Trump steps up attack on judge, court system over travel ban

[webfact]

Trump steps up attack on judge, court system over travel ban

By Dustin Volz

REUTERS

 

Demonstrators in support of the immigration rules implemented by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, rally at Los Angeles international airport in Los Angeles, California, U.S., February 4, 2017. REUTERS/Ringo Chiu

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Sunday ramped up his criticism of a federal judge who blocked a travel ban on seven mainly Muslim nations and said courts were making U.S. border security harder, intensifying the first major legal battle of his presidency.

 

In a series of tweets that broadened his attack on the country's judiciary, Trump said Americans should blame U.S. District Judge James Robart and the court system if anything happened.

 

Trump did not elaborate on what threats the country potentially faced. He added that he had told the Department of Homeland Security to "check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!"

 

The Republican president labelled Robart a "so-called judge" on Saturday, a day after the Seattle jurist issued a temporary restraining order that prevented enforcement of a 90-day ban on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day bar on all refugees.

 

A U.S. appeals court later on Saturday denied the government's request for an immediate stay of the ruling.

 

Vice President Mike Pence defended Trump earlier on Sunday, even as some Republicans encouraged the businessman-turned-politician to tone down his broadsides against the judicial branch of government.

 

"The president of the United States has every right to criticise the other two branches of government," Pence said on NBC's "Meet the Press" programme.

 

It is unusual for a sitting president to attack a member of the judiciary, which the U.S. Constitution designates as a check on the power of the executive branch and Congress.

 

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Trump seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.

 

Some Republicans also expressed discomfort with the situation.

 

"I think it is best not to single out judges for criticism," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on CNN's "State of the Union" programme. "We all get disappointed from time to time at the outcome in courts on things that we care about. But I think it is best to avoid criticizing judges individually."

 

Republican Senator Ben Sasse, a vocal critic of Trump, was less restrained.

 

"We don't have so-called judges ... we don't have so-called presidents, we have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution," he said on the ABC News programme "This Week."

 

LEGAL LIMBO

 

The ruling by Robart, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, coupled with the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to deny the government's request for an immediate stay of the ruling dealt a blow to Trump barely two weeks into his presidency.

 

It could also be the precursor to months of legal challenges to his push to clamp down on immigration, including through the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, and complicate the confirmation battle of his U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

 

The Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, said on Saturday that Gorsuch, a conservative federal appeals court judge from Colorado, must meet a higher bar to show his independence from the president.

 

Trump, who during his presidential campaign called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, has vowed to reinstate his controversial travel ban. He says the measures are needed to protect the United States from Islamist militants. Critics say they are unjustified and discriminatory.

 

The legal limbo will prevail at least until the federal appeals court rules on the government's application for an emergency stay of Robart's ruling. The court was awaiting further submissions from the states of Washington and Minnesota on Sunday, and from the federal government on Monday. The final filing was due at 5 p.m. PST on Monday (2.00 a.m. BST on Tuesday).

 

The uncertainty has created what may be a short-lived opportunity for travellers from the seven affected countries as well as refugees to get into the United States.

 

Sara Yarjani, an Iranian student with a U.S. visa who was attempting to return to Los Angeles to visit her parents, was among those who boarded flights to the United States after learning that Trump's travel ban had been blocked.

 

Her visa had been stamped "revoked" and she was sent back to Vienna last week. She was slated to arrive in Los Angeles on Sunday, according to her sister, Sahara Muranovic.

 

"This is our only window," Muranovic said. "Maybe they'll blow it again by Monday."

 

FACT AND FICTION

 

Trump's Jan. 27 travel restrictions have drawn protests in the United States, provoked criticism from U.S. allies and created chaos for thousands of people who have, in some cases, spent years seeking asylum.

 

Reacting to the latest court ruling, Iraqi government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi said: "It is a move in the right direction to solve the problems that it caused."

 

In his ruling on Friday, Robart questioned the use of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban, saying no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven affected countries since then.

 

For Trump's order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be "based in fact, as opposed to fiction".

 

The 9/11 attacks were carried out by hijackers from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon, whose nationals were not affected by the order.

 

In a series of tweets on Saturday, Trump attacked Hobart's opinion as ridiculous.

 

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?" he asked.

 

Trump told reporters at his private Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida late on Saturday: "We'll win. For the safety of the country we'll win."

 

The Justice Department's appeal criticized Robart's reasoning, saying the ruling violated the separation of powers and stepped on the president's authority as commander-in-chief. It said the state of Washington lacked standing to challenge Trump's order and denied it "favours Christians at the expense of Muslims."The U.S. State Department and Department of Homeland Security said they were complying with Robart's ruling and many visitors were expected to start arriving on Sunday, while the government said it expected to begin admitting refugees again onMonday.

 

A spokesman for the International Organization for Migration, Leonard Doyle, confirmed on Sunday that about 2,000 refugees were ready to travel to the United States. "We expect a small number of refugees to arrive in the U.S. on Monday, Feb. 6th. They are mainly from Jordan and include people fleeing war and persecution in Syria," he said in an email.

 

Iraqi Fuad Sharef, his wife and three children spent two years obtaining U.S. visas. They had packed up to move to America last week, but were turned back to Iraq after a failed attempt to board a U.S.-bound flight from Cairo.

 

On Sunday, the family checked in for a Turkish Airlines flight to New York from Istanbul.

 

"Yeah, we are very excited. We are very happy," Sharef told Reuters TV. "Finally, we have been cleared. We are allowed to enter the United States."

 

(Additional reporting by Chris Michaud, Lin Noueihed, David Shepardson, Daina Beth Solomon, Dustin Volz, Chris Francescani and Reuters TV; Writing by Ayesha Rascoe and Dustin Volz; Editing by Paul Simao and Mary Milliken)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-06

[Credo]

It's really not a good idea to start bad mouthing judges unless you do it under your breath and well out of earshot.   

 

[jerojero]

He thinks he can steam-roll over everyone and everything, including the Law. Donny, you are NOT above the Law.

[Ulysses G.]

18 minutes ago, jerojero said:

He thinks he can steam-roll over everyone and everything, including the Law. Donny, you are NOT above the Law.

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

[ezzra]

sometimes presidents have interpreted court decisions in ways that lead to discord between branches of government, leading to the threat of constitutional crises.

The most oft-cited example of a president allegedly ignoring a court ruling just happens to involve the populist president that Trump's team seems most interested in comparing to Trump: Andrew Jackson.

After the Supreme Court and Justice John Marshall struck down a Georgia law that allowed for the seizure of Native American lands, saying it violated federal treaties, Jackson ignored it or at least initially declined to get involved - depending upon the account. He is remembered to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it," though there is debate about the accuracy of that quote...

So again, there's nothing new under the sun, what have been shall be again...

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

So if Trump had explicitly denied Muslims entry to the USA that would be the law?

[jackh]

57 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So if Trump had explicitly denied Muslims entry to the USA that would be the law?

IF,IF,IF,IF??????

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, jackh said:

IF,IF,IF,IF??????

Ulysses G categorically stated that Trump's executive immigraton order is the law.  I'm trying to determine if he means that categorically or if there are limitations on executive immigration orders. Understand now?

[bkkcanuck8]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

 

It is Congresses job to write laws -- not the president.  Executive orders orders are subject to judicial review and are subject to being struck down if they are not supported by the constitution or statute (statute as in the laws that were written by congress).  

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

For your education:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
 

Quote

 

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

.........

Congress has the power to overturn an executive order by passing legislation that invalidates it. Congress can also refuse to provide funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the case of the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order.

 

So no, his order IS NOT the law and may not prevail eventually.

 

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

10/10 on the ridiculous scale.

[Ulysses G.]

19 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

10/10 on the ridiculous scale.

We will see what happens in court, but pretty difficult to get around the the law concerning this. It is very 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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

There is no injustice or prejudice involved in vetting travelers to the United States to ensure that they do not have any terrorist involvement or connections. End of story.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

We will see what happens in court, but pretty difficult to get around the the law concerning this. It is very 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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

There is no injustice or prejudice involved in vetting travelers to the United States to ensure that they do not have any terrorist involvement or connections. End of story.

So much for the Constitution.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So much for the Constitution.

Orders issued by the President of the United States carry the force of law. They have a legal and constitutional basis. The provision of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act above directly addressees Trump's executive order.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

Orders issued by the President of the United States carry the force of law. They have a legal and constitutional basis. The provision of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act above directly addressees Trump's executive order.

This is just blather. "Orders issued by the President of the United States carry the force of law. They have a legal and constitutional basis." You're very confused. Yes, the Constitution does prescribe how to make laws. It also proscribes certain kind laws. And that is what is at quesion here. For example, if Trump issues an order saying that Muslims are banned from entering the United States, that is not subject to a constitutional challenge. Are you saying that a presidential executive order is actually stronger than a regular law? I think you're very confused.

[yardrunner]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

i thought that the US constitution was the basis for US law and that even(rogue ) presidents had to obey the constitution and the law

[ilostmypassword]

31 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

We will see what happens in court, but pretty difficult to get around the the law concerning this. It is very 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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

There is no injustice or prejudice involved in vetting travelers to the United States to ensure that they do not have any terrorist involvement or connections. End of story.

Maybe if you read some real news sources once in a while you might have come across something like this:

"But another part of the law forbids discrimination “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence,” but only “in the issuance of an immigrant visa.” The Trump administration argues that the power to bar entry, the subject of the first law, is broader than the limits on issuing visas."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-immigration-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Peterw42]

dictator

/dɪkˈteɪtə/

noun

1.

1. a ruler who is not effectively restricted by a constitution, laws,recognized opposition, etc
2. an absolute, esp tyrannical, ruler

 

 

[craigt3365]

37 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

We will see what happens in court, but pretty difficult to get around the the law concerning this. It is very 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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

There is no injustice or prejudice involved in vetting travelers to the United States to ensure that they do not have any terrorist involvement or connections. End of story.

You didn't read my link on EO's?  An EO is not necessarily the law.  End of story.  From my link:

Quote

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.

 

So no, Trump can't do anything he wants.  Luckily!!!!

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

i thought that the US constitution was the basis for US law and that even(rogue ) presidents had to obey the constitution and the law

They do.  Trump's not use to being told what to do.  He's going to have to get use to working within the law, not around it.

[darksidedog]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

Hmm! Not quite so. He has the power to stop any aliens entering the country when it can be shown there is a definitive risk of that person being a danger.

A blanket ban does not comply with this, as it also stops those who are not a danger.

Being President gives you an awesome level of power, but it does not put you above the law.

But worse, to criticise a judge because you don't like his ruling?

That is just disgraceful. And it is the second time he has done it.

He previously said the judge in the Trump University case was unfit to oversea the case because of his Mexican heritage. Despite him being born in America.

Meanwhile over 1.8 Million people in the UK have signed a petition to revoke his State visit.

Clearly British people can spot a piece of shit when they see it.

God help America.

[JHolmesJr]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

 

Bet a lot of tickets to the USA are being feverishly booked in the interim.

[Emster23]

Immigrants from those countries already are vetted. They are not "visa free" like some European spots. Trump voters have somehow made a leap that somehow this ban will make them safer as opposed to increased danger due to changing view of what USA stands for. I think it is safe to say that if the ban were enforced, it would make me less safe by some degree in Thailand. How much, can't say.

[edwinchester]

Shame that a person in such a powerful and responsible position chooses to rant and rave rather than gracefully allow the law to take it's course.

[dunroaming]

So Trump has tweeted if the USA experiences a terrorist attack then blame the judge.  Does that cover any terrorist attack or one's consisting of people who have arrived in the US from countries that were on the list and since the ban was lifted?  If so then I doubt the judge will lose any sleep over it.  And let's say that if the ban is re-instated then we can blame Trump for any attacks from people arriving from countries not on the list?  Now that is something to lose sleep about!

[rudi49jr]

12 hours ago, webfact said:

In a series of tweets that broadened his attack on the country's judiciary, Trump said Americans should blame U.S. District Judge James Robart and the court system if anything happened.

So by Trumps moronic 'logic' we can also blame him for not implementing stricter gun laws when the next gun-crazy nutjob goes on a shooting spree in America, right? 

[Opl]

12 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

His executive order IS the law and will prevail eventually.

Probably Bannon told Trump, that Vladimir Putin IS the Law in Russia ..  

[lostlink]

The judge is a political hack.

 

When all is said and done the EO WILL be enforced based on current law.   8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.

[craigt3365]

8 hours ago, lostlink said:

The judge is a political hack.

 

When all is said and done the EO WILL be enforced based on current law.   8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.

It's not looking good for the ban.  Luckily.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-trump-travel-ban/index.html

 

Quote

 

And no matter what its ruling here, the next stop will likely be the US Supreme Court.

Amicus brief from 16 state attorneys general

The top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the travel ban. The state attorneys general from these states argue they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states, including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.

 

The states include New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.

 

 

[edwinchester]

In the last 12 years there has been less than a 100 deaths in the US caused by Islamic Terrorism.  During that same period there has been more than 300,000 gun related deaths in the US.  More than 3000 times more likely to be killed by a homegrown shooting.  The visa controls the US has in place already work well so why not focus on the real avoidable killer of Americans in the US?