Legal battle over travel ban pits Trump's powers against his own words

[webfact]

Legal battle over travel ban pits Trump's powers against his own words

By Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump sits during a meeting with Chief Executive Officer of Intel Brian Krzanich in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 8, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court is weighing arguments for and against President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban, but its decision this week may not yet answer the underlying legal questions being raised in the fast-moving case.

 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is expected to rule only on the narrow question of whether a lower court's emergency halt to an executive order by Trump was justified. Trump signed the order on Jan. 27 barring citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and halted all refugee entries for four months.

 

The appeals court has several options. It could kick the case back to lower court judge James Robart in Seattle, saying it is premature for them to make a ruling before he has had a chance to consider all the evidence. Robart stopped Trump's order just a week after he issued it and before all the arguments had been developed on both sides.

 

Or the panel of three appellate judges could side with the government and find halting the order was harmful to national security, reinstating it while the case continues.

 

Their decision is "one step in what will be a long, historic case," Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell University Law School who specializes in immigration. Ultimately, the case is likely to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts said.

 

The case is the first serious test of executive authority since Trump became president on Jan. 20, and legal experts said there were three main issues at play for the judiciary.

 

The broad questions in the case are whether the states have the right to challenge federal immigration laws, how much power the court has to question the president's national security decisions, and if the order discriminates against Muslims.

 

Washington state filed the original lawsuit, claiming it was hurt by the ban when students and faculty from state-run universities and corporate employees were stranded overseas.

 

Trump administration lawyer August Flentje argued at an appeals court hearing on Tuesday that the states lack "standing" to sue the federal government over immigration law, but his arguments were questioned by the judges.

 

NATIONAL SECURITY

 

If the court decides the states are allowed to bring the case, the next major question is about the limits of the president's power.

 

"Historically courts have been exceedingly deferential to governmental actions in the immigration area," said Jonathan Adler, a Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor. Though, he added, "the way they carried it out understandably makes some people, and perhaps some courts, uneasy with applying the traditional rules."

 

Trump issued the order late on a Friday and caused chaos at airports as officials struggled to quickly change procedures.

 

At Tuesday's hearing, Judge Richard Clifton, an appointee of Republican president George W. Bush and Judge William Canby, an appointee of Democratic president Jimmy Carter, pushed the government to explain what would happen if Trump simply decided to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. "Would anybody be able to challenge that?" Canby asked.

 

Flentje emphasized that the order did not ban Muslims. He said the president made a determination about immigration policy based on a legitimate assessment of risk.

 

The government has said its order is grounded in a law passed by congress that allows the president to suspend the entry of "any class of aliens" that he deems "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

 

When asked by the third judge - Michelle Friedland, appointed by Democrat Barack Obama - if that meant the president's decisions are "unreviewable" Flentje, after a pause, answered "yes." When pressed, Flentje acknowledged, however, that constitutional concerns had been raised about the order.

 

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

 

One of the main concerns is allegations by the states, civil rights groups, some lawmakers and citizens that the order discriminates in violation of the constitution's First Amendment, which prohibits favoring one religion over another.

 

The judges will have to decide whether to look exclusively at the actual text of the president's order, which does not mention any particular religion, or consider outside comments by Trump and his team to discern their intent.

 

Washington state's attorney Noah Purcell told the hearing that even though the lawsuit is at an early stage, the amount of evidence that Trump intended to discriminate against Muslims is "remarkable." It cited Trump's campaign promises of a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

 

In a tweet on Monday night, Trump said "the threat from radical Islamic terrorism is very real" urging the courts to act quickly.

 

Government lawyer Flentje countered Purcell by saying there was danger in second guessing Trump's decision-making about U.S. security "based on some newspaper articles."

 

Clifton asked about statements on Fox News by Trump adviser Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor and former prosecutor, that Trump had asked him to figure out how to make a Muslim ban legal.

 

"Do you deny that in fact the statements attributed to then candidate Trump and to his political advisers and most recently Mr. Giuliani?" Clifton asked. "Either those types of statements were made or not," said Clifton. "If they were made it is potential evidence."

 

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington and Nathan Layne in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-09

[Ulysses G.]

How can this be a Muslim ban when there are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this executive order? The accusation is ridiculous.

All travelers who have nationality of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are not permitted to enter the US for 90 days, or to be issued an immigrant or non-immigrant visas. These were countries selected by Obama as countries of concern, because the governments are in chaos or so anti-American that it is very difficult to vet refugees effectively. 

Trump called for a Muslim ban initially to protect the nation from imported Islamic terrorists, but changed the parameters when he realized it would be illegal. This executive order is sensible (as a first step) legal and will be upheld if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

However, it certainly was not well implemented originally. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[craigt3365]

24 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

How can this be a Muslim ban when there are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this executive order? The accusation is ridiculous.

All travelers who have nationality of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are not permitted to enter the US for 90 days, or to be issued an immigrant or non-immigrant visas. These were countries selected by Obama as countries of concern, because the governments are in chaos or so anti-American that it is very difficult to vet refugees effectively. 

Trump called for a Muslim ban initially to protect the nation from imported Islamic terrorists, but changed the parameters when he realized it would be illegal. This executive order is sensible (as a first step) legal and will be upheld if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

However, it certainly was not well implemented originally. 

If they can prove Trump said these words, then it will be enough to cook his goose.  And for good reasons.  It's well known Bannon is heavily biased.  From the OP:

 

Quote

 

Clifton asked about statements on Fox News by Trump adviser Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor and former prosecutor, that Trump had asked him to figure out how to make a Muslim ban legal.

 

"Do you deny that in fact the statements attributed to then candidate Trump and to his political advisers and most recently Mr. Giuliani?" Clifton asked. "Either those types of statements were made or not," said Clifton. "If they were made it is potential evidence."

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by craigt3365

[Ulysses G.]

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

If they can prove Trump said these words, then it will be enough to cook his goose.

 

Will have to wait and see.

 

[Emster23]

Is the pope Catholic?

I could see a defense for Trump: "I don't know what I say, I don't listen to myself. I'm Attention Deficit Disordered. Under equal rights for the handicapped I can't be held responsible for what comes out of my mouth. This also impacts my lack of ability and focus regarding reading and writing. Bannon just hands me executive orders and tells me to sign them, which I do. So it could be argued that these are not executive orders, as I didn't write them and I sure didn't read them. Now excuse me, I have to go tweet (thank goodness only 140 characters seems to match my attention span!)

[kamahele]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

How can this be a Muslim ban when there are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this executive order? The accusation is ridiculous.

All travelers who have nationality of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are not permitted to enter the US for 90 days, or to be issued an immigrant or non-immigrant visas. These were countries selected by Obama as countries of concern, because the governments are in chaos or so anti-American that it is very difficult to vet refugees effectively. 

Trump called for a Muslim ban initially to protect the nation from imported Islamic terrorists, but changed the parameters when he realized it would be illegal. This executive order is sensible (as a first step) legal and will be upheld if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

However, it certainly was not well implemented originally. 

Because

1. Trump's own words on the campaign trail that he was going to ban all Muslims

 

2. Trump's good buddy and adviser Giuliani who stated on camera that he was asked by Trump to come up with a plan of how he could ban Muslims without saying they were banning Muslims

 

3. Trump's own words that Christians would be given special treatment when applying for entry.

 

No doubt the US has to be careful when granting visas to people from war torn countries. Everyone would agree. But an outright ban of all people from the area of a particular religion is quite frankly un American 

[Silurian]

So is the fraudulent POTUS in charge or not? First, he didn't know he was giving Bannon more power then he states he isn't strong enough to push for a one month delay. So who is exactly in charge over there in the White House?

 

Trump: I wanted month delay before travel ban, was told no

http://us.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-delay/index.html

 

Trump lashes out at New York Times after report suggests he wasn't 'fully briefed' on action giving Bannon more power

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-not-fully-briefed-executive-action-steve-bannon-national-security-council-2017-2

Edited February 9, 2017 by Silurian

[Opl]

In Trump's mind ,  as in many of his defendersers, the law is what he decides. This is the basic precept of any dictatorship.

 

Trump offers his own oral argument defending travel ban

 

“You could be a lawyer, or you don’t have to be a lawyer. If you were a good student in high school or a bad student in high school, you can understand this, and it’s really incredible to me that we have a court case that’s going on so long,” Trump told his audience. “I was a good student. I understand things. I comprehend very well, OK? Better than, I think, almost anybody. And I want to tell you, I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful. It was disgraceful because what I just read to you is what we have. And it just can’t be written any plainer or better and for us to be going through this.”

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-responds-travel-ban-law-enforcement-speech-234787

Edited February 9, 2017 by Opl

[earlinclaifornia]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

How can this be a Muslim ban when there are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this executive order? The accusation is ridiculous.

All travelers who have nationality of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are not permitted to enter the US for 90 days, or to be issued an immigrant or non-immigrant visas. These were countries selected by Obama as countries of concern, because the governments are in chaos or so anti-American that it is very difficult to vet refugees effectively. 

Trump called for a Muslim ban initially to protect the nation from imported Islamic terrorists, but changed the parameters when he realized it would be illegal. This executive order is sensible (as a first step) legal and will be upheld if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

However, it certainly was not well implemented originally. 

Not sensible. What makes any sense again with your personal support without any valid point. Stop your blathering here please

[elgordo38]

His powers give his foolish words a lot of emphasis. 

[pokerface1]

I don't think anyone realizes the strategy that the president has put into play. He has created a stalemate in the courts. On one side he has his executive powers on the other he has the constitution. The courts are the battlefield  and as we all know once any ruling is made it's open to appeal after appeal.

Hence he has created a situation that virtually guarantees that there will be no terrorist attack in the USA at least not until a final decision is made which could take years.

Well done Mr President!!!   

[Andaman Al]

15 minutes ago, pokerface1 said:

 

Hence he has created a situation that virtually guarantees that there will be no terrorist attack in the USA at least not until a final decision is made which could take years.

Well done Mr President!!!   

Can you help me and perhaps a few others understand what on earth you are talking about?

 

Mustafa:  "So Hamed, lets go then and carry out this attack in Times Square."

Hamed: "No Mustafa we can't yet, we should let the 9th Circuit US Appeals Court sort out this legal mess first, it would not be fair play if we carry out an attack before the Trump Administration has gone through it's appeal processes, I mean this may go to the Supreme Court"

Mustafa: "What so, we need to call off Jihad, until all this Muslim ban stuff is finished in the courts?"

Hamed:    "Yes, I am afraid so we have our reputation to think of, I mean how could we?  An attack in the middle of a constitutional debate, what kind of terrorist organization do you think we are?"

Edited February 9, 2017 by Andaman Al

[craigt3365]

Perfect reply!  Made my day! LOL

[pokerface1]

5 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Can you help me and perhaps a few others understand what on earth you are talking about?

 

Mustafa:  "So Hamed, lets go then and carry out this attack in Times Square."

Hamed: "No Mustafa we can't yet, we should let the 9th Circuit US Appeals Court sort out this legal mess first, it would not be fair play if we carry out an attack before the Trump Administration has gone through it's appeal processes, I mean this may go to the Supreme Court"

Mustafa: "What so, we need to call off Jihad, until all this Muslim ban stuff is finished in the courts?"

Hamed:    "Yes, I am afraid so we have our reputation to think of, I mean how could we?  An attack in the middle of a constitutional debate, what kind of terrorist organization do you think we are?"

Omar : Our long term objective is for our Sharia law to rule the world hence we must pray to Allah that the American constitution holds up and Trump looses his appeal. We need to propagate with as many wives as possible in order to over run the world with Muslims. 

At this point in time we have been ordered by our Imim to hold back our planned attach to nuk our target at Times Square.

Hamed: Yes you are right Omar, our long term objective must rule our minds and our dicks.

we need to continue to spread our Muslim tentacles throughout the USA to all levels of business and government. The time will come when all our brother who don't follow Sharia law will fall into line as easy as pie.

Lets hope the constitution continues to work for us and against America just like there gun laws have.

[dunroaming]

So where are Mustafa, Ahmed and Omar having their conversations?  In a McDonalds just off of Times Square?  Or maybe in one of the terrorist cell countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, probably having coffee in one of Trumps buildings there.

 

Confusing? 

[bannork]

7 minutes ago, pokerface1 said:

Omar : Our long term objective is for our Sharia law to rule the world hence we must pray to Allah that the American constitution holds up and Trump looses his appeal. We need to propagate with as many wives as possible in order to over run the world with Muslims. 

At this point in time we have been ordered by our Imim to hold back our planned attach to nuk our target at Times Square.

Hamed: Yes you are right Omar, our long term objective must rule our minds and our dicks.

we need to continue to spread our Muslim tentacles throughout the USA to all levels of business and government. The time will come when all our brother who don't follow Sharia law will fall into line as easy as pie.

Lets hope the constitution continues to work for us and against America just like there gun laws have.

How is this propagating with as many wives as possible going to lead to a population explosion of Muslims? If one Muslim man has four wives that means three other potential Muslim bridegrooms have lost the opportunity to go forth and multiply.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, pokerface1 said:

I don't think anyone realizes the strategy that the president has put into play. He has created a stalemate in the courts. On one side he has his executive powers on the other he has the constitution. The courts are the battlefield  and as we all know once any ruling is made it's open to appeal after appeal.

Hence he has created a situation that virtually guarantees that there will be no terrorist attack in the USA at least not until a final decision is made which could take years.

Well done Mr President!!!   

"Hence he has created a situation that virtually guarantees that there will be no terrorist attack in the USA at least not until a final decision is made which could take years."

 Not one terrorist attack in the USA has occurred because of immigrants from these countries. Yet the USA has had terrorist attacks. How exactly do you reconcile these 2 facts? Or, like Trump, is it that you don't just care.

And your statement is even more preposterous still. Right now, the justices have put Trump's decision on hold. Which means that those so called dangerous immigrants are getting through.

And wait..it gets even worse. It's not going to take years to get a final decision on this. Probably it will be decided within a month.

But congratulations, with one sentence you've manage to assert 3 falsehoods.  It's a trifecta!

[pokerface1]

57 minutes ago, bannork said:

How is this propagating with as many wives as possible going to lead to a population explosion of Muslims? If one Muslim man has four wives that means three other potential Muslim bridegrooms have lost the opportunity to go forth and multiply.

 

 

Use your imagination ...Marry non Muslims and convert them over time 

 

[Andaman Al]

29 minutes ago, pokerface1 said:

Use your imagination ...Marry non Muslims and convert them over time 

 

And you can say all this and keep a poker face?

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 Not one terrorist attack in the USA has occurred because of immigrants from these countries. 

Please quit repeating this dishonest talking point ad nauseum. It is not true. There have been arrests, attacks, conspiracies and injuries eminating from refugees from the 7 countries.

 

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/ap-fact-check-no-arrests-from-7-nations-in-travel-ban-nope/

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Hence he has created a situation that virtually guarantees that there will be no terrorist attack in the USA at least not until a final decision is made which could take years."

 Not one terrorist attack in the USA has occurred because of immigrants from these countries. Yet the USA has had terrorist attacks. How exactly do you reconcile these 2 facts? Or, like Trump, is it that you don't just care.

And your statement is even more preposterous still. Right now, the justices have put Trump's decision on hold. Which means that those so called dangerous immigrants are getting through.

And wait..it gets even worse. It's not going to take years to get a final decision on this. Probably it will be decided within a month.

But congratulations, with one sentence you've manage to assert 3 falsehoods.  It's a trifecta!

 

17 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Please quit repeating this dishonest talking point ad nauseum. It is not true. There have been arrests, attacks, conspiracies and injuries eminating from refugees from the 7 countries.

 

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/ap-fact-check-no-arrests-from-7-nations-in-travel-ban-nope/

 

Please take a course in remedial reading. I didn't say no arrests. I said no attacks.

What's more, the 3 would be terrorists cited in that article you linked to all came to the USA before the vetting was tightened even more in 2011. Since 2011, no immigrants admitted from these 7nations have been jailed or prosecuted for being involved with terrorism in any way.

Edited February 9, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Andaman Al]

21 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Please quit repeating this dishonest talking point ad nauseum. It is not true. There have been arrests, attacks, conspiracies and injuries eminating from refugees from the 7 countries.

 

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/ap-fact-check-no-arrests-from-7-nations-in-travel-ban-nope/

 

No no no.

 

The article you link to quotes Robart as saying

 

Quote

He asked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. When the lawyer said she didn’t know, Robart answered his own question: “Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell.

But ACTUALLY what Robart said was this

 

Quote

How many citizens of the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by the ban, he asked Bennett, had been arrested on domestic terrorism charges since 9/11? She said she didn’t know—but he did. The answer, he said, was zero.

Now that is a kind of pretty important distinction don't you think?

 

You are spinning again. A Somalian having a car crash and attacking people with a knife is NOT and was NOT domestic terrorism, it was just one of a hundred nut job incidents carried out on US soil that day, the rest being White and Black natural born US citizens.

 

As regards the 'Iraqi' who was plotting to blow himself up his name allegedly was Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, he was actually Palestinian born. Non of the MSM reported the story (but Breitbart did) and he has not been heard of since even though he was supposed to be sentenced on Jan 17th.

 

Neither incident holds up.

 

Now if you DO want some incidents worthy of investigation then lets look at 9/11. If Saudi and Egypt were on the list I could kind have lived with it, but CLEARLY the aim is not to protect the USA from terrorism because those countries on the list are not where the terrorism is coming from (though it may well some time soon as a result of Trumps actions).

Edited February 9, 2017 by Andaman Al

[onthesoi]

15 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

....will be upheld if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

 

I thought you said Trump would get his way by the end of the week?

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, onthesoi said:

 

I thought you said Trump would get his way by the end of the week?

That is one of his alternative facts    

[Ulysses G.]

30 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

I thought you said Trump would get his way by the end of the week?

 

Please provide a link to that statement. I said that he would prevail in the end.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

Please take a course in remedial reading. I didn't say no arrests. I said no attacks.

 

Speaking of remedial reading. The Seattle Times Fact-check refers to an attack in which 11 people were injured by a Muslim refugee from Somalia. Please stop the hair splitting. Apparently you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong, even when presented with conclusive evidence.    

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/28/developing-active-shooter-alert-at-ohio-state.html

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/28/ohio-state-shooting-students-shelter-place-reports-active-shooter

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-dead-after-ohio-state-university-car-knife-attack-n689076

Edited February 9, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

44 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Speaking of remedial reading. The Seattle Times Fact-check refers to an attack in which 11 people were injured by a Muslim refugee from Somalia. Please stop the hair splitting. Apparently you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong, even when presented with conclusive evidence.    

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/28/developing-active-shooter-alert-at-ohio-state.html

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/28/ohio-state-shooting-students-shelter-place-reports-active-shooter

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-dead-after-ohio-state-university-car-knife-attack-n689076

 

Brilliant. The Seattle Times can only find a couple of incidents in 6 years and one of them is the Bowling Green massacre.

 

Lots of attacks on schools and Universities by a range of non Muslim people with large arsenals of weapons which I seem to recall are dismissed as 'mental health' related attacks. I wonder why? Probably because mots of these guys were white (except of the UVa one if I remember correctly). So statistically, one school attack by a Somali against multiple attacks by mentally challenged white dudes shows the Muslims are not really doing so well in the mass murder game.

 

Anyway, I really want to hear your spin on the Bowling Green massacre. You know, the one where the two Iraqi's conspired to send money to ISIS that resulted in such a tragedy on the Bowling Green.

 

Your constant attacking of other posters for dishonest spin really sticks in the craw of many people when having to trawl through your usual apologist distractions..

[onthesoi]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

Please provide a link to that statement. I said that he would prevail in the end.

Sorry, did I say by the end of the week, you actually said by the start of the week.

 

On 05/02/2017 at 1:49 AM, Ulysses G. said:

That will all change as soon as the DOJ can respond when the courts open after the weekend.

 

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 Not one terrorist attack in the USA has occurred because of immigrants from these countries. Yet the USA has had terrorist attacks.

 

 

This is the claim and it has been repeated ad nauseum. It is a blatant untruth. Amusing to see those claiming it, now trying to spin their way out of admitting it is untrue.

 

There HAVE been attacks. There have been arrests and there have been conspiracies that were foiled. This dishonest talking point is done.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

Sorry, did I say by the end of the week, you actually said by the start of the week.

 

 

You do realize that the court has not ruled yet? LOL.