Court?
1
Good question. No, that's not necessary. The Fourth Circuit decision is enough for the Supreme Court to take up the case.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit used to lean conservative, but now it leans liberal. It has 11 Democratic appointees, seven Republican ones, and one judge appointed by presidents from both parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fou...
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit used to lean conservative, but now it leans liberal. It has 11 Democratic appointees, seven Republican ones, and one judge appointed by presidents from both parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fou...
1
If the stated goal is to put tougher vetting in place, couldn't this be accomplished without a ban or halt on travel?
If Trump really wanted to use the 90 days to set up extreme vetting procedures in the Muslim countries, he would already have established them by now. He has had way more time than that. Is there any indication of even an effort to do that?
4
There was never any intent to review the vetting process, the supposed reason for the 'travel ban'. Because, this process could have been reviewed by now. It hasnt been. So, the real reason for the travel ban? To appease Trump's core base of supporters, so they wrongly believe that he is doing something that will make them safer. The same man who said it would be a good idea for people to carry guns in bars.
He also said he would be getting rid of ISIS in a month. How's that working?
He also said he would be getting rid of ISIS in a month. How's that working?
4
Time to move on to the issue of "more extreme" vetting of immigrants and visa applicants in a timely manner as promised when the ban was first imposed. The Supreme Court should refuse to hear this at this point which only will serve as grand standing and a power play, a waste of money and the time of Court. This was marketed as a "temporary" ban, so lets get on with the review of existing immigration scrutiny and coordination between agencies. Remember the red flag that went up when the 9/11 hijackers (all from Saudi Arabia, not identified in the ban) took flying lessons and were not interested in how to land the plane?
The second worse terrorism act in the USA, the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma was carried out by two of our own native born sons, whose motives have been lost in time?
The second worse terrorism act in the USA, the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma was carried out by two of our own native born sons, whose motives have been lost in time?
2
Not lost. Their motives were the men, women and children burned alive in WACO
1
I'm not a legal scholar, but I guess I'm confused. Why would the Supreme Court vote to hear this decision, when the travel ban has been rejected in courts across the country?
4
Because the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider of the US Constitution. Glad I could help.
2
Dear NYT, please use this revision instead!
The judge, who is legislating from the bench, is tone deaf to real security concerns, and the timing is way off, 3 days after Manchester.
The US constitution applies to US citizens and not foreign nationals. No one has the constitutional right to immigrate to or even visit the US.
I would say with confidence that after all of these ever increasing attacks on the West by jihadists, the majority of Americans, if not the majority of NYT commenters, support stronger border control measures. Security is the number 1 responsibility of any government, and this appeals court judge is derelict in its ruling, to rule in favor of foreign nationals accessing the US over real safety and security concerns of US citizens.
Didn't one of the supreme court justices once say that the US constitution is not a suicide pact. The ruling will certainly be overturned by the US supreme court.
The judge, who is legislating from the bench, is tone deaf to real security concerns, and the timing is way off, 3 days after Manchester.
The US constitution applies to US citizens and not foreign nationals. No one has the constitutional right to immigrate to or even visit the US.
I would say with confidence that after all of these ever increasing attacks on the West by jihadists, the majority of Americans, if not the majority of NYT commenters, support stronger border control measures. Security is the number 1 responsibility of any government, and this appeals court judge is derelict in its ruling, to rule in favor of foreign nationals accessing the US over real safety and security concerns of US citizens.
Didn't one of the supreme court justices once say that the US constitution is not a suicide pact. The ruling will certainly be overturned by the US supreme court.
4
Please use this revision for your comment:
The judge (actually it was a panel), because I disagree with the decision, was legislating from the bench, which is what I call all judicial decisions that I don't like. Of course, I am the one asking judges to legislate from the bench, by playing to current events like the Manchester bombing. The law should change depending on what's in the news.
By the way, the US Constitution does apply to foreign nationals. It may not fit your view of the world, but the government could not, for example, hold a foreign national in custody for no reason for refuse to give them due process hearings.
The judge (actually it was a panel), because I disagree with the decision, was legislating from the bench, which is what I call all judicial decisions that I don't like. Of course, I am the one asking judges to legislate from the bench, by playing to current events like the Manchester bombing. The law should change depending on what's in the news.
By the way, the US Constitution does apply to foreign nationals. It may not fit your view of the world, but the government could not, for example, hold a foreign national in custody for no reason for refuse to give them due process hearings.
Except, of course, that the EO was issued so quickly that it's unlikely that real security concerns were involved. In fact, a draft DHS report indicates that singling out specific countries as targets for a ban will not likely help. The U.S. Constitution does apply to the U.S. government, which is barred from engaging in religious discrimination.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dhs-draft-report-casts-dou...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dhs-draft-report-casts-dou...
1
This travel ban was written with an expiration date to ostensibly provide sufficient time to review current immigration policies and address any security concerns that resulted. A significant amount of time has passed with little indication from the administration that a reasonable, evidenced based, review of immigration policies has been conducted. Yet, legal proceedings continue in an effort to uphold the president's ability to enforce an order with the intent of giving preferential treatment based on country of origin (read: religion).
If the review of current policies were conducted in a timely manner, and changes based on evidence, were found to be necessary, appropriate changes could be implemented. This would necessarily address the unsubstantiated security risks postulated by the president.
The questions: What review, if any, has been conducted by the administration and when will it be done? What security risk has been identified that this ban addresses? How can we improve immigration policies, without violating religious freedoms? And would the executive order be necessary if the administration could answer the first three questions?
If the review of current policies were conducted in a timely manner, and changes based on evidence, were found to be necessary, appropriate changes could be implemented. This would necessarily address the unsubstantiated security risks postulated by the president.
The questions: What review, if any, has been conducted by the administration and when will it be done? What security risk has been identified that this ban addresses? How can we improve immigration policies, without violating religious freedoms? And would the executive order be necessary if the administration could answer the first three questions?
15
A lot of people have asked this question about the review, but the simple answer is that the stay by the federal judge in Hawaii stopped every aspect of the Executive Order, including the review that was supposed to be conducted by the administration.
As for the security risk, see the San Bernardino shooting for a public security risk, but without access to national security information, it is difficult to further assess security risks from these countries.
I am not sure what you mean by improving immigration policies. The US already admits more than 1MM legal immigrants every year. Most countries require immigrants to show that they are self-sufficient before being allowed to immigrate to their country (obviously, asylum seekers are different). We have no such broad requirement, and just as obviously, we have had porous borders for a long time.
The answer to your final question depends on the answer to number 2. If security risks have been identified, and I think we can say with certainty that there are security risks with letting people come to this country from these other countries, then the answer may very well be, Yes.
As for the security risk, see the San Bernardino shooting for a public security risk, but without access to national security information, it is difficult to further assess security risks from these countries.
I am not sure what you mean by improving immigration policies. The US already admits more than 1MM legal immigrants every year. Most countries require immigrants to show that they are self-sufficient before being allowed to immigrate to their country (obviously, asylum seekers are different). We have no such broad requirement, and just as obviously, we have had porous borders for a long time.
The answer to your final question depends on the answer to number 2. If security risks have been identified, and I think we can say with certainty that there are security risks with letting people come to this country from these other countries, then the answer may very well be, Yes.
1
The court decision may have stopped the Executive Order, but there is nothing in that decision that could've stopped Trump from ordering a review separate from the ban.
Your application of the San Bernardino shooting doesn't support the Trump EO. One of the shooters was born here and the other was from a country not covered by it.
Your application of the San Bernardino shooting doesn't support the Trump EO. One of the shooters was born here and the other was from a country not covered by it.
1
The article said the court divided along ideological lines. This comports with the finding of a recent study of the US Courts of Appeals. The study looked at over 18,000 cases and found that rulings were more partisan around elections. Perhaps a solution is for courts not to issue rulings within one year before and one year after presidential elections.
1
So where are those "enhanced vetting procedures"? I thought the executive order was a temporary ban intended to give the administration time to review and enhance immigration procedures from the selected nations. Well, the 90/120 days are up. I can understand a desire to get some clarity on the constitutional questions and their impact on FUTURE executive orders. But, as far as this one goes, the clock has run out and I haven't heard anything about any significant changes to the "vetting procedures". So much for the grave concern over our national security.
9
teejtee - "Where are the enhanced vetting procedures?"
Surprised they haven't leaked yet? Should one tell the "enemy" what will be done to assure they can't lie their way into the United States? Do you and the NYT honestly think new plans for vetting should be made public so that the "enemy" can be prepared and prepare others to counter the new procedures? I don't think it's supposed to work like that!
Surprised they haven't leaked yet? Should one tell the "enemy" what will be done to assure they can't lie their way into the United States? Do you and the NYT honestly think new plans for vetting should be made public so that the "enemy" can be prepared and prepare others to counter the new procedures? I don't think it's supposed to work like that!
1
Quite the contrary! The vetting procedures are already quite tough; with multiple reviews by multiple agencies and taking up to two or more years for approval!
The problem is that Trump and his minions are bumblers and cannot fashion procedures.
You also forget that publicizing that vetting is now tougher -- i.e., extra steps, delays, reviews, etc. -- does not mean revealing procedures, but could by its very announcement curb attempts at entry.
Many of the incidents, in any event, are not the work of immigrants but of misguided, persuaded citizens!
Having created a mess in the Middle East, which has fueled terrorism, we need to welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing terrorism and oppression and seeking the American dream-- not block them!
But all that is moot. The threat of terrorism pales compared to gun violence and driving accidents-- over 30,000 die in gun-related events each year and over 30,000 in car-related incidents.
We should be much more worried about that than being anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pretending to do more on immigration and security -- building ineffective costly walls, issuing unconstitutional immigration orders, threatening to pull out from NATO, etc.
Or, having the so-called president cozying up to dictators who brutalize their people and export anti-American terrorism!
The problem is that Trump and his minions are bumblers and cannot fashion procedures.
You also forget that publicizing that vetting is now tougher -- i.e., extra steps, delays, reviews, etc. -- does not mean revealing procedures, but could by its very announcement curb attempts at entry.
Many of the incidents, in any event, are not the work of immigrants but of misguided, persuaded citizens!
Having created a mess in the Middle East, which has fueled terrorism, we need to welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing terrorism and oppression and seeking the American dream-- not block them!
But all that is moot. The threat of terrorism pales compared to gun violence and driving accidents-- over 30,000 die in gun-related events each year and over 30,000 in car-related incidents.
We should be much more worried about that than being anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pretending to do more on immigration and security -- building ineffective costly walls, issuing unconstitutional immigration orders, threatening to pull out from NATO, etc.
Or, having the so-called president cozying up to dictators who brutalize their people and export anti-American terrorism!
4
Thank you, Judge Gregory, for your eloquent and ringing affirmation of American values. Best thing I've read in months.
"They are often shorthand for larger ideas; they are explained, modified, retracted and amplified as they are repeated and as new circumstances and arguments arise. And they are often ambiguous. A court applying the majority’s new rule could thus have free rein to select whichever expression of a candidate’s developing ideas best supports its desired conclusion.”
Maybe, ahem, people should be more careful in what they say. But if they are shorthand for larger ideas, then yikes!
Maybe, ahem, people should be more careful in what they say. But if they are shorthand for larger ideas, then yikes!
2
The Trump administration urged the appeals court to not consider statements that candidate Trump made as evidence of his intent.
Take a pause, Trump supporters, and think about that for a minute.
Take a pause, Trump supporters, and think about that for a minute.
19
I easily see a Supreme Court reversal. The Court doesn't like legislative history (Scalia turned many of the justices against it), and the 4th Circuit has used statements made before Trump took office. That's ok for historians but the high court won't go for that. Further, and this isn't that clear, if the court think non-citizens who are not in this country have religious rights agains the U.S. government, that is going to be a tough sell to the Supremes. And that court will give more weight to presidential power in the area of immigration.
6
I agree.
But here is the thing: I don't get the constitutional grounds for banning Iran. Since when have they executed an act of terrorism? And maybe they're harboring Hezbollah, but when was the last time that organization committed an act of terrorism, the 1980s?
Where there is a power vacuum vying for influence is a national interest for all countries in the ME. So all countries are meddling. And WOW the Saudis take the cake on so many more levels.
But here is the thing: I don't get the constitutional grounds for banning Iran. Since when have they executed an act of terrorism? And maybe they're harboring Hezbollah, but when was the last time that organization committed an act of terrorism, the 1980s?
Where there is a power vacuum vying for influence is a national interest for all countries in the ME. So all countries are meddling. And WOW the Saudis take the cake on so many more levels.
3
Suppose an executive order banned people of a specific race from admission to the United States. If that is unconstitutional, it is so only because the Constitution limits the power of the executive to admit or deny people entrance into the United States. If the President intended to ban people but the order did not bring about that result, the order would not be unconstitutional for banning people where the people are not banned. The effect of the order is at issue. Whether the Constitution can limit the Executive under those circumstances would be at issue. How and under what circumstances the executive power is circumscribed, and how the limitation is proven in a court of law are the next questions. Courts say that legislative acts cannot be examined for purpose but only for intent, and that intent can be determined under some circumstances by examining the entire process by which the legislation became a bill passed by the Congress. Whether the executive order is adopted to implement an unconstitutional result should also be judicially determined by examining the entire process by which the order came about. Whether there is a relationship between the executive's prior comments and the order is the question. Resolving that issue requires an evidentiary inquiry.
1
No doubt the Supreme Court will overturn this on appeal and I hope in such a way to make such ruling difficult in the future.
2
If there's little controversy in the courts so far, the Supreme Court should decline to hear the case.
6
We all knew this was headed to the Supreme Court. His executive order has a better chance of prevailing there than it did at the Appeals Court level. Many of us are tired of activist judges. Glad to see the 3 Republican judges dissented. Clearly the judges are no longer apolitical.
6
Couldn't agree more. Any judge that agrees with me is obviously apolitical. Any judge that disagrees with me is a political hack.
2
Relying on Trump's campaign statements is about the same as relying on statements from a community meeting, which can happen in cases where intention discrimination is at issue. How could the court ignore Trump's own statement of his intentions.
4
"“This Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the executive branch to protect the people of this country from danger, and will seek review of this case in the United States Supreme Court,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement."
If the role of the DOJ is to protect the people of this country from danger, let it do its job by appointing a special prosecutor (instead of an independent counsel) who will investigate Trump(and Co)-Russian connection.
If the role of the DOJ is to protect the people of this country from danger, let it do its job by appointing a special prosecutor (instead of an independent counsel) who will investigate Trump(and Co)-Russian connection.
6
The opinion was split right down party lines. That means every Democrat judge has voted against Trump and every Republican has voted for him. The case was filed in jurisdictions that are majority Democrat, so this outcome was pretty predictable. What we have learned is that both Democrats and Republicans know where to file their cases to guarantee victory.
4
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, but how was the vote purely along "ideological lines" when there are seven Republican appointees to this circuit court and three votes for the administration's position?
Were there abstentions? If the case was not heard by the full court, how did they choose who would be hearing it?
Were there abstentions? If the case was not heard by the full court, how did they choose who would be hearing it?
5
Good question. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit used to lean conservative, but now it leans liberal. It has 11 Democratic appointees, seven Republican ones, and one judge appointed by presidents from both parties. Almost all of the judges participated in this decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fou...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fou...
1
We all know the true aims of the travel ban, even if it arguably reads otherwise. Trump repeatedly told us. The Court is absolutely correct to quash it.
7
Democrat appointed judges against the the ban, Republican appointed judges dissented. I fail to see how allowing citizens to see how politicized the judiciary has become is a win for anyone. And basing the decision on campaign rhetoric is a novel legal doctrine that will haunt politicians going forward. Hold candidates who win office accountable for their campaign rhetoric? That might become a win-win. Too bad ex post facto is still legal doctrine.
5
I think that the plaintiffs case can be bolstered by a sort of corollary to their central argument that the President's campaign rhetoric is probative in the banning of this exec. order. The supportive argument goes like this: Mr. Trump made many campaign promises. One of those promises was to ban Muslims from entering the United States, if only for some unspecified duration of time. He has been bragging about keeping other campaign promises as evidenced by other Executive Orders, and through legislation. For example regulatory relief, etc. He clearly takes his campaign promises seriously, and so should the court. He is clearly trying to keep the odious promise to ban Muslims from our country.
It doesn't make the argument against the order, but it does add support. perhaps before SCOTUS?
It doesn't make the argument against the order, but it does add support. perhaps before SCOTUS?
4
Odd that this "temporary" ban still needs to be implemented, more than 120 days after it was declared to be immediately necessary. It's almost as if Trump has no intention of actually making it temporary.
4
So i believe the decision is relying on his words during the campaign, " words do matter". They are also relying on the fact that the administration could not prove or even high light any extreme reasoning of a more heightened threat than the Obama administration already had done.
4
The travel ban was meant to suspend entry from the listed countries for 90 days. Why do they need it anymore?
4
Fifty-six years ago today, May 25, 1961, John F. Kennedy, an American President with vision and faith in our country, gave a speech to Congress laying out the plan to land an American on the moon and asking the assembled Representatives and Senators to support this expression of America's ability and faith in itself.
Today, May 25, 2017, we have a President, Donald Trump, whose vision is limited to asking Congress to finance a wall on our border and limit travel here on earth.
Why, in a half century, has our country gone from a belief in itself, looking outward with enthusiasm to an expansive vision of an unknown future, to today's fear of phantoms, of the unknown, of all that cannot be circumscribed within an ever-diminishing mental and physical environment?
Today, May 25, 2017, we have a President, Donald Trump, whose vision is limited to asking Congress to finance a wall on our border and limit travel here on earth.
Why, in a half century, has our country gone from a belief in itself, looking outward with enthusiasm to an expansive vision of an unknown future, to today's fear of phantoms, of the unknown, of all that cannot be circumscribed within an ever-diminishing mental and physical environment?
3
It is refreshing to read the comments from the three dissenting Justices. As for the ten other Justices, well, it's quite depressing.
6
I am not a religious person in any sense of the word and have real concern with any intermingling of supernatural belief in political decisions. Nonetheless banning people's ability to enter our nation based entirely on their faith is an absurdity and an affront to mental progress.
Rather than waiting to "figure out what is going on” through the enactment of laws written to exclude those who do not share this nations predominantly Christian faith, the President, Congress and Judiciary might better consider the separation of all religious belief from all matters of State.
It is impossible to accept the motto on our coinage which states "IN GOD WE TRUST" and not question just how separately and which god is being considered in that statement.
I am a citizen who does not believe in any god so where does that leave me?
It doesn't make me feel as though I am less a citizen than the person who accepts the sentiment expressed on our coinage as a statement of fact, but it sure does ring of exclusion from the "All-American Clubhouse".
I do not hold animus toward religious belief, but I am very concerned that people who associate themselves with religious organizations expect and receive governmental considerations of many sorts unavailable to those who share my sentiment.
"Of the people, by the people and for the people", does not include the words "some of"
We are free to worship, can we be free of worship?
Rather than waiting to "figure out what is going on” through the enactment of laws written to exclude those who do not share this nations predominantly Christian faith, the President, Congress and Judiciary might better consider the separation of all religious belief from all matters of State.
It is impossible to accept the motto on our coinage which states "IN GOD WE TRUST" and not question just how separately and which god is being considered in that statement.
I am a citizen who does not believe in any god so where does that leave me?
It doesn't make me feel as though I am less a citizen than the person who accepts the sentiment expressed on our coinage as a statement of fact, but it sure does ring of exclusion from the "All-American Clubhouse".
I do not hold animus toward religious belief, but I am very concerned that people who associate themselves with religious organizations expect and receive governmental considerations of many sorts unavailable to those who share my sentiment.
"Of the people, by the people and for the people", does not include the words "some of"
We are free to worship, can we be free of worship?
2
Why? Why does Trump need a travel ban for ninety days when he has been in office longer than that and has had the time to implement any new security procedures that he believes are needed? This sounds like another of Trump's make believe policies. (See his budget or Trumpcare for other examples.)
5
I wonder if this Is why the constitution imposed on Japan by the US stipulates a ten-year term for the judges. This gave the tenured bureaucrats a power of interpretation of the constitution (only constrained by their intelligence), which is now usurped by not-so-clever politicians (with more convictions and less conscience).
1
If Trump's logic was to ban immigration from countries who produce terrorists, how could Saudi Arabia, home to Osama bin Laden and the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, be left off the list?
In just this example, and as we saw in last weekend's pageantry in Saudi Arabia, politics and commerce trump reason. For that alone, the ban cannot stand, because politics cannot trump our Constitution.
And the administration has had 90 days since the first order, on January 27th, to implement updated vetting.
I want to protect America too, just not at the expense of our freedoms, many of which are part of the First Amendment.
In just this example, and as we saw in last weekend's pageantry in Saudi Arabia, politics and commerce trump reason. For that alone, the ban cannot stand, because politics cannot trump our Constitution.
And the administration has had 90 days since the first order, on January 27th, to implement updated vetting.
I want to protect America too, just not at the expense of our freedoms, many of which are part of the First Amendment.
2
The travel ban will be upheld in the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, though, Trump's actions have had the desired effect. While everyone is arguing over the travel ban, they forget that he also dramatically lowered the number of refugees that the U.S. will take. (While committing to greater support for refugees in camps near their own countries.)
The drop off in refugee numbers is already impressive. This has far greater impact in the long term than a temporary ban.
Even when liberals think Trump is losing, he is winning.
In the meantime, though, Trump's actions have had the desired effect. While everyone is arguing over the travel ban, they forget that he also dramatically lowered the number of refugees that the U.S. will take. (While committing to greater support for refugees in camps near their own countries.)
The drop off in refugee numbers is already impressive. This has far greater impact in the long term than a temporary ban.
Even when liberals think Trump is losing, he is winning.
3
So, is the Trump administration working on improving infrastructure yet?
3
Being a democracy is not- and cannot be- without risk. In fact, one could say that risk is its core characteristic. Openness towards and protections for different- even opposing- beliefs (political, religious, lifestyle...) mean conflicts will occur. Even violent ones.
But our democracy calls us to respond with a firmness of purpose in resolving conflicts and differences: our firm commitment to the Constitution. "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union" chose a living document and diverse collective identity, our ever evolving national character: Americans.
The aliveness of this identity, it's evolving nature, ensures our vulnerability, just as its vulnerability ensures our aliveness. We have outsourced this fearsome reality to "the brave men and women of our military", but IF we want to remain a democracy, during a time when the risk of death may draw near, we must all face the vulnerability which our way of life requires of us.
Yes, we must do all that's possible to keep ourselves safe, but not at any cost- not by undermining our Constitution, by chasing illusions of safety at the expense of the realities of life, this American way of life.
The mystery of this improbable living thing, this American democracy, has compelled people, at home and abroad, to believe that freedom, justice and harmony are possible. The power of that belief has endured for 240 years and will continue to prevail, if we let it.
But our democracy calls us to respond with a firmness of purpose in resolving conflicts and differences: our firm commitment to the Constitution. "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union" chose a living document and diverse collective identity, our ever evolving national character: Americans.
The aliveness of this identity, it's evolving nature, ensures our vulnerability, just as its vulnerability ensures our aliveness. We have outsourced this fearsome reality to "the brave men and women of our military", but IF we want to remain a democracy, during a time when the risk of death may draw near, we must all face the vulnerability which our way of life requires of us.
Yes, we must do all that's possible to keep ourselves safe, but not at any cost- not by undermining our Constitution, by chasing illusions of safety at the expense of the realities of life, this American way of life.
The mystery of this improbable living thing, this American democracy, has compelled people, at home and abroad, to believe that freedom, justice and harmony are possible. The power of that belief has endured for 240 years and will continue to prevail, if we let it.
3
“Because of their nature, campaign statements are unbounded resources by which to find intent of various kinds,” he wrote. “They are often shorthand for larger ideas; they are explained, modified, retracted and amplified as they are repeated and as new circumstances and arguments arise. And they are often ambiguous. A court applying the majority’s new rule could thus have free rein to select whichever expression of a candidate’s developing ideas best supports its desired conclusion.”
Oh you mean like Republicans do at will in every other sentence they speak often inventing things never said?
Oh you mean like Republicans do at will in every other sentence they speak often inventing things never said?
2
it should be noted that there have been virtually no assaults on the freedom of the US from those countries isolated in Mr. Trump's travel ban.
We have noted that Mr. Trump did allow to occur a foreign agent for both Russia and Turkey to garner a plethora of our nation's most sensitive secrets during that time that he was in the National Security Agent position.
It has been established by each of our seventeen intelligence agencies that Russia attempted to alter our most sacred election process, and has invaded independent countries, assassinated dozens of journalists and has assassinated or imprisoned dozens of political adversaries of Vladimir V. Putin.
Turkey paid $530,000 to a unregistered foreign agent who had not properly gotten the legal permission required of a retired military officer to accept funds from a foreign government. Turkey has collaborated in a discussion about kidnapping a US Green Card holder.
The Trump Administration has experienced many failures, but none more compelling than that of failing to properly identify those countries that are real and present dangers to our free society.
We have noted that Mr. Trump did allow to occur a foreign agent for both Russia and Turkey to garner a plethora of our nation's most sensitive secrets during that time that he was in the National Security Agent position.
It has been established by each of our seventeen intelligence agencies that Russia attempted to alter our most sacred election process, and has invaded independent countries, assassinated dozens of journalists and has assassinated or imprisoned dozens of political adversaries of Vladimir V. Putin.
Turkey paid $530,000 to a unregistered foreign agent who had not properly gotten the legal permission required of a retired military officer to accept funds from a foreign government. Turkey has collaborated in a discussion about kidnapping a US Green Card holder.
The Trump Administration has experienced many failures, but none more compelling than that of failing to properly identify those countries that are real and present dangers to our free society.
2
@Ray: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan supplied the terrorists or harbor them that attacked US targets on US soil and abroad. That's why they give the US access to their database. The US also screens everybody who wants to come live there quite extensively and tourists from those countries are also scrutinized quite thoroughly. Last I checked, Iran and Irak had legitimate governments.
1
I'm a bit puzzled why my reply to Ray ended up here...
1
This was supposed to be a temporary ban for 90 days and the HS was supposed to come up with an extreme vetting process.
It is already more than 120 days and no sign of extreme vetting and Trump administration still insists on its illegal ban. This is another indication that the underlying reason fr the ban is not security of American people, they would have otherwise presented their extreme vetting process and there would be no point to bring it to the court.
This is about discriminating against muslims from those six nations.
Not to mention, even without a formal ban and a new vetting process, HS scrutinized muslims and treat them differently when they enter the US. Discrimination has never served America. We often experience its consequences decades down the road. Yet, it seems, we will need decades to recover from damages that Trump does to America.
It is already more than 120 days and no sign of extreme vetting and Trump administration still insists on its illegal ban. This is another indication that the underlying reason fr the ban is not security of American people, they would have otherwise presented their extreme vetting process and there would be no point to bring it to the court.
This is about discriminating against muslims from those six nations.
Not to mention, even without a formal ban and a new vetting process, HS scrutinized muslims and treat them differently when they enter the US. Discrimination has never served America. We often experience its consequences decades down the road. Yet, it seems, we will need decades to recover from damages that Trump does to America.
2
Banning particular groups from coming to the U.S. is not a way to protect our country. Data has proven that immigrants from those six countries are not the ones terrorizing us, it is those who have either been born here, or have become naturalized citizens who are the culprits. I want to point out that the majority, perhaps even 100% of them are young males, who become radicalized by what they see on the internet. I do believe if you want to stop terrorist attacks, then an attempt must be made to address some of the issues that provoke these young men to violence. I don't see that happening.
2
The Constitution says the President gets to enforce the rules the Congress writes. The Courts have assumed the right to say "no he can't" in the present case and that the President can ignore the laws on who comes in with our previous guy.
I pray the judges sitting on their benches and making our laws are right, because if we do have a mass killing by someone the President's orders would have stopped, we're going to ask them to step down and find something else to do.
I hope the court decision was not made for political reasons.
I pray the judges sitting on their benches and making our laws are right, because if we do have a mass killing by someone the President's orders would have stopped, we're going to ask them to step down and find something else to do.
I hope the court decision was not made for political reasons.
2
Since 9/11 our leaders have claimed that the war on terror is not a war against Islam, but the ruling in Richmond by extension says it is. President Trump's travel ban is an attempt to keep Islamic terrorists out of our nation so they can not commit heinous acts. I recognize that not every Muslim is a terrorist, but how do we know who is a terrorist and who is not? More importantly, how do we know who has the potential to become a terrorist? In fact, many US citizens of Muslim backgrounds have since 9/11 have committed acts of terror, as in the murder of the dozens of innocent people at the nightclub in Orlando. Also federal and state law enforcement knew who these people were and what they were capable of doing but let them freely walk the streets. The UK authorities knew who the terrorist was who committed the dreadful act in Manchester; they knew of his allegiance to ISIS, as the flag once flew above his home; they knew of his potential to commit terror, but allowed him freedom. Absurd. Should the decision to allow travel from the nations designated by the Obama administration, which the Trump order would do, be left to a roll of the dice? This is an issue that should not be left to chance. I support President Trump. Thank you.
1
It will be interesting to see if all five 'originalists' will be able to ignore Trump's obvious religious intolerance.
2
It's a pretty poorly designed "Muslim" ban that leaves out the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims.
One wonders if the courts think that even Congress could pass legislation to cease all immigration or would that also somehow be found to drip with animus. It's amazing that anyone would think there are First Amendment issues here, let alone that the First Amendment applies to non-citizens who are not in the United States.
Oh well. I hope the SC overturns this but if not we'll just have to live with terrorists going berserk every now and then. Those of us who do not have protection provided by Secret Service or Federal Marshals will get used to it , I guess.
One wonders if the courts think that even Congress could pass legislation to cease all immigration or would that also somehow be found to drip with animus. It's amazing that anyone would think there are First Amendment issues here, let alone that the First Amendment applies to non-citizens who are not in the United States.
Oh well. I hope the SC overturns this but if not we'll just have to live with terrorists going berserk every now and then. Those of us who do not have protection provided by Secret Service or Federal Marshals will get used to it , I guess.
1
I'm against Trump's travel ban, but puzzled how the courts have found the authority to strike it down. Consider the following:
1. If you follow the 4th Circuit's reasoning, President Obama could have issued the travel ban 2.0 in December and it would have been Constitutional.
2. If you follow the 4th Circuit's reasoning, Donald Trump cannot limit immigration from a predominantly Muslim country for the remainder of his presidency without the courts performing a "judicial psychoanalysis of [his] heart of hearts," even if he has a legitimate security reasons for doing so.
3. Finally, if you follow the 4th Circuit's reasoning, anything a political candidate says, even if taped in secret, can be used against them to "hold hostage" their future policies.
How can these results be the correct outcome? I get people's outrage about the EO, but I can't help feeling the 4th Circuit Majority had a difficult time separating their own feelings/opinions about the President from the legal question presented to them. (I guess time will tell.)
1. If you follow the 4th Circuit's reasoning, President Obama could have issued the travel ban 2.0 in December and it would have been Constitutional.
2. If you follow the 4th Circuit's reasoning, Donald Trump cannot limit immigration from a predominantly Muslim country for the remainder of his presidency without the courts performing a "judicial psychoanalysis of [his] heart of hearts," even if he has a legitimate security reasons for doing so.
3. Finally, if you follow the 4th Circuit's reasoning, anything a political candidate says, even if taped in secret, can be used against them to "hold hostage" their future policies.
How can these results be the correct outcome? I get people's outrage about the EO, but I can't help feeling the 4th Circuit Majority had a difficult time separating their own feelings/opinions about the President from the legal question presented to them. (I guess time will tell.)
3
It is our duty to welcome these people into our country. Those who travel here to stay and have children. We owe every refuge from Syriya a home and a job. Many of the people from these countries hate America and its people. We must welcome them in and sacrifice our way of life for theirs. It is the politically correct thing to do. God bless the Middel East.
2
If you are for this ban, please explain to me why it omits Saudi Arabia. That's where the 9/11 attackers came from. An anti-terrorism measure that wouldn't have altered 9/11 one bit seems deeply flawed. Maybe Trump doesn't really care that much about terrorism after all?
2
This is more of a test of the validity of the Supreme Court than the validity of the proposed travel ban.
If the Supreme Court overturns the ruling, we have a good idea of what's in store for the future.
If the Supreme Court overturns the ruling, we have a good idea of what's in store for the future.
18
There is already substantial vetting of potential immigrants, and extensive surveillance by intelligence agencies of travelers to the U.S. Most important though, Trump's proposed ban on travel to the U.S. would add nothing to our security.
12
You nailed it. And especially with so many terrorists of the home grown variety, what good does a targeted travel ban do, short of further rile up our enemies. And if the logic is sound, how can Saudi Arabia be excluded?
I also believe that the world's intelligence agencies have prevented many more terrorist attacks than we ever learn about.
The home grown terrorist is extremely difficult to combat, short of throwing a lot of people in jail on ill-formulated suspicions. I'm not willing to impair First and Fourth Amendment protections in the interest of stopping a terrorist. That would destroy our freedom, and bring more pleasure to any enemy than any individual attack.
Trump let's his "in the heat of the moment" promises get ahead of reason. We can't accept that and slowly see our freedoms diminished.
No thanks.
I also believe that the world's intelligence agencies have prevented many more terrorist attacks than we ever learn about.
The home grown terrorist is extremely difficult to combat, short of throwing a lot of people in jail on ill-formulated suspicions. I'm not willing to impair First and Fourth Amendment protections in the interest of stopping a terrorist. That would destroy our freedom, and bring more pleasure to any enemy than any individual attack.
Trump let's his "in the heat of the moment" promises get ahead of reason. We can't accept that and slowly see our freedoms diminished.
No thanks.
The appeals court was wrong, and it is likely the Supreme Court will overturn the decision. The first amendment's protection of freedom of religion applies with the United States; it is unlikely it applies to our borders. SCOTUS must decide, and hopefully soon.
The President clearly has the authority to regulate our borders, as he did with the second ban.
It is absolutely clear that Muslims who are citizens of the US or legal permanent residents are entitled to the same constitutional protections as the rest of us, and discrimination against them is legally and ethically wrong, and cannot be tolerated.
But not so for immigration, here the issues are far cloudier and more complex, and it is probable the president's second ban will pass constitutional muster. Some may object to it, but particularly in light of the events in Manchester, many will agree. According to large surveys by the well regarded Pew research center, over 10% of the world's Muslims believe suicide bombing is acceptable. This is of course a minority, but it is still a concerning percentage.
Much as I believe in both the separation of church and state, and the right of people to practice their religion within our borders, there are limits, and it is the clear job of the President to adjudicate those limits with regard to immigration.
The President clearly has the authority to regulate our borders, as he did with the second ban.
It is absolutely clear that Muslims who are citizens of the US or legal permanent residents are entitled to the same constitutional protections as the rest of us, and discrimination against them is legally and ethically wrong, and cannot be tolerated.
But not so for immigration, here the issues are far cloudier and more complex, and it is probable the president's second ban will pass constitutional muster. Some may object to it, but particularly in light of the events in Manchester, many will agree. According to large surveys by the well regarded Pew research center, over 10% of the world's Muslims believe suicide bombing is acceptable. This is of course a minority, but it is still a concerning percentage.
Much as I believe in both the separation of church and state, and the right of people to practice their religion within our borders, there are limits, and it is the clear job of the President to adjudicate those limits with regard to immigration.
7
It is odd, though, that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country that is NOT on the banned travel list, and Trump has business dealings there.
2
How can you reference Manchester? He was a British citizen, born in Manchester. No immigration law would have protected them from him.
Wow, where in the constitution does it say there is a limit on religious practice?
Those who would approve of restrictions based on a generalization (like creed or nationality) are conveniently forgetting that our nation promulgated and is a signatory to multiple international agreements about the rights of refugees and their treatment. And like it or not, any international agreement we sign up for and congress approves (which they did a long time ago) is the law of the land.
Those agreements are really clear in stating that there will be no prejudicial treatment of refugees based on their nation of origin or religion, and must be treated on a case by case basis.
Not all the people trying to gain entry to the US are refugees, but there might be some in the blocked nations whose lives are at risk simply by staying put in their homes---these are refugees. A blanket ban makes hearing their plea for help and asylum impossible and therefore contravenes the law of the land.
SCOTUS will reject the ban based on this rational and many others.
Those who would approve of restrictions based on a generalization (like creed or nationality) are conveniently forgetting that our nation promulgated and is a signatory to multiple international agreements about the rights of refugees and their treatment. And like it or not, any international agreement we sign up for and congress approves (which they did a long time ago) is the law of the land.
Those agreements are really clear in stating that there will be no prejudicial treatment of refugees based on their nation of origin or religion, and must be treated on a case by case basis.
Not all the people trying to gain entry to the US are refugees, but there might be some in the blocked nations whose lives are at risk simply by staying put in their homes---these are refugees. A blanket ban makes hearing their plea for help and asylum impossible and therefore contravenes the law of the land.
SCOTUS will reject the ban based on this rational and many others.
2
The judge, who is legislating from the bench, is tone deaf to real security concerns, and the timing is way off, 4 days after Manchester.
The US constitution applies to US citizens and not foreign nationals. No one has the constitutional right to immigrate to or even visit the US.
I would say with confidence that after every increasing attacks on the West by jihadists, the majority of Americans, if not the majority of NYT commenters, support stronger border control measures. Security is the number 1 responsibility of any government, and this judicial branch is derelict in its ruling, to rule in favor of foreign nationals accessing the US over real safety concerns of US citizens. The ruling should not stand in the long run.
The US constitution applies to US citizens and not foreign nationals. No one has the constitutional right to immigrate to or even visit the US.
I would say with confidence that after every increasing attacks on the West by jihadists, the majority of Americans, if not the majority of NYT commenters, support stronger border control measures. Security is the number 1 responsibility of any government, and this judicial branch is derelict in its ruling, to rule in favor of foreign nationals accessing the US over real safety concerns of US citizens. The ruling should not stand in the long run.
8
Yes, security is imperative. But the FACTS (those pesky facts!) show us that, not once since at least 1975, has a refugee committed an act of terror in the US. And it is also a FACT that we already have what almost everybody would recognize as "extreme vetting" of refugees. And it is also a FACT that no refugees from any of the countries named in this nasty, bigoted travel ban has committed an act of terror here. And it is also a FACT that t---- is a loud-mouthed unrepentant bigot who has not even a passing acquaintance with either TRUTH or FACTS.
If the SCOTUS upholds the travel ban and reverses the dozens of judges who have ruled against it, it will be a terrible endorsement of that bigotry and evidence that the failure of the Senate to advise and consent on Judge Merrick Garland is a devastating stain on our Constitution that can be laid at Mitch McConnell's hyper-partisan and repulsively racist feet.
If the SCOTUS upholds the travel ban and reverses the dozens of judges who have ruled against it, it will be a terrible endorsement of that bigotry and evidence that the failure of the Senate to advise and consent on Judge Merrick Garland is a devastating stain on our Constitution that can be laid at Mitch McConnell's hyper-partisan and repulsively racist feet.
1
The U.S. Constitution applies to the President, who may thus not engaged in official acts that entail religious discrimination. His statements in the campaign indicate that his EOs here exactly that. Further, the draft DHS report suggests that singling individual countries doesn't enhance security. His EO was pure politics.
The dissent appears to think that whatever is said on the campaign trail has no relation to reality- Mr. Trump campaigned on excluding Muslims, keeping a registry of American Muslims and various other restrictions to be placed on Muslims and only Muslims. Then he wrote a ban to exclude Muslims from the US- there would appear to be a direct line between the rhetoric and the ban.
The Minority President hasn't been able to keep any of his campaign promises successfully to date. There is no wall on the Mexican border nor is there likely to be one. Hillary Clinton won't be going to jail, coal won't be seeing any new jobs, Obamacare repeal is a disaster and the tax reform bill is going nowhere. A Muslim ban is an easy action, requiring no Congressional approval or funding- why shouldn't it been seen for wqhat it is, an attempt to placate his base by singling out an unpopular relgious group? The Adminsitration has provided no data or historical actions which would support banning Muslims fleeing the wars and famines in Africa and the Middle East. The ban doesn't include Saudi Arabia, the one country whose citizens have committed terrorist acts on US soil. This omission rather undermines the national security argument.
The Minority President hasn't been able to keep any of his campaign promises successfully to date. There is no wall on the Mexican border nor is there likely to be one. Hillary Clinton won't be going to jail, coal won't be seeing any new jobs, Obamacare repeal is a disaster and the tax reform bill is going nowhere. A Muslim ban is an easy action, requiring no Congressional approval or funding- why shouldn't it been seen for wqhat it is, an attempt to placate his base by singling out an unpopular relgious group? The Adminsitration has provided no data or historical actions which would support banning Muslims fleeing the wars and famines in Africa and the Middle East. The ban doesn't include Saudi Arabia, the one country whose citizens have committed terrorist acts on US soil. This omission rather undermines the national security argument.
19
I am pleased with the court's decision, really pleased. However the fact that it was arrived at via strict party line voting is so disturbing as to almost overshadow the happy result. After all, this is "mother and apple pie" stuff, folks.
Why couldn't ALL of the court's 17 justices, assumedly intelligent and well-meaning people, come together on a vote to prevent a government action so brazenly based on and intended to promote religious intolerance?
Why couldn't ALL of the court's 17 justices, assumedly intelligent and well-meaning people, come together on a vote to prevent a government action so brazenly based on and intended to promote religious intolerance?
15
I think that some of the 13 judges who ruled against the travel ban were appointed by GOP Presidents. As for the others, yes, partisanship does infect court decisions to a certain extent.
Thank you for stating this. The corruption of the judicial system by becoming partisan is appalling. Jeff Sessions is a racist. He is a political appointee acting as a lapdog for this so called president. The overblown claims on the part of Judge Shedd show exactly how biased and partisan his thinking is. "millions" are safe --right now. "Millions" have been safe in the US all this time. "millions" will be safe if we do the Constitutionally right thing and include others peacefully in our country. Be wise and discerning--of course. A travel ban is neither wise nor discerning.
The security mask hiding the Trump administration's real discriminatory bias against the targeted religion, Islam, has been torn asunder by the federal appeals Court, that rightly found the Trump administration's Muslim travel ban against the constitutional principles, values, and the civil rights.
7
I do not support the US participation in all these Muslim Civil wars going on which seems to cause retaliatory attacks like in England. The court when taking a candidate's comments in a crazy campaign where they promise everything to whomever their visiting is wrong but maybe the campaign rhetoric will be more curtailed now. Seems the court think the President who's main job is to protect the land has taken that responsibility themselves. All those countries named are in midst of violent wars where the US is doing the most in destroying one side so the President has the right to protect against that side.
Good news for a change. Wonder what will happen when it gets to the SCOTUS.
7
RE: "Wonder what will happen when it gets to the SCOTUS"
Isn't that what Neil Gorsuch is for?
Isn't that what Neil Gorsuch is for?
With so many judicial reviews finding the ban unconstitutional, why would SCOTUS even pick this up? Politics and publicity, maybe. Common sense, no.
7
because it's a big issue, does the president have the right to protect the country by keeping out terrorists, against the wishes of liberals.
Leaving aside its bombastic preamble, the Fourth Circuit's opinion is flawed:
1. It makes the mistake of looking to then-candidate Trump's polemical statements as evidence that the executive order is a pretextual ban on Muslims. This is improper. The candidate could have said dumb things and then the president, on his first day in office, been told by intelligence agents that the executive order is needed for various reasons, which might or might not coincide with something he said when campaigning. It's untenable legal reasoning to reject this.
The court tries to overcome this problem with an unexplained comment that the president didn't consult intelligence agencies. Not nearly good enough for such a consequential decision.
2. There is no irreparable harm, required for this kind of injunctive relief, in having to wait some finite period to have one's relative arrive in the U.S. Harm yes, irreparable harm no. The court barely analyzes this prong.
3. There is no First Amendment right for a U.S. citizen or resident to compel the government to admit a relative. The government can refuse to do so for any reason, including the relative's religion, except as limited by statute. (There is a partially limiting statute here; the court should have stuck with it. But it rushed off to constitutional analysis, then largely bungled it.)
4. The standing analysis is, however, reasonable.
I predict the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn this largely unsound opinion, probably 5-4.
1. It makes the mistake of looking to then-candidate Trump's polemical statements as evidence that the executive order is a pretextual ban on Muslims. This is improper. The candidate could have said dumb things and then the president, on his first day in office, been told by intelligence agents that the executive order is needed for various reasons, which might or might not coincide with something he said when campaigning. It's untenable legal reasoning to reject this.
The court tries to overcome this problem with an unexplained comment that the president didn't consult intelligence agencies. Not nearly good enough for such a consequential decision.
2. There is no irreparable harm, required for this kind of injunctive relief, in having to wait some finite period to have one's relative arrive in the U.S. Harm yes, irreparable harm no. The court barely analyzes this prong.
3. There is no First Amendment right for a U.S. citizen or resident to compel the government to admit a relative. The government can refuse to do so for any reason, including the relative's religion, except as limited by statute. (There is a partially limiting statute here; the court should have stuck with it. But it rushed off to constitutional analysis, then largely bungled it.)
4. The standing analysis is, however, reasonable.
I predict the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn this largely unsound opinion, probably 5-4.
18
I continue to detect political bias in these judicial decisions. If the SCOTUS rules against the president God help us as we move forward in attempts to protect the country. The decision would be as monumental as Roe v. Wade which is also about protecting lives. Given the choice, how can we act so recklessly?
The government did not produce evidence of a new threat.
What is "pretextual" ban? The plaintiff made a prima facie case for intentional discrimination. The government tried to show a nondiscriminatory basis for the ban, national security, but since there was no actual national security evidence, national security was the pretext.
A denial of constitutional rights can be irreparable harm in and of itself.
The government cannot make any laws that deny free exercise or establish a religion. That means the president cannot make immigration regulations that disadvantage Muslims based on religion, and we all know where Trump stands on Muslims.
What is "pretextual" ban? The plaintiff made a prima facie case for intentional discrimination. The government tried to show a nondiscriminatory basis for the ban, national security, but since there was no actual national security evidence, national security was the pretext.
A denial of constitutional rights can be irreparable harm in and of itself.
The government cannot make any laws that deny free exercise or establish a religion. That means the president cannot make immigration regulations that disadvantage Muslims based on religion, and we all know where Trump stands on Muslims.
1
1. If a president is attempting to pass off an executive order that clearly has a disparate effect on Muslims, and if it is unconstitutional to discriminate against Muslims, then it's only common sense to determine what the real goal of the order is. Listen to the words of the sole person who signed the order: Trump clearly said he would stop Muslim immigration--and then when he belatedly discovered that religious preference is unconstitutional, he got Guilliani to invent a disguise, and promptly bragged that nothing had changed. The affected countries together haven't sent a terrorist to the U.S. over the last 40 years, so you don't need to be a National Security Advisor to realize this order does nothing to improve security and everything to exclude 180 million Muslims abroad and to denigrate every Muslim citizen of the U.S. The First Amendment forbids the government from disfavoring any religion, and there is no question that Trump's own words prove he disfavors Muslims. If you want security, you ask the experts; if you don't want Muslims, you don't need to talk to experts.
2. The majority opinion spends pages on the harm to a Muslim lawfully working in the U.S. whose wife was approved for a visa and is awaiting her consular interview. Her husband has to decide whether to go home, or live apart from her for who knows how long, since she will have to restart a long process. That's irreparable harm.
3. No, the U.S. may not discriminate based on religion.
2. The majority opinion spends pages on the harm to a Muslim lawfully working in the U.S. whose wife was approved for a visa and is awaiting her consular interview. Her husband has to decide whether to go home, or live apart from her for who knows how long, since she will have to restart a long process. That's irreparable harm.
3. No, the U.S. may not discriminate based on religion.
1
The last line of defense just needs to hold out until the Russian investigation concludes.
4
The judiciary is being tested for its impartiality, independence and fairness. It is failing because the lower court judges are voting along party lines and not the merits of the case. The power of executive orders is being tested by unelected judges and those appointed by the democratic or Republican presidents. The establishment is making the presidency and the power of the electoral college impotent. These kinds of judgment will give an excuse to Trump to get reelected because indirectly the people who voted for him are finding out that they voted for a paper tiger and it will take another term to enable him to execute his promises without any impediment.
8
"...execute his promises without any impediment.". What would be the meaning behind this, that the judiciary, a co-equal part of our government, along with the Congress should be silent and allow someone to enact his/her promises without the oversight of those two other branches of government? In other words, become a autocratic dictator who is unimpeded by the rule of law and constitution?
The courts, like them or not, are considered failures if their opinions are not to ones liking and are considered "activist".
There have been opinions that many, including myself, considered as "not right", but, many of have never advocated for a President of either party to act "unimpeded".
The danger in your comment is the other branches of government be silenced so our "president" can act with impunity. Should that happen we will be no better than the worst "banana republic" on this planet.
As far as our "president" being impotent, his daily actions are the reason for that impotence. His inexperience, and knowledge of our form of government are both laughable, and dangerous.
Lastly, being a paper tiger is perhaps giving Trump credit, and even with another term, he will still be ineffective. And the courts and possibly Congress will clean up his mess, again and again.
The courts, like them or not, are considered failures if their opinions are not to ones liking and are considered "activist".
There have been opinions that many, including myself, considered as "not right", but, many of have never advocated for a President of either party to act "unimpeded".
The danger in your comment is the other branches of government be silenced so our "president" can act with impunity. Should that happen we will be no better than the worst "banana republic" on this planet.
As far as our "president" being impotent, his daily actions are the reason for that impotence. His inexperience, and knowledge of our form of government are both laughable, and dangerous.
Lastly, being a paper tiger is perhaps giving Trump credit, and even with another term, he will still be ineffective. And the courts and possibly Congress will clean up his mess, again and again.
1
RE: "The establishment is making the presidency and the power of the electoral college impotent."
It is sad that people don't understand the constitution branches of government.
RE: the power of the President to execute his promises without any impediment
In a democracy some people will still favor a strongman. A dictator. We've seen it elsewhere. I've said it numerous times - some people want to follow the pack alpha. They need the alpha. The alpha should be supreme. It seems instinctual.
It is sad that people don't understand the constitution branches of government.
RE: the power of the President to execute his promises without any impediment
In a democracy some people will still favor a strongman. A dictator. We've seen it elsewhere. I've said it numerous times - some people want to follow the pack alpha. They need the alpha. The alpha should be supreme. It seems instinctual.
1
If you think that the only reason that Trump can't get his Executive Order #1 or #2 approved by any of the several U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts is because the judges are mere politicians, I suggest you read the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' majority opinion. A U.S. president is not a king, and he may not give an order that is unconstitutional. The First Amendment has prevented governors, Congress. and presidents from enacting laws or effecting Executive Orders that have the primary goal of favoring or disfavoring any religion. Every court that has looked at this has concluded that Trump's primary goal was to ban Muslims from coming into the United States because he thinks Muslim nationals from six countries are likely to be terrorists, even though not one terrorist has ever arrived in the U.S. from any of those six countries, and no national security expert has opined that the ban is likely to reduce terror attacks.
Everyone needs an impediment, Girish. National leaders without any impediments are called dictators, and they are the enemies of freedom and liberty.
If Trump wants to stop terrorists (most of whom in the U.S. have been white Christians) then he has every right to subject any visitor to extreme vetting, and no court, regardless of the judge, is going to interfere. Just vetting one religion, though, is un-American, and that's why Trump's executive order is being temporarily restrained, and why he's likely to lose the trial as well.
Everyone needs an impediment, Girish. National leaders without any impediments are called dictators, and they are the enemies of freedom and liberty.
If Trump wants to stop terrorists (most of whom in the U.S. have been white Christians) then he has every right to subject any visitor to extreme vetting, and no court, regardless of the judge, is going to interfere. Just vetting one religion, though, is un-American, and that's why Trump's executive order is being temporarily restrained, and why he's likely to lose the trial as well.
2
While campaigning for the high office of President, the guy says he wants a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. And then once installed as "so-called president" he issues travel ban v.1 and v.2, both targeting countries with a large Muslim population. Clearly, he's fanning the flames of religious intolerance and labeling Muslims terrorists. Why does the Supreme Court need to hear this so-called case? Do they serve at the pleasure of the president???
11
Remember when we used to ban communists because they harbored philosophies and values that were detrimental to our society and its values?
14
Communism is not a religion. Communist countries like the Soviet Union vowed to expand their economic and authoritarian governing doctrine and destroy capitalism.
Yes. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/753/case.html
The case is strongly relied upon by the minority in the Fourth Circuit case decided today.
The case is strongly relied upon by the minority in the Fourth Circuit case decided today.
So this establishes a constitutional right of Muslims to immigrate to the US? After all, these current events and their judicial interpretation will always color any actions any future US government might take to restrict immigration from Muslim-majority countries.
10
No, it establishes the lack of constitutional authority to ban members of a specific religion from entering the US.
1
It does do what you're wondering about, or something very close to it. You've identified one of the key flaws in the court's opinion. It doesn't withstand close scrutiny, as I've written in this blog.
It's alarming that the judiciary is becoming so politicized, but fortunately the higher courts have to publish reasons for their decisions. That exposes logical flaws in a court's reasoning. There are plenty in this opinion.
It's alarming that the judiciary is becoming so politicized, but fortunately the higher courts have to publish reasons for their decisions. That exposes logical flaws in a court's reasoning. There are plenty in this opinion.
1
Hope so.
"Such discrimination, Judge Gregory wrote for the majority, violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion."
First, the Muslim religion, as de Tocqueville noted some time ago, is not a religion but a Cleric-Imam political system centered on Shariah, caning and stoning at will. Second, these are not citizens, but rather individuals seeking to emigrate to America, i.e., seems the entire world has American citizenship these days with past open-orders uber alles. It should be noted that Christians live in these same countries--an all religion ban?
Though not unexpected, not sure if America's federal clerics-imams are concerned about a lawful order by a president or serving their fellows at the DNC Politburo. Doesn't much matter, the Supreme Court will have the final word on the order.
First, the Muslim religion, as de Tocqueville noted some time ago, is not a religion but a Cleric-Imam political system centered on Shariah, caning and stoning at will. Second, these are not citizens, but rather individuals seeking to emigrate to America, i.e., seems the entire world has American citizenship these days with past open-orders uber alles. It should be noted that Christians live in these same countries--an all religion ban?
Though not unexpected, not sure if America's federal clerics-imams are concerned about a lawful order by a president or serving their fellows at the DNC Politburo. Doesn't much matter, the Supreme Court will have the final word on the order.
How quickly we forget. You would think that after the tragic events in Manchester where 22 children and young adults lost their lives during a terrorist attack, that this temporary ban would have passed. The people coming from the countries mentioned in this article are not being banned permanently but are just being vetted to insure that they are not entering our country to do harm to our citizens. We have seen attacks here and abroad and we must be certain that those coming in are not terrorists whose only goal is to maim and kill. There has already been too much devastation and we do not need any more lives lost to these tragic events. If those entering our country pass the vetting process. they will be welcome with open arms. We cannot be too careful in these changing times.
13
And YOU would think that 2 YEARS of vetting would be enough. For 45 to claim that Muslim-majority nations' immigrants need "extreme vetting" just proves that he had and has no idea of what the current vetting process consists.
2
The Manchester attacker was born in Manchester.
The only person from the six countries affected by Trump's Executive Order who ever committed a terrorist act came to the U.S. as a baby and was radicalized long afterwards. Nothing in Trump's order would have prevented a Manchester-like attack in the U.S., nor would it bar a furture terrorist from coming to the U.S. as a baby. And the order wouldn't have prevented 9/11 which was carried out mostly by men from Saudi Arabia, including Ossama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is not among the six countries the order targets.
The only person from the six countries affected by Trump's Executive Order who ever committed a terrorist act came to the U.S. as a baby and was radicalized long afterwards. Nothing in Trump's order would have prevented a Manchester-like attack in the U.S., nor would it bar a furture terrorist from coming to the U.S. as a baby. And the order wouldn't have prevented 9/11 which was carried out mostly by men from Saudi Arabia, including Ossama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is not among the six countries the order targets.
2
The vetting process is quite rigorous and lengthy, and according to the current administration is being made even more so; there is nothing in these court decisions that prevents "strengthening" that process, nor does that depend on a ban.
It is disingenuous to blame the court for weakening the power of the President. The President absolutely needs to have the power to react to threats within a time frame that neither Congress nor the Judiciary can act, but that doesn't mean he can order someone locked up for giving him a dirty look and it doesn't mean he can enact punitive measures against a class of people without a legitimate basis for why those people pose a threat and other immigrants do not.
Along those lines, it was interesting to watch this week Trump sidling up with Sunni Muslims and calling Shiites, and Iran in particular, the source of terrorism. Is he the only one in the world that doesn't know that both Al-Qaeda and ISIS are Sunni extremists?
The administration failed to prove that allowing well-vetted immigration from those particular seven Muslim countries posed a threat and was abundantly clear in communicating the real purpose of the ban. If children hurt others by misusing their tools, you have to take the tools away from them.
Along those lines, it was interesting to watch this week Trump sidling up with Sunni Muslims and calling Shiites, and Iran in particular, the source of terrorism. Is he the only one in the world that doesn't know that both Al-Qaeda and ISIS are Sunni extremists?
The administration failed to prove that allowing well-vetted immigration from those particular seven Muslim countries posed a threat and was abundantly clear in communicating the real purpose of the ban. If children hurt others by misusing their tools, you have to take the tools away from them.
8
The Manchester bombing should remind all of the righteous that the safety of the population takes precedence over the rebuke of a weak-minded and despised President.
5
"The righteous"?
Perhaps we should be examining the judges commmnets prior to the election to Determine their true motivation for this ruling. If the SCOTUS does not reverse this ridiculous ruling America is doomed to failure. The courts seek to reject the results of the election and replace their bias for the one they perceived to exist in the president.
Liberals are pathologically insane when it comes to Trump. You think you have the ability to read the presidents mind. To see know his heart better than he does.
Even a casual observer can see that President Trump is not the same a candidate Trump. He hates Musiims so his first foreign trip is to a Muslim country. He wants to ban Muslims but somehow forgets to ban the countries with the largest Muslim populations.
These lower court rulings are dangerously wrong and these judges will soon have the blood of innocent Americans on their hands. I hope the SCOTUS will return sanity to the judicial system.
Liberals are pathologically insane when it comes to Trump. You think you have the ability to read the presidents mind. To see know his heart better than he does.
Even a casual observer can see that President Trump is not the same a candidate Trump. He hates Musiims so his first foreign trip is to a Muslim country. He wants to ban Muslims but somehow forgets to ban the countries with the largest Muslim populations.
These lower court rulings are dangerously wrong and these judges will soon have the blood of innocent Americans on their hands. I hope the SCOTUS will return sanity to the judicial system.
13
We don't have to read Trump's mind, we can read his words, such as when he called for a Muslim ban.
I saw a snatch of the TV reportage where the Administration's lawyer argued hypothetically that if there was "intelligence" that an unknown Libyan terrorist suspect was heading to the United States, that would justify the ban. So by extension, if it hypothetically were an unknown French or German terrorist suspect, that would justify banning all French and German nationals from traveling to the United States as well? Pretty absurd, and easy to see why Trump is a big loser on this one. It is a Muslim ban based on religion alone.
3
Yes, the law would allow the president to ban all French or German nonimmigrant visits if intelligence reports caused him to conclude a French or German citizen posed some sort of threat. It would create great enough political problems that the president likely wouldn't do it. But the law would permit it.
1
Haven't they had 90 days to work on the vetting thing? A ruse is a ruse is a ruse.
7
Agree.
"jihad" is defined as Holy War. so if the president were to ban jihad in the USA, would that be religious discrimination and therefore struck down by scotus?
7
Well-- firstly since white supremacist groups and individuals have been associated with recent terror attacks-- should their speech and actions be banned as well?
Perhaps we should follow through on Trump's previous, documented suggestions to restrict First Amendment rights-- and assume that the Constitution, to use his own recent words, is only for 'losers' as well.
Perhaps we should follow through on Trump's previous, documented suggestions to restrict First Amendment rights-- and assume that the Constitution, to use his own recent words, is only for 'losers' as well.
One would hope that the Trump administration has worked hard in the past 120+ days (the length of his time in office so far) to implement the "extreme vetting" he promised during the campaign. With that, the whole "travel ban" executive order, both v1 and v2, should by now be academic/irrelevant, as the 90 and 120 day travel ban, for everyone from the named countries, and for all refugees, respectively, called for by the executive order have passed.
But, of course, that is not the case. This was an entirely political effort - nothing to do with national security - so obviously the administration has been sitting on its hands. Just like the GOP's 60+ efforts to repeal ACA were entirely political and not at all concerned with "better healthcare", since during all that time they spent zero time/effort to actually come up with something better, as evidenced by the disaster of what passed (by the tiniest of margins) in the house.
It is, I believe, fair to say that most GOP members of Congress have violated their oath of office, as they are obviously more concerned about their dogmatic political positions and making good on insane campaign promises than serving the American people.
But, of course, that is not the case. This was an entirely political effort - nothing to do with national security - so obviously the administration has been sitting on its hands. Just like the GOP's 60+ efforts to repeal ACA were entirely political and not at all concerned with "better healthcare", since during all that time they spent zero time/effort to actually come up with something better, as evidenced by the disaster of what passed (by the tiniest of margins) in the house.
It is, I believe, fair to say that most GOP members of Congress have violated their oath of office, as they are obviously more concerned about their dogmatic political positions and making good on insane campaign promises than serving the American people.
22
So what is the progress on vetting the vetting procedures?
None!? I'm shocked I tell you!
None!? I'm shocked I tell you!
10
Shouldn't Courts be able to strike down all of trump's actions as unconstitutional anti-Muslim bigotry? Everything he does impacts Muslims in some way. The Courts must have the right to remove him from office.
4
Remember the old law and order campaign: "three strikes and you're out!"?
How many strikes do Trump and Sessions think THEY get?
How many strikes do Trump and Sessions think THEY get?
11
How many more tax dollars is "Beauregard" Sessions going to spend defending this garbage?
11
If you think Sessions is running up a tab on this, just wait until Kris Kobach arrives with his voter-fraud investigations. He's nearly bankrupted Kansas in pursuit of a half dozen cases in several years.
6
And he thought that taking a trip to some p,aces in the Middle East would put this discriminatory ban over the top, HA!
3
There was nothing unConstitutional about this. Foreigners not on American soil have no Constitutional rights.
15
The Constitution requires every American to respect the religious rights of every man and woman.
5
In decisions going back over a hundred years the courts have found otherwise, illegal aliens do have constitutional rights.
5
No, it doesn't. Not at all. Read the Constitution.
1
Very embarrassing to see liberal judges ruling based solely on political doctrine and not on the law. It's likely Americans will die because of this, but, hey! they stood up for the doctrines of "diversity" and "inclusiveness" or whatever buzzword makes us feel good this week. I would not be surprised if most Americans support a TOTAL ban on Muslim immigration: I support it as a common sense measure.
14
The 4th district is far from being liberal.
1
It's likely Americans will die because our leadership is leaking top secret information to the Russians, who may be enemies of ISIS, but are not on our side in Syria.
5
How many terrorist attacks have occurred on US soil by citizens of those countries? Let's compare that to the number of terrorist attacks on US soil by US citizens naturally born citizens.
Campaign statements are not intended to precisely state the intent of any law. And candidates regularly waver from positions they state during their campaigns. To lock in a candidate's statements as an expression of the intent of a law is unprecedented and indefensible.. The only justification for going this route is that Trump's campaign statements were regularly outrageous. The Court should have made that clear -- i.e., this is a one time ruling based on the consistently hateful Trump campaign. Otherwise, the campaign statements of every candidate will be deemed binding on the meaning of the law, which is ridiculous. If Hillary had said equal pay is intended to give women an advantage, that is hardly justification for a court to rule that equal pay unlawfully discriminates against men.
9
Don't forget that he called Giuliani and asked him "How do we make that Muslim ban legal?"
6
Some comments here correctly point out that Trump's ban would not have prevented Manchester since the terrorist there was home-grown. That's true, to certain extent only.
But if you take Trump's view, if that terrorist's parents were "banned" from entering the first place, then their son wouldn't be around either.
Whatever your view on this issue, it's a cogent argument that Trump can make, legality notwithstanding.
But if you take Trump's view, if that terrorist's parents were "banned" from entering the first place, then their son wouldn't be around either.
Whatever your view on this issue, it's a cogent argument that Trump can make, legality notwithstanding.
12
That argument only works if Trump has a time machine to go back and prevent the parents and grandparents of terrorists from entering the country. It is absurd to think that discriminating against one group now will keep us safe in the next generation. Fifty years ago, we worried about the IRA, and I recall leftist German terrorist groups. 100+ years ago, it was European anarchists.
4
Just a guess, but I'd bet Trump and his supporters aren't tired of winning yet.
6
The Important point here is that this ExecOrder requesting Close Vetting of Six truly failed States is now going to the SCOTUS>
The Issue will be adjudicated finally and Forever, providing the administration an excellent Policy tool. or denying them its use. The Coastal's and Elite will have to bask in their utter ignorance of the law of the Land.
The People spoke in November, 2016. They will speak again with the SCOTUS decision on this Issue.
The Issue will be adjudicated finally and Forever, providing the administration an excellent Policy tool. or denying them its use. The Coastal's and Elite will have to bask in their utter ignorance of the law of the Land.
The People spoke in November, 2016. They will speak again with the SCOTUS decision on this Issue.
5
how does close vetting differ from what is done now
3
My recollection is that the people spoke in November, 2016 for Hillary Clinton.
1
Based on the comments this has nothing to do with racism. It is purely political at the expense of the safety and security of all Americans. Americans from all political parties will pay the price with their lives.
10
Still waiting for one refugee in the U.S. to perpetrate a terrorist act of violence.
I will also venture a guess that since the ruling was 10-3, not all ten judges would have been appointed by the previous administration. Or even the Clinton admin. Let's not let our fears supersede the rule of law.
I will also venture a guess that since the ruling was 10-3, not all ten judges would have been appointed by the previous administration. Or even the Clinton admin. Let's not let our fears supersede the rule of law.
3
Tashfeen Malik - San Bernardino
1
jagetty--
Tashfeen Malik was NOT a refugee. She was from an upper-middle class Pakistani family and had spent time in Saudi Arabia (how much time is disputed, but she attended a very conservative Wahhabist university). She and her husband met online. She came in on a K-1 visa, a visa granted to fiancées of American citizens, and then given a green card, which means immigration officials acknowledged the marriage as genuine. Why is it that this ban would target Iran but not Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of radical Islamic jihad and the birthplace of Salafist Wahhabism, as well as Osama bin laden and the men who brought down the twin towers? The Saudis claim Malik showed no signs of radicalization when there, but they're pretty good at deflecting blame. In my opinion, no one who has attended any university run by Wahhabists should be allowed in and who runs those? The Saudis.
Tashfeen Malik was NOT a refugee. She was from an upper-middle class Pakistani family and had spent time in Saudi Arabia (how much time is disputed, but she attended a very conservative Wahhabist university). She and her husband met online. She came in on a K-1 visa, a visa granted to fiancées of American citizens, and then given a green card, which means immigration officials acknowledged the marriage as genuine. Why is it that this ban would target Iran but not Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of radical Islamic jihad and the birthplace of Salafist Wahhabism, as well as Osama bin laden and the men who brought down the twin towers? The Saudis claim Malik showed no signs of radicalization when there, but they're pretty good at deflecting blame. In my opinion, no one who has attended any university run by Wahhabists should be allowed in and who runs those? The Saudis.
1
This decision, while justly decided and for the right reasons, will only reinforce Trump's desire the pack the courts with like minded individuals and congressional Republican will be all too willing to confirm his Christian extremists judges. Defeating Republicans in the 2018 election is the surest way to cut Trump's legs out for beneath him.
7
travel ban has no language about religion. only mentions a few countries that are known terrorist havens. but it's important to let them in because we don't want to hurt their feelings. and we can't be sure they have safe places with crayons and coloring books to go to where they come from. just guns and bombs that they want to use to kill americans and our way of life.
12
And leaves out Saudia Arabia where most all the 9/11 terrorists came from. Why? Ben Laden was Saudi born.
1
It's Trump's inflammatory rhetoric on the campaign trail which makes it clear that this is a ban based on religion. And why no ban on Saudis? Are they agreeing to reign in their mullahs or close the network of Wahhabist schools that now operate in and outside the country? Methinks not.
“drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.”
The same could probably be said about the bomber who just blew himself and a lot of others up in Manchester. But that's okay for him because he's Muslim.
The same could probably be said about the bomber who just blew himself and a lot of others up in Manchester. But that's okay for him because he's Muslim.
10
When will trump get sick of LOSING, again?
3
Rogue judges playing President. The Supremes will reverse. Mark it down.
8
Brilliant; just as stupid as John Goodman in the Big Lebowski...pointing his weapon at the guy he accused of stepping over the line on the bowling lane.."Mark it 8". We know how that turned out.
2
"Protect the people of this country from danger" -- what Sessions and Trump have been in their dealings with Russia.
6
Trump's Muslim ban is founded on bad faith and bigotry. To ignore the foundation, to pretend that the campaign rhetoric had no intention and no meaning, while at the same time claiming that this is a 'promise kept' is the height if hypocrisy. The courts are not bound to ignore the basis and foundation of a president's actions when considering the Constitutionality and validity of those actions. Trump's presidential Executive Orders are not the absolute writs of a king, they are, like everything else Trump or any president does subject to the laws and Constitution of the United States. No matter how much Trump a couch is imperial authoritarian impulses in "national security" rhetoric to smoke-screen his bigotry, the facts and the reality show that this order is intended to ban Muslims, despite any ban being ineffective and worth little as a guard against terrorist actions. Trump fails on the real substance of this order, and Trump fails again on the pretense and vacuity of the argument raised to defend it. The best way to protect the people of the US against "radical Islamic terrorists" is to stop taking actions that alienate and demean the very great majority of Muslims, who are law-abiding patriotic good citizens.
16
Did the travel ban's illegality let Trump off the hook of protecting the homeland from terrorists? The executive order contained numerous tasks and reports that SecState, Director of National Intelligence, FBI Director and Secretary of Homeland Security were supposed to generate and provide to Trump. The travel ban was just one part of the executive order. If the threat was so great the reports should have been handed to Trump and with all the leaks we should be hearing about their findings. Does anyone hear anything?
So where are the reports from State, DNI, FBI and HS that were due to Trump in the timeframe from the date of the executive order (1/27/17):
1. Immediately - 1/28/17
2. 30 days - 2/26/17
3. 60 days - 3/28/17
4. 90 days - 4/27/17
5. 100 days - 5/7/17
6. 120 days - 5/27/17
7. 180 days...
8. 200 days...
9. 365 days
More than one report was due on many of these dates. NY Times, please report on the 6+ reports that are supposed to be done so Trump can protect us from terrorists.
I bet none of them have been done because once the ban was struck down Trump gave up. Just like he did with healthcare, lock her up, the wall, China, etc.
If he really cared about terrorism he should be demanding all those reports. I don't hear any demands. Not even a tweet.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-p...
So where are the reports from State, DNI, FBI and HS that were due to Trump in the timeframe from the date of the executive order (1/27/17):
1. Immediately - 1/28/17
2. 30 days - 2/26/17
3. 60 days - 3/28/17
4. 90 days - 4/27/17
5. 100 days - 5/7/17
6. 120 days - 5/27/17
7. 180 days...
8. 200 days...
9. 365 days
More than one report was due on many of these dates. NY Times, please report on the 6+ reports that are supposed to be done so Trump can protect us from terrorists.
I bet none of them have been done because once the ban was struck down Trump gave up. Just like he did with healthcare, lock her up, the wall, China, etc.
If he really cared about terrorism he should be demanding all those reports. I don't hear any demands. Not even a tweet.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-p...
12
He should be demanding that Jared Kushner testify under oath, in public, about his Russian contacts. That's what Trump is squashing instead of demanding accountability.
4
My sentiments exactly.
The government could have spent this time studying the vetting problems. The fact that affected travelers were not banned should not have prevented them from studying the vetting problems.
They need to explain why they did not study the vetting problem and issue the promised reports.
The government could have spent this time studying the vetting problems. The fact that affected travelers were not banned should not have prevented them from studying the vetting problems.
They need to explain why they did not study the vetting problem and issue the promised reports.
1
CAN JUDGES BE REMOVED FOR INCOMPETENCE?
IMMIGRATION: REQUIRED READING FOR ALL
“Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy.”
“The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens:
(f) "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
IMMIGRATION: REQUIRED READING FOR ALL
“Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy.”
“The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens:
(f) "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
11
From a previous NYTimes article, decimating your argument with facts:
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
If Trump wants to ban immigrants from specific countries, he has to get congress to pass a law.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
If Trump wants to ban immigrants from specific countries, he has to get congress to pass a law.
2
Congress does have complete authority, as you later cite the law passed by congress granting the executive certain powers. However, no laws supersede the constitution, and this legal battle is very clearly being argued on the grounds of 1st Amendment religious freedom. So while the Congressional law may say "any class" the constitution clearly says that 'religion' is not a permissible class. The administration needs to argue that when Trump said it was a ban of Muslims, it actually isn't. For executive actions, the motives of the president (and president only) matter very much.
1
The ten judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals who affirmed the District Court's issuance of a TRO, discussed the excerpts you quote (well, not the airlines bit), and they affirmed nevertheless.
There are lots of laws where Congress delegates some decision-making to the executive, but those powers are no less subject to Constitutional review than any law that Congress passes and the president signs. No power of either of the two political branches can be exercised in a way that violates the our Constitutional rights. For example, the Constitution gives the president the right to grant pardons to Federal prisoners, but if a Catholic president were to grant pardons to 5,000 Catholics, and none to any other prisoners, the courts would undoubtedly step in.
You can make a law or sign an executive order that affects immigration, it may not do so if it's primary purpose is to favor any particular religious group, or to ban the members of any particular religious group. Based on Trump's own words, and those of his associates, on the fact that national security was cited as the goal, but no national security or intelligence experts were consulted, and that many experts say the ban is ineffective, the court decided that Trump had acted in bad faith, and that his true purpose was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
There are lots of laws where Congress delegates some decision-making to the executive, but those powers are no less subject to Constitutional review than any law that Congress passes and the president signs. No power of either of the two political branches can be exercised in a way that violates the our Constitutional rights. For example, the Constitution gives the president the right to grant pardons to Federal prisoners, but if a Catholic president were to grant pardons to 5,000 Catholics, and none to any other prisoners, the courts would undoubtedly step in.
You can make a law or sign an executive order that affects immigration, it may not do so if it's primary purpose is to favor any particular religious group, or to ban the members of any particular religious group. Based on Trump's own words, and those of his associates, on the fact that national security was cited as the goal, but no national security or intelligence experts were consulted, and that many experts say the ban is ineffective, the court decided that Trump had acted in bad faith, and that his true purpose was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
I think the President should be able to stop any nation from immigrating for no more reason than it is Tuesday. Religion? Are you kidding me?
11
The President CAN do that if it applies to all, and not only just for Muslims immediately after he called directly for a ban on all Muslims. You don't like that religion gets a special exception from everything in American law? Then tell your congressional representatives re-write the constitution and delete the first amendment. Personally, i don't like that religion in general is heavily favored in our system. Put simply, Trump boxed himself in with rhetoric promising unconstitutional action. In court, motive is one of the most important factors after consideration of the actual actions taken.
5
If an all-powerful president is your cup of tea, North Korea might be a better place for you than America. Here, our Constitution places limits on presidential power, and it is the job of the courts to interpret our laws. Next stop the Supreme Court? Works for me. Some on the right seem to assume the Court will rule in Trump's favor here because of the majority of Republican appointees. That assumption seems weird. Why would Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch be more likely to be in favor of an imperial presidency than the other four? Are those five not in favor of religious freedom?
A 10-3 decision in which #45's words came back to haunt him. Indeed in light of his willingness and indeed, eagerness, to go "off message" they surely won't be the last ones.
As a retired federal prosecuting attorney I particularly enjoyed Judge Gregory's response to the dissent in which he stated succinctly:
To the extent that our review chills campaign
promises to condemn and exclude entire
religious groups, we think that a welcome
restraint.
As a retired federal prosecuting attorney I particularly enjoyed Judge Gregory's response to the dissent in which he stated succinctly:
To the extent that our review chills campaign
promises to condemn and exclude entire
religious groups, we think that a welcome
restraint.
7
What's truly extraordinary and chilling is the dissenters' implication (in Judge Niemeyer's writing) that if a candidate fulfills his/her campaign promise, it's not because they were speaking truthfully during the campaign! And it's corollary, that we are not to heed a candidate's campaign promises. On what, then, are we to base our understanding of what a candidate's election would mean? I'd like to ask the dissenters this question...
15
... and thus begins the growth of identity politics over riding policy politics. Just how should someone vote in the future?
I wonder if Trump supporters are "tired of winning yet"....
3
This shameful obstruction. Liberal judges are denying the election (laughably something they tried to accuse Trumps supporters of planning to do) and trying to prevent President Trump from implementing his agenda, by substituting their own personal biases for the law. They know they are going to lose in the end but they are ok with gumming up the works just so they get their way for a while.
13
Baseless. The real obstruction is the one on Russia. Jared Kushner should travel directly from Europe to Canada and resettle there. Better yet, move to Russia.
5
"Liberal judges?" The Fourth Circuit is one of the most conservative, government-supporting circuits in the country, and even they struck down the travel ban! Every federal court that has considered the travel ban has found it unconstitutional, whether the judges were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents.
Slam dunk in the supreme court.
7
yup. uphold
It has a better chance in front of the Diana Ross and the Supremes Court.
2
Dear Trump supporters,
Did you ever consider the fact that many immigrants and refugees from the six "banned" countries want to come the U.S. precisely because they share our American values, and despise the values of ISIS and Al Qaeda?
Did you ever consider the fact that many immigrants and refugees from the six "banned" countries want to come the U.S. precisely because they share our American values, and despise the values of ISIS and Al Qaeda?
12
I wonder if Salman Abed shared UK values. It just one takes one person to create mayhem and death - just one person.
7
if what you say is true, then they should be there, fighting for their home. imagine, if you can, a new civil war in america. do you envision all the 20 and 30 year old men and women, especially the single men (who make up a large percentage of Syrian refugees) all fleeing the USA to Canada, Mexico or europe? I don't think so. I see them, as in the past, fighting for what they believe in. did the english/french flee Europe during WWII. nope. they stayed and fought for their homes and country.
I ask you. if conservatives begin to take physical control, will you fight back or run away? there's only one answer if you are an American. and that should hold true across the board, so your comment is without merit.
I ask you. if conservatives begin to take physical control, will you fight back or run away? there's only one answer if you are an American. and that should hold true across the board, so your comment is without merit.
6
Since when do the unsworn statements of a candidate not holding public office at the time the statements were made, and delivered during the heat of a closely contested political campaign, provide the basis for a judicial determination of animus in the ministerial actions of that candidate once in office?
Despite all the sturm und drang (to say nothing of the unseemly triumphalism) emanating from the disordered Left, my instincts tell me that in the end SCOTUS will apply the law and uphold these executive orders, thoroughly vindicating the President and triggering a gnashing of "progressive" teeth to a degree not seen since SCOTUS applied the law to uphold the vote in Florida in 2000.
Despite all the sturm und drang (to say nothing of the unseemly triumphalism) emanating from the disordered Left, my instincts tell me that in the end SCOTUS will apply the law and uphold these executive orders, thoroughly vindicating the President and triggering a gnashing of "progressive" teeth to a degree not seen since SCOTUS applied the law to uphold the vote in Florida in 2000.
6
You're entirely correct. The opinion's reasoning is seriously flawed in the respect you identify and others too. Please see my analysis elsewhere in these comments.
1
Trump was consistent and clear about the Muslim ban during the campaign, and upon taking office. His motive is obvious and to argue otherwise is extremely disingenuous. One might agree with him, and he may be totally sincere in his belief that the ban is for the protection of the country, but that doesn't change the constitution or rest of the judicial branch of government. And even the Supreme Court was clear that their ruling in Florida was so flawed as to be barred from being considered legal precedent in the future.
2
This might be the only adult-toddler, who CANNOT fathom the word 'NO'. Keep wasting resources and people's valuable time, Sir.
5
Way to Go, Excellent. No place for bigotry in our society.
10
It's not bigotry. It's fear of terrorism.
8
Middle America,
I don't think you know how good you have it, compared to millions of Americans who live in big cities that are targeted differently from cornfields supplied by unattended water sprinklers.
I don't think you know how good you have it, compared to millions of Americans who live in big cities that are targeted differently from cornfields supplied by unattended water sprinklers.
1
Big Mouth strikes again.
How many strikes does this loser get?
How many strikes does this loser get?
16
Trump's ban didn't include Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. For those who have forgotten about the 9/11 attacks, 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizen's of Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan provided a sanctuary for Osama bin Laden. Now why wouldn't Trump include these two Muslim countries in his ban. But of course, he has business interests in both countries. True to Trump’s insatiable greed, money means more to him than upholding the Constitution. No doubt about it, he’s the most corrupt president in U.S. History, and only after four months into his incompetent and/or treasonous reign.
27
Yes, and apparently he had a friendlier meeting and was more comfortable with with the weapon-buying boys in the gold- encrusted Saudi palaces than with our democratic allies in Europe.
6
Would banning Sharia Law be illegal too if it was considered going against a religion?
7
Sharia Law is already effectively banned because of the establishment clause. Don't tell Pence or the GOP at large, but legislating one's religion into law and policy is illegitimate whether it's at the federal or state level. In fact, if you want to see Sharia Law get a foothold, keep allowing politicians to play games trying to establish a de facto Christian theocracy. It sets a dangerous precedent for when Christians are not in the majority. At that point they will howl for their rights to be free from the religious beliefs of others; the very same pleas to which many current conservative politicians pay no heed.
4
What a paradox. Yet another federal court has determined that Donald Trump is a racist with respect to Muslims from the Middle East. Yet, he travels to Saudi Arabia to be lionized by the people he wants to ban or restrict. Let Supreme Court make the final determination and let Mr. Trump run on it, assuming he is still around to run for reelection.
8
Muslim isn't a race. Donald Trump respects money, and the Saudis have gobs of it. The countries on his list are all very poor, except Iran, which actually is populated by a different race (Persian) than the rest of the Arab states and is the one state that the whole US foreign policy is lined up against. How many of the 9/11 hijacker were Iranian again?
5
Jeff Sessions. Talk about a tainted person dealing with our laws. Surreal.
16
Tainted? This former liberal is on his side. If you hate America, law and order, safety, and common decency, you can leave. I am staying.
Well, I am no Trump lover, that I can tell you. However, if there is a sickness within a religion then can we call that tainted sectarian group a religion, in truth? Yes, it is difficult to tell the good from the bad and I do not favor a ban on Muslims generally but I think a slowdown, in the interest of caution, is okay. Nothing wrong with excluding assassins, is there? For a fair idea of the extent of the danger, see: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-...
9
That's all we'll and good, but Trump's mouth laid his goal bare. Courts are not obliged to consider only the words the Trump administration would like to be considered. I don't like the travel ban, but I'll tell you this... if it were ANYONE ELSE in the Oval Office, the order would be in place by now because no one but Trump is stupid enough to declare their racist intent and allow their campaign/administration to become so entangled with such high profile hate-groups and bigots. His less extreme supporters want to believe that all the words coming out of his mouth are harmless, but that is simply not true. At a certain level of power WORDS BECOME AN ACT IN AND OF THEMSELVES. At every turn, Trump's past and present lack of self-control have caused serious problems. Worse, many talented people who might otherwise be serving in government simply can't afford to have their reputations destroyed by being in his toxic orbit (pity the generals who had to be ordered to serve as Trump's advisors; whose only choice is watching their honor destroyed by a degenerate President or being forced into retirement).
2
The vetting process to enter the US is extreme and takes years. To date, no Muslim refugee has comitted a terror act in the US. In fact, they are the best at spotting American-born extremists because that is what they fled from. If this survey were given to Muslim refugees after one year in the US, I think you'd get a very different result. (Meanwhile, the majority of Republicans want Christianity to be the state religion -- and, unlike refugees, there's little hope of them learning about the first amendment in citizenship class)
Islamic extremism is a cancer, but it's Muslims who bear the brunt of fighting it. I absolutely agree that refugees should be vetted thoroughly. It's just that they already are -- a slowdown accomplishes nothing except hurting the very people we need on our side.
Islamic extremism is a cancer, but it's Muslims who bear the brunt of fighting it. I absolutely agree that refugees should be vetted thoroughly. It's just that they already are -- a slowdown accomplishes nothing except hurting the very people we need on our side.
3
Excellent post. Thank you, Matt
There is some irony to the fact that the vast majority of Trump supporters, who support the travel ban just like they support anything Trump their Prophet does, wouldn`t know where in the World those nations are, what their economies are based on, what their capital cities are called, who governs them, or what languages their peoples speak.
Trump`s success, like the success of any populist, is based on making his followers proud of their ignorance. We will soon see if this pride in ignorance also extends to his new appointee to the Supreme Court.
Trump`s success, like the success of any populist, is based on making his followers proud of their ignorance. We will soon see if this pride in ignorance also extends to his new appointee to the Supreme Court.
23
Good! Let SCOTUS apply a 6-3 ruling.
3
Hooray! Rays of light to lighten the dark pit of hatred.
6
DM, nowhere in the first amendment are non-American citizens living in foreign nations given any constitutional rights. It is inane to even think this. This is all about a Trump hating leftist judge making up stuff to advance his political views and personal hate.
No worries however, the Supreme Court will overturn the harebrained lower court decision.
No worries however, the Supreme Court will overturn the harebrained lower court decision.
9
The court did not claim that non-American citizens living in foreign nations have constitutional rights. The people who brought the suit against the EO are either American citizens or resident aliens. They asserted that they were harmed by the EO in order to gain standing to sue. The court agreed that they had standing.
1
This isn't about 1 judge. This is the latest in a line of judges who have struck down that ban. And the vote was 10 - 3. Not one crazy judge, but 10 of the 13 who heard the case in the appeals court.
Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
I see the word "people" in there. I checked and there is no asterix at the end saying citizens only.
Furthermore, these policies do affect American citizens and residents who have family and business relationships directly impacted. The reason these injunctions moved so quickly was because people including citizens, residents, visitors and even state governments, could directly claim harm caused due to the executive action (which again, is not a Congressionally sanctioned law which would be held to a different standard).
I see the word "people" in there. I checked and there is no asterix at the end saying citizens only.
Furthermore, these policies do affect American citizens and residents who have family and business relationships directly impacted. The reason these injunctions moved so quickly was because people including citizens, residents, visitors and even state governments, could directly claim harm caused due to the executive action (which again, is not a Congressionally sanctioned law which would be held to a different standard).
"Accept xenophobia" donald trump has apparently said
So Trump will now ask the Supreme Court for help. Obviously the decision will then be to block all travel from Manchester only.
3
Let's see if the Supreme Court takes up the case, and, if so, how it rules. Now, let's say the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals Court, which already upheld the lower courts. What then? You're supposed to accept the Supreme Court's rulings in our system of democracy. Defy the Supreme Court? Call in the military? I hope DJT is not that idiotic.
5
Trump, quit while you are ahead. Don't embarrass yourself at the Supreme Court.
6
The ban may not be good policy, far from it. Perhaps more reasonable after the events in California. Not now. However, the ban is Constitutional. What are they thinking? Read it. The ban does not mention religion. Beyond that, the Constitution does not apply at all to non-citizens, non-residents. Yes, morally the judges can disagree. But not on the law. I scratch my head....
7
Correct, the Constitution doesn't apply to, say, Pakistani people in Pakistan. It does, however, require that *our* government not prevent their entry to *our* country because of their *religion*.
5
There is facial discrimination and discriminatory intent. USUALLY, politicians are not quite dumb enough to reveal their discriminatory intent, so unless the text of the order itself is clearly racist, courts defer. However, as is so often the case with Trump, he effectively revealed his intent in many public statements. Once the intent is revealed as discriminatory, it does not matter if the text was written cleverly enough to avoid simply stating that fact. Further, the discriminatory intent, once established, makes the order itself illegitimate regardless of who it is affecting.
Trump made it about religion. It was only after an avalanche of public outcry that he tried to shift the focus to geography. Without those statements, we would be left to wonder about his true intent. Fortunately (and very stupidly on his part) Trump has no inner monologue.
Trump made it about religion. It was only after an avalanche of public outcry that he tried to shift the focus to geography. Without those statements, we would be left to wonder about his true intent. Fortunately (and very stupidly on his part) Trump has no inner monologue.
3
The constitution applies to all people under US jurisdiction (geographic or legal), not only citizens or permanent residents. This is why illegal immigrants and foreign visitors also have constitutional rights. Same reason why your American Constitutional rights don't mean diddly once you step into a foreign country's territory,
1
If experience tells you that someone who meets a certain profile has been attacking and trying to kill you isn't it wise to try and prevent future attacks?
Trump is doing his job as president to try and protect all Americans.
Trump is doing his job as president to try and protect all Americans.
10
Men commit more violent crime than women do. Barrig men from entering the country would reduce crime. Ok to do that?
18
So then you are ok with Saudis coming into our country?
11
No. No experience at any time ever told anyone that "someone who meets a certain profile" does anything at all. Get that fact into your head first. You cannot read minds and body language reading is con artistry. Just like Israeli security is simply a matter of racist profiling dark skinned people and anyopne who lives outside their walls any profile is actually a subjective and prejudicial judgment.
Trump is trying to ban Muslims while pretending to be checking on the quality of the procedures for checking out those we give visa's to.
He has not accomplished his desire and not even attempted to check on procedures for checking people for Visa's.
Trump is trying to ban Muslims while pretending to be checking on the quality of the procedures for checking out those we give visa's to.
He has not accomplished his desire and not even attempted to check on procedures for checking people for Visa's.
3
I'm hoping Sessions thinks he is qualified himself to handle any appeal. The guy hasn't practiced law this century and not only had no qualifications to be the AG, his ego is so big he probably thinks he can actual do a Supreme Court case, a recipe for another Lyin' Donald loss.
8
Sessions wants to get negged by the SC as well...party on, Jeff
4
I feel the need to point out to the wilfully blind commentators in here, that Trump's travel ban was an exact duplicate of Barack Hussein Obama's previous EO.
5
I feel the need to point out to Tiny Druid that Trump's travel ban was substantially different than the travel restriction Obama imposed:
Trump said, "My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months."
The Obama administration in 2011 delayed processing Iraqi refugees for six months following evidence of a failed plot by two Iraqi refugees.
Trump’s executive order temporarily bars travel to the United States for all citizens from seven countries, and it is not in direct response to actions from citizens of those countries.
Furthermore, Iraqi refugees were nonetheless admitted to the United States during the 2011 suspension while Trump has put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.
We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-tr...
Good luck with your future false equivalencies, Tiny Druid.
Trump said, "My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months."
The Obama administration in 2011 delayed processing Iraqi refugees for six months following evidence of a failed plot by two Iraqi refugees.
Trump’s executive order temporarily bars travel to the United States for all citizens from seven countries, and it is not in direct response to actions from citizens of those countries.
Furthermore, Iraqi refugees were nonetheless admitted to the United States during the 2011 suspension while Trump has put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.
We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-tr...
Good luck with your future false equivalencies, Tiny Druid.
16
Beauregard Sessions appeal to the so-called supreme court should be presented with a large helping of pecan pie, a glass of sweet tea, and a full brass band playing "Dixie."
Treasonous pompous moron working for an illegitimate president.
Other than that, everything is OK.
Treasonous pompous moron working for an illegitimate president.
Other than that, everything is OK.
10
Words matter despite what Mr Trump thinks. He has left a trail of horrible pronouncements which appealed to the mob and propelled him to the White House, but laid bare his disrespect for (and apparent ignorance of) the Constitution and in this case made his intent with this EO clear to the Judges and it simply doesn't pass muster.
Sick of 'winning' yet?
Sick of 'winning' yet?
6
The question is not how Gorsuch will rule but how would Garland have ruled. #stolensupremecourtseat #neverforget
11
Trump /Sessions apparently think that Gorsuch is their ace in the hole. Let's hope he's not.
12
Faith in our US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, may get us through Trumpet's reign.
3
So ironic that one of the few times Lyin' Donald told the truth about his plans, it comes back to defeat his lies. He has disgraced the White House in particular and America in general.
4
Foreigners on foreign soil have no Constitutional rights.
Remember when it was OK to ban communists, who held views which were at odds with our values and way of life, from entering the country?
Remember when it was OK to ban communists, who held views which were at odds with our values and way of life, from entering the country?
6
Is Communism a religion, protected by the constitution? Did they ban all entry from the Soviet Union nationals, or just for communists? See how it's not the same thing? And Travel Ban v1 did strongly impact citizens and green card holders who do very much have constitutional rights so the revised version needs to stand up to extra scrutiny.
3
The Fourth Circuit was a Republican puppet until the last few years. Thank you Mr. Obama!
1
I don't think this will hold up. Whether you agree with the order, or not, it has nothing to do with the first amendments establishment clause. That clause says "congress" can make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. An executive order is not a "law" made by "congress." One judge also appears to have put his own partisan spin on some comments made the the president when he was campaigning, saying they were "anti-Muslim" comments when, in fact, the president was always talking about "Islamic terrorists" - two different things. The "he's anti-Muslim" thing was a Clinton campaign smear trying to shore up the Muslim vote by painting her opponent anti-all-Muslims - the same as the "he's against all Mexicans" campaign smear - to shore up her vote with that minority group - when all he was ever against was illegal immigration from Mexico. The judges in this case have shown personal partisan prejudice against the president in making their decision. If it's overturned, those are at least two reasons why, IMO.
In the meanwhile, these countries will continue recruiting for ISIS and al-Quada, along with many other Islamic terrorist organizations, imploring their followers, to kill the "crusaders," the "worshippers of the cross" going to rock concerts to hear one of their favorite singers - and we'll be treated to more pictures of blood stained detonators and backpacks as mom's and dad's place flowers around and light candles for their dead children.
In the meanwhile, these countries will continue recruiting for ISIS and al-Quada, along with many other Islamic terrorist organizations, imploring their followers, to kill the "crusaders," the "worshippers of the cross" going to rock concerts to hear one of their favorite singers - and we'll be treated to more pictures of blood stained detonators and backpacks as mom's and dad's place flowers around and light candles for their dead children.
3
Trump's Executive Order was made under the claimed authority of a statute, specifically the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Since a statute can't be applied in a manner that violates the First Amendment, EOs made pursuant to it can't either.
Trump was talking about a Muslim ban--that is decidedly anti-Muslim.
Trump was talking about a Muslim ban--that is decidedly anti-Muslim.
1
What the court's decision and the law reminds us, which is lost on Trump, Bannon and Sessions, is that words on paper cannot be divorced from morality.
2
No wonder Trump lies so much. Look what happens when he tells the truth.
3
The NYT needs to provide more objectivity, like the Washington Post they were wrong about Trump from day one and have not admitted it, and they continue to bad mouth every single thing he does....it is bordering on un Americanism.
6
provide your evidence that they are not wrong, please.
"Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban" wow, so subjective. Oh wait, it's simply stating the facts of the situation. Half of this article consists of direct quotations from the judges and the rulings. Stating that the ruling was 10-3 is not a subjective statement but an objective fact. I'm not sure what you are reading up in Canada but describing clear failures and chaos in the administration is not 'bad mouthing'. Demanding the free press toe the government line is Anti-American.
2
Facts aren't wrong, but not reporting them would be. Chin up. You can always go elsewhere for an alternative Trumpian reality, our country's constitution even protects that, the freedom to lie.
Not caring for Trump. However let your weak, poor, sick and now possibly terrorists enter this country reminds of the Supreme Court decision forcing taxpayers pay their education, health and welfare. Court needs to get off their high horse and see a crumbling society. It's all on the backs of the middle class that's broken.
7
Another head-spinning, yuge win. Stop all the winning. It is making me dizzy. Resist.
7
How about if Trump loses at the Supreme Court, he agrees to resign his Presidency? Better yet, we agree to annul his Presidency so that Trump won't be eligible to be dead last on the list of Best Presidents.
39
It is exceedingly unlikely that the SC will go against Trump, his new appointee owes him the favor of his life.
This latest Court loss shows what Trump is when it comes to meaningful legislation for the benefit of our country:
(1) A loser in the Courts,
(2) A loser in understanding the real issues,
(3) A loser in pandering to the worst prejudices of his base, and, quite thankfully,
(4) A loser--so far--in trashing one of our country's most cherished, lofty ideals: religious freedom.
This is one subject where it truly helps the country for him to continue to be a such a pathetic loser.
(1) A loser in the Courts,
(2) A loser in understanding the real issues,
(3) A loser in pandering to the worst prejudices of his base, and, quite thankfully,
(4) A loser--so far--in trashing one of our country's most cherished, lofty ideals: religious freedom.
This is one subject where it truly helps the country for him to continue to be a such a pathetic loser.
75
The only "losers" are the members of the "resistance" who are still sore about the November results and are fighting to keep the "rights" they think they've lost since then. Of course ask one of them what rights they've lost, and they'd be hard pressed to answer clearly.
3
And watch him win at the Supreme Court.
1
The pause in immigration from countries that were identified by the Obama administration as difficult to vet because of the situation on the ground would have been welcomed coming from a Democrat administration. If an attack occurs by a person from one of those countries on the list, it is my sincerest hope that the supporters of blocking the president's attempts will receive their own brand of rough justice. Kinetic Karma, so to speak.
13
The list of countries being blocked is rediculous when you consider the possibility of an attack by Muslim radicals. it would be far more likely that an attack would come from someone on a European passport - someone whose entry into the country would not even require a visa. And go ahead and explain why Iran is on the list. Iran is Shia not Sunni. Al Qaeda and ISIS are Sunni. Shia and Sunni are death ememies. The whole thing is stupid and makes no sense at all.
6
Well, Obama never promised to enact an unconstitutional ban during the campaign, so he could have passed it without charges of unconstitutional religious animus. If it's really so important to national security, then congress should pass a law authorizing a block on those countries. Trump compromised himself by making horrendous unconstitutional promises about religious favoritism & discrimination during the campaign and therefore can't accomplish such 'important national security goals' by executive order on his own say-so.
2
What this demonstrates is that what you say can matter. In this case Trump's campaign rhetoric actually got listened to by critical thinkers (judges). And it backfired.
"The administration had argued that consideration of campaign rhetoric would chill political speech protected by the First Amendment."
LOL. Trump exercised his right to free speech. Now he, of the Party of personal responsibility, does not to be held responsible for what he said.
LOL. Trump exercised his right to free speech. Now he, of the Party of personal responsibility, does not to be held responsible for what he said.
31
Very true. You cannot have it both ways - get elected by whipping up religious hostility, and then claim it can't be held against you because it was just campaign talk, a political variant of his locker room talk. At some point, a US president must be ready to be taken at his word.
4
Exactly! He was absolutely free to say what he said, just not free of the consequences. His words were not illegal! However, his motives in authorizing this executive order, as he freely stated them in the campaign, were unconstitutional.
1
Now it's time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm the legitimate and exclusive right of the executive branch to control immigration.
16
How about the executive branch understanding the 3 branches and respecting the judicial branch. How about the head of the executive branch knowing something? At least the judiciary had to work hard to get qualified.
5
I'll use a phrase that was made famous by Trump. WRONG, WRONG, AND YOU'RE WRONG.
The executive's right to control immigration is subject to the law. The actually forbids immigration discrimination based on religion. Trumps ban is entirely about religion, he said so. Thus Trumps ban is illegal.
3
What I do not understand is this:
If the ban was for 90 days so that we can improve our vetting process, why is this even an issue anymore? Over 100 days have passed. Plenty of time for trump to have improved the system. I am surprised this did not come up in court.
If the ban was for 90 days so that we can improve our vetting process, why is this even an issue anymore? Over 100 days have passed. Plenty of time for trump to have improved the system. I am surprised this did not come up in court.
28
This ban doesn't even make sense by Trump's own words. Why leave some nations -- notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan, out of it? Those countries have actually produced terrorists. Why, if the purpose was to "buy 90 days to examine our immigration policies" is the need still required?
This is simply Bannon's pet project, and Trump will let him waste our money and time on it. The hope is to get it passed somehow, and push further into bigotry until someone says "No." There is an effort to habituate us to senseless cruelty. Just say "No" America.
This is simply Bannon's pet project, and Trump will let him waste our money and time on it. The hope is to get it passed somehow, and push further into bigotry until someone says "No." There is an effort to habituate us to senseless cruelty. Just say "No" America.
78
Those countries you mentioned have given the U.S. access to their data base. The countries on the list either have no legitimate government or will not cooperate with screening
11
Thats not the reason Trump is doing it. He is doing it as a populist stunt to appeal to the base instincts of his base. Saudi is not on the list. No wonder he curtseys like a thin skinned princess to them. Yet Saudi is where the 9/11 murderers largely came from. Thats where Sharia law is at its worst. Those swords he waved around - well I hope they were vetted.
1
The countries mentioned also have Trump properties in them. The others do not. Most of the terrorists who struck on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, as have others since then. Of the countries in the ban, none has produced a terrorist attack on the U.S.
2
Checks and balances. Trump was checked by the Fourth Circuit like Sessions would be by a Chicago Blackhawk.
18
That would be a whiff. Black Hawks got swept.
OK, but the 4th Circuit is only the semi's. The Stanley Cup is SCOTUS
So much winning.
41
I expect those supporting the ban will point to Manchester's recent suicide bombing as an example for why the ban should be implemented. All while ignoring the fact the bomber was born in the U.K.
54
but born of Libyan immigrants and never assimilated. Those supporting the ban have every right and reason to point to Manchester's recent murder (not just suicide) bombing, as well as terrorist attacks on US soil by Muslim zealots. The sad fact is: Islam never had an Enlightenment (no Islamic John Locke or Voltaire). The Manchester bomb targeted young British women (including and especially Muslim women) who are perceived by Muslim fundamentalists as a dire threat to sexual and gender propriety. This is a harsh truth that wishful PC types just cannot and will not acknowledge. We are talking about a culture that gouges the clitoris out of infant girls to prevent them experiencing sexual pleasure and all the temptations that arise from it. Stern words, blunt words, but true words, and Islam is not content to police its own. It expects the host nations to conform too. Europe will be unrecognizable 100 years from now, as if the Enlightenment had never happened. Trump may be a moron (he is in fact) but at least he understands this. You do not.
2
GG
THE MANCHESTER TERRORIST ATTACK SHOULD REMIND YOU OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE U.S. I DO NOT SPEAK OF A PARTICULAR BOMBER, I.E., THE ONE BORN IN THE U.K.
THE MANCHESTER TERRORIST ATTACK SHOULD REMIND YOU OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE U.S. I DO NOT SPEAK OF A PARTICULAR BOMBER, I.E., THE ONE BORN IN THE U.K.
Put your thinking cap on. Refugees will have children that will eventually show their allegiance to ISIS or like groups. Why increase your chances exponentially be importing more potential terrorists?
2
"The Trump administration had urged the appeals court to ignore the statements as loose language made before the president assumed office." Apparently it never occurred to him that anyone would actually take seriously anything he said while campaigning.
48
Kudos to the Richmond Appeals Court judges who could see beyond the flaunting of executive power to the discrimination inherent in Trump's intentions and words. The Constitution especially in its amendments stresses the rights of individuals rather than classes in which the rights of people are easily lost.
Trump of course knows nothing of individual rights as to him they all blend together into threating groups, but this is not a police state yet where discrimination can be rampant by people in authority. Will SCOTUS acknowledge this or bow to the pressures of power. We will see.
Trump of course knows nothing of individual rights as to him they all blend together into threating groups, but this is not a police state yet where discrimination can be rampant by people in authority. Will SCOTUS acknowledge this or bow to the pressures of power. We will see.
24
"In dissent, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer said that the majority had made a grave error in considering the comments to interpret the executive order.
“Because of their nature, campaign statements are unbounded resources by which to find intent of various kinds,” he wrote. “They are often shorthand for larger ideas; they are explained, modified, retracted and amplified as they are repeated and as new circumstances and arguments arise. And they are often ambiguous."
As Dr. Seuss might put it:
"The Donald meant what he said,
and he said what he meant.
Trump is a bigot 100%."
“Because of their nature, campaign statements are unbounded resources by which to find intent of various kinds,” he wrote. “They are often shorthand for larger ideas; they are explained, modified, retracted and amplified as they are repeated and as new circumstances and arguments arise. And they are often ambiguous."
As Dr. Seuss might put it:
"The Donald meant what he said,
and he said what he meant.
Trump is a bigot 100%."
71
Agreed. We need to protect the United States against those who want to harm and instill fear, so that we live our lives wondering..will we be safe today. I am all for dismantling the the existing congress and republican Party, along with our President. I have felt so unsafe since this new administration stepped into the White House. God Bless America.
31
In fact the President and most of the Republicans in Congress and 99% of the cabinet members want to harm and instill fear. We are just getting to the judges. They too will be chosen to harm and instill fear.
Many of the policemen and now the immigration officials in the US try to harm and instill fear.
Look at President Duterte of the Philippines, who was complimented by Trump, who spends his days instilling fear in the citizens there and harms them whenever possible.
I do hope we don't get to this point.
Many of the policemen and now the immigration officials in the US try to harm and instill fear.
Look at President Duterte of the Philippines, who was complimented by Trump, who spends his days instilling fear in the citizens there and harms them whenever possible.
I do hope we don't get to this point.
It is a sad day when an president sign an edict that "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.
But I rejoice that our First Amendment rights were e excised rapidly by thousands of protestors, volunteer lawyers and Free Press pushback, including thousands of comments expressing outrage at the injustice of such a one-man edict against a religious group, persons already possessing a travel visa or even a US passport.
And I rejoice in our Judiciary Judges who rapidly found reason to prevent the edict from taking effect across the country. And now the appeals court decision upholding the individual judges.
What would the founders have said?
What will the Supreme Court say?
Our Republic holds it breath. Our Constitution in the dock.
It should trump in the dock!
But I rejoice that our First Amendment rights were e excised rapidly by thousands of protestors, volunteer lawyers and Free Press pushback, including thousands of comments expressing outrage at the injustice of such a one-man edict against a religious group, persons already possessing a travel visa or even a US passport.
And I rejoice in our Judiciary Judges who rapidly found reason to prevent the edict from taking effect across the country. And now the appeals court decision upholding the individual judges.
What would the founders have said?
What will the Supreme Court say?
Our Republic holds it breath. Our Constitution in the dock.
It should trump in the dock!
11
Simply put, this is a bad legal judgement. A law has to be judged on it's merits, not the supposed or inferred thought crime of the individuals who legislated it.
8
This isn't a law. It's an executive order.
The President wasn't judged on his thoughts. He was judged on his spoken comments.
Whether or not those will be considered will be up to the Supreme Court which in the past has said that such comments can be probative.
Finally, if we use your standard anyone can create an order with the intention to discriminate and then simply write it in such a way that doesn't mention particular words or groups but achieves the same ideal.
The President wasn't judged on his thoughts. He was judged on his spoken comments.
Whether or not those will be considered will be up to the Supreme Court which in the past has said that such comments can be probative.
Finally, if we use your standard anyone can create an order with the intention to discriminate and then simply write it in such a way that doesn't mention particular words or groups but achieves the same ideal.
22
It was never legislated, it was decreed. Big diff. Even properly cognizable legislation must still be constitutional to become law.
On "its merits" it's a stupid and unrealistic proposed law. Why pick on certain countries and leave others out? What's the relationship of Trump's dangerous vs safe Muslim countries? Does his future and present business interests have any bearing on his thinking? Is there any evidence of his thinking?
2
Three co-equal branches of government with checks and balances. We are indeed indebted to the framers for their brilliant vision of how our federal government should function. Trump's blatant anti-Muslim predjudice as reflected in his executive order was disgraceful as well as unlawful. Let him rant and rave about "so called judges" but today Americans should be proud of our independent judiciary.
28
Does that include the brilliance of the electoral college? I hope do - you cannot have it both ways
1
Trump will never learn that loose lips sink ships and that appealing to the baser instincts of his base can come back to haunt him when he must act as president. Nevertheless Trump's powers to regulate immigration are substantial, and the lower court's decisions are tainted with politics and I suspect the Supreme Court will uphold Trump.
1
Trumps powers to regulate immigration? He is just enforcing the laws that we have had on the books for years.
Finally.
Finally.
1
This idiotic ruling is not altogether surprising given all the soft headed Obama judges on the court of appeals. Most Americans are eager for the supreme court to reinstate the Muslim travel ban - it's a common sense no brainer move. Hopefully the higher court will have the stones to justify it on the grounds that Islam is not just a "religion", but a violent ideology incompatible with American values.
18
Standing up against religious intolerance is the exact opposite of soft-headed.
39
Hate it when someone talks about "American values" as though these are monolithic. I would hazard to guess these "values" are non-existent, myths used to justify any and all opportunist endeavor. What "values" surface must not be commonly-held, except for those who wish to exclude others from holding them. For example, many speak as though the so-called founding fathers possessed some common American values, the same slave-owning, voting right exclusionary fathers (no mothers) who saw a portion of people as 3/5 of a person. Funny how American values and Christianity, in particular, also contain heavy doses of violence, war-mongering, nationalistic calls for internment camps, lynching, segregationist practices, and a plethora of desultory exploitative -isms. While we're at it, Christianity is not just a "religion," but an ideology sorely compatible with violence and oppression since its inception, often calling for the latter in nationalist overtures. Which after all is said and done fulfills much of what is termed "American values." For some. at least.
15
As you say, it's a "Muslim ban." That's why it's unconstitutional.
Banning a religion is incompatible with American values.
As the father of American war hero Humayun Khan said, have you read the US Constitution?
Banning a religion is incompatible with American values.
As the father of American war hero Humayun Khan said, have you read the US Constitution?
12
What do the Trump supporters hear from Trump: Be afraid of the boogyman.
America will be great again if the boogyman is banned.
He equates ALL Muslims as suspects, as the boogyman.
He says be afraid of ALL Muslims and ban them.
That is unconstitutional and ....... a lie.
Is the threat of homegrown terrorism, supported by radicalization, serious??
It's definitely in the top ten serious things we need as citizens: security from within.
We are doing a great job already vetting those outside our borders for the most part.
What are we, as rule of law citizens, supposed to do??
How about asking the Muslim community to join and support the security effort??
Ask them to help.
They know what looks weird and what does not.
Not ban them, demonize them, scape goat them.
They do not want radical Islam orthodoxy either.
Except for the anarchists, the opportunists masquerading as jihadists, the majority of Muslims are peace loving people.
In all countries, including America.
America will be great again if the boogyman is banned.
He equates ALL Muslims as suspects, as the boogyman.
He says be afraid of ALL Muslims and ban them.
That is unconstitutional and ....... a lie.
Is the threat of homegrown terrorism, supported by radicalization, serious??
It's definitely in the top ten serious things we need as citizens: security from within.
We are doing a great job already vetting those outside our borders for the most part.
What are we, as rule of law citizens, supposed to do??
How about asking the Muslim community to join and support the security effort??
Ask them to help.
They know what looks weird and what does not.
Not ban them, demonize them, scape goat them.
They do not want radical Islam orthodoxy either.
Except for the anarchists, the opportunists masquerading as jihadists, the majority of Muslims are peace loving people.
In all countries, including America.
22
What about the 25th amendment? Where did that go?
Good. Now it can go to the Supreme Court to be overturned. Liberal justices on the 4th circuit and 9th circuits cannot use their own biases to make judgements that endanger the safety of Americans and the Presidents ability to control national security. We all saw what happened with a first generation Libyan the other day in Manchester.
16
The judges are using law not bias. Trump is using bias not law and thus he lost, again.
And we have all seen what happened with 9th, 10th, 11th plus generation Americans who have committed terrorist acts here. How long was Dylan Roof's or Adam Lanza's family here I wonder.
Targeting an ethnicity, a religion, a skin color, a gender, a nationality, first generations, or a whatever is a dangerous, misguided, deceitful and manipulative, all it does is encourage people to mindlessly hate others and deceive them into a false sense of security. Better to ask why and diversion from what ?
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/a-look-at-shocking-domestic-terror-sta...
And we have all seen what happened with 9th, 10th, 11th plus generation Americans who have committed terrorist acts here. How long was Dylan Roof's or Adam Lanza's family here I wonder.
Targeting an ethnicity, a religion, a skin color, a gender, a nationality, first generations, or a whatever is a dangerous, misguided, deceitful and manipulative, all it does is encourage people to mindlessly hate others and deceive them into a false sense of security. Better to ask why and diversion from what ?
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/a-look-at-shocking-domestic-terror-sta...
The Manchester murderer was born and raised in the UK and it's highly likely he had a British passport as well. So what are you saying exactly?
The question has been asked many times, perhaps you know the answer as you seem to think this travel ban is a good idea, why the choice for these particular countries? Because lots of nationals from these countries have committed an act of terror in the US? Why is Saudi Arabia excluded? Speaking of supporters of terrorism. It is no secret that individual Saudi's financially back ISIS.
Ever heard of terror attacks in Europe, committed in the name of Allah, executed by Shiite groups, backed by Iran? No dr. M. it's all Sunni's, adhering to the extreme orthodox, medieval form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. The country that spends a great deal of money financing mosques all over the world, to preach their despicable version of this religion.
The person you apparently see as your president (elected by 46% of the voters, how very awkward) bloating and boasting about a huge arms deal with this very uncivilized country. It turns the stomach of anyone with even half a brain.
Any idea what those weapons will do? Make the world safer?
The question has been asked many times, perhaps you know the answer as you seem to think this travel ban is a good idea, why the choice for these particular countries? Because lots of nationals from these countries have committed an act of terror in the US? Why is Saudi Arabia excluded? Speaking of supporters of terrorism. It is no secret that individual Saudi's financially back ISIS.
Ever heard of terror attacks in Europe, committed in the name of Allah, executed by Shiite groups, backed by Iran? No dr. M. it's all Sunni's, adhering to the extreme orthodox, medieval form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. The country that spends a great deal of money financing mosques all over the world, to preach their despicable version of this religion.
The person you apparently see as your president (elected by 46% of the voters, how very awkward) bloating and boasting about a huge arms deal with this very uncivilized country. It turns the stomach of anyone with even half a brain.
Any idea what those weapons will do? Make the world safer?
1
Um, I think you mean a first generation Briton of Libyan descent, who was a natural born citizen of the UK? Oh, maybe Trump can go back in time and stop every Muslim who ever came here in the last 40 years from coming here and having children (99% of whom grew up to be productive members of society)? The judges are not using their own biases, they are simply quoting Trump's stated biased promises and comparing the the 1st Amendment, which which they are not compatible.
1
What do we want? Terrific judges!
When do we want them? Oh, already have them!
Yeay!
When do we want them? Oh, already have them!
Yeay!
22
If Trump was serious about national security he could have banned travel to the US from airports that lack proper security screening or from countries that have now or in the past sponsored terrorism, like Saudi Arabia. His current travel ban is nothing more than a political ploy to satisfy the racist minority in America.
34
Banning immigration and travel to the U.S. by non-natives and deporting those already here isn't such a bad idea, if it applies to anyone and everyone who came to, or who's ancestors came to what is currently U.S. territory from somewhere else. This should even apply to so-called "Native Americans", because their ancestors immigrated here (from Asia). Let's all go back 'home', let the continent revert to its pre-human, condition, and leave it forever alone and in peace! Mr. Trump and his family can take the lead in this by emigrating back to Germany. Oh, and come to think of it the ancestors of all humans originally resided in Africa, so maybe we should all go back there: worldwide emigration to our true 'homeland'!
11
Agent Orange has tried to subvert laws, the constitution, and the general welfare of the people all under the guise of making America great again. He is the Republican dream come true. I am really fearful the judicial system that has been stalwart so far will succumb to the loaded SCOTUS. Then that leaves only the NYT and WaPo standing until virtual martial law comes to pass.
7
In this historic timeframe we live in, history books should call out Judge Gregory, per below, and we can all hope Mueller's has as sharp a constitutional knife to flay Trump with:
But Judge Gregory wrote that courts had a role to play.
“Although the Supreme Court has certainly encouraged deference in our review of immigration matters that implicate national security interests,” he wrote, “it has not countenanced judicial abdication, especially where constitutional rights, values, and principles are at stake.”
It was more than plausible, he added, that the revised order’s “stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose.”
“The government has repeatedly asked this court to ignore evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to executive action, all in the name of the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Judge Gregory wrote. “We decline to do so, not only because it is the particular province of the judicial branch to say what the law is, but also because we would do a disservice to our constitutional structure were we to let its mere invocation silence the call for meaningful judicial review.”
But Judge Gregory wrote that courts had a role to play.
“Although the Supreme Court has certainly encouraged deference in our review of immigration matters that implicate national security interests,” he wrote, “it has not countenanced judicial abdication, especially where constitutional rights, values, and principles are at stake.”
It was more than plausible, he added, that the revised order’s “stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose.”
“The government has repeatedly asked this court to ignore evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to executive action, all in the name of the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Judge Gregory wrote. “We decline to do so, not only because it is the particular province of the judicial branch to say what the law is, but also because we would do a disservice to our constitutional structure were we to let its mere invocation silence the call for meaningful judicial review.”
6
Bravo! Our judicial system is working. For the third time, and I sincerely hope for the final time, the Trump Administration will not submit withs Muslim ban for approval. I also suggest that Trump refrain for his call for building a wall. Congress won't ever provide funds for said purpose. We need to devise other methods to smooth out the geographical problems that exist between Mexico and our country. Mexico should have input. I'm sure that there are many valid reasons why people seek refuge within our borders.
1
I am guessing Trump deliberately played this way so that he will satisfy his support base but at the same time cause no issues internationally from what we saw as bonhomie with our ally Saudi. If that is true, he is brilliant in playing games.
I disagree. I simply think that Trump is a fool. Pence might play that way, but Trump is little more than a puppet.
3
What troubles me here is that there were still three judges--appointed by Republicans--who sided with Trump. Why was there even a single one?
21
I found this very troubling as well.
7
When will the European powers admit that the partition of the Ottoman Empire might not have been such a clever idea?
11
but what purpose woudl that even serve?
Considering the difference in economic development between Europe and the former Ottoman Empire, it certainly worked out well. Imagine if the post Ottoman states were as powerful militarily as all of Europe? A few violent extremist nutjobs is nothing compared to a power unified economy sporting a top notch army! But watch out because established Ottoman hegemony is what Turkey & Erdogan would love most!
That said, they could have been a little smarter and drawn up the post-Ottoman borders to fit with the people who actually lived there, rather than equally dividing up the oil reserves under the ground between the UK and France.
That said, they could have been a little smarter and drawn up the post-Ottoman borders to fit with the people who actually lived there, rather than equally dividing up the oil reserves under the ground between the UK and France.
1
What ever is decided, in the meantime, we better hope and some can pray if they choose, that there is not an attack somewhere within the country any time within the near future.
Who knows what would befall us all if something awful fell out of the sky.
Martial law? Outright bans from even more nations? This may seem like a win but could easily be reversed for whatever reason deemed a national security threat. Gonna be real fun traveling through airports this summer.
Who knows what would befall us all if something awful fell out of the sky.
Martial law? Outright bans from even more nations? This may seem like a win but could easily be reversed for whatever reason deemed a national security threat. Gonna be real fun traveling through airports this summer.
2
I'm not worried about our airports. I'm worried about international airports. The illegit president created a few more legions of enemies with his racist ban proposal. The idea is so short-sighted and dead wrong.
Aren't we always hoping and praying that there is not an attack somewhere within the country any time within the near future? What difference does it make who is president on that account? The whole point of this exercise is that the president does not have the power to act unilaterally and unconstitutionally free of judicial review. Do you really think Trump is going to declare Martial Law in Massachusetts for anything short of a nuclear powered invasion?
Great news! Now it goes to the Supreme Court who will overturn the lower courts ruling and the Presidents existing constitutional authority to set immigration policy will be enumerated for all time.
Should have never gotten that far though.
Trump = WINNING!
Should have never gotten that far though.
Trump = WINNING!
11
The President can set immigration policy. He cannot set immigration policy that violates the First Amendment.
You might want to read the decision and perhaps even bestir yourself to understand some of the fundamental principles of American democracy.
You might want to read the decision and perhaps even bestir yourself to understand some of the fundamental principles of American democracy.
14
The first amendment?
I think this decision relies too heavily on Trump's campaign statements regarding a Muslim ban.
I agree these statements could be relevant to determining the purpose of the order. But the problem is that under the court's reasoning, Trump appears to be forbidden from enacting policies that otherwise would be constitutional, because at one time he wanted to pursue an unconstitutional policy. The result is that our executive branch is hamstrung in this area because the court says these policies are tainted with his original unconstitutional purpose.
But the fact is that Trump clearly had lawyers attempt to formulate a Constitutional policy that was tailored to the national security concerns of the nation--it wasn't any sort of blanket Muslim ban.
To me, if Trump conceded his Muslim ban idea was unconstitutional, shouldn't he be able to implement a new, more tailored policy that meets Constitutional muster, like he did here?
Or is Trump forever forbidden from banning travel from a Muslim majority nation no matter the circumstances because of what he said as a candidate?
I agree these statements could be relevant to determining the purpose of the order. But the problem is that under the court's reasoning, Trump appears to be forbidden from enacting policies that otherwise would be constitutional, because at one time he wanted to pursue an unconstitutional policy. The result is that our executive branch is hamstrung in this area because the court says these policies are tainted with his original unconstitutional purpose.
But the fact is that Trump clearly had lawyers attempt to formulate a Constitutional policy that was tailored to the national security concerns of the nation--it wasn't any sort of blanket Muslim ban.
To me, if Trump conceded his Muslim ban idea was unconstitutional, shouldn't he be able to implement a new, more tailored policy that meets Constitutional muster, like he did here?
Or is Trump forever forbidden from banning travel from a Muslim majority nation no matter the circumstances because of what he said as a candidate?
35
Yes. The answer to your question is "yes." Banning people on the basis of their religion is unconstitutional. He can't un-say what he said as a candidate and he can't make constitutional what, clearly, is not.
15
Very well reasoned.
While I disagree strenuously with the 'spirit' of the EO at issue, given the timeline following the first EO it does appear to me that the cited campaign language is now rendered irrelevant.
I can see the other side of the argument, but Mmm's comment refutes those issues well.
While I disagree strenuously with the 'spirit' of the EO at issue, given the timeline following the first EO it does appear to me that the cited campaign language is now rendered irrelevant.
I can see the other side of the argument, but Mmm's comment refutes those issues well.
My understanding is that the president's power to set immigration policy through executive orders requires any such changes to be justified - that the legality of the order depends on both the legality of the changes and the justification.
Therefore, an EO truly motivated by national security interests is legal, but one that falsely cites national security while intended as a Muslim ban is not (even if the immigration changes are the same). At issue here is that Trump is saying the courts have to take his word for it that his intentions are the former, not the latter (which this court isn't buying). If he wants to get past the courts he doesn't have to revise the proposed changes to immigration, he has to provide sufficient evidence to outweigh the plentiful evidence that he wanted a Muslim ban.
Therefore, an EO truly motivated by national security interests is legal, but one that falsely cites national security while intended as a Muslim ban is not (even if the immigration changes are the same). At issue here is that Trump is saying the courts have to take his word for it that his intentions are the former, not the latter (which this court isn't buying). If he wants to get past the courts he doesn't have to revise the proposed changes to immigration, he has to provide sufficient evidence to outweigh the plentiful evidence that he wanted a Muslim ban.
4
It appears the liberals are in favor of terrorist act on American citizens. Oh wait, remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, The Cuban Boy, The Ranchers? They have not changed a bit.
7
I am glad the courts are not looking the other way in regards to the comments/promises Tump made in his campaign about banning muslims.
I wish the american people would also not look the other way in regards to so many other promises he made such as: not touching medicaid, providing healthcare system that would insure everybody, withdraw from Nafta, eliminate the Iran deal and dozens of other things. Now Tump voters should realize they were fed lies.
I wish the american people would also not look the other way in regards to so many other promises he made such as: not touching medicaid, providing healthcare system that would insure everybody, withdraw from Nafta, eliminate the Iran deal and dozens of other things. Now Tump voters should realize they were fed lies.
15
I am simply getting tired of all this winning!
It is just too much! I am getting goosebumps! But just as earnestly and so very truthfully promised by our Dear Leader Trump before he won the election by that huuuge landslide.
It is just too much! I am getting goosebumps! But just as earnestly and so very truthfully promised by our Dear Leader Trump before he won the election by that huuuge landslide.
6
Just waiting now for the next two bonehead moves out of this administration:
1) Announcing that they will take this to SCOTUS -OR- redraft new legislation (again) and;
2) Do this while 45 is abroad, during NATO and G7 discussions in the coming days
Surely, if they have the gall to try and pass this abomination of an order, they'll wait until he returns......
(though hopefully not at all).
1) Announcing that they will take this to SCOTUS -OR- redraft new legislation (again) and;
2) Do this while 45 is abroad, during NATO and G7 discussions in the coming days
Surely, if they have the gall to try and pass this abomination of an order, they'll wait until he returns......
(though hopefully not at all).
1
For non-citizens and non-residents getting into a country is a lot like getting into a private club. You get in at the sufferance of the existing members, in their sole discretion.
5
Sorry, Mike. The United States of America is not a private club.
15
Sure, but the majority of the nation prefers to be an open democracy, in which people can visit or apply for immigration. It's the minority that wants a wall around the place and to keep all the non-white people out.
20
"For non-citizens and non-residents getting into a country is a lot like getting into a private club."
A private club -- like Mar a Lago?
Oh wait. It only costs $200,000 to get into Mar a Lago. What a bargain. The Kushners were trying to sell access to Club U.S. to the Chinese for $500,000.
A private club -- like Mar a Lago?
Oh wait. It only costs $200,000 to get into Mar a Lago. What a bargain. The Kushners were trying to sell access to Club U.S. to the Chinese for $500,000.
13
When people complain about not allowing the ban be instated, it appears they must have hard time in their history courses. Immigrants, or families of immigrants make-up our population. It is our strength. Throughout our history, many new immigrants faced the same intolerance recent immigrants are now experiencing.
Unless a person is Native American, he/she can trace their roots to another country. Many times, depending on the immigration, their parents, grandparents,etc, initially faced a backlash since they did not fit the existing dominant population's make-up.
It is time for Americans to look in their own mirrors.
Unless a person is Native American, he/she can trace their roots to another country. Many times, depending on the immigration, their parents, grandparents,etc, initially faced a backlash since they did not fit the existing dominant population's make-up.
It is time for Americans to look in their own mirrors.
9
You must have slept through history class Teacher. We have never in the history of our nation had an immigrant class such as modern Muslims that has brought a violent religious ideology along with a medieval culture. It's a toxic mix. Here in the Twin Cities we have foolishly imported 150,000 east African Muslims, most of whom refuse to assimilate, and raise their children to be jihadis. Many locals here have left to join ISIS but the lid is about to blow off right here in middle America as it's doing now in France, Germany and UK. Islam has no place in America because it is fundamentally opposed to our core values of freedom, liberty and equality. Wise up now while we can still do something about it!
6
Your implying that anyone that follows Islam is inherently worse than us/not equal while in the next line claiming they are incapable of understanding equality and liberty. See any contradiction there?
I guess you slept through the class about massacring countless Indians and stealing their lands, purposely giving them diseases by distributing blankets from people who died of chicken pox and measles, making them walk thousands of miles in the bitter cold, isolating their children, punishing them for speaking their own language, forcing them to give up their beliefs for Christianity, the list goes on and gets much worse.
Violent extremists use religion, and that applies to any and all religions, as mask and excuse for their cowardly, heinous acts. 'Christianity' is no less violent or medieval, we still see it today here and now with extremist groups bent of subjugating everyone to their belief and world view. The bible reads like a horror story replete with gruesome events and punishments, all three Abrahamic religions use it as source but only cowards use it as a rule book for their own pathetic and violent ends.
Violent extremists use religion, and that applies to any and all religions, as mask and excuse for their cowardly, heinous acts. 'Christianity' is no less violent or medieval, we still see it today here and now with extremist groups bent of subjugating everyone to their belief and world view. The bible reads like a horror story replete with gruesome events and punishments, all three Abrahamic religions use it as source but only cowards use it as a rule book for their own pathetic and violent ends.
So can Judge Niemeyer cite the explanations, modifications, retractions or amplifications that demonstrate this executive order was not an attempt to fulfill his promise of a Muslim ban?
Sure, Trump has waffled on calling for a Muslim ban, but I'm not aware of him saying anything to show that this executive order is anything but an attempt to follow through on that initial campaign promise.
Sure, Trump has waffled on calling for a Muslim ban, but I'm not aware of him saying anything to show that this executive order is anything but an attempt to follow through on that initial campaign promise.
16
And apparently, neither did the judges.
Good for (7 of) them.
Good for (7 of) them.
If Trump’s “revised” Executive Order were allowed to stand, Congress through Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, would have, in effect, authorized a law -- via an Executive Order -- respecting an establishment of religion. This is prohibited by the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. Congress cannot delegate authority to the President that is prohibited to it under the Constitution.
https://casetext.com/posts/the-jiggery-pokery-of-trumps-revised-muslim-ban
https://casetext.com/posts/the-jiggery-pokery-of-trumps-revised-muslim-ban
16
My crystal ball -- the same one that clearly predicted the election of Michael Dukakis in 1988 -- is in pretty good working order today. My Magic 8-ball says that SCOTUS will not choose to hear this case. If SCOTUS does choose to hear the case, Magic 8-ball says it will rule against Trump 6-3 or 7-2.
7
9-0. They will rule unanimously against it. If they cannot they will deny cert.
Right wingers will be quick to blame Liberals for this, i.e. the third blockage of Donnie's Muslim ban. We already have extreme vetting in place; and, it is not refugees but home grown terrorists that are the problem. Europe has always had a problem integrating foreigners into their societies, but the US and Canada are used to it cause we were all immigrants and one time. Trump's travel ban was campaign rhetoric meant to appeal to the racist crowd to get their vote, and the courts know this. Next stop the Supreme Court. However here I'm afraid that politics may rule as many of these guys were picked cause they favored one side or the other, not because they were unbiased as they should be.
4
Good. Keep the flame up and keep the pot boiling over just as long as we can. Eventually it will go dry and warp the pot, then we can throw it away and get a new one.
2
I praise the Court for ruling that campaign statements are relevant in adjudicating legal challenges to the actions of the executive branch. I think it is no different than courts and lawyers making reference to “The Federalist Papers” in interpreting the Founder’s intent behind clauses written into the constitution used in the campaign to sell the federal constitution to the states to obtain ratification.
However, it may have a perverse effect on future campaign elections.
Consider a televised presidential debate. Each candidate may likely preface each of their responses such as:
“I’d like to respond to what Ms. XX just said. First let me state unequivocally that what I’m about to say is a hypothetical statement, which does not necessarily reflect my true beliefs, how I would respond if I was elected President and cannot be relied upon by voters if they select me as their next President.”
However, it may have a perverse effect on future campaign elections.
Consider a televised presidential debate. Each candidate may likely preface each of their responses such as:
“I’d like to respond to what Ms. XX just said. First let me state unequivocally that what I’m about to say is a hypothetical statement, which does not necessarily reflect my true beliefs, how I would respond if I was elected President and cannot be relied upon by voters if they select me as their next President.”
11
Or, we can hope that future presidents don't issue unconstitutional executive orders based on campaign rhetoric.
Oh wait, better yet...let's never elect another president who is ignorant about the constitution, and apparently everything else that a president needs to know.
Oh wait, better yet...let's never elect another president who is ignorant about the constitution, and apparently everything else that a president needs to know.
1
When a "religion" calls for the death of "infidels" then maybe it should be discriminated against.
21
Every religion that claims to know what God thinks takes its name in vain.
4
Sorry, perhaps you could inform all of us about the cherry picked passages from any religious text that call for the death of those rejecting God's word and God's decrees. Tell us about the justification for the Crusades, about what Christianity called for. Or is it that you wish to argue some irrational and hate-filled people twist scripture to fit their own warped visions of what God supposedly wants?
Since I am sure you can enlighten us with murderous verses from the Qur'an, then I am also sure you will give us the exact context of the quote, including what the call to violence states specifically. I'll await your reply patiently.
Since I am sure you can enlighten us with murderous verses from the Qur'an, then I am also sure you will give us the exact context of the quote, including what the call to violence states specifically. I'll await your reply patiently.
8
Christianity has always used the word heretics instead of infidels. What's the difference really?
13
We want our 747 to be returned.
But ban the hate-mongerer from re-entry in our country.
But ban the hate-mongerer from re-entry in our country.
Yates was right!!!
This is great news for America.......something like this, which is unamerican, unconstitutional and inhumane,m should NEVER exist in a developed, industrialized country!
13
Sometimes a statement, act, or argument is best understood if applied to an opposite conclusion. Suppose Trump and Pence had said they would ban Christians, then promulgated immigration policies to do that?
There would be hell to pay.
So be careful, Supreme Court, for it will not be long until Christianity is a minority position in the United States (to atheism and agnosticism) and the majority then might be seeking to ban from immigration to the U.S. Christians who are targeted by regimes in other countries.
Be very careful.
There would be hell to pay.
So be careful, Supreme Court, for it will not be long until Christianity is a minority position in the United States (to atheism and agnosticism) and the majority then might be seeking to ban from immigration to the U.S. Christians who are targeted by regimes in other countries.
Be very careful.
12
Foreigners who are not on American soil have no Constitutional rights.
So tell me, why was it OK to bar communists and National Socialists, who held and preached philosophies which are contrary to our values and way of life, from our country but not fervent Muslims?
So tell me, why was it OK to bar communists and National Socialists, who held and preached philosophies which are contrary to our values and way of life, from our country but not fervent Muslims?
So excited that the courts are stopping this! Now we can have Ariana Grande concerts in the U.S. bombed by sons of Libyan refugees too!
12
How would this ban had prevented the Manchester attack? The attacker was a British citizen.
5
The Manchester bomber was born in England, so this ban would have no effect on it.
7
Was Timothy McVeigh a son of Libyan refugees? I didn't know that, gosh.
5
As a candidate, I repeatedly promised to ban Muslims from the U.S. As President, I tried to ban Muslims from the U.S. How could any reasonable person conclude there is linkage here? These so-called judges must be nut jobs! So unfair! - Donald J. Trump
16
Aww .. after I did my Sword Dance with all those Muslims, and even sold them $100+ Billion in arms for peace to show how I LOVE them?
Its time to take care of these "so-called" judges next!
Its time to take care of these "so-called" judges next!
6
Unconstitutional? Gee, I wonder who the real patriots are now.
Time to see the true Gorsuch.
Wondering if Trump made deals with him, too.
Wondering if Trump made deals with him, too.
4
Another epic fail by this administration. So when does the "winning" start?
10
The left is now happy and what will they do when somewhere down the road one of these people or offspring renovate a bomb? As long as it's not their own children, they're ok with it.
12
No one here, I am sure, is "OK" with people setting off bombs that kill innocent people. What we are NOT "OK" with, is a president doing and saying things to appeal to a shrill, shrinking, xenophobic that gobbles up the same fake news and alternative facts that the current, child-like president dines on. We want no seat at that table ...
8
I doubt anyone is "OK with it".
The point is that it's unconstitutional.
The point is that it's unconstitutional.
3
The illegitimate president created thousands of new enemies with his proposed ban. Americans who will die as a result of his idiocy will be traveling in Europe and Middle East. The target on overseas Americans just got bigger thanks to the guy you think is saving the country.
So, Jeff Sessions- turns out it's not just a judge on some island in the Pacific Ocean, eh?
14
Be prepared for another Dred Scott decision people. The SCOTUS is pretty scary right now. Stand up against xenophobia and religious tyranny! Let's get 'em in 2018!
4
Note that not one of these judges are from Hawaii.
13
Brought to you by the enablers of the Manchester Concert Bombing, San Bernardino Shooting & Nice Truck Attack.
People like these judges are 100% responsible for every death caused by a radicalized fundamentalist who travels to a ban country for terrorist training and indoctrination.
People like these judges are 100% responsible for every death caused by a radicalized fundamentalist who travels to a ban country for terrorist training and indoctrination.
6
Wasn't there some connection between the San Bernadino shooters and ... Wait For It! -- our allies, the Saudis. Which are NOT on The Don's list?
7
"Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims"
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-...
Targeting an ethnicity, a religion or someone because of their heritage is a placebo. It does not address the problem it just gives angry, unthinking people a target to hit, it diverts their attention and deceives them. Would be more useful to wonder what the reason and goal for handing out the placebo is.
Placebo: A placebo may be given to a person in order to deceive the recipient into thinking that it is an active treatment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-...
Targeting an ethnicity, a religion or someone because of their heritage is a placebo. It does not address the problem it just gives angry, unthinking people a target to hit, it diverts their attention and deceives them. Would be more useful to wonder what the reason and goal for handing out the placebo is.
Placebo: A placebo may be given to a person in order to deceive the recipient into thinking that it is an active treatment.
5
the San Bernadino shooters were from Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia
I have always thought the ban was just plain foolish and un-American based simply on religion.
BUT...we can, should and must make every Muslim immigrant pass the "smell test". You know....the cop pulls a car over and while inspecting the driver's documents says, "I think I detect the odor of marijuana...PLEASE STEP OUT!"
The same should apply to Muslim immigrants ...even the slightest hint of proximity to or knowledge of terrorist activity or affiliation or just the temperament of anger towards America or friendliness towards ISIS would be enough to have our officials say, "...PLEASE STEP OUT!"
May sound harsh to some liberal and children but I still believe in America and her children FIRST, LAST and ALWAYS.
BUT...we can, should and must make every Muslim immigrant pass the "smell test". You know....the cop pulls a car over and while inspecting the driver's documents says, "I think I detect the odor of marijuana...PLEASE STEP OUT!"
The same should apply to Muslim immigrants ...even the slightest hint of proximity to or knowledge of terrorist activity or affiliation or just the temperament of anger towards America or friendliness towards ISIS would be enough to have our officials say, "...PLEASE STEP OUT!"
May sound harsh to some liberal and children but I still believe in America and her children FIRST, LAST and ALWAYS.
3
Do the police say "Please step out"? Or do they drag people with slighty non White skin out of cars at gunpoint?
How many of Trump's White people have marajuana, cocaine, other smells in their cars?
Do you believe in all of America's children. The poor, the sick, the elderly?
How many of Trump's White people have marajuana, cocaine, other smells in their cars?
Do you believe in all of America's children. The poor, the sick, the elderly?
4
Only US citizens have Constitutional rights. How hard is that to understand? I expect our Supreme to strike down this idiotic ruling...
7
The Constitution references "persons." I suggest you do more research.
4
Actually there is a clause in the Constitution barring the president from halting immigration to this country based solely on religious belief.
Sooo... Turns out foreigners also had constitutional rights. Just not necessarily the exact same as citizens.
Sooo... Turns out foreigners also had constitutional rights. Just not necessarily the exact same as citizens.
3
The Supreme Court is unlikely to even hear it because the circuit courts are in agreement. And your premise about only US citizens having constitutional rights is flat-out wrong. There is well over a century of court precedent establishing that all people, including immigrants, are protected by the US constitution. It's not even a matter of debate among legal scholars.
4
As long as the courts can keep the toddler-in-chief in his baby chair we can take a respite from the bragging, insulting, and alternative facts about how the world works. The tweeter-in-tow said he'd ban Muslims from entering the country, something he can't seem to remember, like his insults to people of color, women, the media, and the American public. As long as American institutions can clamp down this insult-in-isolation we can take on his party's attacks against the poor and vulnerable. Keep resisting and leaking him up. No way but up!
8
Thank heavens for our nation's judicial branch with its strong, moral fiber. It alone it seems has the backbone to call the Trump administration's actions for what they are: racist, ignorant, based on lies and very dangerous. Our forefathers knew that without a strong judiciary, the executive branch and Congress would run afoul of the the laws and the Constitution over time. What wisdom.
8
When Trump promised us that we would winning...and winning....who knew that it would be this good! Thanks, Trump!
When will this [p]resident get the message that these simplistic tactics based on ill-thought-out assumptions simply will not stand-up to rigiourous legal challenges? But my fellow citizens, by cautioned! Here comes his "loaded" Supreme Court!
When will this [p]resident get the message that these simplistic tactics based on ill-thought-out assumptions simply will not stand-up to rigiourous legal challenges? But my fellow citizens, by cautioned! Here comes his "loaded" Supreme Court!
5
Could someone explain how we should accept #45's word and power about immigration but not President Obama's when he wanted to make the DREAMERS legal in U.S. v. Texas? Seems to be a double standard.
4
Is no one outraged that a global terrorist organization is exploiting certain nations' laws to obtain an easy vector into their enemies' lands by masquerading as religion? Where are all the cries of appropriation now?
5
You sound like someone who spends a lot of time watching Fox "News" and not very much time at all interacting with members of other faiths or ethnicities. Sad.
5
Terrible ruling, legally speaking.
7
Perhaps you could share your expert analysis with us.
3
As a 4th generation Japanese-American whose family lost everything and spent 4 years in America's concentration camps, I am happy and relieved by today's court ruling and the fact that they did not mince words; (Trump's travel ban) “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” I don’t believe there has ever been a more dangerous time since the internment, which ruined so many thousands of good American lives, and I hope and pray that all decent Americans continue to stand up and work to defeat these racist, xenophobic, executive orders and policies coming from the Trump administration now and in the future.
320
Thank you so much for your reply. It was a horrible miscarriage of justice. I have many friends in the Bay Area, that have had families go through what you have so kindly shared!
2
Those were internment camps, not concentration camps.
1
Thank you for reminding Americans that our history has a strong thread of intolerance for anyone outside the mainstream of white Christians--whether Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese immigrants, Jewish immigrants and on and on. It's everyone's responsibility to learn from our shared past and not allow our government to repeat it. May I remind everyone that no terrorist attackers since 9/11 have come from the countries proposed in the ban. We should remember that our nation's ideals rest on tolerance and freedom of religion, not fear and hatred
Although I have not read nor digested this ruling, I am excited that the Supreme Court appears likely to take up the Trump travel ban issue. This ruling is important both in its majority and dissent scenarios and should be analyzed and discussed widely for its discussion of First Amendment principles, doctrines and rules regarding protections against religious animus and bias, as well the subtext of the need for enhanced Federal Powers to combat extremist religiously-motivated violence. No matter what or how the High Court rules, if it takes the case, the issues raised by Federal interventions to attempt to thwart the influx to America of foreign terrorists are vexing and highly, deeply, deeply and troublingly complex. There are no easy answers or fixes. Anyone who asserts otherwise is in one or another variant of denial.
3
The best solution by Mr. Trump would be to forego this anti-immigrant policy completely and seek a comprehensive law addressing the administration's concerns regarding any potential terrorists entering the US from any nation and clear, fairly applied, rules for deportation. Attempting to sidestep the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government is the wrong way to achieve its goal of a more secure America. An immense number of individuals have already been affected by the administration's past failed attempt at an immigration travel ban along with increased deportations and more adverse Federal court rulings blocking this new one are virtually guaranteed. The Statue of Liberty holds a torch to light the way not to keep those seeking a better life at bay.
3
Sigh of relief and even surprise at the blunt language of the court in rejecting as bad faith pretext Rudy's bright Idea of how to make it seem legal. These guys have to stop giving away their evil motives in public press statements.
Sally Yates was right not to defend it!
Sally Yates was right not to defend it!
9
Trumpetts don't give up. Trump persisted with the birther lie for 8 years. He doesn't quit as long as someone else is paying the legal bills.
9
Trump behaves like a boor, engages his mouth before putting his mind in gear, and poses like Mussolini. I have no time for him whatsoever.
Nevertheless, I think the majority judges are wrong. There is a substantial, international movement of Muslims bent on harming the West. Not all Muslims; not even a majority of Muslims; but a significant number. To ignore this dimension is to be willfully ignorant and rather 'reverse-bigoted' -- i.e. intolerant of facts that challenge a starry-eyed view of humanity.
I don't think Trumps statements about banning Muslims from entering the country (until...etc) was wise; nor do I think that such a policy would be very productive. But, as the President, he has the authority to identify the US' enemies and make decisions based on security information (somehow 'intelligence' doesn't sit well here). The Court's reference to the 1st Amendment is ludicrous: banning people from countries where there is a religiously-inspired war is nowhere near setting up a state religion.
Nevertheless, I think the majority judges are wrong. There is a substantial, international movement of Muslims bent on harming the West. Not all Muslims; not even a majority of Muslims; but a significant number. To ignore this dimension is to be willfully ignorant and rather 'reverse-bigoted' -- i.e. intolerant of facts that challenge a starry-eyed view of humanity.
I don't think Trumps statements about banning Muslims from entering the country (until...etc) was wise; nor do I think that such a policy would be very productive. But, as the President, he has the authority to identify the US' enemies and make decisions based on security information (somehow 'intelligence' doesn't sit well here). The Court's reference to the 1st Amendment is ludicrous: banning people from countries where there is a religiously-inspired war is nowhere near setting up a state religion.
2
What "security information" are you talking about. I personally am not prepared to trust the word of a pathological liar like our President.
6
Unfortunately neither Trump or his staff bothered to find out exactly what vetting is already being done before allowing people to immigrate.
The Supreme court will over turn the ruling, the constitution gives the President the power to ban immigration from any country, regardless of their religion. Beyond this, the 22 year old terrorist from Manchester had visited Syria where he was radicalized. I wouldn't be surprised if an all out ban occurs in the UK as well now. Slaughtering school girls at a concert? I'm sorry to the Muslim community, it should be temporary. At this point, an all out ban makes sense until the slaughtering of our children stops. My position has changed dramatically, I am a left leaning independent at heart, but right now, I think the USA has to let its elected President do what he thinks is best. That is why he has those powers, it is why the constitution works - i.e. frankly, Trump seems to be the right President for this moment, as extreme as he might be, there is nothing more extreme as the murder of young girls. Period. America is working how its supposed to work.
20
The Manchester suicide bomber was born in England.
13
"Until the slaughtering of our children stops" apparently holds no sway to the Republicans getting kickbacks and dark money from the gun lobby. See Sandyhook.
13
Boy are you in for a shock. The Supreme Court will not overturn this. They might not take the case. If 4 & 9 agree there really is no reason for them to.
1
I guess Trump has to break up the 4th and the 9 th Circuits now.
Loose Lips Trump and Giuliani sink travel bans.
Loose Lips Trump and Giuliani sink travel bans.
11
Breaking up Circuits doesn't change this. Each Circuit Court of Appeal can overturn or uphold a law. They don't vote in groups
The SCOTUS needs to reverse this awful decision. The President is 100% correct that people from certain countries need additional screening before entering this amazing country.
The professional protesters who think they are so smart but demonstrate a lack of common sense have no idea what the terrorists plan for them. They are naive and foolish.
Thank goodness Donald Trump is the President!
Please reverse this ridiculous decision USSC!
The professional protesters who think they are so smart but demonstrate a lack of common sense have no idea what the terrorists plan for them. They are naive and foolish.
Thank goodness Donald Trump is the President!
Please reverse this ridiculous decision USSC!
14
Do you know how they are screened now and what additional screening they would get?
7
Yep, and do you know which countries are those "certain countries?" Try Egypt and Saudi Arabia, places where Donald Trump owns hotels or golf courses, and neither of which falls under the travel ban.
4
But if you're going to screen those people from certain countries based on religion, then it does not pass Constitutional muster. Unless of course you are not a fan of The U.S. Constitution as written?
2
Great! We are all Manchester, England now! I cannot wait for reversal on this one.
17
the Manchester bomber was a citizen of the U.K. A travel ban wouldn't change anything.
7
And your logic is...? That rapists and murderers are flooding over our borders, waiting to harm us? Try reading the FACTS. from a real source. Immigrants drive the American economy and contribute greatly to our society. And I don't think Canada, which has responded with compassion to the world-wide refugee crisis, is much less safe than America with a lunatic like Trump at the helm.
3
Sorry to those folks in Manchester suffering from the recent event, to those who loved their loved ones, those living in fear, and those peaceful Muslims who are considered as a group to be potential extremists.
"The court divided along ideological lines, with the three Republican appointees in dissent."
Yay, justice...
Yay, justice...
7
The courts are not supposed to be political or allow their personal ideology to affect their rulings. But you see more and more they do. Especially the SCOTUS.
They are to rule based on the law and our Constitution.
They are to rule based on the law and our Constitution.
1
If it was so vital to national security, counter-terrorism to tighten visa process, why hasn’t Trump administration made any changes to the system in all this time?
When you listen (to NPR) about what goes into the refugee program and the extreeeme vetting process that takes place (2-3 years, 18 agencies), and then learn that Trump and his henchmen never bothered to ask about the system, you realize that his "travel ban" was really a "Muslim ban" and grossly unconstitutional and contrary to American values.
When you listen (to NPR) about what goes into the refugee program and the extreeeme vetting process that takes place (2-3 years, 18 agencies), and then learn that Trump and his henchmen never bothered to ask about the system, you realize that his "travel ban" was really a "Muslim ban" and grossly unconstitutional and contrary to American values.
108
This is how the system is supposed to work with 3 separate, but equal branches of government.
It is not a left\right, Democrat\republican verdict. It is one based in law.
It is not a left\right, Democrat\republican verdict. It is one based in law.
33
How come so few people know this? It's mind-boggling!
I do wish Civics was taught at school so this would not have to be reiterated again and again and again ad infinitum and so people would be more aware of what their personal as well as collective stake in a democracy is and how it will not survive without active involvement.
I do wish Civics was taught at school so this would not have to be reiterated again and again and again ad infinitum and so people would be more aware of what their personal as well as collective stake in a democracy is and how it will not survive without active involvement.
7
Every time I hear someone complaining about allowing refugees to enter this country, I show them the picture of the 3 year old Syrian boy who drowned while trying to reach Europe - and ultimately Canada - with his family in 2015. He had a name and it was Alan Kurdi.
After that they usually have nothing to say. Trump should take a look at that picture too.
After that they usually have nothing to say. Trump should take a look at that picture too.
18
He's a sociopath and it would mean nothing to him.
7
Alan Kurdi. That's the right tactic. He had a name. Those nay-sayers should indeed look at the picture of that dead toddler.
7
Thank you ACLU for standing up for our Constitution. Perhaps someone could read it to Mr. Trump.
29
They would need to add pictures and graphs. But o way can they associate the 'Trump' name with the Constitution, ever, at all; so even pictures and graphs may not be enough to hold Trump's 12 second attention span, as the head of NATO calculated it.
1
President Trump's immigration order included suspension of the US refugee program for 120 days and banning immigrants from select Muslim countries for 90 days in order to develop “extreme vetting” measures. As we have passed the 90 and 120 day marks, has his order and the subsequent legal battle become moot? I assume that he has installed his "extreme vetting" protocols by now?
22
No, he's done nothing. He and his administration are too busy figuring out how to fleece the public to actually do anything to keep people safe.
2
If reasonable people thought there were a shred of merit to Mr. Trump's travel restriction arguments—or that we were in any significant additional danger from not allowing his Muslim ban (never mind the effort to camouflage it)—the vast majority of us of course would line up behind him. For no one wants to put American lives in unwarranted danger.
But people recognize this charade for what it is: post-election political pandering to a mob that Mr. Trump himself incited, with fantastic tales of scary Muslim refugees (to go with tales of scary Mexican immigrants).
So now comes another defining moment in American history, when we find out what we're made of.
The circuit courts are calmly ruling against Mr. Trump, seeing through his scaremongering.
If the Supreme Court does so, too—despite its partisan bias in favor of Republicans—it will show America's greatness, of the real kind.
But if the Supreme Court accepts Mr. Trump's dubious arguments, it will tarnish itself again, history will judge it harshly, and we will disgrace ourselves as a nation. I’m willing to believe our highest court will acquit itself properly here.
(By the way, I was in Tokyo when the initial Muslim ban was announced—and we expats responded with a multi-faith demonstration organized at a Tokyo synagogue. A local film crew made a short video of our action—it shows that Mr. Trump also brings people together, albeit unintentionally. Here's the clip: "No Walls Can Divide Us" https://youtu.be/k1RNwc_zTeQ.)
But people recognize this charade for what it is: post-election political pandering to a mob that Mr. Trump himself incited, with fantastic tales of scary Muslim refugees (to go with tales of scary Mexican immigrants).
So now comes another defining moment in American history, when we find out what we're made of.
The circuit courts are calmly ruling against Mr. Trump, seeing through his scaremongering.
If the Supreme Court does so, too—despite its partisan bias in favor of Republicans—it will show America's greatness, of the real kind.
But if the Supreme Court accepts Mr. Trump's dubious arguments, it will tarnish itself again, history will judge it harshly, and we will disgrace ourselves as a nation. I’m willing to believe our highest court will acquit itself properly here.
(By the way, I was in Tokyo when the initial Muslim ban was announced—and we expats responded with a multi-faith demonstration organized at a Tokyo synagogue. A local film crew made a short video of our action—it shows that Mr. Trump also brings people together, albeit unintentionally. Here's the clip: "No Walls Can Divide Us" https://youtu.be/k1RNwc_zTeQ.)
21
Not sure why that link didn't work. Here it is again: https://youtu.be/k1RNwc_zTeQ
2
Unfortunately, when people voted they didn't realize, or think about, what a profound affect their vote would have on the future of the U.S. Now that this travel ban will go before the Supreme Court, they will find out. The problem is, will they care?
4
How naive you are. You think that because the election will bring about a SCOTUS that you don't like, that people "didn't realize, or think about" it?
You don't get it: this is EXACTLY the SCOTUS that they want.
You don't get it: this is EXACTLY the SCOTUS that they want.
Affirm the lower courts unanimously and deny certiorari.
10
ISIL and Al quad are Sunni groups.
Iran does not support either of those organizations. The religious extremists that are at the core of their ideology and a good deal of their financial support are from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is now a good friend of Trump. We do not dare blame their terrorist attacks on Saudi Arabia.
We now blame all bad things on Iran and ignore the Saudi support. Does any of this make sense?
Iran does not support either of those organizations. The religious extremists that are at the core of their ideology and a good deal of their financial support are from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is now a good friend of Trump. We do not dare blame their terrorist attacks on Saudi Arabia.
We now blame all bad things on Iran and ignore the Saudi support. Does any of this make sense?
17
Yes, it does make sense. Just follow the money.
Why build a new wall when they already have so many to beat their heads against? This is obviously not over. Imagine all the jobs we could create by increasing spending to support helmet manufacturers within the US! The need for helmets increases by the day, with no end in sight. Just ask the administration and many members of the House, they are determined to keep at it.
The travel ban is written to be temporary. Why is it still necessary? Could the administration design their "extreme" vetting protocols in parallel with the legal process?
8
We should be thankful for the strength and independence of our institutions. But be forewarned - this man and his team's aim is at no less than structural damage to our democracy. They are a wrecking ball crew without an aim.
13
I keep trying to figure out the sun not coming up emergency action for a short time to stop evil butted up against however long it has been now. Are they waiting so see if the can get in after Trump gets his ban?
Or will Trump say I was kidding to the Supreme Court and make it for 77 years?
Or will Trump say I was kidding to the Supreme Court and make it for 77 years?
They are waiting for more buildings to be destroyed and more innocents to be killed.
1
Good news. I hope Trump keeps on losing on this point. I have a great friend whose own mother was unable to go to her family in Iran to be there for her own ailing mother. She was afraid that she wouldnt be allowed back in.
In any case, its Saudi Arabia that has so far led to the largest amounts of terrorists. Guess Trump cant even be coherent while he is being unconstitutional.
In any case, its Saudi Arabia that has so far led to the largest amounts of terrorists. Guess Trump cant even be coherent while he is being unconstitutional.
9
"The court divided along ideological lines, with the three Republican appointees in dissent."
True, but then isn't it especially worth noting that Chief Judge Gregory, who authored the majority opinion, was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by George W. Bush?
True, but then isn't it especially worth noting that Chief Judge Gregory, who authored the majority opinion, was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by George W. Bush?
7
In Trump's maladaptive mind, there is nothing worse than losing. Nothing. He will spend our taxpayer money on a recount of the election voting results even though literally everyone knows it's a complete and utter waste of time. Why does he do it? Because he suffers from and obvious yet undiagnosed case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Winning is a compulsion, and losing is a revulsion.
He will fight yet again and will continue to fight for the travel ban because losing literally makes him crazy.
He will continue to assert that he had the biggest inaugural crowds ever because not having them upends his fragile psyche.
Why his advisors don't do anything to stop him is beyond me.
He will fight yet again and will continue to fight for the travel ban because losing literally makes him crazy.
He will continue to assert that he had the biggest inaugural crowds ever because not having them upends his fragile psyche.
Why his advisors don't do anything to stop him is beyond me.
9
When is the last time a Catholic, Protestant, Episcopalian or Baptist conducted a terrorist attack against the United States. Of course Trump's travel ban isn't based on discrimination.
It's about protecting the lives of all Americans.
It's about protecting the lives of all Americans.
9
Dylan Roof - 2015
7
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murder...
Many variations of Christians in this particular list, I'm sure. And I'm speaking as a Protestant pastor myself.
Many variations of Christians in this particular list, I'm sure. And I'm speaking as a Protestant pastor myself.
3
You should try a thing I call "google" to help you answer your question. It is a miraculous portal to the past!!!
2
There is a constitutional principle that a governmental action must be “rationally related” to a “legitimate governmental interest.” The action here is an executive order that would impede entry into the United States by Iranians, Yemenis and certain other nationals. The “governmental interest” is legitimate and very clear: to prevent terrorism on American soil. But what is the relationship between the action and the interest? I see none – either rational or even irrational.
How does excluding Iranians from our country make us safer from terrorism? As far as I know, no terrorist attack in the United States has ever been made by an Iranian, a Yemeni, etc. Why not exclude Peruvians, too? But I do know that terrorism has been carried out by citizens of other countries that are not on the list – most notably Saudi Arabia.
Leaving aside the (perfectly clear) religious discrimination of the order, the order fails (it seems to me) on the grounds that it is entirely irrational – unless, perhaps, the arbitrary bigotry and hatred in Donald Trump’s mind is considered rational.
How does excluding Iranians from our country make us safer from terrorism? As far as I know, no terrorist attack in the United States has ever been made by an Iranian, a Yemeni, etc. Why not exclude Peruvians, too? But I do know that terrorism has been carried out by citizens of other countries that are not on the list – most notably Saudi Arabia.
Leaving aside the (perfectly clear) religious discrimination of the order, the order fails (it seems to me) on the grounds that it is entirely irrational – unless, perhaps, the arbitrary bigotry and hatred in Donald Trump’s mind is considered rational.
274
My feelings and beliefs... completely!
2
Rational basis review does not apply in this circumstance. When protected categories (such as race, religion, and nationality) are in play, equal protection analysis goes beyond mere rational-basis review, which is reserved for mundane econcomic regulation. Instead, heightened scrutiny is applied for the protected cateogires. That is, the regulation or law in question must be closely tailored to further a compelling state interest.
The argument made during the hearings so far is the even assuming preventing another terrorist attack on US soil is a compelling state interest, banning immigrants from nations with no known history of importing terrorists into the US (while not excluding immigrants from nations with such history--e.g., Saudi Arabia) is not a narrowly tailored protection.
The argument made during the hearings so far is the even assuming preventing another terrorist attack on US soil is a compelling state interest, banning immigrants from nations with no known history of importing terrorists into the US (while not excluding immigrants from nations with such history--e.g., Saudi Arabia) is not a narrowly tailored protection.
3
You are correct. Take the amendment I violation and the equal protection violation and this order is arbitrary and capricious. It is an unconstitutiobal triple crown.
It's a draw. If Trump had won, it would have gotten appealed with immediate stay granted. Now he's faced with an appeal that could be denied because the case is past expiry date.
The phrase "justice delayed is justice denied" comes to mind. And in this case, justice in jeopardy of being denied to a President invoking authority he believes is rightly his, and seeking SCOTUS affirmation of same. Which would not be SCOTUS's intent in declining to hear, who would wish to decline for procedural reason only, not set any precedent on presidential authority.
The proper way to put this to rest would be to appeal and have SCOTUS return case to the Appeals courts with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. Sessions needs to figure the mechanics of doing that, thankfully also the right man. If he can't wrangle an honorable exit along these lines, well, guess what, he's .....
The phrase "justice delayed is justice denied" comes to mind. And in this case, justice in jeopardy of being denied to a President invoking authority he believes is rightly his, and seeking SCOTUS affirmation of same. Which would not be SCOTUS's intent in declining to hear, who would wish to decline for procedural reason only, not set any precedent on presidential authority.
The proper way to put this to rest would be to appeal and have SCOTUS return case to the Appeals courts with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. Sessions needs to figure the mechanics of doing that, thankfully also the right man. If he can't wrangle an honorable exit along these lines, well, guess what, he's .....
2
The 90 days of the original "temporary" ban are long gone. Nothing happened during those 90 days. If the original ban was really going to be for just 90 days, is it necessary any more?
Also, wasn't the theory behind the ban that it would give this country time to "figure out" what it should do about immigration? If so, then has has the administration figured anything out?
Of course not because that was never the purpose of the ban which would not have been temporary.
Also, wasn't the theory behind the ban that it would give this country time to "figure out" what it should do about immigration? If so, then has has the administration figured anything out?
Of course not because that was never the purpose of the ban which would not have been temporary.
16
How many days has it been since this executive order was issued? Somewhere in the middle of March I think. If the executive order was for a 90 suspension for persons from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yeman and a 120 day suspension for the refugees, won't it be moot by the time it gets to the Supreme Court? It was only to allow time to put together a stronger vetting plan, right? And certainly its been over 120 days since the first executive order, also a TEMPORARY suspension. So where is that improved vetting plan?
6
I hope the SCOTUS employes a non-political eye when reviewing this case. Personally, I would rather they vote it down that approve it, but for me the most important thing is that they weigh the constitutionality of it appropriately, and let the votes be cast where they may.
3
The court appears to have applied the civil rights doctrine of disparate impact to national security. The travel ban applied to all residents of the six countries, regardless of religion, but affected more Muslims than Christian or Jews. Since all countries have religious majorities, the same logic would mean presidents could not ban travel from any country. For example, the president could not ban travel from Russia because it would affect more Christians than Muslims. However, the Constitution gives president the power to ban travel or immigration from any country. The Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.
24
You are quite mistaken. Trump declared that minorities, such as Christians from majority Muslim Countries should be preferred entering the US.
And it is quite telling that overwhelmingly Muslim countries with which he has business relations, many of which suppress freedom of women and others inside their borders, are not affected by the ban.
And it is quite telling that overwhelmingly Muslim countries with which he has business relations, many of which suppress freedom of women and others inside their borders, are not affected by the ban.
5
The court is not applying the doctrine of disparate impact. It is not even mentioned in any of the opinions. The issue is that, based on Trump's comments and the comments of his stand-ins, the order discriminates on the basis of religion. That is, the intent of the order was to discriminate against Muslims. This is clear from Trump's campaign rhetoric and the quick (and sloppy) drafting of the EO after he was elected. The Supreme Court will likely have to decide whether Trump's own comments should be taken into account when evaluating the intent of an EO. Disparate impact has nothing to do with the case.
1
Let's hope not.
It is bad enough that Trump doesn't know what he's doing. Far worse that he viciously doesn't know what he's doing.
39
Trump employed the term "losers" a day or two ago. He's on a long losing streak of his own, and our Number One task is to prevent him from taking down our USA with him.
39
He did win on November 8.
3
Thomas Jefferson, who designed the building shown in your photograph for the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, based on the Maison Carré at Nîmes, will probably be in touch with you shortly, to advise you that the gloomy domicile of the Fourth Circuit is at the photographer's back, quite out of view. The caption isn't entirely incorrect; the demonstrators are in the street in front of the missing building.
5
Trump lost this case because he bragged for over a year that he'd ban Muslims from entering our course of elected. The judges heard that. Trump's big mouth is his worst enemy. Sad.
27
The Manchester bomber was Libyan and went to Syria. Surprising?
Nope. There are a disproportionate number of terrorists in Libya and Syria.
How do we know? Even Obama designated those countries as terror prone.
And what is the #1 desire of terrorists? To strike at America.
So there are a disproportionate number of terrorists in those two countries and their want to strike America? Yep.
Let's ban people from those countries from coming here then! Yea, that's Trump plan exactly.
Great, thank goodness someone has common sense. So we're good right?
Nope, we have these judges, chilling in Hawaii overriding the President on national security issues.
Didn't Trump win by a 304-234 landslide? Doesn't he have a mandate?
Yep, but that's our crooked system for you.
Nope. There are a disproportionate number of terrorists in Libya and Syria.
How do we know? Even Obama designated those countries as terror prone.
And what is the #1 desire of terrorists? To strike at America.
So there are a disproportionate number of terrorists in those two countries and their want to strike America? Yep.
Let's ban people from those countries from coming here then! Yea, that's Trump plan exactly.
Great, thank goodness someone has common sense. So we're good right?
Nope, we have these judges, chilling in Hawaii overriding the President on national security issues.
Didn't Trump win by a 304-234 landslide? Doesn't he have a mandate?
Yep, but that's our crooked system for you.
15
The court that rendered this decision sits in Richmond, which is in Virginia (not Hawaii).
20
304-234 is hardly a landslide. In fact, it was one of the narrowest margins in decades. And it was accompanied by a resounding loss in the popular vote.
5
The vast majority of Americans did not vote for Mr. Trump. He did get a lot of support from the Russians though. He did not have a landslide. He has no mandate. The Constitution is supposed to be upheld by the courts especially when an ignorant executive order is issued that would take away our rights.
7
The ACLU keeps winning this for all of us - thank goodness.
244
Indeed.
But how many of us show our appreciation by contributing to their future?
But how many of us show our appreciation by contributing to their future?
3
Congrats to the Commonwealth of Virginia. How nice the decision came from a court in Richmond, the Confederate capital.
27
I am so tired of winning every time .
Maybe that loser Trump could try harder, maybe he'll win, just once.
Maybe that loser Trump could try harder, maybe he'll win, just once.
12
We're not really winning, Andrew. We're simply shouting victory slogans
all the way down the slope.
all the way down the slope.
1
Bravo. A ray of sunshine pokes through the cloud hanging over the country.
32
This news coming during the same international trip in which Trump cozies up to the House of Saud and orchestrates a $100B weapons package. Thousands of American weapons going to Saudi Arabia, the country most responsible for developing, financing, and training jihadists. Including 9/11.
But we'll ignore that because...oil profits? Trump Hotel Riyadh? A chance to blame Iran for everything, and thus Obama by extension? Can anyone explain how the man supposedly standing up to radical Islam makes that his first international stop?
But sure, let's detain Syrian refugees. Let's round up Dreamer children and ship them back to Mexico. Let's make it illegal for my dual-citizen Iranian / American friend to go visit his parents. That will keep us safe.
But we'll ignore that because...oil profits? Trump Hotel Riyadh? A chance to blame Iran for everything, and thus Obama by extension? Can anyone explain how the man supposedly standing up to radical Islam makes that his first international stop?
But sure, let's detain Syrian refugees. Let's round up Dreamer children and ship them back to Mexico. Let's make it illegal for my dual-citizen Iranian / American friend to go visit his parents. That will keep us safe.
130
Again, a solution looking for a problem.
14
In the body politic in 2016, the truth of Mr. Trump's words didn't seem to matter, but those same words have come back to haunt him in the judicial arena in 2017.
Caught in your own intricate web of deceit and dissembling as bigger arachnids are about to make this little orange spider its next meal.
Burp!
Caught in your own intricate web of deceit and dissembling as bigger arachnids are about to make this little orange spider its next meal.
Burp!
25
Trump will win in the SCOTUS... he is right and in the right. I am going to love the Progressives losing this one.
8
Fair enough, but how will you feel if a) the SCOTUS declines to hear it since the "waiting period" has already expired and the law is therefore moot, or b) they DO hear it and side with the lower courts? Happy that the rule of law is still in force in this country? I sure hope so.
1
Either way the case comes out, D can't lose on this one.
Win or lose, R can never gain the immigrant vote over this.
Win or lose, D can only lose the immigrant vote if they fail to fight.
All this does is firm up R's base, who are all dying off anyway.
Win or lose, R can never gain the immigrant vote over this.
Win or lose, D can only lose the immigrant vote if they fail to fight.
All this does is firm up R's base, who are all dying off anyway.
The travel ban is a hare-brained scheme which plays into the assertion by ISIS and Al Qaeda that the U.S. is opposed to Islam. Trump has never learned how to think soundly, so his ideas are never as well considered as they should be.
3
Trump ran on banning Muslims from entering the U.S. as part of his appeal to xenophobic prospective voters. Trump poisoned the case for his travel ban before he was elected President, and there is nothing that he can do about it, now.
29
The first executive order was signed in January. If it was really about "national security", shouldn't the Trump administration have done something by now to address the "concerns" he raised in signing it? Has he worked with Homeland Security and create new policies to ensure terrorists don't enter the US? Has he reached out to the listed countries to create a better infrastructure in confirming the identities of their citizens who wish to enter our country? No. They have done nothing but complain about the court systems. For those who continue to support the ban because of national security- face it, this is nothing but a racist ban on Muslims.
50
Supreme Court will have to make an interesting decision within the decision: distinguishing between deferring to a president versus deterring to this president.
6
Trump said during the campaign he wanted a ban on all Muslims entering the country. He said that without any ambiguity. Who exactly should Trump be angry at when the courts reject his ban as being based on religion? Am I looking at this too simply?
The first travel ban would have already expired. By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, the 120 days will probably also have expired (~July 7)....at that point, what's the point? Whatever additional screening or more careful vetting that had to be initiated in order that we could then open our borders to those countries will (or should have) been instated. Nothing in the courts rulings prevented Trump/Tillerson et al from actually doing their job and protecting us from dangerous immigrants. I'm guessing the Supreme Court won't even bother hearing it...it'll be moot.
14
That is what I wondered as well. The time frame has passed so what use would a ban be right now? I don't even know if they have been taking any action to actually change the vetting process.
3
Ah, yes. Our families got in safely. Now let's shut the door.
Where have I heard that before?
Ah, yes. The :America First Committee.
What a wonderfully patriotic bunch they were !
Where have I heard that before?
Ah, yes. The :America First Committee.
What a wonderfully patriotic bunch they were !
1
This is good and then it will be settled by the SCOTUS once and for all. The lower courts are dictating security of our nation when it's the president's job. Once and for all are we able to protect ourselves or do we have open borders for anyone and everyone and let national security take a back seat. This will determine open borders which the democrats have always wanted.
5
Indeed, every Syrian refugee mother seeking safe haven in the US after having been vetted for almost two years, will arrive with a toddler that has explosives hidden in their pampers, don't they?
The vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe were not committed by 'open border' people entering but by second generation you men having self-radicalized.
The vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe were not committed by 'open border' people entering but by second generation you men having self-radicalized.
3
While I am not suggesting that the circuit judges who decided this case acted improperly or do not sincerely hold their views, it is difficult not to view this decision through a political prism. As the Fourth Circuit observed, Congress granted the President extremely broad, almost unquestioned, authority to suspend at least temporarily the entry into the United States of any class of aliens. Acting pursuant to that grant of authority, President Trump suspended entry of aliens, who were not otherwise qualified to enter the United States, from six countries, including Somalia and Libya where the central government has ceased to function, making background checks extremely difficult to perform. Despite this authority grant, a, overwhelming majority of judges found the Executive Order to be invalid, largely based upon statements that President Trump uttered during the campaign. If we are going to hold political candidates to promises that were made during campaigns, our nation will be different as courts will easily find variances between actions and promises. This decision comes dangerously close to rewriting a Congressional statute involving aliens--foreign residents not thought to enjoy Constitutional prerogatives. Tocqueville observed long ago, "there is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one." The Supreme Court will grant review and its decision will unfortunately be inevitably viewed as political.
6
First of all, no one should comment before reading the actual opinions and dissents. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3733125/5-25-17-4th-Circuit-I...
If you haven't read them, then how could you possibly have an opinion on the legal reasoning behind them? You would just be commenting on whether or not you are happy with the outcome, which is meaningless.
Second, note that were this case heard in, say, the 5th Circuit, Trump would almost certainly win. So there is no unambiguous answer to the legal questions and the outcome depends entirely on who hears the case. The EO is not "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" until SCOTUS weighs in. Those are just buzzwords uneducated backseat judges use to try to feel smart and authoritative.
But that being said, I believe that there is a Supreme Court precedent that controls in this case: Kleinstadt v. Mandel, where the Court held that First Amendment rights of US citizens were not abridged by denying a Belgian communist a visa based on his views. In that case, the Court said that if the President's directives are "facially legitimate" and bona fide, that is the end of judicial inquiry into it. This is the first time that the courts are digging into a president's background in order to nullify an order that is "facially legitimate." In fact, the majority opinion just flatly ignores Mandel and says that it doesn't apply here.
I look forward to the Supreme Court hearing this with Justice Gorsuch.
If you haven't read them, then how could you possibly have an opinion on the legal reasoning behind them? You would just be commenting on whether or not you are happy with the outcome, which is meaningless.
Second, note that were this case heard in, say, the 5th Circuit, Trump would almost certainly win. So there is no unambiguous answer to the legal questions and the outcome depends entirely on who hears the case. The EO is not "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" until SCOTUS weighs in. Those are just buzzwords uneducated backseat judges use to try to feel smart and authoritative.
But that being said, I believe that there is a Supreme Court precedent that controls in this case: Kleinstadt v. Mandel, where the Court held that First Amendment rights of US citizens were not abridged by denying a Belgian communist a visa based on his views. In that case, the Court said that if the President's directives are "facially legitimate" and bona fide, that is the end of judicial inquiry into it. This is the first time that the courts are digging into a president's background in order to nullify an order that is "facially legitimate." In fact, the majority opinion just flatly ignores Mandel and says that it doesn't apply here.
I look forward to the Supreme Court hearing this with Justice Gorsuch.
6
As long as Trump loses, his critics wouldn't care if the ruling was based on the contents of a Fortune Cookie.
5
Your application of Kleindienst is superficial--as evidenced by the fact that you couldn't even get the name of the case correct. In that case, there was an explicit Congressional authorization permitting the President to bar Communists--there is no such authorization to bar Muslims. Indeed, although Trump based his EO on the Immigration and Nationallity Act of 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which bars national origins criteria, also pertains whereas it wasn't applicable in Kleindienst. Further, this was a case of a denial of a visa in an individual case of someone who was an avowed Marxist, it did not involve discrimination against a group of persons.
There is also the obvious contradiction of your saying that the 4th Circuit "flatly ignores Mandel" and that it says that it doesn't apply. The 4th Circuit held that the Trump administration's action was not "bona fide" because of the clear intent to discriminate against Muslims and thus not supported by Mandel. Your assumption that the 4th Circuit "flatly ignores Mandel" suggests that your reading of its opinion was just as superficial since it missed the section--pgs. 45-54 of the opinion you ostensibly read--that covers this.
"Trump would almost certainly win. So there is no unambiguous answer to the legal questions and the outcome depends entirely on who hears the case. "
Only an uneducated backseat judge would make a statement like that.
There is also the obvious contradiction of your saying that the 4th Circuit "flatly ignores Mandel" and that it says that it doesn't apply. The 4th Circuit held that the Trump administration's action was not "bona fide" because of the clear intent to discriminate against Muslims and thus not supported by Mandel. Your assumption that the 4th Circuit "flatly ignores Mandel" suggests that your reading of its opinion was just as superficial since it missed the section--pgs. 45-54 of the opinion you ostensibly read--that covers this.
"Trump would almost certainly win. So there is no unambiguous answer to the legal questions and the outcome depends entirely on who hears the case. "
Only an uneducated backseat judge would make a statement like that.
1
In the 9th circuit, 5/7 of the G.W. Bush judges wanted to overturn it. As such, in a court that consists of mostly Bush appointees (like the 5th circuit), Trump would probably win. That's a reasonable assessment.
That's why Democrat and Repubican Senators will do anything to get their judges confirmed and block the other party's. If there were an objective mode of legal analysis, it would make no difference who hears cases.
"The 4th Circuit held that the Trump administration's action was not "bona fide" because of the clear intent to discriminate against Muslims and thus not supported by Mandel."
His "intent" shouldn't matter. This faux "animus" doctrine is part of a liberal trend away from concreteness and tangibility and toward abstraction and psychoanalysis. Kleindienst said that it need only be facially legitimate. If his campaign statements can be admitted as evidence of motive, what about his statements disavowing such motives? Are courts to decide which of his conflicting statements truly represents his psyche at any given moment? Obama judges are ignoring years of SCOTUS precedent that says immigration has a lower constitutional standard than domestic cases.
The 1965 Act complicates things yes, but that wasn't what the Court was relying on in upholding the stay. It was relying on the Establishment Clause. In any case, since 1965, presidents have made use of the 1952 Act and no judicial challenges have been sustained.
That's why Democrat and Repubican Senators will do anything to get their judges confirmed and block the other party's. If there were an objective mode of legal analysis, it would make no difference who hears cases.
"The 4th Circuit held that the Trump administration's action was not "bona fide" because of the clear intent to discriminate against Muslims and thus not supported by Mandel."
His "intent" shouldn't matter. This faux "animus" doctrine is part of a liberal trend away from concreteness and tangibility and toward abstraction and psychoanalysis. Kleindienst said that it need only be facially legitimate. If his campaign statements can be admitted as evidence of motive, what about his statements disavowing such motives? Are courts to decide which of his conflicting statements truly represents his psyche at any given moment? Obama judges are ignoring years of SCOTUS precedent that says immigration has a lower constitutional standard than domestic cases.
The 1965 Act complicates things yes, but that wasn't what the Court was relying on in upholding the stay. It was relying on the Establishment Clause. In any case, since 1965, presidents have made use of the 1952 Act and no judicial challenges have been sustained.
Read a good part of the majority opinion. They throw the words of the POTUS right back in his face, almost call him a racist. It quotes trump extensively, pointing out his statements and by implication, if not directly, his horrible tendencies.
It is a long and powerful, fully documented and foot-noted opinion. Would be a shame if the Supreme Court reverses.
It is a long and powerful, fully documented and foot-noted opinion. Would be a shame if the Supreme Court reverses.
26
Waiting for the big payoff from Neil Gorsuch. Otherwise the ban is going nowhere.
4
This is a lose-lose for the Republicans; a worse problem for them than for Trump.
Trump merely looks like a racist fool -- what is new?
If it is smart the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal. This is the least damaging thing the court can do to the constitution, the power of the court, and to the GOP.
If it takes the case it will put the court, and Gorsuch, on record. If the Supreme Court overturns the Appeals court there will be severe political consequences either way Gorsuch votes.
Trump merely looks like a racist fool -- what is new?
If it is smart the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal. This is the least damaging thing the court can do to the constitution, the power of the court, and to the GOP.
If it takes the case it will put the court, and Gorsuch, on record. If the Supreme Court overturns the Appeals court there will be severe political consequences either way Gorsuch votes.
10
If the rationale for the original ban was to provide time to develop procedures for "extreme vetting," what has the Trump administration done in the ensuing months to develop such procedures?? Or was this whole ban a political stunt from the gitgo?
This is not discrimination. We are talking about preventing individuals from countries with known ties to terrorism from entering our country. These individuals cannot be properly vetted. People will wish Trump's policies had been implemented when the next terrorist attack occurs here. Especially if they or their families are killed and wounded.
9
Don: The chances of being killed or maimed on our nation's highways is much greater than the chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack. This needs to be kept in perspective.
6
"We are talking about preventing individuals from countries with known ties to terrorism from entering our country."
Then why isn't Saudi Arabia at the top of the list?
Then why isn't Saudi Arabia at the top of the list?
4
This will give us all the first real chance to see whether Gorsuch is merely a politician in a robe or a Supreme Court Justice who understands our Constitution. I'm hoping Trump rues the day he nominated him.
30
Amazing! You're more concerned about partisan politics and blocking Trump over protecting Americans from terrorist. Why don't you do everybody a favor and Deport yourself
4
Apparently you think the Constitution is a worthless document.
@Jon - Given all the evidence of how Trump's mind seems to work--or not work, as the case may be--it's actually possible that he really believes it will keep us safer. For him, the fact that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis is irrelevant because he really, really likes the Saudis, they treat him good, and besides he has business interests with them, so they couldn't possibly be dangerous.
All the immigration laws have been written in the interests of employers who seek lower labor costs. The passions of people on the left are being manipulated in the service of capitalists who are fundamentally opposed to the rest of the left-wing agenda.
Immigration reform is one issue where Trump, the arch-capitalist, appears to be willing to do the things that the left ought to have crusaded for years ago. Their failure to fight against open borders is one reason why the left has lost support of much of the workings classes. An open border benefits a small number of already wealthy capitalists, it is harmful to the economic interests of just about everyone else in society. Workers see depressed wages, and the small capitalists face the prospect of funding more public charges (the big capitalists can afford to avoid tax with their lawyers and accountants). It's a big reason why the left is losing the heartland and with it political control. There are not enough electoral votes on the coasts to make up for that loss, as Hilary unfortunately learned.
You can't speak to the workers about economic justice and then turn around and do everything in your power to undermine that agenda when the chips are actually down.
Immigration reform is one issue where Trump, the arch-capitalist, appears to be willing to do the things that the left ought to have crusaded for years ago. Their failure to fight against open borders is one reason why the left has lost support of much of the workings classes. An open border benefits a small number of already wealthy capitalists, it is harmful to the economic interests of just about everyone else in society. Workers see depressed wages, and the small capitalists face the prospect of funding more public charges (the big capitalists can afford to avoid tax with their lawyers and accountants). It's a big reason why the left is losing the heartland and with it political control. There are not enough electoral votes on the coasts to make up for that loss, as Hilary unfortunately learned.
You can't speak to the workers about economic justice and then turn around and do everything in your power to undermine that agenda when the chips are actually down.
4
I think this article was related to a travel ban, not to immigration.
4
You make a good argument here. I'm a lefty. I have sympathy for refugees who come to the US seeking a better life. And among them may be some potential terrorists. I also agree with you that big corporations that operate within this country exploit the refugee population. But read the article " The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" about a plot against Somali immigrants that would have killed a few hundred of them had it succeeded. The terrorist threat inside this nation committed by white people is at least as great as terrorism committed by foreigners.
1
Well, Purity, some of us lefties haven't crusaded against immigration because we're quite clear on the fact that this country was built by immigrants. Unfortunately intolerance of the newcomers has been around for a long time and is usually worse if the people arriving are from a different racial group or religion. Catholics from southern Europe and from Ireland were described in much the same terms as are Muslims today by the overwhelmingly white Protestant inhabitants of the U.S. at the time that immigration from those countries began to grow.
Will the Supreme Court put political party over country? We're definitely coming to a fork in the road with respect to the American experiment. Hopefully, our Supreme Court will judge wisely and with an eye to how history will look at us in these dark days.
6
Given the loyalty demanded by and for Trump above all else, including country, no matter what Justice Gorsuch does it will be viewed with suspicion. Sad, as most attorneys dream of being on the Supreme Court, but what to do when the stain from association with Trump will never wash off?
6
Show me established relevant case law where the US Constitution provides protection to people on foreign soil.
Travel ban #2 doesn't effect people that are legally able to enter the US.
Travel ban #2 doesn't effect people that are legally able to enter the US.
6
The Constitution provides protection to people legally in this country who have a bona fide interest in the ability to bring in persons from abroad, of which there are many (relatives, for starters). It doesn't mean they always have to get their way, but it does mean that any restrictions have to be for legitimate reasons.
1
Remember when the travel ban was the worst thing Trump had done? Seems like years ago. Continued kudos to our courts.
13
I'm thinking that Trump is hoping for an attack in America so he can blame the judges. I don't think that badly of most people, but I think that badly of him.
17
It will be reversed by Scotus. The idea that these courts are taking statements from the campaign trail is just beyond belief. If you read the law as drafted it is clearly within the power of the executive to do this.
8
I don't understand why it its that you believe that the many public statements made by Trump, should have no affect on the courts.
If I'm on trial for murder and 10 people testify that I said that I would commit the murder, my statements are admissible in court.
If I'm on trial for murder and 10 people testify that I said that I would commit the murder, my statements are admissible in court.
3
First, republicans deny the truth and promulgate their own versions of "the truth." Now, republicans apparently are willing to accept the truth, but go on to claim with the proviso "it doesn't matter" under the power of the executive. The last time I looked at a history book, the last English speaking king who believed that nonsense was Charles I. And we all know what happened to him.
The Trump Hate Bowl Official Halftime Score:
The Constitution 28
Team Trump 0
The Constitution 28
Team Trump 0
229
Might want to reconsider the Super Bowl metaphor. As I recall, the Falcons led at halftime, but at the end of the game, the Patriots won.
If the intent of the order was to give the US Govt time to conduct an investigation on the topic of immigration and provide recommendations, shouldn't they have been able to complete the evaluation already?
21
Not with this incompetent administration. They've probably made no evaluations.
4
I think the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case.
The original purpose the 90 ban has expired and there hasn't been much conflict in the lower courts' rulings, right?
The original purpose the 90 ban has expired and there hasn't been much conflict in the lower courts' rulings, right?
16
The SCOTUS will hear the case because this has to be ruled on so that no other president will have to deal with this situation again
3
No conflicting rulings in the different Circuit courts. Nor has there been a trial making any decision, but just upholding a preliminary injunction. Not much meat for SCOTUS if they accept the case because they would only be deciding the validity of a preliminary injunction. Plus, the 90 day suspension of entry needed to determine extreme vetting process has expired so validity of executive order is already largely moot.
17
And he will win in the SC. The reasoning that discrimination of religion is unacceptable might not work for some reasons. First, Trump's defense would argue that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia are also muslim countries, but we have not banned them. Second, they would argue that banned countries lack sufficient resources to vet the persons coming to the US. Third, they would cite the case of nationality of terrorists in the recent terrorist attacks in the EU have some connections with the banned countries. Finally, as a president of the US he has the right to ban persons from any nationality if he deems those persons are a security threat. Those are valid reasons for a strong argument than xenophobia, racism or hatred. Liberals cannot win in the SC with these weak arguments.
6
Under 20% of india's population is Muslim. It's a predominantly Hindu country. But secular by constitutional.
Uhm, 15 of the 19 men who hijacked the four planes on 911 were Saudi Arabian; none of them were from any of the six countries on the list. Can you explain why Trump did not include Saudi Arabians in his banned group?
1
Does the majority muslim country responsible for 9/11 namely Saudi Arabia have anything to say? Sad that our Supreme Court will probably agree with Saudi Arabia and uphold the ban. Money talks.
Hopefully the SC will refuse to hear the case, allowing the decision to stand. POTUS should learn that federal judges do have authority.
32
Not when they are "so-called" judges to Heir Trump!
There is no rationale for the Trump Administration to continue with this case. The Administration has lost in front of every federal judge who has heard the Administration's arguments. Moreover, the initial order was supposed to be a 90-day suspension of entry in order to allow the Administration to put in place a new vetting regime, while the revised order was supposed to be a 125-day suspension. Trump has now been in office for 125 days, long enough to put in place the vetting that he and his administration felt necessary to protect the U.S.
The Supreme Court has no further argument days in this term, and the justices and their clerks will be furiously working to draft their opinions for the cases already heard by the Court before they recess at the end of June. As such, the Justices should let stand the rulings of the lower courts that have heard the Administration's case and found it wanting.
The Supreme Court has no further argument days in this term, and the justices and their clerks will be furiously working to draft their opinions for the cases already heard by the Court before they recess at the end of June. As such, the Justices should let stand the rulings of the lower courts that have heard the Administration's case and found it wanting.
240
The initial travel ban Executive Order was made over 100 days ago, seeking a 90 day review of most travel. Regardless of the Executive Orders being overturned, why couldn't the Administration have conducted its review within that time? Anyone with any thoughts. Doesn't the continuation of an appeal simply show that the Order wasn't truly a review of procedures, but just red meat to the Trump voters?
25
They're incompetent, that's why they haven't conducted a review.
5
I haven't read the decision but appellate courts, especially the Supreme Court, rule on issues of law, not fact. So far virtually every court presented with this ban has reached the factually supported finding that the ban is based on religion and thus unconstitutional and appellate courts have found no reason in law to overturn that finding. If the Supreme Court is following precedent it will not grant cert to hear this case. If it does, it is on perilous grounds if it finds that Trump's and Giuliani's statements of the purpose of the ban should be ignored. I sincerely hope it does not go there.
16
The tragic event of last Monday night in Manchester has once again underscored the futility of the proposed travel ban by the Trump administration: yet again the perpetrator was native born, not someone who entered the country as an immigrant or a refugee. Yes, the agencies charged with customs and immigration should absolutely keep an eye on and be mindful of those who come and go, but imposing a travel ban seems to be of little use and value, if at all.
338
Steffie, the old canard about perpetrators being native born is disingenuous. The perpetrators are frequently the children of immigrants or refugees. If the parents had been blocked, then a fortiori the perpetrator would not have been born in the UK and logically could not have performed the atrocity. Simple really.
3
Meanwhile, we soon won't be able to travel with laptops.
1
He was the child of an immigrant from a unstable Islamic country with many extremists. If you stop a 1st generation from these countries you will stop the 2nd generation too - which seems to be the age group that does many of these attacks.
6
First of all, foreigners on foreign do not have Constitutional rights.
Secondly, why was it acceptable to bar entry to communists who held to a philosophy which was inimical to our values and our way of life?
Secondly, why was it acceptable to bar entry to communists who held to a philosophy which was inimical to our values and our way of life?
6
Non-citizens on US soil have the same rights and are subject to the same laws.
8
They probably should not have been. There are many decisions of courts in times past that have been shown to be archaic, racist, and political. Protection of religious freedom- an American value- is the important principle.
Trump's review is certainly completed by now...
Trump's review is certainly completed by now...
2
People legally in this country have constitutional rights. Many such people have a bona fide interest in the ability to bring others into this country (e.g., people trying to reunify families). It doesn't mean they can't ever be restricted, but it does mean they have standing to raise the question of whether particular restrictions are constitutional.
4
Thank the Founders for a government of checks and balances. The court has checked the unbalanced.
78
The Constitution protects people's philosophical and political leanings as free speech. Discrimination based on religion is unconstitutional.
2
Americans must be getting tired of Trump's endless winning.
28
The Trump SCOTUS will vote to overrule the lower court. And that's been the plan all along...
14
would not be surprised.
3
Clyde, would that be Trump's SCOTUS over-ruling Obama's 4th Circuit?
1
Clyde,
You are engaging in the worst of what is wrong with the US in general, and that is pure speculation.
You may be right; maybe not, but until SCOTUS rules, or declines the case yours and other's speculation is not helping anyone.
We need to deal in facts!!
You are engaging in the worst of what is wrong with the US in general, and that is pure speculation.
You may be right; maybe not, but until SCOTUS rules, or declines the case yours and other's speculation is not helping anyone.
We need to deal in facts!!
4
Couldn't the reporter have said it was an 8 to 3 decision with three republican appointees dissenting.
71
What you said, and a listing of all judges hearing the matter, with some basic background on who appointed them.
Come on NYT!
Come on NYT!
2
To Heytom,
I believe the vote was 10-3.
I believe the vote was 10-3.
2
Actually, it was 10-3 with two republican appointees in the majority (one of them was a district court judge appointed by W and elevated by Obama, the other one was appointed by W).
Check your facts, buddy, assuming you believe in facts rather than fake news.
Check your facts, buddy, assuming you believe in facts rather than fake news.
5
This is nice, but temporary. Since there are five dedicated Republicans on the Supreme Court, willing to put party over country and Constitution, as soon as this gets to the highest court, it will be a 5-4 vote in favor of banning Muslims from these nations.
Probably it'll work out, as those Muslims would have a horrible time here in Trump's xenophobic America, which is going to go down the tubes economically anyway. And America's standing with the world will be depleted further, which it should be, as America is not fit to lead the world anymore.
Probably it'll work out, as those Muslims would have a horrible time here in Trump's xenophobic America, which is going to go down the tubes economically anyway. And America's standing with the world will be depleted further, which it should be, as America is not fit to lead the world anymore.
134
Quite possible, but I suspect Kennedy will not support.
2
"...not fit to lead the world anymore." I believe Chancellor Merkel has assumed that role as she is somewhat more attuned with world affairs than our "president".
7
I'm afraid I have to agree -- that America is not fit to lead the world anymore. And it's not just because of Trump. It's because of all these . . . Americans.
4
Trump made a coalition with Wahabis against Iran. How many terror attacks have Iranians committed on the US soil? Answer: zero
How many terror attacks have Wahabis done on the US soil? Answer: very single one
How many terror attacks have Wahabis done on the US soil? Answer: very single one
345
And how much money did Trump get from Iran? How much money did Trump get from the Wahabis?
9
So the Grifter-in-Chief has made kissy-kissy with the Saudis, whose Wahabi crazies inflicted 9/11, and hr shakes his tiny fist at the iranians, who are rightly suspicious of us. And he leaves the door open for the Saudis in his misbegotten travel ban with its checkerboard of countries banned and countries allowed. To understand how he picks our "friends," just ask where he has business interests. With him it's only and ever about the money as a means of trying to convince himself he's a real man, the best, believe me.
3
And the absolutely astounding thing is that Trump's supporters are totally incapable of seeing the connection.
Why didn't the court order him removed from power? Enough is enough
22
Why didn't the court order him removed from power?
Time for you to brush up on your civics!
Time for you to brush up on your civics!
4
"Why didn't the court order him removed from power?"
For the same reason Trump didn't order the judges removed from power. It's called "checks and balances." Ask a fifth grader.
For the same reason Trump didn't order the judges removed from power. It's called "checks and balances." Ask a fifth grader.
1
The fundamental decency of the republic remains intact in spite of the Republicans!
60
Our new problem now, gorsuck.
49
No fear. Roberts will vote to continue the injunction. 5-4 loss for trump is the best he can do.
Plus, the future Appointees. Very bad
With Gorsuch on the Supreme Court--The Supreme Court will strike down the 4th Circuits' decision. How sad for the Supreme Court and more sad for the United States.
92
So it's sad, when a decision doesn't go your way? But it's okay when a lower court rules against the constitutional powers of a duly elected President? Got it, thanks!
4
This xenophobic executive order is on a serous losing streak!
51
The original ban, issued on January 27, was set for 90 days. The stated reason for the ban was to allow for time to review and improve the "vetting" of people traveling and immigrating to the U.S. It's now been 125 days since the initial ban.
Shocking, but we haven't heard anything about the actual vetting process improvements that could have been taking place all along. Just another empty promise - a populist line with no underlying substance.
Shocking, but we haven't heard anything about the actual vetting process improvements that could have been taking place all along. Just another empty promise - a populist line with no underlying substance.
747
We will hear about the vetting process at the same time we learn of the plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days from taking office, oops, that is long past, a health plan, the best plan to insure many more at a lower cost, oops, that is also long past and the Trump Wall of Shame on the southern border, well, no money for that fiasco, yet.
So far, not too many results from the "president" other than his bigly desire to discriminate against certain people from other countries, save China (visas for sale) and a religion.
So far, not too many results from the "president" other than his bigly desire to discriminate against certain people from other countries, save China (visas for sale) and a religion.
23
Thanks Alison: I just made that point after you without seeing your post. Wonder why no one is raising this obvious issue.
4
Improving vetting... I host a refugee family. They were vetted for 2,5 years before arrival. I was vetted for two month before allowing to accept them to my house. What is here to improve?
17
Welcome to the rule of law.
45
Welcome to the SCOTUS.
Sir:
"Welcome to the rule of law."
*******
Can we quote you after the SCOTUS decision? Looking forward to all the newfound respect for the courts and our laws.
Trump has a way of making hypocrites out of democrats. I suspect this will be another such case.
"Welcome to the rule of law."
*******
Can we quote you after the SCOTUS decision? Looking forward to all the newfound respect for the courts and our laws.
Trump has a way of making hypocrites out of democrats. I suspect this will be another such case.
4
AACNY: The SCOTUS seat now occupied by Gorsuch was stolen from Merrick Garland and the Obama administration. Gorsuch will never be a legitimate justice in my eyes.
8
Excellent news, but not at all surprising. This has never been a close case. Thank goodness we have an independent judiciary to protect our liberal democracy from Trump and his supporters and enablers in the Republican Party.
31
Thank goodness we have an independent judiciary
I'm certain that you will be echoing these sentiments when the Supreme Court overrules this decision.
I'm certain that you will be echoing these sentiments when the Supreme Court overrules this decision.
4
I thought the purpose was to ban travel for 90 days, while the administration came up with new "extreme-vetting" guidelines?
We're now at around day 130. Where are the new guidelines?
We're now at around day 130. Where are the new guidelines?
450
President Trump also states that his 2016 tax returns will be released after they are done audited. What are we now, close to a year that they are being "audited"? Are they even being audited? Who is doing this? Target date?
Rather, Trump makes up "facts" that do not exist, such as the 90-day period for developing new vetting guidelines. No such thing.
But his base will swallow such nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
Rather, Trump makes up "facts" that do not exist, such as the 90-day period for developing new vetting guidelines. No such thing.
But his base will swallow such nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
That WAS the guideline: lying to the American people, and keeping out those who weren't rich, white, and from countries that supported his hotel cartel.
The GOP doesn't care, so long as Boss Tweet is a good boy and cuts the poor people's welfare so that the rich people's welfare can trickle down—to themselves—unabated.
The GOP doesn't care, so long as Boss Tweet is a good boy and cuts the poor people's welfare so that the rich people's welfare can trickle down—to themselves—unabated.
10
Good question.
Kellyanne Conway would say that they were talking about an alternative understanding of the number 90. Maybe in the executive order, the number 90 was put in quotations? Ginrich and Palin said this years ago, facts (and reality) don't matter. It's what you feel in your gut.
Kellyanne Conway would say that they were talking about an alternative understanding of the number 90. Maybe in the executive order, the number 90 was put in quotations? Ginrich and Palin said this years ago, facts (and reality) don't matter. It's what you feel in your gut.
6
If we are attacked by the extreme terrorist barbarians from the countries cited, any deaths, injuries and destruction will be on the heads of the liberal, anti-republican judges who rejected Trump's original order and subsequent appeals. We have never witnessed such arrogance and partisanship from the judicial courts as we are witnessing today. One of the judges from VA had the audacity to admit that if the exact ruling had been submitted by a democrat (Hillary) he would not have had a problem with accepting it. His name scapes me, but he should be barred for life. A sad day for Americans and our Constitution.
13
Even greater arrogance and partisanship can be seen every single night in the mainstream media, who are still fuming that the candidate they picked and relentlessly promoted lost the presidential election. One can just hear every night on CNN and MSNBC the insulting and even vulgar and indecent language they use towards the president tens of millions of Americans voted for. The night of the horrible terrorist attack in Manchester, these "news" characters skipped right over it when opening their programs, as if it wasn't important, and went straight to the latest anonymous leak reported by the Washington Post or the New York Times.
2
We were attacked by terrorists. Though, they mostly came from the countries trump admires. Get an idea....
17
Can you provide a reliable source for your allegation that if Ms. Clinton had submitted the same discriminatory plan a judge would have accepted it?
20
Wouldn't it be great to have an idea that works within the confines of the Bill of Rights? Wouldn't it be great to have a president who can think like that?
62
Shouldn't this issue be moot already? Trump's promise during the campaign was for a temporary ban until "we could figure out what is going on". Well, he is the President now...and he should have been able to figure it out without the ban...especially since this issue will not be decided by the Supreme Court until the fall.
So, if the administration pursues this matter, it demonstrates conclusively that it is and always was a ban against Muslims, since by now, new policies should be in place to control the "problem".
So, if the administration pursues this matter, it demonstrates conclusively that it is and always was a ban against Muslims, since by now, new policies should be in place to control the "problem".
37
Another clear sign that the White House is pursuing policies that are not based on the Constitution. And, a second court decision that validates the judgment of Sally Q. Yates' refusal to defend this policy.
105
Another clear sign that the White House is pursuing policies that are not based on the Constitution.
I guess we'll see once SCOTUS rules on it!
I guess we'll see once SCOTUS rules on it!
1
It's hard to say how SCOTUS will rule on this. I do think that we need to revise our immigration system but what Trump tried to do is not the way it should be done. Religious discrimination is not going to prevent every terrorist act. In fact it could make us a magnet for such acts by terrorists who have no intention of coming here but would take advantage of Americans abroad.
If we want to remain a diverse, multicultural vibrant society that attracts intelligent people limiting immigration the way Trump tried to is wrong. There is no way to predict for certain who will become a terrorist just as there's no way to predict which immigrant will be the next Nobel Prize winner living in America.
If we want to remain a diverse, multicultural vibrant society that attracts intelligent people limiting immigration the way Trump tried to is wrong. There is no way to predict for certain who will become a terrorist just as there's no way to predict which immigrant will be the next Nobel Prize winner living in America.
137
Well, hen3ry, as you say, "If we want to remain a diverse, multicultural vibrant society that attracts intelligent people limiting immigration the way Trump tried to is wrong." I think this is quite true, and I think that a lot of Trump supporters would agree entirely. They don't WANT a diverse, multicultural vibrant society: they want a White, "Christian", male-dominated society. A ban on Muslims is exactly what Trump promised in his campaign speeches, and it's exactly what excited his base. You and I see that approach as repugnant, but a small but noisy minority in this country disagrees.
4
But Trump is trying to impose a TRAVEL ban; it is not about immigration reform.
1
Immigrants have to travel to get here. Travelling is part of any immigrant's journey to another country. Therefore the travel ban is, in this case, especially with the statements that Trump made during his campaign, about immigration reform. And that reform has been aimed at keeping Muslims out.
This was a sloppy attempt by Trump to appease his base. The obvious unconstitutionality just makes it a waste of time and an insult to everyone who works in counterterrorism.
As it is, Trump's latest arms deals in the Middle East can only increase terrorism. I do hope Trump supporters wake up and smell the hypocrisy.
As it is, Trump's latest arms deals in the Middle East can only increase terrorism. I do hope Trump supporters wake up and smell the hypocrisy.
147
I do hope Trump supporters wake up and smell the hypocrisy.
Oh please, hypocrisy is thy middle name.
Oh please, hypocrisy is thy middle name.
1
So far that does not seem to be happening. Sad.