Trump says courts too political; no travel ban ruling on Wednesday

[webfact]

Trump says courts too political; no travel ban ruling on Wednesday

By Roberta Rampton

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the law enforcement at the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) Winter Conference in Washington, U.S., February 8, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump fumed on Wednesday over what he called too much politics in the U.S. judiciary, while a federal appeals court kept him and the rest of the country waiting for its ruling on a temporary suspension of his travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries.

 

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments on Tuesday on the Trump administration's challenge to a lower court ruling putting the temporary travel ban on hold. The appeals court said it would rule as soon as possible but not on Wednesday.

 

On Saturday, Trump accused U.S. District Judge James Robart, the Seattle judge who suspended Trump's order last week, of opening the United States to "potential terrorists." Trump, who argues his Jan. 27 executive order is aimed at heading off attacks by Islamist militants, has repeatedly vented his frustration over the halt since then.

 

"I don't ever want to call a court biased," Trump told hundreds of police chiefs and sheriffs from major cities at a meeting in a Washington hotel on Wednesday. "So I won't call it biased. And we haven't had a decision yet. But courts seem to be so political. And it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read the statement and do what's right."

Trump was also dismissive of Tuesday's court hearing.

 

"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," Trump said, referring to the appeals court proceedings.

 

The appeals court must decide whether Trump acted within his authority or violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on laws favouring one religion over another, as well as anti-discrimination laws, and whether it was tantamount to a discriminatory ban targeting Muslims.

 

The 9th Circuit is expected to decide the narrow question of whether a lower court judge acted properly in temporarily halting enforcement of the president’s order. While the court could take into account the strength of the arguments on both sides, this is just a first step in a fast-moving case.

 

Trump's order barred travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days, except those from civil war-torn Syria, who are subject to an indefinite ban.

 

VIEWS OF JUDGES

 

Trump, a Republican, has made extensive use of presidential directives that bypass Congress since taking office on Jan. 20, and has appeared to be taken aback by legal challenges to his travel order.

 

He praised a federal judge in Boston who earlier ruled in his favour on the travel ban as a "highly respected" jurist whose findings were "perfect."

 

On Saturday, Trump labelled the Seattle judge who put his directive on hold last Friday a "so-called judge" who made a "ridiculous" ruling. Robart was appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush.

 

Last year, Trump accused Indiana-born U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel of bias in overseeing a lawsuit against one of Trump's businesses, Trump University, because of his Mexican heritage.

 

Democrats and other critics have called Trump's comments towards the judiciary an attack on a core principle of American democracy: that the courts are independent and uphold the rule of law. Under the Constitution, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of the U.S. government, along with Congress and the president's executive branch.

 

At the meeting with law enforcement officials, Trump read from the law he cited to justify the travel ban, quoting it in fragments and sprinkling in bits of interpretation. He said the law clearly allowed a president to suspend entry of any class of people if he determines them to be a detriment to national security.

 

During Tuesday's oral argument, the appeals court panel pressed an administration lawyer over whether the national security argument was backed by evidence that people from the seven countries posed a danger.

 

Judge Richard Clifton, also appointed to the bench by Bush, posed equally tough questions for a lawyer representing Minnesota and Washington states, which are challenging the ban.

 

The order, the most divisive act of Trump's young presidency, sparked protests and chaos at U.S. and overseas airports.

 

Ultimately the matter is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is ideologically split with four liberal justices and four conservatives pending Senate action on Trump's nomination of conservative appellate judge Neil Gorsuch to fill a lingering vacancy on the high court.

 

U.S. State Department figures showed that 480 refugees have been admitted to the United States since Robart's order went into effect, including 168 on Wednesday. Of those admitted, 198 were from war-torn Syria.

 

(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Susan Heavey and David Shepardson in Washington; Writing by Will Dunham and Frances Kerry; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Bill Trott and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-09

[NanLaew]

Yes, too political. So why is he nominating Gorsuch?

 

It seems his nominee isn't too happy about Trump's blatant desire to foster a judiciary similar to the one created by Chavez in Venezuela that simply rubber stamps anything that comes from the President.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed along with replies. 

 

Continued nonsensical arguments about sources will result in suspensions.  

 

It's a discussion forum with threads being about topics.  

[craigt3365]

Gotta love what Trump's own pick says:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/08/news/companies/donald-trump-nordstrom-ivanka/index.html

Quote

 

Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch calls Trump's tweets 'disheartening'

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch told a US senator Wednesday that President Donald Trump's tweets about the judiciary are "demoralizing" and "disheartening."

 

 

Maybe some of Trump's supporters will start saying the same thing? LOL

[rijb]

If he is allowed to ban travel from these countries, will he be allowed to ban travel from any country?  Whoever he doesn't like, at the moment?

[Emster23]

Will it ever dawn on Trump that politics is political? That it is not a business?

[zaphod reborn]

So far, five different courts have taken the position that a constitutional challenge is likely to succeed on the merits and issued injunctions.  Maybe Trump should talk to his new AG, Sessions, and determine if this is just a dead issue and move on with trying to formulate something constitutional to present to Congress.

[55Jay]

Naw, just stick with a bad idea and ride that sucker into the dirt, like Zorro.  Eventually he'll mumble something about not wanting to talk about it anymore, like Obama's birth certificate.

[craigt3365]

Gotta love this.  Trump's big mouth and tweets might come back to haunt him:

 

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/7/14537716/trump-court-immigration-constitution-refugee-ban

 

Quote

 

Lawmakers generally do not make statements targeting religious or other groups, and even if one legislator is so boorish, the legislature as a whole can disavow that legislator as an outlier.

 

Here, however, the EO is promulgated by the person of the president, who is repeatedly and widely on the record discussing the need for a Muslim ban. Additionally, the president’s intent is corroborated by at least one well-known person, Rudolph Giuliani, who claims to have offered advice in how to draft the EO so that the “Muslim ban” would not, in fact, look like a “Muslim ban.”

 

 

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

The appeals court must decide whether Trump acted within his authority or violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on laws favouring one religion over another, as well as anti-discrimination laws, and whether it was tantamount to a discriminatory ban targeting Muslims.

Incorrect. Sorry Reuters.

 

The appeals court must decide if the plaintiffs in challenging to Presidential order (now defendants before the District Court of Appeals have 1) Standing to request a Temporary Restraining Order and 2) whether the travel ban can continue to be applied while the legal issues are decided in the lower court. Court of Appeals questioning was directed at those two questions, albeit the Trump government strayed far beyond those questions in its testimony.

 

While heart of the case are questions of whether the suspension of admissions from the seven predominantly Muslim countries amount to religious discrimination, and what limits exist to the president’s broad authority to protect the country from terrorism, those questions will be addressed either in the Lower Court or in the US Supreme Court if the Trump government can show cause for an emergency ruling by the USSC .

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-order-legal-20170206-story.html

Edited February 9, 2017 by Srikcir
link

[rijb]

Executive Orders Explained For British People

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/<deleted>-is-an-executive-order?utm_term=.cmqDVK3oB#.nsKbQ2KR3

 

Right now, no courts have actually ruled directly on the order itself: All the legal fights so far have been about whether enforcing the order should be paused in advance of those legal arguments. And almost all the courts who’ve looked at it agree that there’s a good enough chance the ban will eventually be overturned by the courts, and that therefore it shouldn’t be enforced until a final ruling has happened.

[lungmi]

Trump already made a wall around the USA.

Tourism in the US from countries in the world  declines significantly.

[rijb]

1 hour ago, lungmi said:

Trump already made a wall around the USA.

Tourism in the US from countries in the world  declines significantly.

You misspelled Terrorism.

[timendres]

The religious discrimination argument is a red herring. The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That has nothing to do with banning entry to the US for citizens from specific countries. In fact, that would be nonsense. Imagine using that argument in the midst of a war with another country.

 

Simply establish whether or not the Executive branch has the authority to ban entry based on a person's citizenship, and what limits there are to such authority, then rule on it.

Edited February 9, 2017 by timendres

[hawker9000]

18 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

So far, five different courts have taken the position that a constitutional challenge is likely to succeed on the merits and issued injunctions.  Maybe Trump should talk to his new AG, Sessions, and determine if this is just a dead issue and move on with trying to formulate something constitutional to present to Congress.

LOL.  Yeah, that was always Obama's approach, wasn't it...

 

 

[WaywardWind]

The TRO has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html?adkey=bn

 

The ruling was unanimous - all three judges agreed to continue blocking Trump's ban.

 

Some day, he will learn that the US Constitution is more powerful than his tantrums....

Edited February 9, 2017 by WaywardWind

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, WaywardWind said:

The TRO has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html?adkey=bn

 

The ruling was unanimous - all three judges agreed to continue blocking Trump's ban.

 

Some day, he will learn that the US Constitution is more powerful than his tantrums....

Great!  Where are all the Trump supporters saying he would prevail?  Democracy at it's finest.

[WaywardWind]

10 hours ago, timendres said:

The religious discrimination argument is a red herring. The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That has nothing to do with banning entry to the US for citizens from specific countries. In fact, that would be nonsense. Imagine using that argument in the midst of a war with another country.

 

Simply establish whether or not the Executive branch has the authority to ban entry based on a person's citizenship, and what limits there are to such authority, then rule on it.

You neglect to mention existing Federal law, which specifically prohibits discrimination in the issuance of an immigrant visa on the basis of race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. Trump's EO violates this provision.

 

8 USC 1152 (a) (1) (A)

 

(a) Per country level

(1) Nondiscrimination

(A)

Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

[zaphod reborn]

5 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

LOL.  Yeah, that was always Obama's approach, wasn't it...

 

 

With regard to immigration, Obama made a very limited executive order as to Iraqi immigrants, and it did not suspend their immigration, only heightened scrutiny for inbound visitors and immigrants.  As far as Executive Orders go, opponents were not very successful in court challenges.  Maybe it's time the Trumpsters realize that the Constitution and the judiciary can offset any push to boost Trump to dictator status.

[hawker9000]

Just now, zaphod reborn said:

With regard to immigration, Obama made a very limited executive order as to Iraqi immigrants, and it did not suspend their immigration, only heightened scrutiny for inbound visitors and immigrants.  As far as Executive Orders go, opponents were not very successful in court challenges.  Maybe it's time the Trumpsters realize that the Constitution and the judiciary can offset any push to boost Trump to dictator status.

Or maybe the fat lady just hasn't sung yet...

 

"Dictator status"....    5555555555555    After 8 yrs of the imperial Obama.....     ROFLMAO

 

 

[zaphod reborn]

28 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Or maybe the fat lady just hasn't sung yet...

 

"Dictator status"....    5555555555555    After 8 yrs of the imperial Obama.....     ROFLMAO

 

 

Too bad, the 9th Circuit found that the EO likely would violate the 5th amendment (right to due process) rights of students and lecturers at universities, and that was the reason for upholding the injunction.  The Constitution will trump Trump every time.  I'm not a libtard, but a libertarian, who believes the federal government is out of control, and Trump is one of the biggest monsters to occupy the swamp.

[timendres]

On 2/9/2017 at 9:34 PM, WaywardWind said:

You neglect to mention existing Federal law, which specifically prohibits discrimination in the issuance of an immigrant visa on the basis of race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. Trump's EO violates this provision.

 

8 USC 1152 (a) (1) (A)

 

(a) Per country level

(1) Nondiscrimination

(A)

Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

 

First, the provisions that you quote mention nothing with regards to religion, which is the red herring to which I referred.

 

Said provisions refer to "no person", which implies this section is designed to prevent individual discrimination, not designations aimed at organizations or countries. It cannot be used to override other provisions which prohibit entry.

 

To wit, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II Part II, Section 3, (a) and (b):

 

(3) Security and related grounds

(A) In generalAny alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—

(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is inadmissible.

(B) Terrorist activities

 

And what about section 10?

(10) Miscellaneous

(A) Practicing polygamists

Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible.

 

Are we to assume that an immigrant falling under section 3, who claims their religious beliefs demand that they attempt to destroy the US, should be allowed entry to the US? Or under section 10, that they could argue religious discrimination if they claim that their religion promotes polygamy? Or that any citizen of a country that has declared war on the US can override security concerns based on the non-discrimination clause you cite?

 

No reasonable person would wish for an individual to be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, and US Code prohibits this. But if a country as a whole is deemed to be a threat to the US, it is entirely reasonable to deny any citizen of that country entry into the US, and using their religious belief as some reason to override this is ludicrous. Hence my statement that the religious argument in this case is a red herring.

 

[timendres]

On 2/9/2017 at 10:29 PM, zaphod reborn said:

The Constitution will trump Trump every time.

As it should, thankfully. It is the duty of the Legislative and Judicial branches to check the power of the Executive.