by Jack
One of the key elements in the 9th Circuit Courts decision to uphold the TRO and in effect overturn Trumps travel ban was a previously unconsidered element. That was that the government had failed to provide evidence that [urgency] existed that required the immediate blocking of travel from the 7 designated countries.
The court wrote, “The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.”
Proving the [urgency] of a right granted to the Executive branch in effect raises a new threshold or litmus test that must be met that did not exist in any prior court rulings. Government has help that the President has the authority to issue a travel ban as granted by the Constitution. In other words, the 9th Circuit Court has no standing as his presidential order is not reviewable by the court.
In a lesser argument the court heard the argument the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-
Most Constitutional scholars would agree that this argument was out of bounds for the courts consideration and is therefore easily reversible on appeal. Note: About 90% of the 9th Circuit Court cases that are appealed are reversed. It’s the most liberal and most reversed court in the nation. Trump will prevail.
“Trump will prevail.”
Two of his underlings were found to have broken the law today, Jack. Just today. He’s yelling at the court in all caps and bad grammar. He’s yelling at a private business for making a business decision that negatively affects his family. He’s insulting the military service of multiple congressmen again despite having never served. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. How can he “prevail” under such circumstances? Winning an election is one thing. Governing is another. The spectacle of Trump got him into the White House but it is proving ill-suited to weilding actual power.
There is no reason to even WANT this order to prevail, as the court rightly pointed out that there is no logically defensible purpose to it–no refugee from any of the banned countries has killed on American soil in decades. Why are you supporting unnecessary government regulation? Is the idea that the government should have a good reason for banning something no longer a conservative principle?
Nobody disputes Nordstroms’ right to make business decisions. It is equally the right of others to question their motives. Given the left’s propensity to protest and boycott business to make political statements it’s quite possible that the sudden decision was political.
He can prevail. Actions speak louder than words and results matter.
“…as the court rightly pointed out that there is no logically defensible purpose to it–no refugee from any of the banned countries has killed on American soil in decades.
The activist decision amounts to writing law which is the purview of the legislative branch.
The temporary ban would give the new administration the opportunity to asses the vetting process and find ways to improve and implement new guides. The vetting process has apparently not been significantly improved since post 911. In 2001 social media didn’t exist. Our world has changed in significant ways, including the fact that several nations in the ME that were once stable are now chaotic with ISIS having control over entire regions. Also President Obama shifted away from a policy that supported information gathering on the ground and prisoner capture and interrogation to drone strikes. In the last eight years we have defended from a safe distance in a reactionary, and frankly half-a$$ed manner. Also the former president was more interested in an open borders approach and less interested in enforcing laws that help to keep Americans safe. His change the face of America agenda took precedence to his obligation to the American people. Because of this what we don’t know about the people being sent here is significant, especially since our enemies have said they will embed terrorist with refugees.
Is the story that “no refugee from any of the banned countries has killed on American soil in decades” true or, is it a story that takes license with the facts or is in fact, fake news fake news.
Front Page Magazine reminds us of the facts about the pre-911 and 911 attacks and then continues:
Europe is already impacted greatly:
An attack in 2015 in France adds weight to the fact that people here and in Europe are fed up:
November 2015, After Terrorist Attacks, Support in France for Refugees Fades . A new election this year will tell us just how much support has faded.
This isn’t just a problem of big dramatic terror attacks, it is also a problem that involves lesser terrorist acts of assault, rape, stabbings, vehicle assault and beheadings. It is a problem that includes the terrorists’ plan to create large areas or enclaves within our cities where radical Muslims assume leadership and sharia becomes the “local” law.
The left doesn’t believe what the Islamists tell us openly, that their ultimate goal is total control across the world, a world-wide caliphate. We’ve seen this kind of tyranny before. We had the courage to meet the threat of Nazi Germany head on. Donald Trump is serious about meeting this threat head on.
He also expects the type of resistance he’s getting from left radicals in America. It’s frustrating but part of the job.
I’m not supporting “unnecessary” regulation. I am supporting temporary regulation that I believe, based on the past eight years and the opinions of respected legal and security people, is necessary. We are in this state largely due to Obama’s failed national security policies. The American people chose a new direction in the last election. Now it’s time to give this president the same courtesy Obama was given in his first two years…you need to stand down. While your side diddles with resentment filled political games our new administration is taking the multifaceted threats of global Islamist terrorists very seriously!
According to liberal Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley Trump will prevail.
Remember this?
“Turley recalled that the courts upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act and noted that just last year former President Barack Obama was warning the courts against “second-guessing” the president on matters of national security and immigration.”
Turley: ‘Law Does Favor President Trump’ On Immigration Order:
“Federal courts are unlikely to overturn President Donald Trump’s immigration order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
“The law does favor President Trump in this regard,” Turley said Sunday during an appearance on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS. “I don’t like this order. I think it’s a terrible mistake — but that doesn’t go into the legal analysis. The Court has been extremely deferential to presidents on the border.”
Turley recalled that the courts upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act and noted that just last year former President Barack Obama was warning the courts against “second-guessing” the president on matters of national security and immigration.
“And you have things like Section 1182 of the federal law that gives sweeping authority to the president to withhold either individual aliens or groups of aliens,” he added. “All of that works to the advantage of President Trump
According to Turley, however, the courts are unlikely to see the order as a ban on Muslims.
“I do not believe a federal court will view this as a Muslim ban,” Turley said Sunday. “I don’t think the court can. Regardless of what the court may think of President Trump’s motivations, the fact that other Muslim countries are not included is going to move that off the table and what’s going to be left is whether the president has this type of authority. Historically courts have said that he does.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/turley-law-does-favor-president-trump-on-immigration-order-video/#ixzz4YG47F9ox
Alan Dershowitz and Andrew Napolitano agree as well. Napolitano called it “intellectually dishonest.” Possibly due to NOT having an AG at the time, the goofernment’s case in Seattle and with the 9th Circus left out a few pertinent facts.
One way to handle issue is to seriously improve our vetting of ALL visa requests including student and employee visas, refugee claims, and make a visa requirement mandatory to any foreign visitor – including members of the UN.
And on a related note, Taxifornia’s newest senator – Kamala Harris – has just introduced a bill to require taxpayer funding for lawyers to represent ALL border detainees.
The last thing this country needs are unelected judges doing the job specifically assigned to the president of the United States. Trump will not be president someday. Do we seriously want those who are not privy to national and international security information deciding our safety? I sure don’t.
Napolitano and other lawyers are saying Trump should pull this EO and submit a new one addressing the courts concerns. All of the current suits against it would be dropped and we can get on with dealing with our nation’s security.
Trump will prevail!
Methinks the whiners won’t know what hit them. They definitely need to be crammed back into their pathetic little hovels.
The people want law and order, safety, good jobs, and health insurance that works for THEM!
If the people want law and order, won’t they be mad that two of Trump’s underlings were caught breaking the law yesterday?
If they are guilty as charged the laws of our nation have worked!
So you’re just going to sit on your hands and wait for them to be found guilty? You’re not going to call for an investigation or demand Conway and Flynn be fired?
I highly doubt this was how you acted when you thought Obama officials broke the law.
Yes Jack I agree, Trump will prevail! and will do as he promised the people of America.
This travel ban, which has been suggested be rewritten and the new EO used to retire this disputed one, (even liberal litigators in recent days) as the solution, might be the best and fastest resolve on this issue.
Frankly, even to my thinking that one clause that didn’t clearly exclude travelers who have resident status in the USA was a mistake, and is the only real thing the courts should find objection with.
So by removing that, and issuing a new EO I think The POTUS will have shown he can overcome this omission, and that he is what we elected, a person who is a different breed of elected leader, and willing to stand up for America
Agree Harold. Modification of his original EO should do the trick. It’s easily done too. Trump need only work around a few minor details and he’s good to go, even with the 9th Circuit Court by their own outline. I would prefer he do that and drop the current EO. We don’t need to waste time on proving how wrong the the liberals and 9th CC was, we know that already.
TheDonald should also add the sections of both the Constitution and current law giving him the power to determine national security – just in case this goes back to court – then those sections stated in the EO would be instructive to the Liberal-packed courts.
Harold and Jack, I agree it would make the order better.
And it might even help the case except for the fact that the left never stops. This one portion of the EO was not the main point of contention in their aggressive, political case. They made their argument based on discrimination, due process protections, and separation of church and state, a misreading of the Constitution, in order to label our president, again, as racist and fascist. They won’t going away on this they will simply shift gears.
Most Constitutional scholars?
Name them
Your question smacks of certainty that can’t be defended but I will give you that perhaps “many” would have been a better choice of words.
After a quick search: George Washington University Law School Professor John Banzhaf, and Constitutional scholar Mark Levin can be added to the list of scholars who say Trumps EO is Constitutional.
Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman and Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, declined to say one way or the other what they thought but said it was quite possible the SC would side with Trump. I think their names can also be added to those of Alan Dershowitz, Andrew Napolitano, and Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley.
Most interesting of all would be President John Adams:
If anyone should know the Constitution it would be John Adams!
It’s a fact that a huge stable of liberal lawyer activists exist in America. We can always count on them to play this game when a Republican is in office. I wish they had the integrity of Alan Dershowitz or Jonathan Turley who don’t play political games with our legal system and the Constitution…both are liberal.
Just found another scholar, Michael McConnell, who points to the hypocrisy and political theater involved in this in his article, “A Flawed Restraining of a Flawed Order”
This afternoon Trump said he hadn’t heard of the allegations that Flynn had illegally discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador before the inauguration.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.mediaite.com/online/i-dont-know-about-it-trump-says-hes-unaware-of-reports-that-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russia/amp/?client=safari
Two options here:
1) Trump is so incompetent and bad at management that he has somehow managed to stay uninformed on a scandal surrounding his own national security adviser 24 hours after the story broke.
2) Trump is lying.
What’s sad is that both options are equally plausible.
He said, according to your link, That he was unaware of REPORTS that Flynn discussed sanctions with Russia.
Whats equally sad is your knee jerk decision.
The NYT headline one hour ago, “Trump Will ‘Look Into’ Reports That Flynn Discussed Sanctions With Russia”
Eleven hours ago CNN reported the following:
. If that’s true why the headline, “Trump says he’s unaware of reports Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador?”
ABC’s headline, “Top Democrats Call For Flynn’s Suspension Over Allegations He Talked Sanctions With Russian Envoy,” even though deep in the body of the story they write (say) “U.S. authorities continue to investigate communicatioof a new administration continues!ns between Flynn and Russian officials, but have yet to find any clear evidence of wrongdoing. ”
In other words it’s a non-story…fake news!
Harassment and bullying of the new administration continues!
This is what bipartisan cooperation looks like to Democrats.
What?
Similar language–“no clear evidence of wrongdoing”–was used to describe allegations against Hillary Clinton.
Did you call those stories fake news?
Sundance at Conservative Treehouse posts, “Insider Mary Doetsch Writes About U.S. Refugee Program.” She has a lot to say that backs up what others have said about dysfunction in our vetting process:
This is a great article that step by step breaks down Trump’s EO and the 9th court’s ruling.
The Ninth Circuit Just Issued a Dangerous Ruling against Donald Trump’s Immigration Order
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444785/ninth-circuit-travel-ban-donald-trump-ruling?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=french
One good thing may have occurred that the LunaticLeft didn’t plan on: The Left-Leaning judges have been exposed for the political animals they are instead of being impartial as they should be.
Judges who make idiotic rulings not based on law deserve every bit of derision and ridicule they get!
Peggy and J they do indeed look foolish!
Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from ‘Trump 7’ mostly Muslim countries:
Very interesting information from a Calif. attorney.
California Attorney: 5 Reasons Even 9th Circuit Court Knows Trump Will Win Travel Ban Fight:
“Amid all the talk about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against the “travel ban” signed into effect as an executive order by President Trump, comes an opinion piece from California attorney Robert Barnes that sheds light on why President Trump may be right and the court wrong.
Published on Law Newz, Barnes made his case by highlighting five crucial points about the court’s ruling that could weigh in Trump’s favor.”
Continued…
http://ijr.com/2017/02/800529-california-attorney-5-reasons-even-9th-circuit-court-knows-trump-will-win-travel-ban-fight/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics