Ok so liberal judges ruled against him. It's hardly surprising. Let's see what happens when conservative judges rule.
The judges appear to be saying that any person anywhere in the world even with no ties to the US has a constitutionally protected right to come to the US and that a President can put no restrictions on how many or where that can come from.
2
Not only has Trump lost his unjust ban of the innocents but he has also lost his mind as evidenced by his prearranged bizarre Hitlerian cabinet meeting where the well-bribed members were required to praise his Godlike name or be canned!
2
The courts need to get out of the way and let this move through the system, this is what the American people want, and frankly need, to guard against these animals beginning to walk into Starbucks with backpacks full of explosives.
I truly don't understand the love fest of those Americans feel the need for us to take in citizens of a different country, if I lived to be hundred I'll never understand it, what's so important about it? Nothing.
Everyone will change their tune when what's happening in London, eventually, comes here. Then will have everyone wringing their hands and asking themselves why we didn't see this earlier...
I truly don't understand the love fest of those Americans feel the need for us to take in citizens of a different country, if I lived to be hundred I'll never understand it, what's so important about it? Nothing.
Everyone will change their tune when what's happening in London, eventually, comes here. Then will have everyone wringing their hands and asking themselves why we didn't see this earlier...
3
I am now a very proud ex Liberal and shockingly at least to me the Hannity crowd has been right all along. Sorry JFK I don't think you would have liked this Democratic party. The mainstream media is very biased like Fox News so where to we get honest columns?.
Adam, it's quite clear that Trump who won his election with only hubris beside the help from Putin's Russia, is still not realizing that he cannot run this country with a terribly bigoted personality.
Just because his hard core uneducated and under educated and horribly lazy supporters liked every words of his racist overtones, doesn't mean that since he became the president of this vast and modern and thoroughly diverse country of ours where every nationalities, cultures and religions play a role towards making this country the greatest ever.
But what Trump is still trying to do is instead of uniting this country with every possible way, he's trying to divide us all again and again by still banning 180 million citizens of 6 predominantly Muslim nations from the Middle east and Africa only on the basis of their religion which is totally against our Constitution as the religious persecutions was one of the solid reasons why our settlers came here from many different countries of Europe where they were first hounded like dogs and when captured were tortured like anything that any human beings ever seen before them and then they were killed by fire while still alive.
So when they escaped from their religiously bigoted absolute tyrant Kings and Queens and their pure animal like henchmen, the first thing they wanted to do after the birth of this great nation was to impose religious tolerance so that no body ever suffers like the way they suffered in their departed countries.
Just because his hard core uneducated and under educated and horribly lazy supporters liked every words of his racist overtones, doesn't mean that since he became the president of this vast and modern and thoroughly diverse country of ours where every nationalities, cultures and religions play a role towards making this country the greatest ever.
But what Trump is still trying to do is instead of uniting this country with every possible way, he's trying to divide us all again and again by still banning 180 million citizens of 6 predominantly Muslim nations from the Middle east and Africa only on the basis of their religion which is totally against our Constitution as the religious persecutions was one of the solid reasons why our settlers came here from many different countries of Europe where they were first hounded like dogs and when captured were tortured like anything that any human beings ever seen before them and then they were killed by fire while still alive.
So when they escaped from their religiously bigoted absolute tyrant Kings and Queens and their pure animal like henchmen, the first thing they wanted to do after the birth of this great nation was to impose religious tolerance so that no body ever suffers like the way they suffered in their departed countries.
Is this news or speculation?
If the People of the US would like to read the Koran to find out the Muslims full intention.
Non-Believers can not rule believers. Meaning they do not accept democracy and it is only your armed police keeping them in line.
It is not sharia law crime to kill a non-believer.
It is only when they have built up a large enough Muslim population to challenge authority will they start enforcing these rules.
Areas of London now live under Sharia law and the Police let them get away with it.
Non-Believers can not rule believers. Meaning they do not accept democracy and it is only your armed police keeping them in line.
It is not sharia law crime to kill a non-believer.
It is only when they have built up a large enough Muslim population to challenge authority will they start enforcing these rules.
Areas of London now live under Sharia law and the Police let them get away with it.
Who did I vote for here??? The Federal Courts?? I vote for Mr. Trump. What is going on? Let's hear from the Supreme Court! This ban is perfectly in line with what I wanted. What is the point in voting for someone when a stupid court can do what it wants?
3
You voted for an ineffective leader. He does not know how to get anything accomplished or how to hire good employees or how to speak in public.
2
By limiting its ruling to its interpretation of the immigration statutes, the 9th Circuit has effectively given the Supreme Court a pass on weighing the constitutionality of the Trump Executive Order. Furthermore, the fact that the Trump Administration will have the necessary time to reevaluate the current immigration procedure in general, makes it likely that the Supreme Court will not rule on the substance of the issues due to the fact that the case is now probably moot. This is not a good case for the Supreme Court to consider since the EO was drafted in haste and does not represent the intent of Congress as set forth in the immigration law.
1
This particular real estate salesman seems very ineffective as a politician. He also does not know how to make or keep good friends who might help him. I would not have been his friend in the schoolyard. Makes me wonder why people even voted for him.
3
Full text of the original Jan 27 order: http://ow.ly/BOVi30cxHGt - Multiple arms of government were to provide reports to the president. The earliest was 30 days after the order. Some were 6 months after the order. The idea is exactly what he said in his campaign about terrorist migration: "Figure out just what exactly is going on." So the president was provided reports for the last 2-3 months. With that, then decisions can be made. That clearly will take extra time.
In very simple terms, once again,we have an example of not considering and distinguishing, between who a person is. Each of our self-and social attributed identities, in a range of roles, in various contexts and environments. As each of us manifest diverse types, levels, and qualities of interacting internal and external available and accessible resources. And ways in which this can, and does, differ from what s/he does, or chooses not to do,- behaviors- as a complex, interacting, functioning, adaptive, coping social Being. Accurately prognosticating who will, as well as who will not be a "terrorist"- however delineated, using a range of evidence-based criteria, is as likely to be as successful, or a failure, as accurately predicting, at this point in our current states of knowing, understanding and relevant technology, who will create, and transmit, baseless facts, zombie ideas, and cook up, or down, a goulash of facts, fictions and fantasies. For what ever reasons. Failure blindness continues to reign. Among policy makers. And the toxic, infectious, effects of willful blindness, deafness and ignorance, among complacent, and coopted, people, about what is going on, which shouldn't, and what is not happening, which should, is ongoing. Even increasing.To what extent, if any, are any of these human processes considered when laws are made? Abided by, or not? Reviewed?
I hope the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases.
Trump needs to understand his power is not absolute.
When he was DJT, private business CEO, he was king. Trump had no checks and balances, no oversight, no board of directors. "Because I say so" was reason enough for anything, and as everyone around Trump was paid to agree with him/tell him he's right, Trump always got his way.
Now, as president, Trump is not king. The Constitution is.
Our country has a system of laws, oversight and justice. The courts have the final say. Congress creates law, not the President. His gut instinct does not get to determine what happens. He does not get to ignore the parts of the Constitution he does not care for.
Republicans need to remember they are not lapdogs for the president.
The Oath of Office is not sworn to him, but to uphold the Constitution.
That duty does not change when the White House shifts from Democratic to Republican, or from Black to White.
And that every single one of them, Congress and the President, work for us - We the People. They are employees, not rulers. Civil servants, not kings.
510 days until the 2018 Midterms.
Mark your calendar.
Vote.
Trump needs to understand his power is not absolute.
When he was DJT, private business CEO, he was king. Trump had no checks and balances, no oversight, no board of directors. "Because I say so" was reason enough for anything, and as everyone around Trump was paid to agree with him/tell him he's right, Trump always got his way.
Now, as president, Trump is not king. The Constitution is.
Our country has a system of laws, oversight and justice. The courts have the final say. Congress creates law, not the President. His gut instinct does not get to determine what happens. He does not get to ignore the parts of the Constitution he does not care for.
Republicans need to remember they are not lapdogs for the president.
The Oath of Office is not sworn to him, but to uphold the Constitution.
That duty does not change when the White House shifts from Democratic to Republican, or from Black to White.
And that every single one of them, Congress and the President, work for us - We the People. They are employees, not rulers. Civil servants, not kings.
510 days until the 2018 Midterms.
Mark your calendar.
Vote.
4
The koch brothers want this so yes, The Supreme Court will hear this case.
"Watson’s injunction barred review of internal vetting procedures in the meantime".
But last week, Trump tweeted that "In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S."
How did that happen without a review of vetting procedures?
But last week, Trump tweeted that "In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S."
How did that happen without a review of vetting procedures?
2
The three judges who struck down this latest travel ban were appointed by former President Clinton. They were Democrats voting against a Republican president. This will end up being decided by the Supreme Court judges and may result in a different outcome.
3
There is very little printed in this paper that doesn't carry the fetid oder of dishonesty. The Ninth Circuit is not exactly an impartial judicial body. Similarly, this paper's article on the President's rumored consideration of removing Mr. Muller, conveniently left out facts which clarify why he might be thinking of the action: the investigators hired my Mr. Muller are noted donors to democrats seeking office. That in itself, just like the hack writers of this tabloid, needs to be accounted for.
3
It appears that the people whom the administration is requesting to be barred from entering the country would also be on pause. This would be consistent per the argument that the administration is making stating that the "90 day clock stopped" when Judge Watson's decision was made. The comical aspect of this twisted logic is that those individuals on "pause" would then appear to have more respect for the courts than the POTUS.
Even with different reasonings if the federal appeals courts have reached the same conclusion of striking down the religiously prejudiced anti-Muslim travel ban decreed by the Trump administration, logic demands that while reviewing the petition filed by the federal justice department on the same matter the Supreme Court, as custodian of the constitution, should also uphold the federal courts' grounds of rejection for the travel ban executive order
8
The US 9th Circuit's decision puts the final nail in the coffin of Trump's travel ban. It wisely holds that not only is the ban a violation of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It also violates the statute that grants the president authority to ban dangerous foreigners from entering our country. Because the president's order is not supported by any evidence that 80 million foreigners from six predominantly Muslim countries pose any special danger to the United States. This is a master stroke. Furthermore, by lifting that portion of the district court's order enjoining the administration's 90-day "evaluation" of its immigration policies and procedures, the 9th circuit court has ensured that the pending case rulings against the travel ban should not be reviewed by the US Supreme Court since the ban itself will have expired before the time of any review, thus rendering the cases 'moot" or non-justiciable.
12
How can foreigners living overseas who are not citizens and have never been to the US have 1st Amendment rights?
Are there other constitutional rights which they enjoy?
Are there other constitutional rights which they enjoy?
2
Loser/bigot. Can we possibly hate this crook any more than we do? Republicans are going to pay for their lack of back bone, in 2018.
11
You took no issue when Obama did exactly the same thing during his first term.
12
Thanks for trying the tu quoque logical fallacy. Your appeal to hypocrisy fails to advance a logical argument justifying Trump flouting immigration law. The 1965 immigration statute bars national origin as a sole reason to exclude people from visiting or applying to live in the USA. It allows quotas but not a complete ban. And it's got nothing to do with any way Obama may have exceeded his own authority. Trump isn't your king. He can't do anything he wants to do.
Steven--Somehow I think you're not telling the whole story about that. Half truth is not the truth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-ill...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-ill...
1
Right now, the best news the president can get is a stinging defeat in court. The ban was just an empty campaign promise to begin with, and the next time an attack occurs, Trump can blame it on the lack of a travel ban. That's even better than blaming it on Obama, which has gotten stale.
9
well, I think we can blame Obama and "the Democrats who lost an election they should have won" for many years to come
1
"A federal law gives the president the power to exclude foreigners if he finds that letting them enter the country 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.'... The appeals court said Mr. Trump had exceeded that authority, in large part because he had failed to offer adequate justifications for his order.'
The President has to persuade a court that his "justifications" are "adequate?" Is the Ninth Circuit just hanging some large "Hit Me" sign around its neck, or what?
This case strikes me as "moot" -- the most likely ruling by the SC, given that the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's injunction of immigration authorities' review of their vetting procedures pending appeal (presumably they'll do that now) -- or a winner for Trump. I don't think it's the slam-dunk for Trump I used to think it was, but the odds remain strongly in Trump's favor.
The President has to persuade a court that his "justifications" are "adequate?" Is the Ninth Circuit just hanging some large "Hit Me" sign around its neck, or what?
This case strikes me as "moot" -- the most likely ruling by the SC, given that the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's injunction of immigration authorities' review of their vetting procedures pending appeal (presumably they'll do that now) -- or a winner for Trump. I don't think it's the slam-dunk for Trump I used to think it was, but the odds remain strongly in Trump's favor.
8
"The President has to persuade a court that his "justifications" are "adequate"" -- he must issue a formal finding that admitting people from a group is bad for the U.S., and there are standards for what counts as a "finding". Conclusory say-so does not.
10
I think your take on it is spot on. Moot or win for Trump. Which goes to show how intelligent he is, he carefully chose his travel ban duration so that in case odds are against it and the courts hold it back longer then the time it goes up to SC at least he makes sure he doesnt get a stinging defeat there.
Most hilarious comment on this thread. This President is so intelligent and careful that it denies belief. Well played, Sir!
Unfortunately for us Americans, we have a president that lacks the intellectual chops to explain his reasoning to us about this issue and any other for that matter beyond the level of firebrand and middle school diatribe.
13
"The appeals court said Judge Watson had erred in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward. That may turn out to be important ..."
Yep.
Unless I'm missing something, this case will be moot by the time the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the fall. But if the SC rules it's moot and thus doesn't decide it on the merits, Trump will in the meantime have accomplished his goal. It's long been very tough to be admitted from the Middle East, and undoubtedly it's become even tougher since Trump took office. My hunch is that it will become tougher yet over the next few weeks or months, regardless of what happens to Trump's EO2.
Yep.
Unless I'm missing something, this case will be moot by the time the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the fall. But if the SC rules it's moot and thus doesn't decide it on the merits, Trump will in the meantime have accomplished his goal. It's long been very tough to be admitted from the Middle East, and undoubtedly it's become even tougher since Trump took office. My hunch is that it will become tougher yet over the next few weeks or months, regardless of what happens to Trump's EO2.
1
The case will not be moot, because Trump will issue another ban.
1
Why is everybody, particularly the major news media giving this obviously mentally unstable man a free pass. Folks, 70 year olds do not act like this President acts unless he has some serious mental issues. They should stop trying to rationally explain every off the wall nonsense he says. You can't and it's about time they start calling him out on it...that he has mental issues and lives in an alternate universe and has no business as our nation's leader.
28
No 70 year olds do not act like this. I will soon be 74 and I don't act like this, neither does my same age friend who travels at her own expense to teach English to refugees in Indonesian camps. WWWD - what would Winston do? He certainly did not act like this even downing copious amounts of alcohol.
my eyes are on Gorsuch
I wonder if he will be loyal to Trump or the Constitution
I have no doubt that Gorsuch will be will loyal to the Constitution
My bet ,the Supreme Court wont take the case, and let the lower courts ruling stand.
I wonder if he will be loyal to Trump or the Constitution
I have no doubt that Gorsuch will be will loyal to the Constitution
My bet ,the Supreme Court wont take the case, and let the lower courts ruling stand.
11
He will be loyal to the Constitution and the law that stipulates the President has the authority to ban anyone who he deems a threat to American with no requirement that he justify his action. What you do not recognize is that foreign nationals have no right to enter the US and no right to enter while they litigate.
6
It still seems likely that the Supreme Court will reverse the two Circuit Courts -- unless the SC declares the issue moot, of course, which the matter may well be by the time the SC hears arguments in the fall.
On the other hand, I used to think it was "hard to imagine" the Supreme Court wouldn't hold for Trump on this, possibly even unanimously. Absent a "moot" declaration, that still seems likely, but a contrary decision no longer seems "hard to imagine" -- especially in light of Trump's recent intemperate tweets. He'll probably still win (or will win the "war" even if the Supreme Court rules against him), but he isn't making his lawyers' job any easier.
On the other hand, I used to think it was "hard to imagine" the Supreme Court wouldn't hold for Trump on this, possibly even unanimously. Absent a "moot" declaration, that still seems likely, but a contrary decision no longer seems "hard to imagine" -- especially in light of Trump's recent intemperate tweets. He'll probably still win (or will win the "war" even if the Supreme Court rules against him), but he isn't making his lawyers' job any easier.
2
Has it not been 90 days yet since this administration has taken office? Have they reviewed their vetting procedure yet? Why do they even need a travel ban at this point?
9
You haven't been paying attention. The Hawaiian federal judge ruled that the Trump administration was not permitted to review the vetting process.
5
Did the courts just grant a "permisos" to MS-13? Are drug dealers who crash the border innocent until proven guilty?
Are the marines ready for Central America?
Are the marines ready for Central America?
4
Nothing will get this atrocity impeached. And the atrocity will never resign. And in two years we get to experience the endless 2020 campaign slop it coughs up.
8
The court yanks from the executive branch powers Congress has clearly delegated to the president. The applicable statute, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), is broad and clear:
"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."
I'm sorry but I don't see how the court can rule Truml doesn't have the power to block this specific immigration.
"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."
I'm sorry but I don't see how the court can rule Truml doesn't have the power to block this specific immigration.
4
noway, the statutes reads, "when the President finds...". Well he never found anything. He issued the order without studying whether it advances national security. Just because it plays well to his base, does mean it makes our country safer.
7
The statute does not require that he defend his decision.
6
The U.S. judicial system is closing in on Trump and he is probably in maximum self-preservation mode.
I can see Trump following through on the report that he might fire Robert Mueller before Attorney General Sessions appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13th. That would all but guarantee a Sessions no show.
I can see Trump following through on the report that he might fire Robert Mueller before Attorney General Sessions appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13th. That would all but guarantee a Sessions no show.
2
Do you have the sense that Trump just likes to give the appearance of action? He throws out little bombs to blind the fans in the stands at the circus, and tries to look very busy, but in reality, he seems incapable of commanding the recipe for baking a cake, let alone developing policies.
He can't seem to do any of the things we took for granted from those who preceded him. He seems unable to even have the normal human interactions of listening, thinking, getting feedback, developing alliances, etc. Isn't he supposed to be a negotiator? I just don't believe he has that skill at all, at all.
He can't seem to do any of the things we took for granted from those who preceded him. He seems unable to even have the normal human interactions of listening, thinking, getting feedback, developing alliances, etc. Isn't he supposed to be a negotiator? I just don't believe he has that skill at all, at all.
11
Trump will go down in history as the President of Blather, Bluster and Bravado.
4
if there is anyone around to write history when he's done
..trump purposely tweeted in order to challenge the courts to rule against him. It's always a setup with trump; now he can declare that the 'president' (him) must step in and exercise his 'supreme authority' and save the US from the runaway judicial system.
He chooses to govern by exercising authority and not by law. When will the GOP decide to exercise the law and apply that authority to trump?
He chooses to govern by exercising authority and not by law. When will the GOP decide to exercise the law and apply that authority to trump?
8
Trump's more immediate problem is not his inability to push through any legislation; he can feel the wind of Russian investigation blowing strong.
Judging on Sessions' nervous voice and worried facial expression, he got the hidden message behind today's 'praise the dear leader' meeting.
By having every cabinet members recite their allegiance, Trump is warning Session not to say anything foolish on Tuesday's testimony that will cause him problem.
Judging on Sessions' nervous voice and worried facial expression, he got the hidden message behind today's 'praise the dear leader' meeting.
By having every cabinet members recite their allegiance, Trump is warning Session not to say anything foolish on Tuesday's testimony that will cause him problem.
18
Truth: Great piece of sleuthing!
4
I like the way you put puzzles together! I believe you see the pledges rushing to join trump's fraternity - and it's the clear message on role modeling.
6
Excellent observation!! I'll have to watch that again.
I thank all of my critics for taking the time to write, however much y'all miss the point in various respects.
Specifically:
1. Nowhere do I praise the president's executive order. Since I don't have access to classified information, I have no basis for praising it or condemning it. Neither does anyone else commenting on this page, though hundreds are condemning it.
2. The Constitution, and court decisions interpreting it, have long conferred broad authority on the president in immigration and nationality matters. There are limitations, but they're fewer than the people posting here realize. The president's order is not unconstitutional. Nor does it violate statutory law (i.e., statues passed by Congress), which do limit the president's authority in certain immigration and nationality contexts, but not in this one.
3. The foregoing fact doesn't abrogate the bill of rights. No, we're not at the president's mercy. The Constitution is regularly attacked, not always from the right (even the courts do their share of damaging it), but somehow the constitutional framework has mostly survived.
4. The executive order isn't "legislation." Only Congress enacts legislation.
Specifically:
1. Nowhere do I praise the president's executive order. Since I don't have access to classified information, I have no basis for praising it or condemning it. Neither does anyone else commenting on this page, though hundreds are condemning it.
2. The Constitution, and court decisions interpreting it, have long conferred broad authority on the president in immigration and nationality matters. There are limitations, but they're fewer than the people posting here realize. The president's order is not unconstitutional. Nor does it violate statutory law (i.e., statues passed by Congress), which do limit the president's authority in certain immigration and nationality contexts, but not in this one.
3. The foregoing fact doesn't abrogate the bill of rights. No, we're not at the president's mercy. The Constitution is regularly attacked, not always from the right (even the courts do their share of damaging it), but somehow the constitutional framework has mostly survived.
4. The executive order isn't "legislation." Only Congress enacts legislation.
9
Please, someone just tell Donald to " FIRE" all the judges, and start over.
A very entertaining mid-season finale to the Presidential Apprentice. And, if the Supremes don't like it, he can fire Them. Hilarious.
A very entertaining mid-season finale to the Presidential Apprentice. And, if the Supremes don't like it, he can fire Them. Hilarious.
7
Forty percent of judicial seats are empty and another 25% will become vacant during the next two years.
Leftists picked the courts that have few if any judges that were appointed by moderates. That is called forum shopping. The Ninth Circuit is the Circuit most likely to be overturned by SCOTUS.
Leftists picked the courts that have few if any judges that were appointed by moderates. That is called forum shopping. The Ninth Circuit is the Circuit most likely to be overturned by SCOTUS.
1
Completing review of vetting procedures before Supreme Court action seems to be the better option.
2
The Ninth Circuit just lifted the ban on review of the vetting procedures with this ruling that the Hawaiian federal judge had imposed.
Ah, 45 and his many sycophants, what a shock. But for the rest of Washington, the dedicated professionals, the adults toiling in their offices, please keep doing your/our Country's work. And even if you were to be fired, just keep going to work anyway. FIGHT to get there, keep going, we need you.
14
Trump's ban is constitutional. Congress has specifically authorized the POTUS to ban any alien or group for any reason he chooses from entering the country.
The Supreme Court will follow the rule of law.
The Supreme Court will follow the rule of law.
5
Trump does not represent Americans, he did not win the popular vote. He was elected thanks to a foreign nation. However, based on the constitution, he is the POTUS.
In other words, there must be something wrong with the constitution.
In other words, there must be something wrong with the constitution.
3
So if the President said, "Israeli Jews are Christ killers who would undermine the social order if admitted to the US," you'd be ok with it because any reason given by a President must stand?
12
Are we tired of loosing yet?
6
"Sooner or Sooner," the fundamental legal question is going to raise its head again:
Exactly what Powers and Prerogatives does the Judicial Branch of our Government actually have, relative to the other two?
The actual text, of the actual Constitution, never(!) actually contemplates that the Judiciary should have the power of Judicial Review relative to either of the other two Branches. The oh-so loaded term, "Unconstitutional," never has existed in its august time-worn calligraphy.
The President, in enacting either version of the Travel Ban, was exercising authority AND discretion that had been expressly and explicitly granted to the Officeholder by Congress. (The second version of the Order merely included legal citations that in the first version were implied.)
The first Court, in both(!) of its initial acts of striking-down the President's order, sought to insert itself into the decision-making prerogatives that Congress had explicitly reserved to the President.
The Appeals Court, in ITS so-called ruling, takes its "law-writing over-reach" one breathtaking step further, brashly (and, entirely without authority) weighing the President's authorized actions against Immigration Law.
Even if the Court may IDENTIFY such a conflict, it has no Constitutional prerogative to DECIDE it. Only Congress – Legislative Branch – may create or revise law. "The Executive Power," then, rests solely with the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch is given no Power of Review.
Exactly what Powers and Prerogatives does the Judicial Branch of our Government actually have, relative to the other two?
The actual text, of the actual Constitution, never(!) actually contemplates that the Judiciary should have the power of Judicial Review relative to either of the other two Branches. The oh-so loaded term, "Unconstitutional," never has existed in its august time-worn calligraphy.
The President, in enacting either version of the Travel Ban, was exercising authority AND discretion that had been expressly and explicitly granted to the Officeholder by Congress. (The second version of the Order merely included legal citations that in the first version were implied.)
The first Court, in both(!) of its initial acts of striking-down the President's order, sought to insert itself into the decision-making prerogatives that Congress had explicitly reserved to the President.
The Appeals Court, in ITS so-called ruling, takes its "law-writing over-reach" one breathtaking step further, brashly (and, entirely without authority) weighing the President's authorized actions against Immigration Law.
Even if the Court may IDENTIFY such a conflict, it has no Constitutional prerogative to DECIDE it. Only Congress – Legislative Branch – may create or revise law. "The Executive Power," then, rests solely with the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch is given no Power of Review.
4
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
12
Sounds like someone needs to review the holding of Marbury v. Madison.
And maybe review the text of the Presidential Oath of Office, which DOES appear in the Constitution.
The President may NOT issue Executive Orders which contravene duly enacted legislation or the Constitution. That would be unlawful.
The Courts may strike down such unlawful orders.
Congress for its part, may impeach and remove a President.
And maybe review the text of the Presidential Oath of Office, which DOES appear in the Constitution.
The President may NOT issue Executive Orders which contravene duly enacted legislation or the Constitution. That would be unlawful.
The Courts may strike down such unlawful orders.
Congress for its part, may impeach and remove a President.
16
"Judicial Independence
a principle that protects judges from the influence of other government branches and popular opinion, allowing them to make decisions based on what is right under the law without facing political or personal consequences"
a principle that protects judges from the influence of other government branches and popular opinion, allowing them to make decisions based on what is right under the law without facing political or personal consequences"
8
I don't understand how Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not in this list.
7
DO you understand why Iran, Syria, etc are on the list? How many terrorist attack can you name in the US by any of those 6 nations?
1
Of course, Egypt isn't because it is a military dictatorship, which Trump no doubt loves, and it shouldn't be overlooked that he is buddy-buddy with General Sisi, the country's dictator.
2
The score after Day 142:
US Constitution 6
Trump 0
US Constitution 6
Trump 0
28
The FACT that this administration has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to actually improve the vetting process of process of people coming into this county is the clearest demonstration of all that 1) this "ban" has nothing to do with national security, and 2) Trump cares nothing about national security but only his own "wins" and "agenda".
This, and his "tweets" (which so aptly describes his thinking process...) are all that is needed to see through his ragged veil of excuses for the "ban".
This, and his "tweets" (which so aptly describes his thinking process...) are all that is needed to see through his ragged veil of excuses for the "ban".
53
Excellent point. Thank you.
5
You don't like Trump, and you don't like his decisions and executive orders. Fine.
But you are willfully ignoring what was pointed out even in this article that is what most outraged people who have an interest in the rule of law.
The Hawaiian judge said it was illegal for the Trump administration to review the vetting process. The Ninth Circuit just ruled that the decision on the part of the Hawaiian judge to forbid the executive branch to review the vetting process is overturned.
The FACT is that a federal judge arbitrarily and intentionally forbade the President from acting in the interests of Americans. That is outrageous. And unconstitutional.
But you are willfully ignoring what was pointed out even in this article that is what most outraged people who have an interest in the rule of law.
The Hawaiian judge said it was illegal for the Trump administration to review the vetting process. The Ninth Circuit just ruled that the decision on the part of the Hawaiian judge to forbid the executive branch to review the vetting process is overturned.
The FACT is that a federal judge arbitrarily and intentionally forbade the President from acting in the interests of Americans. That is outrageous. And unconstitutional.
1
"..without adequate justification."
"Adequate" according to whom? The courts?
Must a president present evidence, including classified intelligence, in open court to satisfy judges? Are the judges qualified to evaluate such evidence?
Maybe the same will now be true for other foreign policy matters. For example, if the president decides to take military action without Congressional authorization (i.e. Libya, Syrian airfields, etc.), then the court can block the action unless the president can "adequately justify" his/her action.
I'm all for limiting executive power, regardless of the president/party, but that power should transfer to Congress, not the judiciary.
"Adequate" according to whom? The courts?
Must a president present evidence, including classified intelligence, in open court to satisfy judges? Are the judges qualified to evaluate such evidence?
Maybe the same will now be true for other foreign policy matters. For example, if the president decides to take military action without Congressional authorization (i.e. Libya, Syrian airfields, etc.), then the court can block the action unless the president can "adequately justify" his/her action.
I'm all for limiting executive power, regardless of the president/party, but that power should transfer to Congress, not the judiciary.
8
Well, the constitution says otherwise. All the branches can check each other.
This is a crazy decision. At one point, the justices argue that Trump said the countries were dangerous, but that doesn't mean the people who live in them. Are you kidding? A failed state like Libya is dangerous BECAUSE of the people who live there, not in spite of it. This is just another example of judges acting like a shadow Congress.
9
Trump is not concerned with danger to the nation, or with terrorism. If he was, he wouldn't have expressly allowed immigration from the one country that has sent terrorists to harm us.
If he was, he wouldn't be willing to allow his kids to scam foreigners for half a million bucks to gain untrameled access to to the United States.
Trump undermines his own arguments in the text of the order in question.
This is another example of the court requiring a President to abide by the law. Three courts, actually.
If he was, he wouldn't be willing to allow his kids to scam foreigners for half a million bucks to gain untrameled access to to the United States.
Trump undermines his own arguments in the text of the order in question.
This is another example of the court requiring a President to abide by the law. Three courts, actually.
4
noway, if he really cared about public safety, he would issue executive orders reducing gun availability. That would save way more lives than b these bans.
4
Except that would be a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. People in other countries do not have Constitutional rights.
President Trump held what our reporter described as a “highly unusual” cabinet meeting, above, in front of reporters. He declared himself one of the most productive presidents in American history and then basked in adulatory statements from each of the senior advisers at the table.
What a loser.
What a loser.
46
He's winning bigly.
7
Gorsuch. Illegal immigration across our southern border down 70%. [Offset by an increase of illegal immigration through our airports] Regulations illegally imposed by Obama reversed by Congress plus Trump.
The difficult he is doing immediately. The impossible will take a little longer.
The difficult he is doing immediately. The impossible will take a little longer.
Such a low energy loser!
16
When you have politically appointed 'activist judges' in the courts at all levels, it is literally impossible to secure the country from internal or external threats.
What is true for Western Europe in the recent years in terms of security threats will soon be a sad reality for the US.
The left morphed into the far-left creating chaos and destruction all around ...in institutions such as schools, colleges, media, hollywood, judiciary, arts and even in scientific research! There is only stupidity, sycophancy, violence, fascism/totalitarianism left in its wake.
I cant even imagine the high price we are going to collectively pay for those transgressions in the near future!
God help us all !
What is true for Western Europe in the recent years in terms of security threats will soon be a sad reality for the US.
The left morphed into the far-left creating chaos and destruction all around ...in institutions such as schools, colleges, media, hollywood, judiciary, arts and even in scientific research! There is only stupidity, sycophancy, violence, fascism/totalitarianism left in its wake.
I cant even imagine the high price we are going to collectively pay for those transgressions in the near future!
God help us all !
5
Do you think Gorsuch is in Trumps back pocket?
Trump fired Comey and Bharara because they didn't follow his orders. Noe, the judiciary should be separate from executive branch. Don't you agree?
Trump fired Comey and Bharara because they didn't follow his orders. Noe, the judiciary should be separate from executive branch. Don't you agree?
1
Jagan, I should think that you Americans should save yourselves from yourselves, for instance from that maniac who is presently your President. What a farce: makes me constantly snicker and guffaw!
But he is symptomatic of your society and culture of greedily grasping for money.
But he is symptomatic of your society and culture of greedily grasping for money.
4
You are a little confused. The head of the FBI is not a judge, even when he acted as though he was. The FBI is not part of the judiciary, it is part of the executive branch.
The US Attorneys [which is what Preet was] are part of the Justice department, also part of the executive branch. US Attorneys are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is customary for an incoming President to request resignations from all 97 of them and to accept some of those resignations, and to leave other USAs in place. Preet was fired for refusing to tender his resignation. Had he offered his resignation, it would likely not have been accepted. But resigning or remaining in office would make his run for governor as a Democrat problematic. So he forced Trump to fire him by direct insubordination.
You need to review your fifth grade civics notes to refresh your memory of the three parts of government and what their respective roles are.
The US Attorneys [which is what Preet was] are part of the Justice department, also part of the executive branch. US Attorneys are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is customary for an incoming President to request resignations from all 97 of them and to accept some of those resignations, and to leave other USAs in place. Preet was fired for refusing to tender his resignation. Had he offered his resignation, it would likely not have been accepted. But resigning or remaining in office would make his run for governor as a Democrat problematic. So he forced Trump to fire him by direct insubordination.
You need to review your fifth grade civics notes to refresh your memory of the three parts of government and what their respective roles are.
I've read the statute over and over again, and nowhere does it say that the President's finding must be correct or even substantial. In fact, quite the opposite. It says "WHENEVER The President finds...."
Think about that language for a minute. I think it includes situations where the POTUS is dead wrong. I think it includes situations where the reasoning of POTUS is superficial. WHENEVER grants some particularly broad discretion to the Executive.
When the court says that deference does not preclude them from reviewing the policy at all, I'd have to disagree. WHENEVER does indeed seem to leave the courts out of the equation completely.
The Ninth is wrong on the law, unless you do that old lawyer's trick where you twist plain English into a pretzel to get the result you want.
Think about that language for a minute. I think it includes situations where the POTUS is dead wrong. I think it includes situations where the reasoning of POTUS is superficial. WHENEVER grants some particularly broad discretion to the Executive.
When the court says that deference does not preclude them from reviewing the policy at all, I'd have to disagree. WHENEVER does indeed seem to leave the courts out of the equation completely.
The Ninth is wrong on the law, unless you do that old lawyer's trick where you twist plain English into a pretzel to get the result you want.
7
Trump is on the wrong place.
He makes coalition with Saudis and gulf states who are supporters Wahabist and were involved in 9/11 attack against nations who fight ISIS and terrorists.
Trump is on the wrong side of history.
He makes coalition with Saudis and gulf states who are supporters Wahabist and were involved in 9/11 attack against nations who fight ISIS and terrorists.
Trump is on the wrong side of history.
2
"WHENEVER does indeed seem to leave the courts out of the equation completely."
Yeah. Um. Checks and balances? Separation of powers? Three branches of government? An independent judiciary? Any of this ring a bell.
Yeah. Um. Checks and balances? Separation of powers? Three branches of government? An independent judiciary? Any of this ring a bell.
1
The key syntactical interpretation is "finds". The prez failed to demonstrate a valid basis of finding to support his order. Really....go back to school, bud.
5
Has the WH or the attorney general read the Constitution yet?
15
No.
8
I'd like to see the law school transcripts of Jefferson B. Sessions.
Did he even attend classes?
How about his bar exam scores?
Did he even attend classes?
How about his bar exam scores?
6
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
7
So what? Courts interpret the law.
5
Trump arguments are against nations like Iran, SYria, etc. that have no history of terrorism on the US soil.
The EO is based on lies. There is no justification for that EO.
The EO is based on lies. There is no justification for that EO.
7
The list of countries has a history of terrorism in Europe. Why should we allow them to enter the US?
That they have attacked civilians in NATO countries is ample justification. Duh.
That they have attacked civilians in NATO countries is ample justification. Duh.
Dear Lord! The system works! It works!
10
According to Rasmussen, 52% of Americans support the travel ban as anti-terrorist, not anti Muslim. I agree, its time to enforce the travel ban. Protect America from what is going on in Europe. I support Trump. I have supported him from day 1, when he announced he would run for the office of the president of the USA. I look forward to his reelection in 2020. American has never had a better president. Thank you.
8
How many terrorist attacks can you mention that have been done by those nation on the list? Answer: ZERO
Over the past two decades millions of people from those nations came to the US as immigrants, visitors, refugees, and business people.
Trump is liar.
Over the past two decades millions of people from those nations came to the US as immigrants, visitors, refugees, and business people.
Trump is liar.
15
http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covere...
This count of 72 only considers terrorists convicted within the US. It does not include those who attacked in Europe.
This count of 72 only considers terrorists convicted within the US. It does not include those who attacked in Europe.
1
Not this again. The 2016 OSU attack was committed by a Somali refugee.
What precedent does this set? If the Supreme Court upholds this, the United States is effectively no longer a nation-state.
4
Apparently Trump’s decision or claim is based on his mental projection.
God bless the USA!
God bless the USA!
4
With two circuit courts declaring this unconstitutional executive order invalid, it would create a national crisis if the SCOTUS were to invalidate it. With Gorsuch on the bench, this is not out of the question, but we are moving perilously close to pitchforks and torches marching on the White House
That might happen!
That might happen!
31
William:
Why on earth would it create a national crisis if the SCOTUS overturned lower court rulings? Do you imagine that this has never happened before?
And who would march on the White House with pitchforks as a result of normal judicial activities? Authoritarian fascists?
Why on earth would it create a national crisis if the SCOTUS overturned lower court rulings? Do you imagine that this has never happened before?
And who would march on the White House with pitchforks as a result of normal judicial activities? Authoritarian fascists?
6
Gorsuch would not uphold the ban should he have any dignity.
5
The pitchforks and torches are already IN the White House. We can see them with every tweet.
3
I don't believe that the big men, the politicians and the capitalists alone are guilty of the war. Oh, no, the little man is just as keen, otherwise the people of the world would have risen in revolt long ago! There is an urge and rage in people to destroy, to kill, to murder, and until all mankind...-Anne Frank, Holocaust diarist (12 Jun 1929-1945)
Yes, The "big men" unleash destructiveness in "little men" by legitimizing it. Fear of strangers, envy of other people, the wish to harm or kill, are all built into our psychological framework. There are also nurturing impulses and concern for the welfare of others, but it is a mistake to think about "basic goodness" in human beings. The destructiveness has been there all along, but it has been contained by civilized culture that promotes the suppression of destructiveness and promotes the diversion of destructive energies into projects that benefit the population. Civilized culture also encourages kindness and consideration for other people.
When a nation selects a leader who is openly bigoted and hateful, and who is a model of intolerance of opinions that he does not share, this "big man" gives permission to "little men" to release any inhibitions they may have had on the destructive element in their nature. So-called nationalism is a euphemistic term for the divisive and hate filled darkness that hides under the veneer of higher civilization.
Yes, The "big men" unleash destructiveness in "little men" by legitimizing it. Fear of strangers, envy of other people, the wish to harm or kill, are all built into our psychological framework. There are also nurturing impulses and concern for the welfare of others, but it is a mistake to think about "basic goodness" in human beings. The destructiveness has been there all along, but it has been contained by civilized culture that promotes the suppression of destructiveness and promotes the diversion of destructive energies into projects that benefit the population. Civilized culture also encourages kindness and consideration for other people.
When a nation selects a leader who is openly bigoted and hateful, and who is a model of intolerance of opinions that he does not share, this "big man" gives permission to "little men" to release any inhibitions they may have had on the destructive element in their nature. So-called nationalism is a euphemistic term for the divisive and hate filled darkness that hides under the veneer of higher civilization.
22
Will his cabinet praise
him on this one...?
Guess we have to wait
for the Supreme Court
and if he wins there they
will all bow and kiss his ring.
For now, we can praise an independent
judiciary branch and let's
not take it for granted.
him on this one...?
Guess we have to wait
for the Supreme Court
and if he wins there they
will all bow and kiss his ring.
For now, we can praise an independent
judiciary branch and let's
not take it for granted.
13
Hawkins, Gould, and Paez: all three appointed by Bill Clinton.
That they can't read the clear text of the law comes as no surprise.
For those who actually care about such things, this is the relevant statute:
"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."
Please scan those lines for any hint that the judiciary has the power to second guess the POTUS, for ANY reason. His power if plenary. If you don't like it, get Congress to change the law.
In short, three left-wing politicians in black robes believe that they possess the power to impose their whim upon the country.
Such demonstrates the difference between "conservatives" -- aka Judges -- and leftist politicians: to the latter, the law simply doesn't matter. Only results count. A "judge" need only decide whether she likes a given result, and that becomes the law.
This discussion is NOT about results, with which one may agree, or not, as one sees fit, nor about who "won", but about the legitimate role and power of the judiciary, and whether it will be bound by the law, or simply make it up as it goes along.
This is a nutty decision and deserve a rapid reversal.
That they can't read the clear text of the law comes as no surprise.
For those who actually care about such things, this is the relevant statute:
"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."
Please scan those lines for any hint that the judiciary has the power to second guess the POTUS, for ANY reason. His power if plenary. If you don't like it, get Congress to change the law.
In short, three left-wing politicians in black robes believe that they possess the power to impose their whim upon the country.
Such demonstrates the difference between "conservatives" -- aka Judges -- and leftist politicians: to the latter, the law simply doesn't matter. Only results count. A "judge" need only decide whether she likes a given result, and that becomes the law.
This discussion is NOT about results, with which one may agree, or not, as one sees fit, nor about who "won", but about the legitimate role and power of the judiciary, and whether it will be bound by the law, or simply make it up as it goes along.
This is a nutty decision and deserve a rapid reversal.
11
"would be detrimental". Would. Not might. Would. No proof that letting people from those countries into this country would cause detriment. The countries of origin for the 911 hijackers (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) are not included. So they are not even playing the odds. Don't invoke the Obama use of these countries, as they were not banned for a time, they were require to have a a visa to enter and not use the visa waiver program.
2
see.....Tsar Trump does not have
does NOT HAVE
unfettered powers in any realm.
His clearly unconstitutional purpose poisons his actions.
Even a Reagan appointee could fight his or her way out of this paper bag.
One of the few checks on His Omnipotence T-Rex, first of his name,
since Petainist/Apartchiks McConnell and Ryan treasure power over patriotism and country.
does NOT HAVE
unfettered powers in any realm.
His clearly unconstitutional purpose poisons his actions.
Even a Reagan appointee could fight his or her way out of this paper bag.
One of the few checks on His Omnipotence T-Rex, first of his name,
since Petainist/Apartchiks McConnell and Ryan treasure power over patriotism and country.
2
Well you obviously didn't read the decision.... if you did you'd know that before the court Trump did not claim a right under the "plenary powers" He ( well his lawyers) fully admit that his power comes onky from congressional delegation under federal statute.
The " lines" that give judicial review is the fact that the President " must find" that it would be " detrimental to the US". Longstanding Us Supreme court rulings, including many by conservative judges, make clear that the finding must be " rational" and that the judicial branch is the one that makes that determination.
The decision goes through each of the bases claimed by the Trump administration and gives a detailed explanation for why those bases were not rational.
The " lines" that give judicial review is the fact that the President " must find" that it would be " detrimental to the US". Longstanding Us Supreme court rulings, including many by conservative judges, make clear that the finding must be " rational" and that the judicial branch is the one that makes that determination.
The decision goes through each of the bases claimed by the Trump administration and gives a detailed explanation for why those bases were not rational.
8
The current immigration vetting is already what any rational person would call "extreme vetting." As a Silicon Valley executive, I've had numerous dealings with temporary and permanent (green card) immigration systems. Even in the 1980's, the process was "very careful." After 9/11, it has been adjusted at least 3 times, making it what a reasonable person would call "extreme vetting." It can easily take two years, and if they're not sure, the answer is 'NO" The Times has said or implied this in earlier articles, but it bears repeating. Same with the FBI process for the Orlando nightclub attacker - you can't lock everybody up who is a "grumbler." I know some people would not agree, but further scrutiny just makes more radicals. The security folks have been at this for a LONG time, and they have a very careful, well-thought-out procedure. Preserving our basic freedoms is essential for a productive, free society. We really don't want to live in a police state, e.g. Big Brother in Orwell's "1984."
17
To all of you rejoicing the independent judiciary, how is your tune going to be if the Supreme Court reverses this? Then you will say it is biased. Of course these justices are not biased. And what if a jurisdiction challenged the Obama lgbtq initiative and a judge upheld them. Do we really want that for all of any president's activities?
1
It starts with a reactionary right wing bias on the Supreme Court.......that's a foregone fact.
The adventure is how they will force their political beliefs into the body of legal decisions.
The adventure is how they will force their political beliefs into the body of legal decisions.
9
Trump's Travel ban policy was just a fake demonstrative action to satisfy his desires with this show about national security. Such policies Are common practice in populist politicians.
9
Despite Trump, despite Ryan, despite McConnell, despite all of their enablers, the Constitution of these United States works gloriously through the third co-equal branch of the Republic.
We have hope, for now and the future, despite our current predicament.
All of this too shall pass, and relegated as a bad dream to the history books, like Watergate, someday.
We have hope, for now and the future, despite our current predicament.
All of this too shall pass, and relegated as a bad dream to the history books, like Watergate, someday.
8
Trump's anti-immigrant policies are in direct odds with his infrastructure spending plans. Immigrants make up 1 in 7 construction workers nationwide and a large 22% of the home building industry.
The current construction market is super-heated and the demand for labor is high in most markets around the country. Infrastructure spending will further tighten that market and drives prices for labor and material even higher.
It would behoove this administration to back off on the ICE immigration round ups that scare these workers, and their employers, away from work at construction sites. It would be a double whammy to reduce the amount of immigrant labor resources while simultaneously ramping up the need for construction labor. If you don't believe me, ask the National Association of Home Builders who have contractors that are uncertain about bidding future work without knowing their workforce will be intact.
Instead, we should show the immigrants a path to citizenship while they rebuild our infrastructure. Exactly the way our immigrants before them built this country in the first place.
The current construction market is super-heated and the demand for labor is high in most markets around the country. Infrastructure spending will further tighten that market and drives prices for labor and material even higher.
It would behoove this administration to back off on the ICE immigration round ups that scare these workers, and their employers, away from work at construction sites. It would be a double whammy to reduce the amount of immigrant labor resources while simultaneously ramping up the need for construction labor. If you don't believe me, ask the National Association of Home Builders who have contractors that are uncertain about bidding future work without knowing their workforce will be intact.
Instead, we should show the immigrants a path to citizenship while they rebuild our infrastructure. Exactly the way our immigrants before them built this country in the first place.
14
Same is true with farming workers! Who will bring in the crops. Trump is like Stalin when it comes to farming. If we were not so mechanized, we would all be starving under his policies. On another note, I heard that companies are going to start fabricating houses using super huge 3D printers. So people will be put out of work by machines and not by foreign competition! The only jobs that Trump is going to bring back are con-jobs! Fake-Universities, Fake-for profit public schools, Fake health care. These are the con-jobs I am talking about!
3
The Trump administration didn't lose. They are playing the end game. Each ruling against the travel ban bolsters the position that the US must increase its military response against terrorist threats in their countries of origin. When his barrier approach options run their course, he'll have an eager and willing defense industry ready to tackle the problem, and that will be our only remaining option since we shut their other options down.
...and I am not a DT fan. I am trying to look at the bigger picture.
...and I am not a DT fan. I am trying to look at the bigger picture.
6
The great majority of terrorist attacks come from citizens or current residents and not from foreign countries. Not one terrorist attacker has come from Mr. Trump's seven (now six?) banned nations.
9
the bigger picture is stop bombing middle eastern countries because every time we do it we breed a thousand more terrorists. It might also be a good idea not to do things like give Saudi Arabia $1110 billion dollars in weapons. The US wants endless war.
4
I don't believe that either of the two options are what is needed. However the idea that the military-industrial complex is waiting in the wings ready to pounce is painfully accurate
1
This whole travel ban thing is no longer about a travel ban. It is about whether or not the President has the right to exercise his plenary powers. Be careful what you wish for. If we say the the President, any President, has to ask over 3,000 individual judges if he can do what the constitution grants him the power to do then we cease to be a functioning country. What he did was constitutional. Whether or not the courts or any body for that matter agrees with it is irrelevant. Keep in mind that the entire concept of judicial review is a power that the courts granted themselves, it is not in the constitution. I don't think we need the ban anymore either, ISIS has already adapted and there is not much point anymore but the principal has to be ruled on by SCOTUS. If this is not 9-0 in favor of Trump then we have some real idiots on the court. This may be the most important ruling in our lifetimes.
9
This case is now about judicial restraint and separation of powers.
If this was a more important policy that was better designed and implemented and so had popular support, we'd be looking at a true Constitutional crisis--of the judiciary's making.
This latest ruling is troubling because it rests solely on a policy determination--essentially second guessing the President's determination of whether travel/immigration/refugee admission from certain countries is "detrimental" or not because the executive order didn't recite a sufficient justification.
The other rulings in different circuits regarding the unconstitutional purpose were also flawed in my opinion.
Big picture these rulings are a grave threat to our democracy--basically ruling that elections don't in fact have consequences and the rights of foreigners seeking admission into this country "trump" the will of the people of this country.
If this was a more important policy that was better designed and implemented and so had popular support, we'd be looking at a true Constitutional crisis--of the judiciary's making.
This latest ruling is troubling because it rests solely on a policy determination--essentially second guessing the President's determination of whether travel/immigration/refugee admission from certain countries is "detrimental" or not because the executive order didn't recite a sufficient justification.
The other rulings in different circuits regarding the unconstitutional purpose were also flawed in my opinion.
Big picture these rulings are a grave threat to our democracy--basically ruling that elections don't in fact have consequences and the rights of foreigners seeking admission into this country "trump" the will of the people of this country.
2
The real idiots are not on the courts. And the courts' findings were constitutional.
4
What he did was constitutional. Whether or not the courts or any body for that matter agrees with it is irrelevant.
Uh, no.
Uh, no.
4
Banning assault rifles in the U.S. would certainly make us safer than Trump's travel ban would! We kill each other way more than "those others" kill us!
53
Banning the president from leaking classified documents to the Russians, and using his Twitter account would be another way to make us a lot safer! You remember the saying "Loose lips sinks ships!" Well we need a new catch phrase, "Loose Digits Divulges Secrets!"
3
And the NRA should be labeled an organization involved in domestic terrorism.
5
Trump's reaction is predictable: He will attack this Appeals Court (he already did recently), trash the judges on Twitter, and predict victory in the Supreme Court. Trump will also claim the courts prevent him keeping the country safe and any terrorist attack is their responsibility. Trump is a lying, cynical exploiter and manipulator who is provided cover for his outrageous distortions and abuse by the Republicans in Congress busy with the repeal of the ACA and planning tax cuts.
33
“Neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
35
"Revised Trump Travel Ban Suffers New Legal Setback" says the front-page headline. Oh, that poor Trump travel ban, how it does suffer!
6
Americans should be rejoicing that at least the Judiciary of their tripartite form of government is holding Trumps' feet to the 'fire' of Constitutional law since the Congress is certainly not.
17
The travel ban is just one widespread anti-Muslim problem. Hate crimes against Muslims returned to 9/11 levels in 2015. While the contents of terrorism watch lists are secret, enforcement actions, including the barring of Muslim children, suggest that those lists are disproportionately Muslim. Americans view Muslim-Americans as high terrorism threats whose civil rights should be somehow restricted. Muslim court filings for civil rights violations, including, hiring discrimination, are extremely high. Charges of profiling, particularly at the airport, are also high.
The Travel Ban is probably the most offensive anti-Muslim policy. But government policy and personal attitudes and actions reflect widespread prejudice. This case should inspire all Americans to rethink their attitufdes and behavior.
The Travel Ban is probably the most offensive anti-Muslim policy. But government policy and personal attitudes and actions reflect widespread prejudice. This case should inspire all Americans to rethink their attitufdes and behavior.
13
Let's not conveniently forget that Mr. Trump used Obama's ban list. Obama just never got around to making it policy.
3
There comes a time when our safety is more important than hurting someone's feelings. There comes a time when we should change the way we operate (take more time vetting people from other countries or stop all immigration altogether) to protect our country. There comes a time when we should profile to keep our country safe. The time has come!
1
Please recheck your facts. President Obama did not place a ban but instead made a change in requirements for visitors. They now would be required to apply for a Visa and could no longer use the Visa Waiver Program. Any comparison of trump's plan as a lift of President Obama's plan is inaccurate and takes words out of context.
2
When Jimmy Carter banned visas for Iranian students, then why wasn't the same legal reasoning applied against his decision? How could all prospective Iranian students be tied to the hostile Iranian government? In this case, the courts may wield authority, but their arguments lack credibility. What's also important is that the courts show accountability from themselves, should people die in terrorist incidents resulting from the overturning of the presidential ban.
3
But you answered your own question. With the Carter administration, at the time, the fact on the ground was a diplomatic seizure of hostages and a cessation of diplomatic affairs. Big difference.
3
Are the two cases identical or nearly so? Check the facts and the motivations behind the bans.
1
Just because Carter's ban wasn't challenged in the courts is no reason for Trump's not to be. They're both wrong, and Trump has been stupid enough to admit that he's trying to ban people based on their religion.
2
Good news!
The president and the Republican Party are completely out of touch with the American voting majority. We oppose the travel ban. We are FOR abortion, Planned Parenthood, single payer insurance, the Paris Climate Accord etc. We distrust the president, think he lies all the time, is too involved with Russian pals. We also believe Comey is an honorable man and spoke the truth when he testified.
The president and the Republican Party are completely out of touch with the American voting majority. We oppose the travel ban. We are FOR abortion, Planned Parenthood, single payer insurance, the Paris Climate Accord etc. We distrust the president, think he lies all the time, is too involved with Russian pals. We also believe Comey is an honorable man and spoke the truth when he testified.
36
Look, I'm with you. I'm pro-choice, but I don't know anyone Pro-Abortion.
7
Yep. And as long as Republican (or Democrat) gerrymandering remains as an option for any party we will all stay "out of touch." I'm 74, and a one-time Republican, but since about 2012 this is not the country I grew up in.
10
Ayn Rand was.
If you want to make the country safe, make it harder for those who are already here to weaponize themselves. Banning nationals from any nation or religion won't make a shred of difference.
32
Tell that to the British and the French.
4
When the British and French ban foreign nationals, and you can measure the results, then come pop off with the usual republican tripe.
2
Like most of the terrorist that have hurt us here in the US, most were nationals. Radicalization of isolated individuals seems to be where the problem lies.
OH - and in the US - too much access to guns. Just a fact.
OH - and in the US - too much access to guns. Just a fact.
2
Judges actually pay attention when Trump says a Muslim Travel Ban is a Muslim Travel.
6
The 9th rules against a Conservative? Tell me it ain't so. Isn't that like saying the sun rises in the East?
2
This is a very common comment here and I can tell that the people who say it get their information from news sources that depend on omitting complete information to convince people like you of something untrue.
The ninth circuit hears as many cases as the 5 smallest circuits combined.
It hears over 10,000 cases per year.
The SC hears about 80, which come from the 12 circuits. So perhaps 15 come from the 9th. So at minimum, 9985 cases from the 9th circuit stand.
The ninth circuit hears as many cases as the 5 smallest circuits combined.
It hears over 10,000 cases per year.
The SC hears about 80, which come from the 12 circuits. So perhaps 15 come from the 9th. So at minimum, 9985 cases from the 9th circuit stand.
8
It ruled against an Executive Order bad in law and gave reasons for doing so. Trump is hardly a "Conservative." He holds to no principles other than making more money taking advantage of other people and lying about anything and everything.
11
You just watch how Gorsuch, not wanting to be sullied by being tied to an eternal, indelible national disgrace, will pull a Roberts and rule against the ban, should the court even accept to consider a case against which all circuit courts have so far unanimously ruled.
2
It's really simple: you live by the litigation sword, you die by the litigation sword.
18
He was wrong about all this winning we'd tire of.
He's on the losing side of the tracks in all 4 court rulings on the March executive order.
Experts noted this 9th Circuit likely provided an easier means for the Supremes to keep this travel ban on hold, since the court didn't "go there" on issues of Donald Trump's many campaign statements.
He's on the losing side of the tracks in all 4 court rulings on the March executive order.
Experts noted this 9th Circuit likely provided an easier means for the Supremes to keep this travel ban on hold, since the court didn't "go there" on issues of Donald Trump's many campaign statements.
9
So, more than enough time has passed for President Liar to implement the new and improved extreme vetting ... and ... nothing changed (just the same old extensive vetting we already had). So, one of two things is going on:
1) It was always planned to be a permanent RELIGIOUS BAN
2) Just another stupid thing that came out of his mouth during the campaign that substitutes for having zero legitimate policy now (how's that wall build going?)
But heck, give the guy a break ... the great disrupter, the "only I can fix it", the master of the deal, the "its an honor to have you as our leader" president ... is only a rookie.
As France learns from DJT and the UK breexits breexit(?), one can only hope we do the same.
1) It was always planned to be a permanent RELIGIOUS BAN
2) Just another stupid thing that came out of his mouth during the campaign that substitutes for having zero legitimate policy now (how's that wall build going?)
But heck, give the guy a break ... the great disrupter, the "only I can fix it", the master of the deal, the "its an honor to have you as our leader" president ... is only a rookie.
As France learns from DJT and the UK breexits breexit(?), one can only hope we do the same.
15
No surprise the Politburo in SF would rule against democracy.
4
Ruled in favor of Democracy and ruled against Emperor Trump.
18
M - Hooray for the 9th Circuit - We need more of them on the Supreme Court!
11
Why is everyone so afraid of ISIS militants sneaking into the country when we have plenty of our own homegrown terrorists, like my bipolar, meth-using neighbor who goes in and out of jail and mental facilities while terrorizing the neighborhood between court-ordered visits.
27
Possible to want to be concerned about both? Or because your neighbor is a meth addict , no one should care about isis?
5
If America wants to be safer, it can start doing something about the 10,000 people killed by non-terrorist fellow Americans every year. 0r the 50,000 people who will die from accidental drug overdoses.
75
FilmMD, you are absolutely correct. Republicans only get upset when foreign nationals kill Americans. If Americans kill Americans, not a problem because of the second amendment.
4
I agree, but the 10,000 number is just the gun homicides. We need to do something about the other ways to kill too, which total similar numbers.
There are also about 60,000 suicides each year, many simple desperation or mental illness.
There are over 30,000 killed on our highways. We've done a lot to reduce that. It would otherwise be much higher. But we can do more.
Terrorism is serious, but set against these numbers, it is a small problem. Let's keep it that way, but not go nuts in the process. Don't forget what actually kills our people.
There are also about 60,000 suicides each year, many simple desperation or mental illness.
There are over 30,000 killed on our highways. We've done a lot to reduce that. It would otherwise be much higher. But we can do more.
Terrorism is serious, but set against these numbers, it is a small problem. Let's keep it that way, but not go nuts in the process. Don't forget what actually kills our people.
1
Trump once again reveals his ignorance of history.
19
Adam,
Is it possible that the SC could deny the writ of certiorari, given that there is no no current disagreement between the Circuits. To be sure, the DOJ has requested a hearing. But for a Court that is (usually) skittish about taking cases, does not the lack of disagreement between the two circuits give the Supremes the perfect opportunity to let the rulings stand?
Is it possible that the SC could deny the writ of certiorari, given that there is no no current disagreement between the Circuits. To be sure, the DOJ has requested a hearing. But for a Court that is (usually) skittish about taking cases, does not the lack of disagreement between the two circuits give the Supremes the perfect opportunity to let the rulings stand?
14
I grew up during WWII A native of Canada.
Except for Herr Hitler and Mr. Trump, I have no memory of any public official who has more tendencies to disobey the Rule of Law.
For honest mature Americans, this present Republican series of mistakes is reminiscent of the pretensions of dictatorships like the Hitler regime.
Except for Herr Hitler and Mr. Trump, I have no memory of any public official who has more tendencies to disobey the Rule of Law.
For honest mature Americans, this present Republican series of mistakes is reminiscent of the pretensions of dictatorships like the Hitler regime.
33
These are not mistakes--a mistake is, for instance, putting on mismatched socks. These are intentional misdeeds. Whether they rise to the level of misdemeanors is yet to be decided, but the people making these decisions are perfectly aware of what they're trying to do.
8
I guess you don't know about internment camps done by Fdr by executive order?
He was a democratic president of the United States of America just fyi
He was a democratic president of the United States of America just fyi
(Former Canadian PM) Stephen Harper was pretty good at having legislation overturned by the courts too.
3
It'a all about xenophobia. The fear a few jihadist have struck into the hearts of these cowards knows no bounds.
Jihadi terrorists have killed around 7 people per year in the US after 9/11. White nationalists have killed a similar number of people. You are more likely to die from your clothes spontaneously catching fire or melting around you than being killed by a terrorist. You are 1000 times more likely to be killed by a tourist, than a terrorist. Of 165,000 refugees, just one is a terrorist. Get a grip on reality and perspective, stop your knees from shaking, stop the blind hate.
Jihadi terrorists have killed around 7 people per year in the US after 9/11. White nationalists have killed a similar number of people. You are more likely to die from your clothes spontaneously catching fire or melting around you than being killed by a terrorist. You are 1000 times more likely to be killed by a tourist, than a terrorist. Of 165,000 refugees, just one is a terrorist. Get a grip on reality and perspective, stop your knees from shaking, stop the blind hate.
35
I suspect that stopping terrorists is just a convenient excuse to stop immigration of as many non-white peoples as possible.
2
According to the Ninth Circuit, "Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority Congress had granted him in making national security judgments in the realm of immigration without adequate justification."
That is correct.
Mr. Trump exercised vehement attitude to selected Muslim-majority Middle-Eastern countries, and at the same time exempted Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with which Mr Trump has favorable business interactions, but for which hostility toward Westerners has been shown.
Moreover, as repeated recent events in Europe have demonstrated, the terrorists came from within, not from outside. Thus, the strict immigration ban as Mr Trump wants has no justification that can be demonstrated to benefit the security of the United States.
Dispassionate logic should be the basis of law, not prejudice, myth-making, and hysteria.
That is correct.
Mr. Trump exercised vehement attitude to selected Muslim-majority Middle-Eastern countries, and at the same time exempted Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with which Mr Trump has favorable business interactions, but for which hostility toward Westerners has been shown.
Moreover, as repeated recent events in Europe have demonstrated, the terrorists came from within, not from outside. Thus, the strict immigration ban as Mr Trump wants has no justification that can be demonstrated to benefit the security of the United States.
Dispassionate logic should be the basis of law, not prejudice, myth-making, and hysteria.
56
You're right that most, but not all are citizens. Though you're wrong to say they came from within.
The 9th is liberal. Hardly proof of any objective " dispassionate " view on the issue
It's funny how the left is unaware of judicial bias until it reaches a 5-4 ideological balance currently held on the Supreme Court. At this point determinations by courts all appointed by democrats are proof of trump's wrongheaded policies. I'll bet I read after scouts how they suddenly become aware of ideological imbalances.
The 9th is liberal. Hardly proof of any objective " dispassionate " view on the issue
It's funny how the left is unaware of judicial bias until it reaches a 5-4 ideological balance currently held on the Supreme Court. At this point determinations by courts all appointed by democrats are proof of trump's wrongheaded policies. I'll bet I read after scouts how they suddenly become aware of ideological imbalances.
2
There's a simple way around this problem. Just tell US consulate officials to perform in-depth vetting of people from certain countries. This in-depth vetting might take 4 years. If Trump is re-elected, the vetting continues and takes another 4 years. No need for any travel ban.
8
Mr. Trump should explain how he has implemented and enhanced "extreme vetting" procedures over the last several months. He was quite exercised about the threat to America. Terrorists would be pouring into the United States. Two questions: What specifically did this administration change in our vetting procedures to protect U.S. citizens? How many terrorists were turned away as a consequence of these new measures?
104
Exactly! Unless, somehow their plan for 'extreme vetting" also would be found unconstitutional....
2
He's done nothing. He is such a shameless liar that he has no qualms taking credit for things he has not, or will not ever, do.
8
One of the courts enjoined the state dept from developing any new vetting procedures. These judges are being quite aggressive if you didn't notice.
We have passed the 90 day time-frame Trump was requesting for banning travel from 7 countries and the 120 day time-frame for suspension of refugee resettlement's and there have been NO attacks - even without the travel ban Trump claimed we so badly needed in order to be safe. (Executive Order signed January 27th) Why is Trump still pursing a travel ban? If his travel ban had not been blocked by the courts it would have come and passed. It is now a moot point. The country is safe by his own standards. What am I missing here?
19
The lost is a set back but not a resounding defeat for president Trump. Fact, he has the constitutional authority to limit and bar individuals from countries possessing weak vetting process. The 9th circuit reasoning is nebulous as it considers the Trump travel restrictions an outright Muslim ban. The reason is based on ,at times, imbecilic language via Trump's tweets! The travel restrictions were written and reads with the purpose of strongly vetting individuals from the six predominately muslim nations, with weak or little vetting; it excludes the rest of the Muslim world. The ninth circuit is politicized and tinged with left leaning proclivities. If the president stopped his nonsensical tweets the circut courts would not and could not rule against the travel restriction! It is semantics over legal reasoning that carried the day for the appeal courts as well as tweets over legal reasoning for the travel sanctions.
5
No president has the right to restrict lawful activity absent a national emergency. It's that simple.
4
Trump's humiliating defeat was resounding and politically crippling. He'll never be the same President that everyone used to respect.
Fact, he failed to provide a rationale that holds up to evidence or reason. Don't blame tweets alone when facts and reason fail to persuade. Does left-leaning mean "overly fond of facts and reality"?
Yeah, if Trump stopped saying what he really "thinks" he wouldn't get called out later for lying about what he really "thinks." Best of luck with both ends of that process.
Yeah, if Trump stopped saying what he really "thinks" he wouldn't get called out later for lying about what he really "thinks." Best of luck with both ends of that process.
2
What i hope this ruling might accomplishment is prompt and prod the Trump Administration to devote its energies to how most effectively to address in a comprehensive way the rising tide of fundamentalism and extremism among homegrown terrorists, including professed Christians, so that we might hope for the day when we never again have to read about acts of mass killings on U.S. soil by those brainwashed to hate.
6
From my point of view, Trump is banning every Muslim country that he really has zero chance of doing personal business.
Why SA if this ban is to protect Americans, when it was Saudi's who took down the trade Towers? They should be sanctioned, but they are not. Money and connections has its' privileges.
Maybe too, Trump only want wealthy muslims to immigrate, no war torn refugees needing government assistance. Sounds like something a Republican would do, and why they want a wall.
However, I am delighted to hear such wonderful news. Another strike before Donnie strikes out on the Supreme Court.
Why SA if this ban is to protect Americans, when it was Saudi's who took down the trade Towers? They should be sanctioned, but they are not. Money and connections has its' privileges.
Maybe too, Trump only want wealthy muslims to immigrate, no war torn refugees needing government assistance. Sounds like something a Republican would do, and why they want a wall.
However, I am delighted to hear such wonderful news. Another strike before Donnie strikes out on the Supreme Court.
15
What about all the work Trump is NOT doing to stop American citizens (who live here) from killing and maiming other American citizens (who live here) with guns (purchased here legally).
Stupid ban, ill-conceived, and a waste of time, and MY tax dollars (not Trump's because he is "too smart" to pay).
Stupid ban, ill-conceived, and a waste of time, and MY tax dollars (not Trump's because he is "too smart" to pay).
19
From San Bernardino to Manchester(and 9 out of 10 incidents in between) the one thing these mass murderers had in common were trips back to West Asia for radicalization and terrorist training.
Islam as it is practiced in the USA is a peace loving religion that enriches us, when a Muslim in the USA wants to follow a violent, radical path they MUST travel abroad to fine like minded Muslims to facilitate their twisted vision of this ancient Abrahamic religion because very, very few American Muslims will have anything to do with such ideological perversion.
These courts are full of wealthy, insulated elites with body guards & armored limos who won't suffer at the hands of these monsters but OUR certainly children will.
Like Trump or hate him, he's right about shutting down the back and forth pipeline of radicalization abroad.
This is Enlightened Self Interest, not POLITICS
Islam as it is practiced in the USA is a peace loving religion that enriches us, when a Muslim in the USA wants to follow a violent, radical path they MUST travel abroad to fine like minded Muslims to facilitate their twisted vision of this ancient Abrahamic religion because very, very few American Muslims will have anything to do with such ideological perversion.
These courts are full of wealthy, insulated elites with body guards & armored limos who won't suffer at the hands of these monsters but OUR certainly children will.
Like Trump or hate him, he's right about shutting down the back and forth pipeline of radicalization abroad.
This is Enlightened Self Interest, not POLITICS
7
But he can easily ban Americans from going to those countries--just as Americans were banned from going to Cuba--that is NOT what he is trying to do. Even so, why do you think Saudi Arabia--where most of the 911 terrorist came from, where Islamic extremism is government supported--is not on the list? Could it have anything to do with Trump's investments?
5
Yes, those listed countries are ungoverned potential terrorist sanctuaries and training grounds. Unfortunately, Trump's critics are fighting against the last terrorist attack by demanding a ban from Saudi Arabia. Worse, they would rather turn the world's Muslims against the US (by claiming it's a Muslim ban) than let Trump win a single battle.
While he's fighting terrorism, they're fighting him.
While he's fighting terrorism, they're fighting him.
2
"by claiming it's a Muslim ban"
The person who authored the Executive Orders said they are Muslim bans.
The person who authored the Executive Orders said they are Muslim bans.
The ruling reveals that -- there are too many lawyers and not as many following the law.
When (not if) the SC rules in favor of the President, will these "lawyers" resign for their shamefully ignorance of our constitution ?
At any rate, these egregious rulings make a strong case why these district courts must be dismantled.
When (not if) the SC rules in favor of the President, will these "lawyers" resign for their shamefully ignorance of our constitution ?
At any rate, these egregious rulings make a strong case why these district courts must be dismantled.
6
Apart from not supporting your opinion, what is the legal argument you want to try to bring forward against those judges? What are your credentials? So far I can easily follow the argument that the ban was touted as a Muslim ban, the 45 rhetoric circles around demonising the entire religion, so it's rather obvious the ban violates the First Amendment.
4
Based on your comment are you suggesting that the judiciary, a co-equal branch of the government, be partially dismantled to our dear leader may issue his proclamations without the need of the egregious courts getting in the way? Or, because the courts disagree with your beliefs the courts should be dismantled?
It is your shameful ignorance of the constitution that I fear.
It is your shameful ignorance of the constitution that I fear.
3
Please re-read the constitution. Because I guarantee you, POTUS has not.
2
No one will believe trump to be the most anti-American. How many court rulings will it take to wake up citizens to his anti-American slant.
The court rulings are not some quirky interpretation of the constitution. Their rulings are in absolutely in line with what the constitution says.
The court rulings are not some quirky interpretation of the constitution. Their rulings are in absolutely in line with what the constitution says.
16
"The appeals court said Judge Watson had erred in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward."
Reading something like this makes me realize how out of touch our courts are with national security. Stopping Trump is not a policy. It's tantrum behavior.
Reading something like this makes me realize how out of touch our courts are with national security. Stopping Trump is not a policy. It's tantrum behavior.
8
I see no reason to stop a new administration from reviewing current procedures. Hold off putting new ones in place, maybe, but use the time to get going on the thinking.
A Trump defender complaining about tantrums? That's rich.
2
Trump should Hire people to write his executive orders. He does not know enough about government to occupy the position he is in. The involvement in so many questionable things may bring his presidency to a close. The Electoral Colege made a terrible mistake!
14
No, the Electoral College represented the views of most of the voters. Hillary's votes came from a few large cities and was unrepresentative of the majority of Americans, despite the numbers (which are suspect to begin with. More proof each day). Mr. Trump is on a fast learning curve and he was elected BECAUSE he wasn't government savvy. His expertise in other areas and his simpatico for the average citizen is why we elected him and he's proven himself in so many ways since taking office (esp. upward bound economy, much better foreign relations) where he uses his street smarts and business acumen for our good. Were it not for partisan obstructionists, he'd have done even more but his speed and productivity are outstanding despite them.
1
"his simpatico for the average citizen "
How sad! Trump clearly has no sympathy for anyone except himself, and maybe his family. Your lack of understanding of the electoral process is astounding. As to "the numbers" being suspect, yes, maybe the Russians did succeed in inflating Trump's vote total.
How sad! Trump clearly has no sympathy for anyone except himself, and maybe his family. Your lack of understanding of the electoral process is astounding. As to "the numbers" being suspect, yes, maybe the Russians did succeed in inflating Trump's vote total.
2
Carrie, as we both know, the majority of voters in the 2016 presidential election voted for Hillary Clinton. She won almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump did. Given those facts, it simply cannot be true that the Electoral College decision for Trump "represented the views of most of the voters."
Saudi Arabia is manipulating Trump. He is allowing the tail to wag the dog for an economic benefit for the Trump family.Truly dangerous .
16
Although this a nominal win for progressives, the reasoning is not good for the left's cause. The reasoning, in fact, will allow Trump to move forward. The court ignores all the "campaign talk" evidence, and instead comes up with a strict statutorily based "findings" test. Trump can easily meet the new "findings" test, next go round. Looks like the court was trying to save a little face here.
8
I disagree with your analysis. First, the Court actually assessed the findings enunciated in the Executive Order and found they did not support the order. The White House may like "alternative facts," but those will not pass judicial muster to support executive action when they are not grounded in reality. Second, while the Court did not consider Trump's campaign talk, it did accept his post-inauguration tweets as admissible evidence of the meaning and purpose of the Executive Order, thereby rejecting the DOJ's argument that the order's validity must be determined solely on its actual wording.
6
More than a little. CA 9 is a curious circuit....
1
I just don't understand why the Trump supporters are so riled up about this. As the article points out, it's a moot point anyhow, because the travel ban they've been arguing over in court has ALREADY EXPIRED! Even if the court upheld Trump's order, the 90 day temporary ban (the second attempt) would have ended last week, on June 6, 2017.
8
No. You misread the article. It has not expired because completion of a significant part of the process had been barred by Judge Watson's injunctive order. On that, he wa REVERSED by the Court of Appeals...
2
Perhaps this issue is an attempt to show the country dear leader was correct in his imperial decree.
The devil is in the details. To me, the essential detail reflects the fact that the countries on the list have zero citizens responsible for any terrorist attack within the United States and only 1 or 2 have had any citizens partake in any terrorist attack targeting Americans.
We have a very solid vetting procedure. The key to limiting radicalization revolves around providing opportunities for immigrants to be successful and put down roots. Public Education use to provide an avenue for some semblance of assimilation through the children, and can again. 90 day, 120 day, any number of days ban is not a solution, especially to a problem that currently does not exist due to the aforementioned vetting process already in place.
Conservative leaning or not, I believe that the rule will stand if SCOTUS agrees to hear arguments.
We have a very solid vetting procedure. The key to limiting radicalization revolves around providing opportunities for immigrants to be successful and put down roots. Public Education use to provide an avenue for some semblance of assimilation through the children, and can again. 90 day, 120 day, any number of days ban is not a solution, especially to a problem that currently does not exist due to the aforementioned vetting process already in place.
Conservative leaning or not, I believe that the rule will stand if SCOTUS agrees to hear arguments.
8
The problem is not that these named countries have been the source of terrorists in the past but that these countries represent potential DESTINATIONS for terrorists today and tomorrow.
They are ungoverned and especially attractive locations for fleeing ISIS fighters -- you know, the ones we are fighting to remove from certain territory?
And there is no way to have a "very solid vetting process" of visitors from an ungoverned country. At least in Saudi Arabia, they know exactly who is coming and going. We share intelligence.
They are ungoverned and especially attractive locations for fleeing ISIS fighters -- you know, the ones we are fighting to remove from certain territory?
And there is no way to have a "very solid vetting process" of visitors from an ungoverned country. At least in Saudi Arabia, they know exactly who is coming and going. We share intelligence.
2
9/11 = Saudi Arabia.. if they are not a "named" country then this is no more than grandstanding. Also, why is 45 wasting time/money on this when the duration he requested has long expired.
3
Wrong again. Our vetting of Syrian refugees is exceedingly thorough.
1
Wasn't it supposed to be a temporary 90-day measure? Since the 90 days have passed it should be moot. They've had more than 90 days to do whatever it is they needed to do.
4
The more legal setbacks issued to stop the maniac's racist and bigoted ideas ("idea" is not really a good word to describe what spews forth from the psychopathic snarling mouth) - the better. Maybe, with any luck, he will react so badly to some judicial setback that he will suffer a complete mental breakdown and have to be carried screaming and tweeting out of the White House and locked up in a mental institution with minority cellmates. I feel sorry for those cellmates.
17
The 9th Circuit should be dissolved and its judges should be disbarred.
6
Split, yes. Disbarred, no. It's way too big and as a result is out of touch with a good share of the states it encompasses...
2
A court's job is not to reflect the values of any state, rather the constitution.
The longer we discuss how wrong it is to ban Muslims the greater and longer the cloud of racism hangs over America.
7
Especially as Muslims were here in large enough number when the constitution was written .. if they wanted to address specific groups and THIS specific group they could have done so.
I'm just exhausted from all this winning!
Why ban Muslims from those countries and not the Saudi Arabia, where most 911 hijackers originated. Makes no sense at all. Instead we are giving the Saudis more arms.
20
I guess you forgot that the 9/11 hijackers trained for their mission in Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan should be on the banned country list.
1
Like US airliner pilot permit, trucks and knives?...
Buzz, I guess you forgot that the hijackers were funded with Saudi money, and that SA is home to the extremist Wahhabists, who despise the US.
1
With this good news, Trump's cabinet members will need to turn the flatter dial to 11 to boost his badly flagging spirits.
18
Hardly a Team of Rivals....long admired by those who respect Lincoln and Obama.
I love living in Northern California -- home to the greatest circuit court of all. The 9th!
13
The Trump ban does not offer a rationale for the ban -- or in legal terms, a "nexus" between the objective and the means sought to achieve it. Either the administration should advance that, failing which, the courts are compelled to figure it out for themselves and ascertain whether the ban is logical and non-discriminatory.
4
This demonstrates, yet again, that the Trump Administration has not yet learned the basics of government in a constitutional system. After the first travel ban failed in courts, the Administration should have been more alert to possible legal challenges, but they didn't change their second proposal enough to pass legal muster.
7
Since there is no significant difference between the appellate decisions, there is no real reason for the Supreme Court to grant a further review.
7
People criticize Trump for questioning the courts and judges but if any branch of the government deserves to be held up to the light and criticized, it's the judicial branch.
Whatever you think of their decisions, these judges are still highly political, are insulated from any sort of significant oversight, are not elected and have lifetime appointments.
The judicial branch is an imperial one, dictatorial to a large extent.
Whatever you think of their decisions, these judges are still highly political, are insulated from any sort of significant oversight, are not elected and have lifetime appointments.
The judicial branch is an imperial one, dictatorial to a large extent.
5
Interesting. From reading your post, one would get the idea that "these judges" appoint themselves.
Here's how it works: The judges are nominated by the President (Executive branch). They are subject to confirmation by Congress (the Legislative branch). So before "some one" can even sit in a judicial capacity, he/she is nominated by an executive (voted in by the people), confirmed by a legislative body (voted in by the people), long before these "imperialists" can ever don a robe.
Next?
Here's how it works: The judges are nominated by the President (Executive branch). They are subject to confirmation by Congress (the Legislative branch). So before "some one" can even sit in a judicial capacity, he/she is nominated by an executive (voted in by the people), confirmed by a legislative body (voted in by the people), long before these "imperialists" can ever don a robe.
Next?
3
"imperial...dictatorial to a large extent" ...you could say the same thing about Trump. Checks and balances exist for a reason.
2
Dear Mr. President,
Are you going to rail against this latest ruling, or are you ever going to consider how wrong you were in the first place?
Are you going to rail against this latest ruling, or are you ever going to consider how wrong you were in the first place?
8
Yeah its so wrong to want to know who is coming into our country from known terror hot spots
He just lives off of the kerfluffle. You're nuts if you thinks he cares if he wins or loses, as long as the spotlight is on him. Covfefe.
2
Strange how every court has had to use a different rationale to justify their decision to block Trumps attempt to protect Americans from terrorism.
4
Dr M, funny, not true.
1
That's because Trump's EO's are so bad that there are many grounds to overturn them.
2
Send back the Statue of Liberty to France! It has no meaningful message now.
Will Sessions be now fired?
4
And his boss to. Fire him now.
4
President Trump: You are fired. A fitting ending to a disastrous presidency.
Ninth Circuit. No suprise there. They decide based on leftist politics and Trump hatred rather than the constitution. Their ruling will be overturned.
6
The whole purpose of the ban which was supposed to last for 90 days, was to provide the government with the time to review and implement new vetting procedures. Its been over 120 days now and even though the travel ban has been blocked, nothing should have stopped the government from developing these new vetting procedures on potential arrivals. So where are these vetting procedures?
38
That's exactly right.
5
you have probably pointed out the reason the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case!
1
Activist Judges haven't jurisdiction to prevent Pres. Trump's constitutional authority banning certain people/groups/individuals from entering the United States, for any reason. Truth, notwithstanding, activist judges need to recuse themselves in cases involving their "ego", "feelings", "pre-judgements", and "progressive agendas".
5
I take it by "activist," you mean any judge who doesn't share your opinions? Not true? Then please tell us exactly how Trump's ban was constitutional.
5
So you believe that presidents shouldn't be subject to judicial review? If so, then we wouldn't have constitutional government. And do you think that "activist" conservative justices should recuse themselves in any cases that tap their ideological preferences?
10
The idea that the Courts can't review these decisions has long been rejected by the US Supreme Court including in the case of Zivotofsky v. Clinton in which Judge Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg and Kagan all agreed. In other words Judges on both ends of the political spectrum, including strongly anti-activist judges have totally rejected your assertion.
4
If someone tells you the the Ninth Circuit's decision is an erroneous application of the Establishment Clause, you should respond with the simple statement, "You obviously have not read the court's order and don't know what you're talking about."
The judges clearly stated that it was unnecessary to reach any Constitutional issues because they could rule solely on the basis of statutory provisions. They then provide a cogent, detailed analysis of the plaintiffs' and government's arguments, applying well-settled canons of statutory interpretation (including a citation to no less than Scalia) to demonstrate why the Trump exceeded his authority in signing the Executive Order.
The Ninth Circuit's use of statutory grounds as its sole rationale provides a less compelling reason for the Supreme Court to review its decision. Moreover, the Court expressly states, "nothing said herein precludes Congress and the President from reaching a new understanding and confirming it by statute." (Slip Opinion, p. 62.) Given Trump's repeated attacks on the judiciary, the Supreme Court may well be content to deny certiorari and let him ask Congress to clarify the scope of presidential powers.
The Ninth Circuit also held that it could take judicial notice of Trump's tweets" (Slip Opinion, p. 40 n.14.) This may have a profound effect on other lawsuits against Trump because it provides appellate authority that Trump's post-inauguration tweets are admissible as evidence against him.
The judges clearly stated that it was unnecessary to reach any Constitutional issues because they could rule solely on the basis of statutory provisions. They then provide a cogent, detailed analysis of the plaintiffs' and government's arguments, applying well-settled canons of statutory interpretation (including a citation to no less than Scalia) to demonstrate why the Trump exceeded his authority in signing the Executive Order.
The Ninth Circuit's use of statutory grounds as its sole rationale provides a less compelling reason for the Supreme Court to review its decision. Moreover, the Court expressly states, "nothing said herein precludes Congress and the President from reaching a new understanding and confirming it by statute." (Slip Opinion, p. 62.) Given Trump's repeated attacks on the judiciary, the Supreme Court may well be content to deny certiorari and let him ask Congress to clarify the scope of presidential powers.
The Ninth Circuit also held that it could take judicial notice of Trump's tweets" (Slip Opinion, p. 40 n.14.) This may have a profound effect on other lawsuits against Trump because it provides appellate authority that Trump's post-inauguration tweets are admissible as evidence against him.
Muslims make up the majority of 49 countries around the world.
The ban focuses on only 7 countries, how is that discrimination against Muslims?
If that were the case, it would be a ban on all 49 countries.
The ban focuses on only 7 countries, how is that discrimination against Muslims?
If that were the case, it would be a ban on all 49 countries.
7
When you ban citizens from a majority Muslim country, but carve out an exception only for Christians, that's discriminating against Muslims. And if you don't believe it, just look to Trump who called it "a Muslim ban". The courts did.
5
Discrimination is still discrimination whether committed against one or all people of a certain group.
4
Because the ban is only on Muslims.
2
I think the matter of religious discrimination is open to interpretation because it seems to favor some countries over others. What is the Trump breakdown based on?
If you take the logical approach, which countries have threatened us and carried out attacks. If the perpetrators were born here of parents who originally immigrated from one of those countries then what is the crime?
A travel ban implies anyone coming from the mentioned countries cannot come here but what criteria is used to make that determination? Shiite or Sunni? One is okay but not another? Tech workers but not those wanting to escape oppression?
Clearly the Trump administration cannot make a case that makes sense. Trump himself shoots himself in the foot with his tweets. I question whether he cares about this matter other than for pleasing the base who have been worked up by Trump's nonsensical rantings.
All in all, the court has the final word and until the real issue is named and addressed the constitution protects those who would be affected.
I would like to know where the protection for those with DACA and those criminal types who are here illegally and those without papers who have been here and contributed to the betterment of this country, where does that fall in Trump's thinking?
If you take the logical approach, which countries have threatened us and carried out attacks. If the perpetrators were born here of parents who originally immigrated from one of those countries then what is the crime?
A travel ban implies anyone coming from the mentioned countries cannot come here but what criteria is used to make that determination? Shiite or Sunni? One is okay but not another? Tech workers but not those wanting to escape oppression?
Clearly the Trump administration cannot make a case that makes sense. Trump himself shoots himself in the foot with his tweets. I question whether he cares about this matter other than for pleasing the base who have been worked up by Trump's nonsensical rantings.
All in all, the court has the final word and until the real issue is named and addressed the constitution protects those who would be affected.
I would like to know where the protection for those with DACA and those criminal types who are here illegally and those without papers who have been here and contributed to the betterment of this country, where does that fall in Trump's thinking?
3
"The decision on Monday, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco" ... yep, still says San Francisco.
2
The Ninth Circuit is based administratively in San Francisco, but covers the western US from Montana and Arizona to Alaska.
3
I truly feel like I live in what must represent a British Monarchy. You have the King, his Queen and Royal Family who undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic duties (e.g., showing up at special parties and eating chocolate cake with dignitaries). While the Parliament governs and Judiciary enforces the rule of law.
1
Except that the King rules but doesn't govern, and the government via Parliament is answerable to the people via Question Period and non-confidence votes. Big difference from an unaccountable President.
2
Presidents do much, much more than just ceremonial matters. Trump's executive orders so far have significantly weakened environmental protections, for example.
3
Trump is the last man standing, unfazed in the face of the American far-left establishment's desperate attempts to bring the chaos and destruction of Western Europe to the US.
Wonder how long Trump can hold the gates closed !
Wonder how long Trump can hold the gates closed !
5
he's already failed bigly.
1
"It was issued jointly by Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard A. Paez. All three were appointed by President Bill Clinton."
All you need to know. Three lefty activists defying the will of the people. I'd say that trying to prevent terrorists from entering the country is indeed "justification." The ninth circuit subversives use every opportunity to hurt America.
All you need to know. Three lefty activists defying the will of the people. I'd say that trying to prevent terrorists from entering the country is indeed "justification." The ninth circuit subversives use every opportunity to hurt America.
5
Then block Saudi terrorists, too.
8
Judges who disagree with you are not by reason of that fact "lefty activists". Nor are they defying the will of the people. They are interpreting an executive order that was poorly drafted. Words do matter. Name calling is not a way for you to be persuasive, sir. It casts doubt on your understanding.
25
The will of the people or the will of Donald Trump?
Let's don't forget that he didn't win the popular vote.
Let's don't forget that he didn't win the popular vote.
7
Leftists will be on suicide watch when SC upholds his ban.
Also, do those on the left think we won't do this to them if they manage to get any power or the executive branch? We will judge shop, and our governors and legislators will stop or refuse to enforce any orders from a leftist like warren or whoever else they fantasize will become president in 2024.
Also, do those on the left think we won't do this to them if they manage to get any power or the executive branch? We will judge shop, and our governors and legislators will stop or refuse to enforce any orders from a leftist like warren or whoever else they fantasize will become president in 2024.
6
2020, sweetie.
6
Gerald: It is sad that you consider yourself a patriotic American but at the same time want to suspend the Constitution and laws of this country. As to your threat. the Republican Party did worse to Obama for 8 years. For 8 years the Republican Congress refused to do its job mere;y because Obama was President.
8
Gerard, since you are from Montana, why don't you just body slam everyone you disagree with?
6
To all the people who work to keep us safe from terrorism very day, thank you. Unfortunately, should something happen Trump will blame you first, the Judiciary second and his own staff last. He, on the other hand, will just say, "I told you so."
Just understand that most Americans appreciate the work that you do, but don't make the mistake of ever believing that the POTUS happens to be one of them.
Just understand that most Americans appreciate the work that you do, but don't make the mistake of ever believing that the POTUS happens to be one of them.
19
Someone should list all the names of the judges who suspended Trump's ban.
We've seen Paris, Charlie Hebdo, Berlin, Brussels, Nice, Manchester, London, etc., committed by refugee imposters, or children of immigrants.
It's inevitable that ISIS will send terrorists to attack us here, and we need to know who has blood on their hands.
We've seen Paris, Charlie Hebdo, Berlin, Brussels, Nice, Manchester, London, etc., committed by refugee imposters, or children of immigrants.
It's inevitable that ISIS will send terrorists to attack us here, and we need to know who has blood on their hands.
8
EXACTLY
2
How, exactly would this travel ban prevent that? What do you feel the outcome of such a ban would be? Why the chosen countries? Why not Saudia Arabia, where the 9/11 terrorists came from? What can we do during a 90 day ban that we couldn't have already accomplished in the more than 90 days that it's been blocked? And if the ban was initiated and we had a terrorist attack anyway, what would your reaction be then?
3
"Children of immigrants"?? You do realize that's practically EVERYONE IN THE USA (except Native Americans), as long as you go back a few generations, right?
All the more reason NEVER to let any democrat/socialist judge sit on a court. Republicans were right to block Merrick Garland. These uber liberal judges create law with their ruling based entirely on politics. We need judges that read the Constitution and do what it says, not what the DNC says. Republicans, please fill the courts with people that can read. And get rid of these loony tunes that sit on the court now.
8
So you think that conservative judges aren't affected by politics? And if you want utter devotion to the Constitution, you should read the Article on the federal courts. It doesn't give the Supreme Court or any other courts the authority to strike down actions by the President or Congress. Neither does any other part of the Constitution. So every time that conservative judges have voted to strike down acts of Congress or of the President, those judges have been reading something into the Constitution that isn't there. Do you think they cannot read, either?
This has to be humiliating and irritating for Trump. How many times and ways has Trump tried to ram the unconstitutional travel ban through the courts? Trump is a guy who has no clue why rule by law rather than by men is so crucial to democratic states.
Like any dictator or despot worth his salt, I think we can expect it will be "game on" by Trump, who will be going after the ninth circuit with a vengeance as well as any jurist who stands in his way.
Given his narcissistic, authoritarian tendencies, no doubt he will be working tirelessly to weaken the entire judicial branch of government, which fortunately for us is now one of the few checks against Trump's mean-spirited, undemocratic, anti-constitutional actions.
Like any dictator or despot worth his salt, I think we can expect it will be "game on" by Trump, who will be going after the ninth circuit with a vengeance as well as any jurist who stands in his way.
Given his narcissistic, authoritarian tendencies, no doubt he will be working tirelessly to weaken the entire judicial branch of government, which fortunately for us is now one of the few checks against Trump's mean-spirited, undemocratic, anti-constitutional actions.
24
8 U.S. Code § 1182
(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.
(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.
2
@VeteranPatriot. The President must show that he had some rational basis for finding that the entry by the citizens of the 6 countries in the Travel Ban would be detrimental to the interests of the US. The 9 th Circuit explained at leangth why the President had failed to establish a rational basis between the Ban and the interests of the US. For example as the opinion points out the President relies on the 9/11 attacks but the perpetrators were not from any of the countries that were banned so that reason lacks rationality. The opinion goes through each of the Presidents bases and explains the lack of rationality. Why not point out where they specifically got it wrong.
1
Section D of the Executive Order very clearly states the reasons why the ban is necessary. In a nutshell, the Obama Administration already designated the countries as security concerns, the governments are unable or unwilling to provide required documentation certifications, and there is a large presence of terrorist organization within them; so until a satisfactory method to vet those requesting entry to the US from those countries is available, no Alien entries.
Sounds perfectly reasonable and rational to me.
Sounds perfectly reasonable and rational to me.
Seems to me that the original argument advanced by the administration for the ban, that it was temporary to give them time to figure out what to do, is now moot. That time has passed. Was that time used to figure anything out? Or is the administration simply interested in winning a fight?
16
The original request was for 90 days. 180 days have now passed, and there is no request from the administration for expedited review. Thus it will be another 6-12 months before any Supreme Court decision will be handed down. It would appear that there is a lack of standing, in that there is no current connection to the Executive Order in question. Courts do not issue ruling for the next similar case, but only the case at hand.
1
If the Supreme Court sticks to a literal reading of the Constitution, and ignores all other statutes, laws, interpretations and precedents (which are actually "post-cedents" if we are sticking with the original document for guidance in this matter), it will find nothing in those three dozen or so words that address religion and its role in this country to support Trump's ban.
3
But Trump's Press Secretary says that his tweets are official administration statements. If analysis of a Federal law by a Court includes the legislative record leading to its passage, then surely official Presidential statements on the intent of the law must also be considered.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Law of America is. Any paralegal, lawyer or judge will tell you the law consists of the Constitution, the Laws and the Precedents of prior rulings. This is the Common Law system that is the bedrock of our justice system. They are indivisible.
Guess you didn't bother to read this article let alone the Opinion. The decision was not based on issues involving religion or the Constitution. It is based on the executive order exceeding the authority granted to the President under federal statute. The President concedes his authority must be found in the federal statute.
3
Search the internet for "engineer" and "terrorist".
Under Trump's reasoning, we should prevent engineers from traveling to the US. Even better, there wouldn't be any pesky Establishment Clause issues.
Under Trump's reasoning, we should prevent engineers from traveling to the US. Even better, there wouldn't be any pesky Establishment Clause issues.
1
Trump and his team were wrong on the law and on the Constitution. His Executive Order violates the Immigration Act and the Constitution.
Excluding all persons from entering the U.S. based on nation of origin violates the Immigration Act. Excluding all persons from entering the U.S. based on religion violates the Immigration Act and the First Amendment. The only thing "detrimental to the United States" is Trump's claim of imperial authority.
The Executive cannot grant to himself more power than the Constitution and the law has granted to him. The President's authority like Congress's is limited by our laws and the Constitution.
mB, active member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
Excluding all persons from entering the U.S. based on nation of origin violates the Immigration Act. Excluding all persons from entering the U.S. based on religion violates the Immigration Act and the First Amendment. The only thing "detrimental to the United States" is Trump's claim of imperial authority.
The Executive cannot grant to himself more power than the Constitution and the law has granted to him. The President's authority like Congress's is limited by our laws and the Constitution.
mB, active member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
8
These judges are not an artifact of justice in America, rather they are activist judges that have discarded the US Constitution as originally written and put in place by a political establishment that seeks to keep the status quo and move towards a progressive government. ....in short, grains of salt....
2
The muslim ban has been already expired. A new ban cannot directly to the SCOTUS. It would need to go the lower court first. It will be struck down again and would be expired before reaching the SCOTUS. Trump would need renew it, ...
Trump tried to catch his tail. He has nothing else to do. The guy is just incompetent.
Trump tried to catch his tail. He has nothing else to do. The guy is just incompetent.
13
The result is worth celebrating. The process is disturbing. Every Democrat judge voted against the ban. Every Republican judge voted for the ban. To me, that's lot more like politics than law. And it's a bad way for courts to work. These days, there are lots of decisions like Bush v. Gore -- we don't care how we get there, as long as the bottom line is the one we want. Judging is all about how you get there.
4
That's absolutely untrue. Republican judges ruled against the ban as well. Why? Because it's poorly drafted and illegal.
3
I'm glad that the founders had the presence of mind to make the judiciary equal to the executive and legislative branches. Right now our judiciary branch is using the law to uphold our values.
22
You mean YOUR values. Don't pretend to speak for the millions in our country that don't agree that more 7th century zealots are good for our country.
3
Are thy making you feel really secure at night? After all, the president, and not the courts, has the responsibility for keeping the citizens safe from harm.
1
Do you actually know any Muslims?
4
I'm surprised that Trump hasn't issued an order banning immigrants from countries that support state-sponsored medicine.
Simple solution by the Supreme Court. Extend the ban to Saudi Arabia, a known source of terrorists and funding for terrorists and then he can have his ban.
7
I don't believe that's in their purview, and necessarily so.
1
Iran and Syria have never done any terrorist attacks here. They need to be removed.
Also, we need a ban on Russians and Chinese because of spying on us.
Also, we need a ban on Russians and Chinese because of spying on us.
I like.
1
Sometimes you have to say "No." Trump's attorneys and advisers are failing to do just that. You can be empathetic: "I get the problem you're trying to solve." But our country -- thankfully -- does not make decisions based on a person's religion. This includes decisions affecting our citizens and it includes decisions affecting our visitors.
11
Mr. Trump doesn't know that because he isn't well informed. Personally I'm so glad I don't work for him, or anyone with that kind of delusional mentality. (I did in the past, they fired me; and today I'm so glad for it.)
Trump give them taxpayers money and they are happy. Why should they say no?
We now better understand why this judges have not been elevated to the Supreme Court...they can't think outside the body politic and PC!
6
For all the commenters here who believe the Supreme Court would never uphold this ban, I have only one word: Korematsu. The Republican Supreme Court justices may be as racist and xenophobic as their base. I hope I'm proven wrong. But nothing I've seen yet from the far right side of this bench gives me reason to believe that I am. And I say this as someone who practiced law for more than thirty years.
7
Ninth Circuit? Those clowns will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
4
This is what happens when your president references a "so-called judge." Respect for the rule of law declines.
2
Cherry-picking Circuit decisions much?
You mean "so-called clowns."
Clown Prince Trump of America just can't take a trick.
7
I am interning with a federal judge. When my colleagues and I heard that this ruling was by the Ninth Circuit, we all laughed and discussed cases where the Ninth Circuit did what it is known to do (entirely ignore the law and do whatever it feels like).
7
And your point is?
6
Something like 99.95% of cases of the 9th circuit are not taken up by the Supreme Court.
9
Can we assume that you and your colleagues are also familiar with the decisions of the Fourth Circuit?
5
Good news.
8
To those who say the ban will inflame IS, well exactly, those are the people we do not want entering our nation. We'll get them angry or upset with us somehow even if we don't have the ban. And is it truly a ban? or a temporary travel restriction? There is a difference. Did not Obama impose a similar travel 'ban'?
Wait to see what the SC Justices rule. Technically I think the President has this right but we'll see. Either way, let's not allow hatred to flow into our nation right now. We already have enough. That and our homegrown madness is also sufficient. Why keep adding more to the murdering mix?
Personally I don't want the US to become more like Europe but with guns.
RIP Pulse
Wait to see what the SC Justices rule. Technically I think the President has this right but we'll see. Either way, let's not allow hatred to flow into our nation right now. We already have enough. That and our homegrown madness is also sufficient. Why keep adding more to the murdering mix?
Personally I don't want the US to become more like Europe but with guns.
RIP Pulse
7
The overwhelming majority of attacks, including IS-claimed attacks, are homegrown and perpetrated by people who are already US citizens. A ban is redundant to the 'extreme vetting' we already employ, and would make precisely zero difference.
12
The travel ban, if somehow implemented, would have no measurable effect. Nobody can create parallel USAs, one with and one without, for comparison.
The mendacity of naming countries for exclusion is evident: between the first and second iterations, Iraq bought its way off the list by agreeing to repatriate some people.
Its value to this administration lies more in the breach than the observance: Trump cements the adoration of his base. Court rejections merely strengthen his purported heroism for _trying_ to protect the country.
If the ban is implemented and an incident happens anyway, the deplorables might question his efficacy. Better without.
He's prepping "his" people for further disenchantment, against the day when he'll call on them onto the streets, pitchforks and AR-15s in hand. or maybe into the voting booths, populated by evermore extremist candidates (with minority voters suppressed).
Don't underestimate your enemy.
He's not losing.
The mendacity of naming countries for exclusion is evident: between the first and second iterations, Iraq bought its way off the list by agreeing to repatriate some people.
Its value to this administration lies more in the breach than the observance: Trump cements the adoration of his base. Court rejections merely strengthen his purported heroism for _trying_ to protect the country.
If the ban is implemented and an incident happens anyway, the deplorables might question his efficacy. Better without.
He's prepping "his" people for further disenchantment, against the day when he'll call on them onto the streets, pitchforks and AR-15s in hand. or maybe into the voting booths, populated by evermore extremist candidates (with minority voters suppressed).
Don't underestimate your enemy.
He's not losing.
3
Quite a creative imagination.
1
The Muslim Ban-let's call it for what it is-is emblematic of the Trump Presidency. Run into wall, fall down, get up, run into wall, fall down, get up...
12
Can't wait to wake up tomorrow and see the Trump tweets attacking the judiciary, digging a deeper hole for himself.
13
These "citizens " attacking judges seem to want a king
1
The 9th Circuit has given The Supremes an exit strategy, as the clock is ticking again on the 90 day review.
Prior to today, they would either have had to:
1) Blatantly ignore Trump's tweets re: his motivation and be obedient to the President - while suborning his indefensible treatment of the judiciary;
2) Rule against him on both statute and the establishment clause.
Now they can breathe a sigh of relief, and issue a ruling with a one word essence: "Moot".
Prior to today, they would either have had to:
1) Blatantly ignore Trump's tweets re: his motivation and be obedient to the President - while suborning his indefensible treatment of the judiciary;
2) Rule against him on both statute and the establishment clause.
Now they can breathe a sigh of relief, and issue a ruling with a one word essence: "Moot".
3
There is no 90 day review. All the timetables for a new supa vetting to take the place of the "temporary" travel ban have come and gone, and the ban is simply extended as needed.
As a legal and practical matter, this ban stays in place until the Admin decides it's not going to be in place. That's not "temporary".
As a legal and practical matter, this ban stays in place until the Admin decides it's not going to be in place. That's not "temporary".
1
There is a type of judging disparagingly criticized as outcome determinative. It applies to decisions where judges make up any old legal argument to get to the result they favor. In the past it has been relatively exceptional and a dirty little secret. It is now more and more common. The travel ban is a very bad case for outcome determinative opinions. The legal reasoning of the courts becomes important precedent. The Fourth Circuit would allow campaign rhetoric to define the intent of Presidential executive orders. The Ninth Circuit opinion would create important new limits to presidential power. In the long run, the new precedent will be more important than the bottom line decision. Fifty years ago, a court decided that campaign contributions were speech. The particular case didn't much matter. But it led directly to Citizens United. Most of us are happy with the result here. But there is little doubt that the underlying legal reasoning is novel and dangerous, and that's reason to question if we want to go there.
6
"Fifty years ago, a court decided that campaign contributions were speech. The particular case didn't much matter. But it led directly to Citizens United. Most of us are happy with the result here. But there is little doubt that the underlying legal reasoning is novel and dangerous, and that's reason to question if we want to go there."
Perhaps if we had questioned money=free speech 50 years ago we wouldn't be in the predicament our country is in now. But if you're saying we should question whether the courts should force an "outcome determinative" decision to prevent our country from becoming an autocracy ruled by oligarchs like Russia then question away. I'm all for it. The real question is whether the republicans while controlling 2 branches now will circumvent the third by appointing judges up and down the line open to the idea of doing away with our rights under the constitution. Their appointments now will come to fruition in the feature.
Perhaps if we had questioned money=free speech 50 years ago we wouldn't be in the predicament our country is in now. But if you're saying we should question whether the courts should force an "outcome determinative" decision to prevent our country from becoming an autocracy ruled by oligarchs like Russia then question away. I'm all for it. The real question is whether the republicans while controlling 2 branches now will circumvent the third by appointing judges up and down the line open to the idea of doing away with our rights under the constitution. Their appointments now will come to fruition in the feature.
2
Stupid Campaign Promise vs Constitution.
Sorry, Trump.
Sorry, Trump.
27
A curfew for men may well reduce violent crime. But Constitution forces is to find less obtuse tools. Same here.
17
What will President Trump tweet when Justice Gorsuch votes that the travel ban is illegal?
20
Stephen: And what exactly thinks Justice Gorsuch will vote that way?
All these current rulings could possibly null and void and the ban will be on in full force. Be careful what you ask for.
All these current rulings could possibly null and void and the ban will be on in full force. Be careful what you ask for.
5
He won't. It is far from illegal and perfectly within President Trump's power. The 9th circuit is routinely overturned because of how ridiculous their rulings are. Notice no other courts are doing this. Just the crazy California courts.
2
Actually, the Fourth Circuit struck down the revised travel ban, too. It's noted in the article that this is the SECOND court of appeals to strike it down. Two out of two. You can look up where the Fourth Circuit is on the internets. Not California.
So, notice no Courts are upholding it.
So, notice no Courts are upholding it.
3
When I view the horror enveloping Europe and realize there is nothing the Europeans can do about it.
The influx of mostly unskilled migrants from countries that hate the west will eventually bring Europe to its knees.
Is this something we are looking for in America ?
A population that will not assimilate, a religion that rewards behavior that should be deplored, religious leaders that encourage the self sacrifice of mostly young boys is a problem.
I believe there are ample oppourtunities for work in the Middle East, there is a large amount of liquid capital there and that is where they should remain.
The influx of mostly unskilled migrants from countries that hate the west will eventually bring Europe to its knees.
Is this something we are looking for in America ?
A population that will not assimilate, a religion that rewards behavior that should be deplored, religious leaders that encourage the self sacrifice of mostly young boys is a problem.
I believe there are ample oppourtunities for work in the Middle East, there is a large amount of liquid capital there and that is where they should remain.
18
Oh my. I am afraid the radical fringe of the Christian Evangelical movement is already here.
36
Well, you and Trump would get along swell. Fortunately, the courts disagree with both of you.
5
Really Tom? You actually wrote that out. Our world should be a loving and supportive place. These thought patterns are harmful. Banning people from out country is not the answer.
5
With all the problems this country needs to solve the entire government appears to sucked down Trump's rat hole.
Here we are again, Trump creating endless, petty distractions while the do nothing GOP congress sits around making excuses.
My fellow citizens, we MUST get out and vote these incompetent politicians out of office.
Here we are again, Trump creating endless, petty distractions while the do nothing GOP congress sits around making excuses.
My fellow citizens, we MUST get out and vote these incompetent politicians out of office.
64
Yea we just had an election. The people spoke. Deal with it
4
And we must encourage all those who did not vote in the last elections to do so. Their voices matter! Only when folks feel they are heard, will non-violent change begin. No sitting around whining, and those who think, "well, my vote doesn't count" are really really wrong. Nearly half of eligible voters did not vote at all!
Had they gotten to the polls, we might not even be in this mess! Can't decide which was worse? Well, pick the lesser of two evils, but at least vote!
Had they gotten to the polls, we might not even be in this mess! Can't decide which was worse? Well, pick the lesser of two evils, but at least vote!
3
the electoral college spoke...the people voted for Hrc
5
These appeals courts with liberal judges leave no option for the president but the supreme court (SC). If the SC also does not uphold Trump's travel ban then it will be an indication that any and all presidential executive orders can be easily overturned by the courts. I am sure the Trump supporters are going to say that Trump is doing his best to keep his promises but his hands are tied by the establishment and he is being forcibly dunked in the swamp. With the economy stable, unemployment lowest it has been in this century, illegal border crossings reduced by 60%, no terrorism occurring since his inauguration, the gulf nations (Saudi Arabia and UAE) outing Qatar as a likely financier of Islamic extremists after Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, ISIS about to be driven out of their birthplace, NATO member countries spending more on defense after Trump dressed them down, whats not to like about America under Trump than maybe for many Trump himself. Contrast that to prime minister May's election loss due to the frequent terrorism and the Mayhem caused by the radicalized terrorists in Britain who were recruited by ISIS, trained by ISIS and returned back to cause mass murder. May choked and cried (before visiting the queen) after siding with the arrogant mayor of London instead of taking a firm stand against the terrorists similar to what Trump has in the USA. The British are neither in Europe after the BREXIT takes effect nor with the US in its global fight against terrorism.
11
Only the illegal and unconstitutional executive orders may be "easily" overturned by the courts, not every executive order. What were you saying when courts overturned some of President Obama's executive orders and recess appointments?
There are so many inaccuracies in your post there isn't enough room to show you the facts.
There are so many inaccuracies in your post there isn't enough room to show you the facts.
5
It is well documented that economic results during the first year of a new president's term is the result of the activities of the previous president's term. Yes, the employment is low. Yes, the economy is stable. Gas prices are low. Thanks Obama.
18
His hands are tied by the Constitution and the Law. Thank goodness!
Trump had a cabinet meeting today in which he went around the table seeking adulation from his appointees one by one after telling them that "no President has accomplished what he has in the first five months of their respective terms."
This is a President that has signed NO major legislation since Jan 20.
“I ran 16 Cabinet meetings during Obama’s 1st term,” Chris Lu, former President Barack Obama’s Cabinet secretary, wrote on Twitter. “Our Cabinet was never told to sing Obama’s praises. He wanted candid advice not adulation.”
This is a President that has signed NO major legislation since Jan 20.
“I ran 16 Cabinet meetings during Obama’s 1st term,” Chris Lu, former President Barack Obama’s Cabinet secretary, wrote on Twitter. “Our Cabinet was never told to sing Obama’s praises. He wanted candid advice not adulation.”
97
This is very disturbing -- not that other actions and rhetoric of this president aren't.
9
Trump's cabinet session today looked like a cabinet session in North Korea.
16
Given that Trump says he wants to ban travel from countries where terrorism is fomented, and given recent attacks in Britain and France, why not ban people from those countries? And of course from Saudi Arabia, home of the Wahhabi clerics who provide the religious justification for such attacks (and of course there were the 15 Saudis attacking on 9/11).
If he did that, I might believe his justification. Who am I kidding- how can one believe anything Trump says?
If he did that, I might believe his justification. Who am I kidding- how can one believe anything Trump says?
28
Of course #45 will once again denigrate our federal judicial system.
Frequently during the Trump campaign for the American presidency we listened to his ill-advised and ill-tempered assessment of President Obama's eight years in office as "terrible."
Actually the invocation of the word "terrible" best suits the presidency of Donald J. Trump as he approaches his 150th day in office.
# 45 would be well advised, day after day, to wear a placard denoting his utterly "terrible" presidency.
So should Speaker Ryan were the "terrible" placard.
Recall the ill-chosen alibi he floated the ill-chosen a few days ago: #45 is "new" to the processes and structures of our national governing system in place since 1789.
Frequently during the Trump campaign for the American presidency we listened to his ill-advised and ill-tempered assessment of President Obama's eight years in office as "terrible."
Actually the invocation of the word "terrible" best suits the presidency of Donald J. Trump as he approaches his 150th day in office.
# 45 would be well advised, day after day, to wear a placard denoting his utterly "terrible" presidency.
So should Speaker Ryan were the "terrible" placard.
Recall the ill-chosen alibi he floated the ill-chosen a few days ago: #45 is "new" to the processes and structures of our national governing system in place since 1789.
11
I distinctly recall Trump bloviating about how Americans would become "so tired of winning" under his 'forward-thinking, fast-moving administration' that we would beg for a respite. Unless I'm mistaken, and absent his slew of vicious, hateful Executive Orders, Trump has won virtually nothing since his inauguration. Hardly the champion of "winning," Trump has proven to be the consummate loser. This ruling against his revised travel ban is added confirmation. Thank God for the sharp legal minds and the compassionate hearts in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial District. They are the winners here, on behalf of all level-headed Americans and those wishing to enter our shores legally.
13
"The key part of the executive order suspended travel from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days to give the administration time to conduct a review."
This travel ban was sold as and still is being sold as a temporary ban (120 days) to keep us safe while the Trump administration improved the vetting process. Well Trump has been in office over 5 months - Trump has had more than the time he originally asked for. The original ban have expired by now. Why is Trump still fighting for this issue???
This travel ban was sold as and still is being sold as a temporary ban (120 days) to keep us safe while the Trump administration improved the vetting process. Well Trump has been in office over 5 months - Trump has had more than the time he originally asked for. The original ban have expired by now. Why is Trump still fighting for this issue???
23
So far the TRUMP machine has not overtaken the courts. Let us hope it stays that way or all will truly be lost and the balance of a 3 separate bodied government will be dead.
13
In short, Trump's Travel Ban is an Abuse of Executive Power, like his firing of Comey, like his personal profiteering as president in violation of the Emoluments Clause. I hope those who continue to assist and defend him in his violations of law have a "war chest" to pay for attorneys' fees to stave off charges of "aiding and abetting."
The disingenuous and discriminatory intent of
the travel ban is revealed in Trump's rationalization for it's necessity and scope. According to his campaign statements, and subsequent statements by him and his supporters, the "ban" was to be temporary intended until "our representatives can figure this out," However, since "bad dudes" were lining up at airports intending to fly here and wreak havoc,an immediate ban was required to be imposed upon those from those most dangerous locals. Trump's' proposed resolution was supposed to be "extreme vetting."
Trump has been President for five months. What has to or his administration done to "figure out what is going on"? Has extreme vetting been put in place? The administration's lack of urgency underscores the likelihood that the travel and refugee ban is a tactic intended to satisfy Trump's base rather than a necessary component of our national security strategy.
the travel ban is revealed in Trump's rationalization for it's necessity and scope. According to his campaign statements, and subsequent statements by him and his supporters, the "ban" was to be temporary intended until "our representatives can figure this out," However, since "bad dudes" were lining up at airports intending to fly here and wreak havoc,an immediate ban was required to be imposed upon those from those most dangerous locals. Trump's' proposed resolution was supposed to be "extreme vetting."
Trump has been President for five months. What has to or his administration done to "figure out what is going on"? Has extreme vetting been put in place? The administration's lack of urgency underscores the likelihood that the travel and refugee ban is a tactic intended to satisfy Trump's base rather than a necessary component of our national security strategy.
9
Never needed a travel ban to increase security through "extreme vetting ".
2
Is it appropriate to mention that Trump said he only needed the ban for 90 days while he reviewed and improved security? Since it's been over 90 days now, why is he even fighting this? It sounds strangely like Trump was lying all along about his intentions.
16
Trump's repeated comments have doomed him on this issue. He has made it clear from the start that his issue is with Muslims. Period.
Just like with the wall, this is a naive, simplistic, and, quite frankly, juvenile way to deal with a dangerous problem. Singling out and labelling anybody as being an inherent threat is a sure way to make worse the issue you are trying to resolve.
Words and intent matter. It's a hard lesson for Trump to learn, and I think he's going to get schooled on that fact a lot in the coming months.
On to the Supreme Court, then. Nothing else of immediate importance is getting done in D.C. these days, so why not?
Just like with the wall, this is a naive, simplistic, and, quite frankly, juvenile way to deal with a dangerous problem. Singling out and labelling anybody as being an inherent threat is a sure way to make worse the issue you are trying to resolve.
Words and intent matter. It's a hard lesson for Trump to learn, and I think he's going to get schooled on that fact a lot in the coming months.
On to the Supreme Court, then. Nothing else of immediate importance is getting done in D.C. these days, so why not?
14
Now the law is no longer the words that make up the law but how we feel about what was said by those involved in crafting the law/ executive order.
Brilliant - The Thought Police won't be far behind. Welcome to the Minority Report.
Brilliant - The Thought Police won't be far behind. Welcome to the Minority Report.
2
It is established law that courts can look to intent to discriminate when a facially neutral law is challenged as discriminatory. Not sure of your point here.
7
Yes, it is entirely appropriate to determine the intent of a law given how laws and orders can be carefully worded to hide the real intentions.
In fact, this should appeal to so-called Constitutional originalists who seek to discover what the Founders intended the Constitution to mean and apply those principals.
In fact, this should appeal to so-called Constitutional originalists who seek to discover what the Founders intended the Constitution to mean and apply those principals.
2
I think Minority Report will be a lot more likely when the federal judiciary decides that it can ignore the Bill of Rights when testing the limits of Executive authority.
Trump said the travel ban was needed for 90 days, to improve vetting of people coming to the U.S. So, it has been well over 90 days since the original travel ban was imposed. If the Trump folks have been working out those improved vetting procedures, they ought to be done by now. No more need for the Travel Ban, unless they were lying, of course....
14
To all the comments wondering why Trump has not re-vamped the vetting process in the last 90 days - theoretically fixing the problem his Executive Order "Travel Ban" was aimed at...
It is the same reason the Republicans didn't spend the last 8 years creating a "better, cheaper healthcare plan" to replace Obamacare.
Travel Ban is NOT about vetting, rather it is about xenophobic racism and religious intolerance. Who needs vetting for that?
Repeal and Replace is NOT about healthcare, rather it is about a tax cut for the 1%. Who needs a healthcare plan to do that?
It is the same reason the Republicans didn't spend the last 8 years creating a "better, cheaper healthcare plan" to replace Obamacare.
Travel Ban is NOT about vetting, rather it is about xenophobic racism and religious intolerance. Who needs vetting for that?
Repeal and Replace is NOT about healthcare, rather it is about a tax cut for the 1%. Who needs a healthcare plan to do that?
30
The best solution by President 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. 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 and an adverse Supreme Court ruling blocking this new one is virtually guaranteed. The Statue of Liberty holds a torch to light the way not to keep those seeking a better life at bay.
90
What you say makes perfect sense but it wouldn't have the effect of banning Muslims. More effective measures (if those are even possible) against potential terrorists entering the U. S. could make us all safer. But what Trump wants most is bigger applause from his base, and that's going to come from a ban on Muslims.
This is the 9th Circuit that Trump wants to replace because he doesn't like their decisions against his proposed immigration policies.
Trump, not to worry....because McConnell has announced he is ready with his replacements for open seats on the Federal Courts, which he stonewalled Obama's candidates for appointments for the preceding 8 years.
Further, not to mention that Trump nominated McConnell's wife to be Secretary of Commerce.
When is the line between politics and corruption crossed? Or, at times, are they both the same and/or condoned?
Trump, not to worry....because McConnell has announced he is ready with his replacements for open seats on the Federal Courts, which he stonewalled Obama's candidates for appointments for the preceding 8 years.
Further, not to mention that Trump nominated McConnell's wife to be Secretary of Commerce.
When is the line between politics and corruption crossed? Or, at times, are they both the same and/or condoned?
8
Some Good news!
The present administration as well as the Republican Party does not seem to realize that the majority of Americans hate their agenda. Just yesterday I heard Senator Graham say that the government is doing ALL the voters wanted. NOT SO! We the majority disapprove of ALL they are doing to destroy our freedom including the rotten healthcare plan, canceling Planned Parenthood, attempting to abolish abortion rights, cancelling ethics laws, withdrawing from the Paris Accord, controlling the Internet, interfering with PBS and on and on. NO, the present government is NOT doing what Americans want and we will protest and protest and protest till these fascist leaning old men are out of power!
The present administration as well as the Republican Party does not seem to realize that the majority of Americans hate their agenda. Just yesterday I heard Senator Graham say that the government is doing ALL the voters wanted. NOT SO! We the majority disapprove of ALL they are doing to destroy our freedom including the rotten healthcare plan, canceling Planned Parenthood, attempting to abolish abortion rights, cancelling ethics laws, withdrawing from the Paris Accord, controlling the Internet, interfering with PBS and on and on. NO, the present government is NOT doing what Americans want and we will protest and protest and protest till these fascist leaning old men are out of power!
25
At least the courts are upholding the law -- much more than ANYONE in the WH. Have they read the Constitution yet?
24
The 4th & 9th Circuits both reached the same conclusion in this case....The Supreme Court should not even take the case since the Circuit Courts were in agreement....
19
Its the 9th circuit so it doesn't count. Wait on the Supreme Court decision.
4
When it comes to DT/Republucans everything counts! Nothing they are doing IS right. Lining their pockets and taking away is WRONG no matter how many courts tell them so!!
4
And the resultant Trump Twitter Tantrum.
1
You forget that prior the 9th' s ruling - the 4th district appeals court found his executive order unconstitutional also.
3
@jimsr1215 wrote:
"liberal courts have a liberal view of the constitution duh"
Yes, and what's wrong with having a "liberal view of the constitution?"
I'm sick and tired of people spitting out the L-word as if it was some anathema. It's time for us to reclaim the word's original meanings: befitting of a free man; free-thinking; tolerant and open to change.
"liberal courts have a liberal view of the constitution duh"
Yes, and what's wrong with having a "liberal view of the constitution?"
I'm sick and tired of people spitting out the L-word as if it was some anathema. It's time for us to reclaim the word's original meanings: befitting of a free man; free-thinking; tolerant and open to change.
If Trump's travel ban had included a couple of Muslim countries that, well...had Trump businesses or investments and were the originating countries of terrorists who have actually 'worked' in America...then perhaps its true nature wouldn't have been so bloody obvious or his platitudes so obviously false.
11
As the mission of Isis is to make the world's Muslims feel hostile and disillusioned towards the West, ending the travel ban should be a no brainer.
Don't let the US presidency serve as the recruiter of radical jihadists.
Don't let the US presidency serve as the recruiter of radical jihadists.
10
No, this is the easy narrow interpretation of the weak-minded people...Isis is just the latest embodiment of the violent branch of the Jihad and it goes hand in hand with a soft Jihad which first seed Muslims in every western infidel countries in big numbers so that the host nation is encumbered and trapped with their highly unstable and triggerable "moderate" population so that when the extreme violent Jihad finally takes place the West is like paralysed by fear of the overly touchy nature the "moderate' muslims have accustomed them to. People need to be smarter we are dealing with a lot of snakes.
1
Sorry but it's still a Muslim ban because you said it was Donald. We have the tapes of you promising to do this and we know exactly where you were coming from when you said it. Your campaign press release read as follows: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Rudy Giuliani said you asked him for strategies on how you could make the Muslim ban legal. We heard both of you say these things on TV and it wasn't fake news when you said it. Remember? Because we do.
16
Stephen Miller said that the President's power is not to be questioned.
Oh, yeah? Tell that to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
You lose, Stephen. (Poor baby has no clue what he is doing. SAD.)
Oh, yeah? Tell that to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
You lose, Stephen. (Poor baby has no clue what he is doing. SAD.)
18
Truly crazy for Trump to keep pursing this. He was asking for like what, a 90 day ban, so they could revise the vetting process. Haven't they taken care of the revising by now, well past the 90 day mark. And ergo the premise of their ban is moot. Give up.
25
This part of the article may help you:
"[T]he appeals court narrowed the injunction issued by Judge Watson in a significant way.
The appeals court said Judge Watson had erred in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward. That may turn out to be important as the Supreme Court considers how to address the cases..."
"[T]he appeals court narrowed the injunction issued by Judge Watson in a significant way.
The appeals court said Judge Watson had erred in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward. That may turn out to be important as the Supreme Court considers how to address the cases..."
1
The same vetting process Trumpf refused to get into the WH?
3
Another order bites the dust!
This petulant child still doesn't get it!
Another judicial group to add to his list of people to settle scores with because that's what Trump is about. He did promise to shake up Washington...but wasn't clear on whether positively or negatively but now we know.
It's interesting to see many comments hoping for SCOTUS to intervene in his favour. We all know he has his man now sitting in that group...and that is the last of the highest group of law we want Trump tarnishing because we care less that he has reduced not only our country but Us in the eyes of the rest of the world. If you still think it's about partisanship, perhaps a wake-up call is in order!
This petulant child still doesn't get it!
Another judicial group to add to his list of people to settle scores with because that's what Trump is about. He did promise to shake up Washington...but wasn't clear on whether positively or negatively but now we know.
It's interesting to see many comments hoping for SCOTUS to intervene in his favour. We all know he has his man now sitting in that group...and that is the last of the highest group of law we want Trump tarnishing because we care less that he has reduced not only our country but Us in the eyes of the rest of the world. If you still think it's about partisanship, perhaps a wake-up call is in order!
13
One court uses the basic common sense - and sees the blatant attempt to ban immigration based on religion. Trump sure helped them by confirming yet again recently that the new travel ban was intended to be the same as the previous one, making it blatantly clear the new ban is nothing but an attempt to slide past the issues with the last ban, on a technicality. The other court ruling goes from a mechanical, statutory position to say that this was not valid because it was unvetted, based on little to no very old data. So, two totally different approaches, same decision. This is a stupid ban, poorly thought out, poorly written, and useless for protecting us - doesn't consider any of the actual facts about where we have actual terrorists coming from.
How many courts before Trump partisans realize that their feelings and fear don't override our Constitution? Funny how every court is a liberal court when they don't let the Tea party and extremist stomp on our Constitution.
How many courts before Trump partisans realize that their feelings and fear don't override our Constitution? Funny how every court is a liberal court when they don't let the Tea party and extremist stomp on our Constitution.
11
Stomp on our Constitution? Please show me where the Constitution says that banning travel from countries in disarray that happen to be majority Muslim establishes a religion. Also, please show me where the courts get to add a 'adequate justification' clause to the President's authority to stop immigration.
There's stomping of the Constitution going on, but Trump isn't doing it.
There's stomping of the Constitution going on, but Trump isn't doing it.
1
Tadpole, you don't seem to understand the function of a federal appellate court. One of the responsibilities is to interprete the wording of the law along with its intent. Trumps' words,,on the record and on tape, make it very clear what his intent was.
7
I skimmed the Ninth Circuit's opinion. Having read all prior decisions regarding the president's immigration executive orders, I knew what to look for.
Like every court decision except the Ninth Circuit's regarding the first executive order, it is flawed throughout.
The most fundamental flaw is the notion that the judicial branch is equipped and entitled to micromanage the president's national security decisions. The opinion contains second-guessing about who's a threat to U.S. citizens and residents and who isn't. This is an usurpation of executive authority by the judiciary—the latest one, following the Fourth Circuit's decision.
Look for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the two appellate decisions sooner or later—I predict sooner. In the meantime, let's hope there's no mass-casualty attack by foreign militants within the jurisdictions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. The judges are likely to have egg on their faces, but I'd prefer that it come from the Supreme Court, not from some Mancunian atrocity.
Like every court decision except the Ninth Circuit's regarding the first executive order, it is flawed throughout.
The most fundamental flaw is the notion that the judicial branch is equipped and entitled to micromanage the president's national security decisions. The opinion contains second-guessing about who's a threat to U.S. citizens and residents and who isn't. This is an usurpation of executive authority by the judiciary—the latest one, following the Fourth Circuit's decision.
Look for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the two appellate decisions sooner or later—I predict sooner. In the meantime, let's hope there's no mass-casualty attack by foreign militants within the jurisdictions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. The judges are likely to have egg on their faces, but I'd prefer that it come from the Supreme Court, not from some Mancunian atrocity.
7
Er, you forgot the read all he facts of the ruling: "...without adequate justification..."
Your eagerness to praise the President's, rather weak, efforts was sweet however.
Your eagerness to praise the President's, rather weak, efforts was sweet however.
1
Good that Cyclist "skimmed" the Ninth Circuit's opinion. Even better would be if Cyclist were to read the Constitution. The Ninth and Fourth Circuit courts made judgments about the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Even the President is required to follow the Constitution. Trump took at oath to do so, which perhaps he now forgets.
1
No court is going to let this bigoted piece of legislation stand.
And yes my friend our founding fathers wrote our constitution with three distinct branches of government specially to guard against the worst, self interest, politically driven actions by a President. Thank God for the judicial branch.
With all the problems that need to be solved, this is how Trump spends his day? And how he will no doubt spend the rest of his time in the White House? What a waste and disservice to our country.
Hope Trump supporter are enjoying Trump's reality TV show, because they will be the ones who will pay dearly to pay this piper.
And yes my friend our founding fathers wrote our constitution with three distinct branches of government specially to guard against the worst, self interest, politically driven actions by a President. Thank God for the judicial branch.
With all the problems that need to be solved, this is how Trump spends his day? And how he will no doubt spend the rest of his time in the White House? What a waste and disservice to our country.
Hope Trump supporter are enjoying Trump's reality TV show, because they will be the ones who will pay dearly to pay this piper.
5
The proposed ban, as it exists, will do nothing to protect us from terrorists. The 9/11 attackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. The nations on the list, with the exception of Iran, are of no political consequence to the US. The list is showmanship, which Trump is a master at, to appease an audience that cannot hear clearly once there is the utterance of the word Muslim. It is not a serious attempt at protecting us. Trump should be using his efforts more wisely.
26
The 9/11 attackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia...
But Saudi's make big statue of Great White Trump.
Trump pleased......
But Saudi's make big statue of Great White Trump.
Trump pleased......
5
Judge Watson based his judgment on the wrong campaign statement. In December 2015, Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” But by August 2016, Trump was no longer calling for a “total and complete shutdown.” Instead, during a major speech on fighting terrorism, he said “clearly, new screening procedures are needed. Trump’s executive order does not call for a ban on Muslims. It calls for a pause in travel from six predominantly Muslim countries until new screening procedures are put in place. The Supreme Court will overturn his ruling.
The Ninth Circuit substitutes it judgment for what constitutes adequate justification for that of the Homeland Security Department, State Department and president. The Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.
The revised executive order makes no mention of religion,
The Ninth Circuit substitutes it judgment for what constitutes adequate justification for that of the Homeland Security Department, State Department and president. The Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.
The revised executive order makes no mention of religion,
4
And, he had claimed the ban was only to be for 90 days, to deal with an extreme danger, so new vetting procedures could be put in place. He's had his 90 days and more, so there's no reason for any ban anymore.
We elect Presidents - not dictators. There are limits to his power, checks and balances. This is a good thing.
We elect Presidents - not dictators. There are limits to his power, checks and balances. This is a good thing.
6
The new vetting procedures depend on compliance from the six countries, and they have no motivation to comply if there is no ban. Some of the countries refuse to verify the identifies of their citizens who apply for visas, and other are unable to comply and have no reason to develop the ability to comply.
No travel ban requires agreement by the countries being banned. The US State Department issues visas to travel to the US, NOT the country of origin. You are all hat, no cattle.
Trump will win this one...The law is on his side. National security is in his job duties. This is a no brainer. Bush did it, Obama did it. Trump can do it. period.
7
"Trump had exceeded the authority Congress had granted him in making national security judgments in the realm of immigration...
"without adequate justification"
Get it now?
"without adequate justification"
Get it now?
1
You are right, Jim. Only someone with no brains would think that the President's national security responsibilities would allow the President to disregard the Constitution. Which, let us recall, Trump took an oath to uphold.
5
Jim,,by your reasoning, Trump could do just about anything he wants, under the guise of "national security".
That ain't how it works.
That ain't how it works.
8
The four countries with the largest number of Muslims - Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh - are not part of the ban. Neither are large mid-eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. Those opposing the ban may want to note that the Manchester bomber from 2 weeks back had traveled to Libya.
10
Different courts have used different reasoning to reach their conclusions on this, but to my knowledge none has upheld the executive order, so there is no circuit split and the Supreme Court should not hear the case. The Court's docket is limited and there are many other important matters to consider that involve genuine legal controversies in the appellate courts below.
12
The ban was supposed to be temporary and Gen. Kelley said that the extreme vetting is already in place.
So, what is the point to follow up in the court by Trump admin? It is a waste of taxpayers money to go to court for something that has been already done. In other words, the ban has been already expired.
Perhaps, Trump follows up in the court because he was lying about the ban being temporary.
Interestingly Trumps Saudi friends committed a terror attack in Iran, which is on the list.
We should send Trump to Russia and put a ban on Russian spies of entering the US.
So, what is the point to follow up in the court by Trump admin? It is a waste of taxpayers money to go to court for something that has been already done. In other words, the ban has been already expired.
Perhaps, Trump follows up in the court because he was lying about the ban being temporary.
Interestingly Trumps Saudi friends committed a terror attack in Iran, which is on the list.
We should send Trump to Russia and put a ban on Russian spies of entering the US.
9
Just gonna point out that the ban was only supposed to be 90 days; therefore any ban should've ended by now because Trump and team stated that it was sufficient time to create a thorough vetting process.
11
Read the article. Judge Watson had enjoined the Administration from conducting a significant part of the process. He was REVERSED on that point:
"[T]he appeals court narrowed the injunction issued by Judge Watson in a significant way.
The appeals court said Judge Watson had ERRED in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward..."
"[T]he appeals court narrowed the injunction issued by Judge Watson in a significant way.
The appeals court said Judge Watson had ERRED in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward..."
Oops. Ah yes, let's suspend liberty for 90 days, and then for another 90 days, and another.
No one in their right mind thinks Trump will restore any freedom that he takes away.
No one in their right mind thinks Trump will restore any freedom that he takes away.
1
Liberty for whom? Non-citizen travelers from places even Mr. Obama viewed and labeled as dangerous? You and those like you will be among the first to criticicize and blame the current administration when -- not "if" but when -- the next attack on Western civilization occurs...
Would Saudi Arabia be in the list of travel ban had it been as poor as Sudan, Somalia, Yemen or Syria? If we think so, then we are not banning on the basis of the fear of terrorism.
Until we realize that wealth can be used for purposes that can either advance human values or to impede, our criteria for whom we invite in and whom we refuse will not make this world better safer place for us or the rest of the world.
Until we realize that wealth can be used for purposes that can either advance human values or to impede, our criteria for whom we invite in and whom we refuse will not make this world better safer place for us or the rest of the world.
9
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that none of the countries on the ban list include those where Trump has private business interests?
3
I grow more appreciative of the judiciary every day.
28
I will continue to send monthly donations to the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both of which do incredibly important work in safeguarding the Constitution. Our rights are under attack as never before in my memory. Keep up the good work, ACLU and SPLC.
65
I hope you are telling the truth. Many people say things, but never do them.
Losing a ruling in the ninth circuit a court with a dismal track record of having challenges overruled when appealed is not really a defeat but a bump in the road. It would be interesting to have if possible for one of these liberal courts be required to write a ruling they would uphold. I am sure they could not, there interest is not in the law but blind resistance.
5
"there interest is not in the law but blind resistance."....And what would you say about the courts in Texas?
4
It is not the business of the judiciary to write legislation. There is this legal doctrine called 'separation of powers', which Trump and his supporters fail to acknowledge or, perhaps, even understand. I am quite sure if a court did attempt such endeavor, ECT would be the first one to complain. It is beyond apparent that Mr. Trump believes he is above the law, in this and many, many, other areas. He is about to get a rude awakening. He is sowing the seeds of his own destruction.
2
He's lost in every other court to address the issue, as well. Once again, reality shows It's liberal bias.
1
God Bless President Trump! He will prevail!
“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion,” Judge Watson wrote.
Judge Watson apparently isn't a 'reasonable, objective observer' because he claims the ban 'disfavors' a particular religion. Maybe he should explain why all the many other Muslim countries are not included in the ban. It's a false argument based on the judge's misguided opinion rather than based on the law. Even Obama used 6 travel bans and correctly stated Article 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. None of his travel bans were challenged, so what's the difference? It's just because it is Trump and liberal hatred for him!!
Judge Watson apparently isn't a 'reasonable, objective observer' because he claims the ban 'disfavors' a particular religion. Maybe he should explain why all the many other Muslim countries are not included in the ban. It's a false argument based on the judge's misguided opinion rather than based on the law. Even Obama used 6 travel bans and correctly stated Article 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. None of his travel bans were challenged, so what's the difference? It's just because it is Trump and liberal hatred for him!!
8
"Judge Watson apparently isn't a 'reasonable, objective observer' because he claims the ban 'disfavors' a particular religion..... How many times did Trump say during the campaign that he would ban Muslim's? Is knowledge of what Trump claimed he intended to do a part of being "a reasonable objective observer"?
1
And yet we've had no attacks from people in these countries. Our vetting process is pretty exhaustive and takes years. It would seem this new ban isn't really needed.
If the ban were truly commensurate with the evidence of risk based on past terror acts, then Saudi Arabia would be on that list. It isn't. None of the countries listed pose any known threat that this ban would address other than DT has promised Muslim-haters that he would keep them out, even if the effect is nil and might actually cause more problems than solving any.
Second, consider that, although never mentioned in the law as discriminatory against blacks, Jim Crow laws and voting tests were created specifically to achieve that effect. Thus, a "reasonable objective observer" would see clear precedent that the effect of this ban is unconstitutional.
Second, consider that, although never mentioned in the law as discriminatory against blacks, Jim Crow laws and voting tests were created specifically to achieve that effect. Thus, a "reasonable objective observer" would see clear precedent that the effect of this ban is unconstitutional.
8
Watch: the Idiot-In-Chief will undoubtedly claim this ruling "totally vindicated" him because it lifted the injunction against him, personally, much as he argued about Comey telling him he wasn't personally being investigated. Because, as we al know, as far as he's concerned, everything is about him, personally.
24
You can say whatever you want about Trump and you have a right to it, but your argument about his actions need to be valid. These Democrat based Judges are extremely biased.. A muslim ban should be a "muslim" ban not a country ban right? 49 majority populated muslim countries out there but they want to ban only 5? And we are witnessing Europe incur an attack every week, what is going to happen when an attack happens here? Oh Trump didn't do anything... Well he tried to ban.. What is wrong with people who do not have common sense? Argue when someone is wrong, do not argue for the sake of argue.
1
I watched attack happen here Brandon and the men who caused this attack were from Muslim Countries not on the list to be banned. Instead Trump is giving them weapons so they can attack our interest in the future. So if that attack happens here, follow the money and you will see it came out of Saudi Arabia.
5
Somebody down there makes the interesting comment he hopes the Sup Ct won't grant cert in view of these decisions from two circuits. That's not how it works. For one thing, not only is the Sup Ct not required to give any weight to legal conclusions from lower courts, in fact just picture yourself a Sup Ct justice and think about whether you care what anybody else has said. It's an important case for political as well as policy and legal reasons, so there's a good chance the Court will grant the petition, which is not by Joe Schmoe but by the United States government. On the merits I think the Court will not care for the free-for-all approach of the two circuits, but wouldn't it be great if Trump not only lost but didn't get Gorsuch's vote? How would you like them apples?
5
The Supreme Court is more likely to grant cert when there is a circuit split. The fact that lower courts have agreed makes it far less likely that the Supreme Court will get involved.
2
I hear you re Gorsuch. But "cert denied" would be pretty tasty too.
1
That would be a firecracker. Losing Gorsuch's vote would be nuclear.
1
That’s a novel standard. It would have a chilling effect on all political speech and debate.
1
So you are arguing that Trump's free speech is being violated by the court? Wow.
2
The 90 days has expired. Certainly Trump, who brags daily about promises kept and accomplishing more than any President in such a short time, has had more than enough time to implement his alleged plan of extreme vetting.
Why is he wasting the time and assets in pursuing this?
Why is he wasting the time and assets in pursuing this?
44
For goodness sake -- he can't and doesn't even vet his own highest-level employees.
6
Trump is a joke. And I can't believe that one of the most democratic countries actually voted a dictator/racist to be their president.
48
Most of us can't believe he won either.
Maybe he didn't.
Maybe he didn't.
9
Wonder if Trump has extracted an Oath of Loyalty from Gorsuch.
31
I can't think of any reason why Gorsuch would agree to such a thing even if Trump were inclined to ask it. Even if he were to give such loyalty, what could trump do to enforce it?
Many Supreme Court justices have been expected to be loyal to the presidents who appointed them, and many of them have failed to be loyal in that sense. Supreme Court justices have a duty to use their independent judgement to reach a legal conclusion. Justice Kennedy once referred to the three r's of law school: reasoning, research, rhetoric. And Trump University is not a law school.
Give Gorsuch some time!
Many Supreme Court justices have been expected to be loyal to the presidents who appointed them, and many of them have failed to be loyal in that sense. Supreme Court justices have a duty to use their independent judgement to reach a legal conclusion. Justice Kennedy once referred to the three r's of law school: reasoning, research, rhetoric. And Trump University is not a law school.
Give Gorsuch some time!
1
Well, I think there are probably "expectations" on Trump's part.
3
Repeating what doesn't work is one definition of insanity.
10
After reading the comments to this article i was astounded by the level of delusion ex
2
Hate has not place here and the courts are recognizing this.
8
Trump's on the ropes politically. Impeachment or even conviction for obstruction of justice (for which ignorance of the law is no defense) might not even be necessary to de facto end his presidency. Couldn't happen to a more deserving con man.
25
if we hope our country still operates under rule of law then this is the pathway to 45's demise
After Jeff Sessions testifies and 45 harangues him
out of office the rule of law a k a The Constitution
will put these shameless frauds out to pasture 45 and his GOP enablers
supporting organizations like the ACLU are more important than ever .
After Jeff Sessions testifies and 45 harangues him
out of office the rule of law a k a The Constitution
will put these shameless frauds out to pasture 45 and his GOP enablers
supporting organizations like the ACLU are more important than ever .
10
After reading the original ban, who can vouch for the poorly written, poorly thought out, and poorly executed ban. It was like amateur hour at the White House. It was so obvious that Trump wanted to make sure his businesses in certain countries were not affected. Maybe the people in the White House are not as savvy as they think, or maybe better, Americans can spot a carnival barker while others fall for the scam.
25
When an inexperienced and uninformed candidate for office makes outrageous promises, it should not be unusual for those promises to be unenforceable. That's why it's much better to vote for someone who is not appealing only to voters' baser instincts but to the rule of law.
16
After reading what the NY Times wrote when this whole thing started it's clear that Trump has no idea of what the government does or was doing when it comes to vetting refugees and immigrants who want to settle here. To claim, has he does, that we're letting in dozens of terrorists, is counterproductive and untrue. We've produced our own terrorists. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Remember the Manson Family and how they terrorized LA? What about an organization like the Ku Klux Klan. They terrorized blacks, anyone who was a civil rights activist, Catholic, Jews, etc.
Maybe Trump and his minions should be barred from returning to the United States the next time they travel abroad on the grounds that they are causing terror for the average American. We don't know what's going to happen in this country from one moment to the next with him as president. He is terrifying as is the unquestioning support for him from the GOP.
Maybe Trump and his minions should be barred from returning to the United States the next time they travel abroad on the grounds that they are causing terror for the average American. We don't know what's going to happen in this country from one moment to the next with him as president. He is terrifying as is the unquestioning support for him from the GOP.
63
"We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning"
Never did I think he was actually talking to me (an anti-Trumper) when he uttered these words. Yes, yes actually, I AM winning so much I am SICK and TIRED of it. Here are just SOME instances where I am SICK of winning:
The travel ban
Mike Flynn
Comey
Draining the swamp
Repeal/Replace
The Wall
Qatar
Duterte
Macron
London attack
I am winning this much because we have to constantly fight against a Toddler in Chief. I can now completely understand the term: Ugly Americans. This is not who we are, this is not who I am. I will never give up fighting.
Never did I think he was actually talking to me (an anti-Trumper) when he uttered these words. Yes, yes actually, I AM winning so much I am SICK and TIRED of it. Here are just SOME instances where I am SICK of winning:
The travel ban
Mike Flynn
Comey
Draining the swamp
Repeal/Replace
The Wall
Qatar
Duterte
Macron
London attack
I am winning this much because we have to constantly fight against a Toddler in Chief. I can now completely understand the term: Ugly Americans. This is not who we are, this is not who I am. I will never give up fighting.
59
"This is not who we are"
Are you sure?
Are you sure?
liberal courts have a liberal view of the constitution duh
4
Odd how conservative courts also have a liberal view of the Consitution on this issue. You'd almost think that maybe Trump is just wrong - but nah, that couldn't be it, right?
Every judge is rejecting this travel ban in all it's many flavors.
Every judge is rejecting this travel ban in all it's many flavors.
5
I imagine you would have a more liberal view of the Constitution if it failed to protect you, for whatever reason. As it is, Jim Crow laws and voting tests were struck down by those nasty liberal courts because they achieved the effect of race-based discrimination.
Don't you see the same thing happening here with this ban? There is no evidence that these nationals pose any risk other than the perception that all Muslims are suspect. Seems awfully familiar. Go out and get to know some refugees in-person. See how it goes.
Don't you see the same thing happening here with this ban? There is no evidence that these nationals pose any risk other than the perception that all Muslims are suspect. Seems awfully familiar. Go out and get to know some refugees in-person. See how it goes.
7
Since both appellate courts ruled that Trump's executive order is inconsistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, It is to be hope that the Supreme Court will not grant certiori.
11
In case I wasn't the only dummy reading this comment, I'll save you a trip to Google: "In the US Supreme Court, if four Justices agree to review the case, then the Court grants certiorari" (law.cornell.edu)
Wait for more insults on our judicial system from Trump. He'll complain like the petulant child that he is.
43
He thinks the only proper reaction to his statements is "Yes Sir, Mr. President!"
1
Hey Donnie boy, why isn't Saudi Arabia on your travel ban list since 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? By the way, do you own real estate and business's in Saudi Arabia?
67
I am shocked, shocked, shocked to think anybody would accuse the president of the USA of selling his office!
3
Good one!
2
Saudi Arabia is where the money is.
Hi SCOTUS judges (including Neil Gorsuch) - "You have guaranteed life time employment, you don't owe any special favor to Trump or any one else for that matter, no quid pro quo, .. When the case comes to you, do the right thing and just uphold the Constitution. No place for partisan politics".
17
I, for one, am grateful that Trump and the GOP aren't competent enough to fill the vacancies on our courts, being merely satisfied with creating crippling case loads through inaction. While President Obama did some great things, he and the Democrats who didn't fill all the vacancies while in office have created a vacuum that I hope doesn't get filled until we get a new President.
5
The liberal justices are making it impossible for Trump to do his job by judging these orders not on the words in the orders, but on his campaign comments.
It's as if nothing he could possibly now do would work because they replace the legal justification with their psychic readings.
It's as if nothing he could possibly now do would work because they replace the legal justification with their psychic readings.
2
Think about your statements the next time someone is sentenced to death or to a long term in prison. Judges, prosecutors, juries, and defense attorneys attribute motives to defendants all the time. Sometimes they are correct and sometimes they are wrong. However, with Trump they are not incorrect. He made public statements about his intentions. There is no mistake.
9
You don't have to be a psychic to know Trump's motivation in this case is racism for his base, and not national security.
Maybe you should direct your anger to Trump for being a bigot, or at least speaking like one for his own personal gain.
Maybe you should direct your anger to Trump for being a bigot, or at least speaking like one for his own personal gain.
13
Listening to the words and reading the tweets of the man himself requires no psychic ability whatsoever. You're defending a buffoon.
10
These travel ban rejections by the Judges and Appeals Courts are consistent in their language. It always adds up to the same deep prejudices of Trump, Bannon, Sessions and other Administration officials, both during and subsequent to the campaign. Just recently Trump tweeted. “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”
These words that are tossed about by the Administration about the Muslims and then the Lower Courts unanimously halting these bans on Muslims should without a doubt, give the Supreme Court all the ammunition needed to reject them. Conservative or not, everyone knows what this ban was all about. The Muslim’s were specifically targeted for their religious beliefs and as much of the terrorist activity today is orchestrated from the Mideast, Trump went after them.
Another win for those on the right side of history!
These words that are tossed about by the Administration about the Muslims and then the Lower Courts unanimously halting these bans on Muslims should without a doubt, give the Supreme Court all the ammunition needed to reject them. Conservative or not, everyone knows what this ban was all about. The Muslim’s were specifically targeted for their religious beliefs and as much of the terrorist activity today is orchestrated from the Mideast, Trump went after them.
Another win for those on the right side of history!
7
Three words: Grifter-In-Chief
16
Another liberal panel of judges attempts to use the "establishment clause" to block the President's immigration order. The reality is this is nothing more than a naked attempt by the left leaning judges to impose their opinion, not legal or constitutional fact, on the administration.
There is nothing in the establishment clause which covers citizens of other countries. Nothing in the constitution applies to individuals who are citizens of, and residing in another country attempting to enter the U.S.
All Time's readers should prepare themselves for the SCOTUS to overturn these judicial lightweights using partisan ideology against a duly elected President of the U.S. operating well within his constitutional and legal authority.
There is nothing in the establishment clause which covers citizens of other countries. Nothing in the constitution applies to individuals who are citizens of, and residing in another country attempting to enter the U.S.
All Time's readers should prepare themselves for the SCOTUS to overturn these judicial lightweights using partisan ideology against a duly elected President of the U.S. operating well within his constitutional and legal authority.
30
Cool story, bro. Except, "For reasons further explained below, we need not, and do not, reach the Establishment Clause claim to resolve this appeal."
21
And of course, the Supreme Court will be very unbiased, its latest member having been duly appointed via the McConnell gambit, which unconstitutionally ignored the Senate's duty to consider President Obama's original nominee. Trust in the federal judicial system is at a low point when there are so many biased umpires on both sides.
8
Did Trump promise during the campaign to ban Muslims? Has he repeatedly bragged about how his Administration has rapidly fulfilled his campaign promises? Should judges completely ignore context? Be honest, what do you think is the intent of the ban?
10
thank you to the founding fathers which had the foresight to give the Courts equal power. POTUS and what ever they want has to be checked at all times. By checked it means it has to operate legally within the bounds of the LAW. POTUS does not understand this. oh well. welcome to the ADULT world mr president.
20
Trump portrayed Muslims as those "others" who threaten the "us" of his audiences. He promised to restrict the entry of more of those "others" to his audiences of those "us" who felt that he spoke for them. Being a fairly uninformed man it did not occur to him that his words would make convincing an impartial and intelligent judge that he was not discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs impossible. He should drop the travel ban efforts at once and limit his efforts to improving the efficiencies in the existing processing for vetting newcomers from foreign countries. He should also learn not to say whatever he feels until he has become erudite when it comes to law and government.
12
I am wondering whether the Appeals Court rulings shed any light on how SCOTUS might rule. I need to research whether the question put to SCOTUS is does the President have the right to deny entry to the US of certain people/groups or do the bans discriminate against a particular religion. The Appeals Courts have addressed the latter but not the former. I dislike going into DC but maybe I'll try to get a seat when this case is argued, well, along with the gazillion other people in line for a seat.
1
Here's the problem with legislating by man/child, if he wants to communicate directly with the public through social networks and twitter then every dumb word he tweets is recorded and can be used in a court of law. Language matters. This is why things like being "politically correct" isn't just a matter of respecting others, or being liberal, it's because your words can and will be dug up at a later date.
While Trump was smart enough to dismiss everyone out of the room with the Comey meetings, he's too much of an ego maniac to shut up on social media matters of legislation and policy. Shouting at the TV isn't governing.
While Trump was smart enough to dismiss everyone out of the room with the Comey meetings, he's too much of an ego maniac to shut up on social media matters of legislation and policy. Shouting at the TV isn't governing.
23
The conceit of Trump is that Sharia law and other aspects of Islam would be harmful, when in fact democracy is made better off by a mix of cultural norms and standards.
True, some practices may take getting used to, particularly in terms of gender issues, but human evolution depends upon acceptance of new and challenging ideas, and the breaking of taboos.
True, some practices may take getting used to, particularly in terms of gender issues, but human evolution depends upon acceptance of new and challenging ideas, and the breaking of taboos.
1
your choice by Chump
sharia law
or
law by dictator
i'll take the Constitution above them all please
sharia law
or
law by dictator
i'll take the Constitution above them all please
2
Another set of Judges that need to be tried for Treason for violating the Constitution and issuing a court order under color of law. No sovereign immunity there!
2
How would the decision by the appellate justices be considered treason?
6
The Constitution means you don't always get your way, don't get to decide to discriminate and threaten judges in order to force it through.
7
Welcome to "As the Authoritarian Plutocrat Turns," starring America's favorite vile champagne swilling capitalists.
A recap;
Last week was St. Comey's Day in congress. Yesterday, Trump was sued by DC and Maryland alleging breach of constitutional oath. Also, he may not get an invitation to visit the UK. Today, the travel ban ruling goes down to defeat again. There are reports that the Senate is near revolt level on the reworking of Obamacare.
and tomorrow: Jeff Sessions.
A recap;
Last week was St. Comey's Day in congress. Yesterday, Trump was sued by DC and Maryland alleging breach of constitutional oath. Also, he may not get an invitation to visit the UK. Today, the travel ban ruling goes down to defeat again. There are reports that the Senate is near revolt level on the reworking of Obamacare.
and tomorrow: Jeff Sessions.
16
keep bringing it on
some will stick
more will stick
then legally 45 will be sunk as useless an appendage on the American Psyche as his game show charade
some will stick
more will stick
then legally 45 will be sunk as useless an appendage on the American Psyche as his game show charade
4
Trump can no longer claim the judicial rejection of his Muslim ban is a liberal thing. Richmond is a generally conservative court.
13
Travel ban seems Constitutional to me. I don't care if its not *fair* to some Middle East family. I want my country safer. If the liberal globalists have their way, we will have European style and frequency attacks here. Bunch of Trump hater judges issuing political opinions if you ask me.
24
I am curious to know if you are a lawyer. The Constitution does not permit discrimination based on religion, regardless of whether you think it is a good policy decision.
16
Sadly, no one did.
5
Nevermind that the "European style" attacks have virtually all been carried out by people born in the country they attacked. That would hurt your narrative.
22
The only benefit to SCOTUS hearing arguments about the ban would be so that it could be put to rest once and for all.
4
Even though "more limited and subject to case-by-case exceptions... It also deleted explicit references to religion," the Constitution can't be winked at, language cannot be separated from the would-be law's embarrassingly clear objective.
So far.
So far.
6
Trump helped by tweeting mere days ago to confirm that the new travel ban is merely a whitewash, with the exact same intent, of the original travel ban.
1
So, whether this country remains a beacon to immigrants from Muslim countries will depend on the opinion of a man from Colorado, Justice Gorsuch.
It wouldn't surprise me to see it go down 7 or 8 to 1, or even 9-0, in the Supreme Court. Conservative or liberal judges - no one is finding this Constitutional.
1
This "Travel Ban", as Trump himself has called it, is milk spoiled by racism and religious bigotry. It doesn't matter how many times a court takes it out of the fridge and smells it, it's going to still be spoiled.
7
Well, our new and improved imperial president who called the previous President "imperial" is proven again that he cannot rule by decree.
One more bombastic promise that may not be kept. Sad-for his supporters.
One more bombastic promise that may not be kept. Sad-for his supporters.
7
The rest of us have only two choices when a court rules against us: 1) suck it up; 2) appeal to a higher court. The administration has "sought a review" by the Supreme Court? What does that even mean? George Orwell is turning over in his grave.
1
It's been more than 120 days since the original travel ban issued. I would be interested in knowing the status of the administration's review of vetting procedures; or, at least, I would like to hear what its rationale is for not proceeding with this important review that will permit it to better protect the American people from the terrorist threat.
3
How can the Administration vet people from Muslim countries. Wouldn't that be religious profiling and thus illegal? No we must righteously pretend that that there are just as many people from Switzerland and Japan screaming Allah u Akbar and going on stabbing/shooting/bombing sprees as there are from Somalia and Libya.
To do otherwise would apparently be unAmerican. And we wouldn't want that.
To do otherwise would apparently be unAmerican. And we wouldn't want that.
Fantastic!! Let's hope that SCOTUS will see the insanity of this politically illiterate, so-called "president" and uphold the decisions of the lower courts.
7
Here's a question (that maybe SCOTUS will consider, if they consider it at all given the level of lower court denials).
Why hasn't the administration done anything on improving or tightening the vetting process for immigrants in the first place? I mean, that was the "reasoning" behind the bans in the first place - give us time to do a better job of vetting immigrants.
Unless I've missed it, the administration or Congress has done NOTHING since the first travel ban was issued on Jan 27th. I believe they wanted 90 days to review and propose changes in vetting. So why has nothing been done in the meantime, except for nasty judicial-bashing tweets from the Commander in Tweet?
Given the today's growing rejections of even the second ban, added to the fact that nothing has been done to address the underlying problem (even under current law, it can take 90 days to propose, defend, and implement updated vetting procedures, none of which has even started) - fuel is added to the fire that these bans are no more than religious tests, and so prohibited under the first amendment.
Who does Tump think he is fooling? SCOTUS? Regardless of the rightward-tilt of the current court, what possible grounds would they have to approve the ban, much less even hear arguments?
Look I don't want any more terrorists in our country. I just think time and money would be better spent to improve existing methods to find terrorists already here.
Why hasn't the administration done anything on improving or tightening the vetting process for immigrants in the first place? I mean, that was the "reasoning" behind the bans in the first place - give us time to do a better job of vetting immigrants.
Unless I've missed it, the administration or Congress has done NOTHING since the first travel ban was issued on Jan 27th. I believe they wanted 90 days to review and propose changes in vetting. So why has nothing been done in the meantime, except for nasty judicial-bashing tweets from the Commander in Tweet?
Given the today's growing rejections of even the second ban, added to the fact that nothing has been done to address the underlying problem (even under current law, it can take 90 days to propose, defend, and implement updated vetting procedures, none of which has even started) - fuel is added to the fire that these bans are no more than religious tests, and so prohibited under the first amendment.
Who does Tump think he is fooling? SCOTUS? Regardless of the rightward-tilt of the current court, what possible grounds would they have to approve the ban, much less even hear arguments?
Look I don't want any more terrorists in our country. I just think time and money would be better spent to improve existing methods to find terrorists already here.
421
Add to that the lack of the Administration's willingness to appoint people for a long list of government service positions, including a director of FEMA, an agency that would be relied upon if a larger-scale domestic terrorist attack were to occur.
4
I think you missed the fact most of the acts of "terrorism" these last 90 days in the U. S. have been committed by U. S. citizens.
4
"So why has nothing been done in the meantime, except for nasty judicial-bashing tweets from the Commander in Tweet?"
Because that is all Trump is capable of doing. He never had any intention of "improving or tightening the vetting process for immigrants". He doesn't know how to do anything that requires constructive thinking, a positive attitude or rational thought. If the goal can't be achieved by launching a nasty tweet storm Trump has no idea where to begin.
Because that is all Trump is capable of doing. He never had any intention of "improving or tightening the vetting process for immigrants". He doesn't know how to do anything that requires constructive thinking, a positive attitude or rational thought. If the goal can't be achieved by launching a nasty tweet storm Trump has no idea where to begin.
Maybe the Donald should take up shirtless horseback riding.
15
No images please, we beg you.
10
That's an image I really didn't want to have in my mind!
9
Please no. My eyes couldn't stand the orange-tinted glare from this side of the pond.
6
What Trump really meant to say was, "There will be so much whining, you'll be tired of whining!"
17
Thank all the gods that these favorable courts understand and protect our democratic values that we are in such peril of losing with Trump. And thank those same gods again for the New York Times and all the other tireless, courageous press that continues to work 25 hours a day to make Trump's covert actions transparent. Never have we had to be as vigilant for our rights and our compassion as today. We can't let up for a second.
12
Trump originally said the ban was only for 90 days to upgrade vetting process; OK, more than 90 days have passed since then so he has had ample time to put in place stricter vetting.
16
didnt you read the article. judge watson banned the administration from reviewing the vetting process while the case was ongoing.
Trump's bad week already starting, no Muslim ban still, with Sessions testifying under oath tomorrow. Probably better if he just sticks to golfing and relaxing at Mar-a-Lago 24/7 instead of just taking his usual 3 day weekend at the taxpayer's expense.
9
Now would be the perfect time for SCOTUS to decline to hear the case...
10
Most people, when faced with serial rejection of this magnitude, would take a step back to try and figure out the underlying cause. Not Donald Trump though. As many beauty pageant contestants can tell you, he doesn't know the meaning of the word "no."
19
A bad day for Trump is a good day for America. This defines "winning."
51
Fellow Times readers, it's a little premature to gloat. The Supremes still need to weigh in. Although it's unlikely that they will overturn 2 appeals courts, it's still a possibility.
5
My worse fear is that some idiot ISIS convert will do something stupid, however small in magnitude, and it will give Bannon all ammo he needs to fire up Trump, who in turn will fire up his base.
An even deeper and more dangerous divide between the Reds and the Blues will follow.
British voters woke up ... will the US voters follow suit? I am deeply skeptical.
An even deeper and more dangerous divide between the Reds and the Blues will follow.
British voters woke up ... will the US voters follow suit? I am deeply skeptical.
7
Speaking from London, the failure to prevent the knife-wielders only added to Mrs May's woes. They were also home grown.
3
I met up with a London friend last night.
No politician could have or would have survived 2-3 of these attacks in the weeks before a general election.
No politician could have or would have survived 2-3 of these attacks in the weeks before a general election.
If Mr. Trump were truly interested in protecting the country, he should have banned travel from Saudi Arabia.
After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001, were from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is the source of much of the funds for the hatred towards "Infidels" taught by their Madrasas around the world.
After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001, were from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is the source of much of the funds for the hatred towards "Infidels" taught by their Madrasas around the world.
465
Fake yellow ribbon.
1
That's what I don't get. If we are truly going to have a travel ban against people from countries that promote terrorism, why does SAUDI ARABIA, of all places, get excluded?? We know, for a fact, that most of the 9/11 bombers came from there.
The order, as written, makes no sense! I'm not even against the general principles of it, because our own national interests should be paramount with all immigration, but logically, Saudi Arabia should have been at the top of the list of banned countries.
The order, as written, makes no sense! I'm not even against the general principles of it, because our own national interests should be paramount with all immigration, but logically, Saudi Arabia should have been at the top of the list of banned countries.
2
That was intended as satire, but okay.
1
This is extremely heartening to see our Appeals Courts protecting us from the racist and unconstitutional deeds of Donald Trump. America will continue to be great, as long as these hateful and transparently bigoted thoughts are not allowed to stand.
307
I'd like to see a racist and hateful ban on the Saudis. Everything else is just theater. If we hit the Saudi royals where it hurts, like Obama was doing with low low oil prices, we might be able to get some change in their export of terror ideology.
I assume you will still call Trump and his supporters racist when Americans are a small minority and the islamic terrorist attacks becomes part and parcel of our yet spared big cities and the no-go zones becomes the norm. "No reason to be alarmed"
How nice the emperor hasn't found a way to bully the judiciary into getting behind him - yet. He is a bully who embraces the right to free speech even when promoting hatred and exclusion. Yet, it seems pretty clear his camp has succeeded in ruining Kathy Griffin and Reza Aslan's careers with CNN simply for verbalizing what many people feel. There is also the significant damage to the NY Public Theatre whose funding was pulled by Delta Airlines and Bank of America due to artists in a play freely exposing the negative traits he plainly has. Looks a lot like bullying to me, and financial control is as powerful as it gets - picture him calling his homeboys and telling them to end all ties with whomever he is negatively depicted by on any given day, and then that actually happening. This is a man who has powerful friends that do whatever he wants so they can all stay that way. We need some real leaders to get his tax returns and reveal where all the financial strings really end. Thank god for the court. May true justice always prevail over the bullies and really make America great again.
11
In the mean time...no statement of condolence from Trump on the 1 year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub massacre. He's more worried about his unconstitutional and down right diabolical travel ban and of course...what his "BASE" might think if he made such a statement. He is pathetic and vapid, utterly lacking of basic human decency and his kids are just as craven. May the tyrants fall....starting with Sessions.
9
While Trump has officially recognized June as such things that :Black Music Month, "Gay Pride month" was not on his list to things to recognize in June.
4
I wonder if the President will call Judge Gorsuch and remind him that he not only nominated him for his current position but also that he needs "loyalty."
64
I agree. He may also be getting a dinner invitation to the White House soon.
Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton were invited to dinner last week the night before the Comey hearing.
Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton were invited to dinner last week the night before the Comey hearing.
3
It's going to be hard for SCOTUS to rule in Trump's favor as the Appeal Courts return identical verdicts. So far I don't see any "controversy" among the lower courts on which SCOTUS could hang its hat.
16
You've got it all wrong. While the Supreme Court often takes a case because there is a conflict among the lower courts on an issue, it is not precluded from taking a case without a conflict, and it frequently does so. Additionally, the two circuit court decisions are in in conflict; while reaching approximately the same ultimate result; they base their decisions on entirely different legal grounds.
Thank you VA, Hawaii and CA for not normalizing bigotry.
24
I think by now almost everybody with a small amount of brains can see that this man is a phony and a charlatan, with no idea or business being President. Laughing stock of America for all times will be what history records about him.
31
"Those willing to give up precious liberties for a little temporary security will soon find they have neither."
Trump plays on racism, ignorance and fear to push Bannon's ideological agenda, positioning it as a way to make us "secure."
What would be the next characteristic that would be targeted for the cause of "improving our security?" It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with those types who are committing the largest number of mass killings in the US - White Christian men. Instead, maybe we'll target anti-Trump protesters, or people who write like I am n..........
Trump plays on racism, ignorance and fear to push Bannon's ideological agenda, positioning it as a way to make us "secure."
What would be the next characteristic that would be targeted for the cause of "improving our security?" It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with those types who are committing the largest number of mass killings in the US - White Christian men. Instead, maybe we'll target anti-Trump protesters, or people who write like I am n..........
8
“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion,” . . . that wants us dead.
By all means, go right ahead. I'm glad these judges are on our side.
By all means, go right ahead. I'm glad these judges are on our side.
Let's see what the Supreme Court have to say. They are elected to uphold the laws but they are very crafty and partisan oriented. Nonetheless no one should discriminate on the basis of Religion. These 5 Justices should should respect the constitution and agree with the lower courts.
Emoluments law suits are also brewing against Trump. The clouds above his head are getting much darker.
Emoluments law suits are also brewing against Trump. The clouds above his head are getting much darker.
182
Gorsuch has a job to do on the Supreme Court. Pure and simple.
Um, the Supreme Court is not elected.
3
The Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected; which may account for the political framework that each influences each respective justice.
Apparently tweets are able to be submitted as evidence for decisions contested in court regarding trumps OEs.
Donald Trump made no secret regarding his intentions: this OE, both the first and the second, is designed to be a Muslim ban pure and simple, and designed to be totally inconsistent in application.
Even Trump called it a ban! And why he didn't include Saudi Arabia, a known sponsor of terrorism with whom he is suddenly buddy buddy, smacks of an inconsistency that simply tells the American people he threw names into a hat and picked out some names of Arab countries he has no relationships with, business wise or foreign policy wise.
The other aspect of this ban is the fact that there has never been a terrorist incident in the United States from anyone coming from the countries cited.
The ban is bigoted, inconsistent. And shortsighted.
And now after numerous courts have ruled, apparently also unconstitutional.
Donald Trump made no secret regarding his intentions: this OE, both the first and the second, is designed to be a Muslim ban pure and simple, and designed to be totally inconsistent in application.
Even Trump called it a ban! And why he didn't include Saudi Arabia, a known sponsor of terrorism with whom he is suddenly buddy buddy, smacks of an inconsistency that simply tells the American people he threw names into a hat and picked out some names of Arab countries he has no relationships with, business wise or foreign policy wise.
The other aspect of this ban is the fact that there has never been a terrorist incident in the United States from anyone coming from the countries cited.
The ban is bigoted, inconsistent. And shortsighted.
And now after numerous courts have ruled, apparently also unconstitutional.
13
When will he realize that he has lost all appeal?
5
Only when the Enfant Terrible has destroyed everything....that's the 'nature of the person'...and the deplorable nature of the infants who voted for the Derriere-In-Chief.
7
The DIC?
5
Why can't Trump fire all those pesky judges?
1
Recently Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE cut off travel from Qatar as well as diplomatic ties, stating that Qatar sponsors terrorism. Is that racialist?
3
They're motivated by tribal hatred vs racial hatred.
But yes. Those 4 countries that cut ties are of a different Arab tribe than are the tribes of Qatar.
But yes. Those 4 countries that cut ties are of a different Arab tribe than are the tribes of Qatar.
Mr. Trump's tweets and verbal comments for the past year will be his undoing.
If the Supreme Court decides to review his appeal, Mr. Trump may be disappointed that Judge Gorsuch did not side with him and actually upheld the US Constitution.
If the Supreme Court decides to review his appeal, Mr. Trump may be disappointed that Judge Gorsuch did not side with him and actually upheld the US Constitution.
4
Guided by the Constitution and the law, our judicial system continues to Thump Trump.
8
Stumped Again! Oh those so-called judges.
12
So much winning!
24
He is so much worse than I even assumed at first.
9
So much winning! Like he said would happen, he's winning so much I'm getting sick of it.
I'm not a lawyer but it does seem odd to me that our courts are ruling on constitutional rights for foreigners. Doesn't the constitution apply to US nationals? Even David Frum, a vocal critic of Trump, has said any other president would have been allowed to implement such a ban. Invoking the establishment of religion seems like a stretch; what religion is being established? Literally all the others as well as none? Well it's already clear that many people oppose borders on principle and if Trump said he likes vanilla ice cream would swear it's white supremacist so, there's no arguing the details in that case.
The citation to the dissent in Korematsu v. U.S. was a nice touch as a reminder of the stain government-sponsored national origin discrimination has left on our country's history.
20
AJ,
Exactly. Thank you for pointing this out.
Exactly. Thank you for pointing this out.
1
The people impacted by Korematsu were citizens. Surely you are not arguing that the US should have continued immigration from Germany and Japan during WW2?
Apples and oranges. People who are neither resident in the US nor US citizens should not be protected by the US constitution-certainly not by any equal protection clause. This is a pretty slippery slope. Most of the countries that the US is currently bombing are also primarily Muslim. Should a Somali resident be able to sue in US court to prevent US attacks on his homeland?
Why or why not? If the argument is that said Somali can't be prevented from entering the US b/c of a travel ban which has disparate impact on Muslims then surely he would have a case that bombing primarily Muslim countries is just as unfair as preventing entry.
Apples and oranges. People who are neither resident in the US nor US citizens should not be protected by the US constitution-certainly not by any equal protection clause. This is a pretty slippery slope. Most of the countries that the US is currently bombing are also primarily Muslim. Should a Somali resident be able to sue in US court to prevent US attacks on his homeland?
Why or why not? If the argument is that said Somali can't be prevented from entering the US b/c of a travel ban which has disparate impact on Muslims then surely he would have a case that bombing primarily Muslim countries is just as unfair as preventing entry.
Liberal goof ball judges from the 9th circuit, when the USSC gets the case justice will prevail
2
USSC overturns, what 80% of 9th circuit decisions?
But they only rehear about .01% of 9th circuit cases.
But they only rehear about .01% of 9th circuit cases.
1
The USSC will rule the same, if they even will take the case. They might say...how many judges and courts have to say the same thing...this case is nonsense and not worth entertaining. Judgement of the lower courts will stand.
4
Well, you seem very certain - do you know something about the U.S. Supreme Court and the thought processes of its legal minds that the rest of us don't? And while we're on the subject, there are actually a couple of "liberal goof ball" justices on the Court. It's not entirely conservative. Also, the Supreme Court isn't the magic answer to the problems Trump's travel ban is facing: those justices aren't automatically going to clear the way for Trump because he happens to sit in the Oval Office and he slimed his way to the door of the highest court in the land. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, is nobody's fool, and I highly doubt that she'd be at all afraid of Trump's bluster and roar if she didn't rule in his favor.
I'd like to know how any court in this land upholding a ban that bars Muslims from the country on the sole basis of the fact that they're Muslims - which, when you dig down under all the nitty-gritty legalese and Trump sleaze, is exactly what this travel ban proposes - is justice prevailing. Bigotry and intolerance dressed up as justice isn't justice - it's still plain old ugly bigotry and intolerance, and nothing will ever change that.
I'd like to know how any court in this land upholding a ban that bars Muslims from the country on the sole basis of the fact that they're Muslims - which, when you dig down under all the nitty-gritty legalese and Trump sleaze, is exactly what this travel ban proposes - is justice prevailing. Bigotry and intolerance dressed up as justice isn't justice - it's still plain old ugly bigotry and intolerance, and nothing will ever change that.
2
Interesting. It's almost as if rejection after rejection after rejection of the travel ban means that it's Constitutionally illegal. I wonder if Trump will ever see that laws based on bigotry won't be tolerated.
25
The Trump administration has falsely argued that prior statements and arguments made by candidate Trump are irrelevant to evaluating the intent of policies advanced by the same person as President. In arguing such nonsense, the Solicitor General stretches beyond legalistic parsing and undermines the credibility of that office.
Now two federal Circuits have rebuffed a lame attempt to censor history in pursuit of religious intolerance. Their rulings speak clearly and plainly.
The Supreme Court should heed these appellate decisions and deny the Administration's appeal.
Were the Supreme court to overturn the Appellate rulings, it would embrace the hollowness of "alternative facts" and abandon its authority for "alternative justice" under an "alternative Constitution."
Now two federal Circuits have rebuffed a lame attempt to censor history in pursuit of religious intolerance. Their rulings speak clearly and plainly.
The Supreme Court should heed these appellate decisions and deny the Administration's appeal.
Were the Supreme court to overturn the Appellate rulings, it would embrace the hollowness of "alternative facts" and abandon its authority for "alternative justice" under an "alternative Constitution."
17
Well, we have settled in to a nice routine by now, haven't we? I'm no historian, but trump seems like the most un-productive president in history. It's becoming apparent that the Muslim bond is like everything else; poorly conceived and more of an idea than an actual plan. I've stopped caring what his "supporters" say - he is totally unfit to be president.
37
See my running down the street in Edvard Munch's "The Scream". How much more of this clown can we take?
16
Agree, but its not just the clown, its his rabid, closeminded supporters. What can we do to open theim to reason? OMG
Tom
Tom
4
I've been screaming since November 8, 2016.
NOT my president
NOT my president
4
I would love to see your politically biased opinion if you are ever unfortunate enough to be a victim of one of these terrorist attacks.
3
Because "you should die/get hurt" is such a great argument. *eyeroll*
3
most terrorists attacks have been carried out by native-born U.S. citizens, and the majority of them happen to be WHITE (and Christian)!
I would love to see a right winger who worries half as much about gun violence perpetrated by white U.S. born citizens as he does about the minute possibility of a terrorist attack.
9
Wasn't this supposed to be heard at the 9th Circuit Court in Seattle, not San Francisco? I found it odd that it was being heard in Seattle (as SF normally does Hawaii cases) but the court said at the time that it was a merged case which caused it to be heard by Seattle. So was it really San Francisco that heard this case? I suspect the author of the story made a mistake.
I watched the live stream hearing which took place in Seattle. The first case filed was in Seattle. The Seattle district court had the case first and after the second try at the ban, it was filed there again.
2
If only we could privatize the courts and fold them into the Trump Organization ... (Joke)
3
Trump's attempt to ram through, via Executive Order, an unConstitutional ban based on religion has met nothing but failure when tested by the courts. As noted in the rulings, his own words and rhetoric are very meaningful -- trumpeting how he would "protect" America by banning members of one religion from entry. The Supreme Court ruling will have to account for the same issues as the lower courts, namely that context and campaign shouting have meaning here. I look forward to the total rebuttal of this horrific attempt to subvert justice when SCOTUS hears the case.
7
I am glad that the 'checks and balances' system that the United States constitution has in place works so wonderfully well to effectively put a stop on anti-immigrant and other illegal or anti-constitutional policies and programs this administration is trying to put in place. Every affected individual or group can rest assured that ultimately the courts will protect them.
5
So far.
What loyalty oath might the latest member of scotus have made?
What loyalty oath might the latest member of scotus have made?
2
We wouldn't know unless POTUS takes to Twitter to attack his SCOTUS pick and in return the SCOTUS pick decides to 'leak' any memos he may have written, considering the 'nature of the' POTUS :-)
1
9th circuit....most liberal...most overturned....so no surprise really.
2
That is one of those myths that just will not die. The Ninth is not the most overturned if you go by the percentage. The Ninth decided far more cases than any other court. Also, consider that the SC only takes up cases that it is likely to overturn or partially overturn or settle opinions reached differently by different circuits. In recent years, two other circuits have had more cases overturned than the Ninth.
http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/
http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/
Not the most overturned, if you look at the facts. Yes, liberal, but I believe they are 3rd or 4th in rankiings of overturned cases, out of only 9, so...
1
I'm confused. The original Jan 27 travel ban was intended to last ninety days so an "extreme vetting" process could be put in place. That would have brought us to April 27. Since that date is well passed shouldn't these cases be moot. If the administration has done nothing then it would demonstrate that the ban was just what its detractors have said it is: racist window dressing to appease "the base".
48
This is Donald's " worldview": He's still 7 years old. And, the only people that look up to 7 yr olds, are 5 and 6 yr olds. Not a problem with his
" uneducated" fans. But, for everyone else, not so much.
" uneducated" fans. But, for everyone else, not so much.
11
Will the Supreme court bow down to Donald when the cases start arriving?
(Heaves a heavy sigh.)
(Heaves a heavy sigh.)
4
YES! The judiciary system does still work.
6
His travel ban is a Muslim Ban.
His health plan is a tax break for the uber rich.
His environmental plan is blowing up the Paris accord.
Trump is a fake president. Who won with a fake vote an lost the popular vote by a 3,000,000 popular margin.
His health plan is a tax break for the uber rich.
His environmental plan is blowing up the Paris accord.
Trump is a fake president. Who won with a fake vote an lost the popular vote by a 3,000,000 popular margin.
18
Isn't the Electoral College in the same Constitution the Ninny Circuit cited in this opinion?
Donald Trump's Make Christian Hate Great Again campaign has been ruled unconstitutional once again.
As Khizr Khan said to America's Derriere-In-Chief:
"Let me ask you: Have you even read the US Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy."
The Presidential Ignoramus Fails Again.
As Khizr Khan said to America's Derriere-In-Chief:
"Let me ask you: Have you even read the US Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy."
The Presidential Ignoramus Fails Again.
345
The king of tweet just can't keep fooling all the people all the time. So much winning must be tiring. Soon he may retire to Mar-a-Loco and give us a break.
21
No surprise here. So now what will The Donald focus on....maybe the US/Mexico wall...which will be another non-starter.
13
@Kmm, wasn't the Wall supposed to be built on Day One?
I'd visit it if I could find it.
I'd visit it if I could find it.
I'm tired of all this winning.
24
Since most the 9-11 terrorists where from Saudi Arabia, we should ban most Saudi Arabians (except diplomats) from entering the U.S.
And since the Russian government is actively attempting to hack our elections, we should ban most Russians (except diplomats) from entering the US.
And since the Russian government is actively attempting to hack our elections, we should ban most Russians (except diplomats) from entering the US.
25
Trump and the Republicans are going to call no fair on you for using logic.
2
Trump is trying to protect us and is doing his job. Read the executive order. It's not about discrimination.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-p...
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-p...
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
3
So why then did the ban not include Saudi Arabia?
Hypocrite much?
Hypocrite much?
8
Trump begs to differ, publicly, frequently, in very short sentences.
2
If he was interested in protecting us he would be protecting us from the type of the terrorists who have already attacked us: home grown and those from Saudi Arabia.
Trump said he wanted “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”...until the government could get a handle on things in December 2015. However reasonable you believe that is it is about discrimination. But then again the court said a "reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context" would see this. A higher bar every day.
Trump said he wanted “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”...until the government could get a handle on things in December 2015. However reasonable you believe that is it is about discrimination. But then again the court said a "reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context" would see this. A higher bar every day.
4
The Federal Courts are our backbone against Trump's jingoism. I must admit that my appreciation for our Federal court system has never been in a higher place. Now all we have to do is get our pissant Congress to stand up for our National values the way the Courts are.
14
Trouble is we've effectively got two nations - or one nation split between two nearly equally sized and politically diametrically opposed groups of citizens.
1
Problem for you, maybe, but not for the courts.
Because we still only have one Constitution.
Because we still only have one Constitution.
3
Make it stop, please. I can't take winning anymore. The idiot so called President - biggest serial loser of all time, so sad. He's bad. So bad. It's sad.
21
Let's face it, this travel ban is meshugaas.
8
SCOTUS' well-established role in judicial review of laws passed by Congress relies substantially on "legislative intent." The proposed travel ban involves not legislation but an executive order in which the Trump Administration's stated reasons for the ban have been called into question as bring unconstitutional. Has this happened before, or are the lower federal appeals courts establishing a predecent with broad implications for executive power?
I see the Circuit Courts of Appeals as sending a message that the President cannot use his Executive Order privilege to skirt either the rule of law, the Constitution, or both. It is this essential message within the rulings that SCOTUS needs to strengthen by affirming the Circuit Court rulings. While there may have been other Executive Orders challenged in the courts since then, I know of only one Executive Order to be ruled on by SCOTUS. That was EO 9906 that established the Japanese-American relocation camps during WWII.
At least some of the checks and balances in our system of government are working to respect the Constitution and maintain our democracy. If only the federal appeals courts in our country had responsibility for ruling on all of the other egregious actions of this corrupt administration. It's certainly not going to happen in the Republican-controlled House or Senate.
9
Trump needs to get the message. This is not legal. He needs to do some productive governing, not this stubborn broken record of a travel ban. Leadership adapts, but Trump is not capable. He claims to be a deal-maker; I don't see that at all. His myopic narrow vision ties his hands while he clamors out of pride for "winning" rather than what is legal, proper, fair and just.
12
how soon before chief twit demands loyalty pledges from judges -- like he did at that horrifying white house fealty meeting of cabinet members. i don't think i've ever see a table of cabinet members introduce themselves and then declare their honor at serving chief twit like what happened earlier today.
7
Unbelievable! Court is stepping into the National Security. Bad, really bad.
Unbelievable! Courts defending the Constitution of the United States from those who would tear it down in the name of security. We are not secure if our governing document is discarded for a show of force.
The President is still constrained, in theory at least, by the constitution. Just because the President decrees a thing doesn't make it legal. Despite what Nixon and Trump thought.
4
So, is this all the WINNING we were gonna get tired of...actually, more acurately it's all your WINING that's tiring me? LOL.
3
Those terrorists who were "pouring in" and the officials who Trump claims told him not to wait to implement the initial travel ban because terrorists were entering the country to beat the deadline must now be waiting on a final ruling by the Supreme Court to see if they can enter the US legally--since we have seen no sign in the US of their menace and peril--in fact, the last attacks have been homegrown, be they white supremacists or Muslim extremists. It's nice to know some bad guys are following the law and giving the courts a chance for blame before they attack. Trump insists on shifting the threat matrix from insiders and residents, ignoring the rising number of white supremacist killings, to focus on temporary travelers with visas. Again, fantasy replaces reality. Or maybe not: white supremacists are a part of his core constituency; in South Carolina, several groups made robo-calls for him and openly endorsed his candidacy. Along with being racist (yes, you can be racists and have black friends--you simply defer any defense of attacks on their security and freedom), are their votes why Trump doesn't acknowledge or speak out against the widening and rapidly growing circle of threats and violence involving race and religion here at home?
11
Trump's "Travel Ban" is the new "Repeal Obamacare." Something that continues to rear its head and continues to never happen. Let's hope.
13
Another kick in the pants to someone who truly deserves it. The utter contempt for the rule of law shown by this (silent-p)Resident of the White House goes beyond anything we've experienced.
Please, justices of the Supreme Court, continue to uphold the Constitution and don't be swayed by the petty man impersonating a commander in chief.
Please, justices of the Supreme Court, continue to uphold the Constitution and don't be swayed by the petty man impersonating a commander in chief.
52
Well now, Trump is batting .000 on his original and revised Muslim ban executive orders. (Just like he is in governing our country and doing anything legislatively. He spouts off that he has passed 36 'bills' - no honey! - 36 'executive orders' which are not bills that can only be passed by Congress and the Senate.)
Counting his defeats in state and federal courts along with appeal courts - he is about 0 for 10.
Now we will see what the conservative majority SCOTUS will decide.
Hopefully they will decide not to hear it based on strong rebukes/decisions in 2 major federal district appeal courts.
After that we can start calling him "Wiffy" since he never makes contact and keeps striking out.
Counting his defeats in state and federal courts along with appeal courts - he is about 0 for 10.
Now we will see what the conservative majority SCOTUS will decide.
Hopefully they will decide not to hear it based on strong rebukes/decisions in 2 major federal district appeal courts.
After that we can start calling him "Wiffy" since he never makes contact and keeps striking out.
17
A president can't even protect the Country anymore.
6
From what?
At this point if he wants to protect the country his best option is to resign.
Protecting the country includes building relationships and alliances, working together when possible.
It does not include lumping together all those of one ethnicity or religious group.
Protecting our country also is made easier when we support others in various ways such as food aid rather than weapons.
It does not include lumping together all those of one ethnicity or religious group.
Protecting our country also is made easier when we support others in various ways such as food aid rather than weapons.
13
Like so much of the "Potemkin-Village President's" agenda this travel ban (that's not a travel ban, unless it is a travel ban) was merely a show to satisfy the rubes that voted Trump in. When a reporter asked a Trump administration mouth-piece what the Administration had been doing with regards to vetting and evaluating people travelling from these countries - ostensibly the ban was to provide a 90 day hiatus to figure out, "what the hell is going on." The Trump talking head was unable to answer - because there was no plan in place - there never was one.
70
"The appeals court said Judge Watson had erred in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward."
SCOTUS will refuse to hear this case because of the staggering, unanimous precedence of rulings in the lower courts.
And no, Donny, you can't fire the SCOTUS judges.
And no, Donny, you can't fire the SCOTUS judges.
71
Doesn't have to fire them. He just appointed one, and if Kennedy retires or Ginsberg retires over illness, he can re-do the whole process again.
Jen, the lower courts don't establish "precedent" for the SCOTUS. It's the other way around...
Since there's been so little controversy among the appeals courts rejecting the travel ban, the Supreme Court should decline to hear the case.
46
Letter to Trump... Mr. President, you've done what you can to secure our Nation...Our courts turned you down...so...keep doing what you are doing and if the terrible happens, you can blame the courts and take the necessary actions afterwards...what I call REACT (typical of our government and courts). Keep up the good work... it seems like the minority are going to continue to fight you with all the nonsense... good luck
2
He's done nothing. He wasn't elect d to try, he was elected because he supposed makes great deals. He's useless.
1
If you recall, which it seems you don't, he's been blaming the courts since day one for the failure of something that he has stupidly brought about. Why not put the blame squarely where it belongs on your pig headed president? Keep up the good pork!
3
It isn't a matter of whether the ban is a good thing or a bad thing. It's simply unconstitutional. If you want to lay blame on whatever might happen in the future, perhaps it should be on law enforcement and Homeland Security. And perhaps the Founding Fathers as well.
Don't you think that if there was a terror cell in this country bent on harming us they would have been here already by now? This ban does nothing to keep us safe, and it impedes the flow of legitimate talent into our country to produce growth and jobs.
Don't you think that if there was a terror cell in this country bent on harming us they would have been here already by now? This ban does nothing to keep us safe, and it impedes the flow of legitimate talent into our country to produce growth and jobs.
4
Anther deserved setback to the Trump craziness.
Lost in all of these is the fact that when Trump and his goons first issued the executive order, and Trump signed it with much fanfare, he said that it was important to have this ban since it was in the interest of our country's security. He added that it was critical to stop the incessant flow of Muslims and immigrants who only want to commit crimes once they are in here. Without the ban, he opined that we would have imminent danger.
Lo and behold, we have had more danger spewing from the WH and DJT than from Muslims or immigrants. In of itself, that negates every single rationale for this ban.
Lost in all of these is the fact that when Trump and his goons first issued the executive order, and Trump signed it with much fanfare, he said that it was important to have this ban since it was in the interest of our country's security. He added that it was critical to stop the incessant flow of Muslims and immigrants who only want to commit crimes once they are in here. Without the ban, he opined that we would have imminent danger.
Lo and behold, we have had more danger spewing from the WH and DJT than from Muslims or immigrants. In of itself, that negates every single rationale for this ban.
35
It is all about Ego, Trump's Ego, the rest of us do not matter....
15
What a shocker. More Liberal activism in lieu of jurisprudence from the ninth circus..Soon to be overturned
6
The Constitution is the Constitution. Complain all you want about Liberals. The Founding Fathers were Liberals in their day. This will never reach the Supreme Court.
36
Liberal Activism or
Humane and Compassionate Activism?
Humane and Compassionate Activism?
19
so why hasn't Trump used the past 90 days to actually increased the vetting (which he could have), as that was the supposed purpose of this ban? The fact that he has not made any attempt shows that the ban is pure conservative activism without any sort of actual substance.
But if a ban makes you feel better, I guess that is all that counts?
But if a ban makes you feel better, I guess that is all that counts?
478
We're all sadly missing the point.
This isn't about immigration, or even the freedom of religion. It's about power - and about how to keep it.
If the Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor (and with Gorsuch on the bench it's highly likely it will, lower courts and the Constitution be damned), Trump wins.
If the Supreme Court rules against him, he rails on Twitter about how the system is rigged, and Trump wins.
Our apathy and a miniscule percentage of voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin who hide their white rage behind claims of being ignored have resulted in this insanity. The only escape from which is the 2018 mid-terms elections - and they're a loooong way off and could still find ways to defy the public sentiments of outrage and common sense.
This is about power - and how to keep it.
This isn't about immigration, or even the freedom of religion. It's about power - and about how to keep it.
If the Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor (and with Gorsuch on the bench it's highly likely it will, lower courts and the Constitution be damned), Trump wins.
If the Supreme Court rules against him, he rails on Twitter about how the system is rigged, and Trump wins.
Our apathy and a miniscule percentage of voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin who hide their white rage behind claims of being ignored have resulted in this insanity. The only escape from which is the 2018 mid-terms elections - and they're a loooong way off and could still find ways to defy the public sentiments of outrage and common sense.
This is about power - and how to keep it.
25
Actually he's right about the system being rigged. It's always been rigged in favor of the rich and powerful. If he'd release his tax records he could show the courts how rich and powerful he really is and get his stupid travel ban.
1
rds,
Exactly right. Very well said. Thank you for speaking out.
Exactly right. Very well said. Thank you for speaking out.
2
Or perhaps the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case, and the appellate ruling will stand...
2
One of these days trump's fury will produce a stroke.
Will this be a replay of Wilson? or will the country know asap because there will be a dearth of tweets?
And the huuuge question;l who will play the role of Edith?
Will this be a replay of Wilson? or will the country know asap because there will be a dearth of tweets?
And the huuuge question;l who will play the role of Edith?
11
Ivanka will rule the world!
Bannon will take over Trump's twitter.
1
Mr. Trump - You're a loser!
Those travel bans that you keep losing in the courts make you a loser.
You're fired, to quote your words!
Those travel bans that you keep losing in the courts make you a loser.
You're fired, to quote your words!
98
my disdain for this administration is limitless. they have no respect for our constitution, for the office of the president, for Americans or our global neighbors. they personify "deplorables". just goes to show you, you can't buy morals, values or innate intelligence. all the money in the world can't buy you the love and admiration you crave so badly, donald. you have to earn that.
94
I can't WAIT to see Trump's tweet on this! Likely something misspelled, I think. Anger doesn't really help out Trump's spelling.
15
He said the ruling was "shapoopi".
Trump: "I'm gonna talk to my attorney and see why as President why I can't fire all those so-called judges! Oh, to have the power of my idol Vladimir Putin! This Constitution stuff srinks!"
42
That's one of many differences between Trump and Obama. Speaking of the Hawai'ian, still on his 1st wife guy from Chicago, I saw President* Obama outside the Art Museum in Philly last September and if I remember correctly he said: "Look, I have to talk Vladimir Putin, but he's not my role model." Then President* Obama compared to Putin's approval ratings to those of the late Saddam Hussein, pointing out dictators always have high approval ratings because their people are afraid to tell pollsters what they really think.
*I refuse to call Barack Obama a former President. I'm still thinking this is a bad dream and I'll wake up and it'll be November 8th and I'll go to the polls, vote for Hillary and then go to my volunteer shift and Hillary will win. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
*I refuse to call Barack Obama a former President. I'm still thinking this is a bad dream and I'll wake up and it'll be November 8th and I'll go to the polls, vote for Hillary and then go to my volunteer shift and Hillary will win. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
5
headline and first graf from wapo much better
times, why can't you give us the facts in the lede ?
Federal appeals court upholds freeze on Trump’s travel ban
A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the administration unanimously, declaring that the president had exceeded his lawful authority in suspending the issuance of visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries. The Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the fate of the ban.
times, why can't you give us the facts in the lede ?
Federal appeals court upholds freeze on Trump’s travel ban
A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the administration unanimously, declaring that the president had exceeded his lawful authority in suspending the issuance of visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries. The Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the fate of the ban.
4
Good. Such a great business man is he. How much money is being wasted on the ban that wasn't a ban but then he tweeted that it was a ban? Between his Secret Service protection to his properties, litigation, etc. he's driving the country broke (and let's not forget crazy).
28
Lets not forget the waste of taxpayer dollars on multiple investigations of Russia tampering without a foreseeable conclusion.......The ugly campaign is over but the media and most Dems seem to have forgotten that fact.
1
Amazing waste of time and money!
He may be driving US crazy, but since he and the Republicans are busy repealing Obamacare, meds and therapy for that are no longer covered by insurance.
2
Let the tweet storm begin as our hapless president continues to prove that he wallows in ignorance and adores vacuity.
46
This decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting Donald Trump's revised travel ban, does not end the matter. It does mean, however, that in order to give Trump what he wants, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court will have to display utter disregard for the concepts of due process, equal protection of the laws and separation of church and state.
Any justice voting to uphold the new ban would readily be identified by jurists and legal experts here and around the world as a mere bigot -- just as bad as the man who signed the ban.
Any justice voting to uphold the new ban would readily be identified by jurists and legal experts here and around the world as a mere bigot -- just as bad as the man who signed the ban.
222
Due process and equal protection do not apply to non-citizens outside the US.
5
Some of these Justices are the "originalists" who upheld Citizens United's corporate right of free speech. They say that they look to the words of the Constitution or the words of the Founding Fathers for guidance. Nonsense!! So be careful about predictions.
Read the decisions which have struck down the Trump travel bans, Steve Holle. You will find that in each of them the state Attorneys General asserted rights of persons within their states -- citizens, businesses, universities, non-citizen individuals studying or working in their states, et al. The Court can strike down the travel ban without ever reaching the silly notion that Trump can do anything he wants to people outside the country without a legitimate reason.
4
Woo hoo!
22
The important point is that both appeals courts looked at the reality of Trump's intentions instead of adopting the Justice Department's fictional argument that his intentions don't matter. The Republican party may bow down to Trump, but he has no credibility with the judiciary.
59
While I do expect SCOTUS to have a very close split on this decision which can go either way, I am pleased to see the court systems in the 4th and 9th districts making the correct decisions basing their reasons on the words stated by Trump, the campaigner.
I have to note that the total number of terroristic activities associated with the 6 remaining countries in this ban amount for ZERO deaths in the United States while the absent countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey account for more than 3,300+ people inside the USA. These are irrefutable facts!
I do hope that SCOTUS will make the appropriate decision and side with the two Federal Circuit Courts. It is a decision based on religion clear and simple. We used to be a country that welcomed all people.
I have to note that the total number of terroristic activities associated with the 6 remaining countries in this ban amount for ZERO deaths in the United States while the absent countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey account for more than 3,300+ people inside the USA. These are irrefutable facts!
I do hope that SCOTUS will make the appropriate decision and side with the two Federal Circuit Courts. It is a decision based on religion clear and simple. We used to be a country that welcomed all people.
127
The travel ban is a malicious and pointless bit of legislation, but the fight over it gives Trump the illusion that he matters.
It's clear that what motivates Trump more than anything is conflict. I don't think the subject is really important. Think of his absurd one sided feud with the Mayor of London, after a tragedy in his city.
The controversy in London ended quickly when Sadiq Kahn stated simply that he had better things to do than respond to Donald Trump.
Forget impeachment, what I dream of is a one day moratorium in The Times, on Bill Maher, etc. without a mention of Trump even once. I think he'd evaporate.
It's clear that what motivates Trump more than anything is conflict. I don't think the subject is really important. Think of his absurd one sided feud with the Mayor of London, after a tragedy in his city.
The controversy in London ended quickly when Sadiq Kahn stated simply that he had better things to do than respond to Donald Trump.
Forget impeachment, what I dream of is a one day moratorium in The Times, on Bill Maher, etc. without a mention of Trump even once. I think he'd evaporate.
106
Absolutely agree with you.
3
The travel ban is not a piece of legislation but an executive order.
2
I'll say it (joyously) again - the ACLU keeps winning this for all of us!
127
"... the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion,” Judge Watson wrote.
Precisely. Even SCOTUS has to see that. It's time for this administration to look elsewhere to push forward their hateful agenda.
Precisely. Even SCOTUS has to see that. It's time for this administration to look elsewhere to push forward their hateful agenda.
36
It would be really funny if the Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari and didn't even bother with an appeal. I wouldn't have guessed there would be any chance of that happening a few months ago, but it wouldn't shock me now.
115
Hey Trump supporters, Are you tired of winning yet?
584
Trump supporters all think we are persecuting him. Ivanka didn't expect this at all, because her dad is so awesome.
They're currently too preoccupied with freaking out about Shakespeare in the Park.
Hey Jeremy. I would love to see your comment if you and your family are ever unfortunate enough to be the victim of a terrorist attack.. You would probably blame Trump for not protecting you.
Wow! Not the best of Monday's for our President. First there is the emoluments suit charging corruption both foreign and domestic. then we have the 9th Circuit striking down his "watered down" travel ban. We can all "hope" his Tuesday is better.
140
Well, there was that meeting where members of his cabinet and staff were asked to give praise to Trump, and they all followed through. It makes me wonder who might have been stifling laughter or kicking another cabinet member beneath the table while this bit of theater was going on. And I'm sure a few of them needed a good stiff drink with lunch.
10
This is why the US desperately needs judges who enforce the law, not usurp the function of the legislature, which courts like the 9th Circuit are only to eager to do. Hopefully the Supreme Court will rectify these absurd decisions.
7
ML: First of all, the courts are not usurping the function of the legislature here. We are dealing with an Executive Order -- NOT a piece of legislation.
Second, the judges' job in this case is not to enforce the law, but to make sure that the law--or in this case, the Executive Order--confirms to the Constitution. You've heard about that bothersome piece of paper, right? Always annoying when the Constitution gets in the way of your right-wiong agenda...
Second, the judges' job in this case is not to enforce the law, but to make sure that the law--or in this case, the Executive Order--confirms to the Constitution. You've heard about that bothersome piece of paper, right? Always annoying when the Constitution gets in the way of your right-wiong agenda...
242
You're aware that these decisions are striking down Executive Orders? Not legislation? Do we need a refresher on the differences between the President and the Congress?
The court's job in this case is to enforce the law, but the court has found that two laws are in conflict. One law is the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The other is an executive order. Guess which one wins.
21
I'm sure Mr. Trump "hopes" his Supreme Court pick will pay off.
202
I wonder how that private meeting and oath of "loyalty" went down. I guess we will find out sooner or later.
A surprise to no one. This is the most overturned court in the nation.
8
And the Fourth Circuit, MWM? They also ruled against the ban. It will be hard for the SC to overlook an order that has been rejected by so many courts across the nation.
11
Well, if the Republican in Congress are unwilling to stop Trump's insanity, maybe the courts will.
Wondering how many "private" sessions Neil Gorsuch has had with Trump.
Wondering how many "private" sessions Neil Gorsuch has had with Trump.
334
Loyalty. Its all about loyalty.
How's that "We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning" thing working out for ya?
249
Nowhere in there did he ever say there would not be road blocks or set backs. Just that we would be winning again, which we are. Speaking of which, how many political positions have the left won so far? ... ... SO many fights to turn the tide. So many tides overwhelming the left. Keep trying fellas. I hear GA's upcoming election is gonna be a hoot.
A tweet lasts forever
171
I guess that so-called judge from some Island in the Pacific had the last word... For now.
50
This may not even be a split decision even if SCOTUS chooses to hear the case. It will be a major defeat to the Trump admin
24
"And the Truth goes marching on!" Thanks, NY Times, you made my day.
51
Trump: "That so-called Appeals Court Bench!"
32
Where are the new vetting regs?
35
Victor: As with most of trump's so-called initiatives, nowhere to be seen.
4
So much money and times wasted when all they needed to do was listen to Sally Yates.
552
Uh Oh, Donald is NOT going to be happy! I'm most certain that some very tersely written tweets should solve the problem! (Sarcasm intended and hopefully noted.)
79
And well Trump should lose. He made it clear that his intention is for a "ban" as such. He even tweeted about that stance, gloating that he was ignoring his counsel.
So, Donald, taunting the law makes you a loser.
So, Donald, taunting the law makes you a loser.
278
Snake oil runs through Trump's veins.
Chocolate cake makes up his brains.
His ego is massive,
His empathy passive,
He should be relieved of the reins.
Chocolate cake makes up his brains.
His ego is massive,
His empathy passive,
He should be relieved of the reins.
513
Hey, I like chocolate cake! But then, I like pretty rocks too. Though, both as brains still gives credit where none is evident, or due.
4
WINNER!
5
Great lyrics!!!
6