Trump say appeals court decision on travel ban was 'political'

[webfact]

Trump say appeals court decision on travel ban was 'political'

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a swearing-in ceremony for new Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R) at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 9, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Thursday called the appellate court ruling that upheld the suspension of his order restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries a "political decision," and vowed his administration would ultimately prevail.

 

"We'll see them in court," Trump told reporters who had gathered outside his press secretary's office. "It's a political decision."

 

Trump said he did not view the ruling as a major setback for his White House.

 

"This is just a decision that came down, but we're going to win the case," he said.

 

(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Sandra Maler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-10

[LannaGuy]

of course it was 'political'  why are courts interfering with executive and elected decisions?  did they do that before?  NO

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

of course it was 'political'  why are courts interfering with executive and elected decisions?  did they do that before?  NO

Yes.  Do some research.  And it's not political, the courts are upholding the law.  Luckily.  This shows our democratic system of checks and balances works.  Keeps the president from becoming a dictator.

[smedly]

Yes indeed

 

What I see here as the problem is the fact that the court (unlike recently in the UK) is entering politics by actually making a political decision as opposed to ruling whether the Trump Administration had the constitutional legal right to exercise the executive order  (in Thailand known as Art44), two entirely different things  

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, smedly said:

Yes indeed

 

What I see here as the problem is the fact that the court (unlike recently in the UK) is entering politics by actually making a political decision as opposed to ruling whether the Trump Administration had the constitutional legal right to exercise the executive order  (in Thailand known as Art44), two entirely different things  

Being more conservative or more liberal doesn't mean you are political.  These judges followed the rule of the law.  Luckily.

[mtls2005]

4-4 Supreme Court, previous court's decision would prevail. Game, set and match: U.S. Constitution; President loses three-set match 0-6, 0-6, 0-6.

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

of course it was 'political'  why are courts interfering with executive and elected decisions?  did they do that before?  NO

 

Perhaps you'd prefer Russia or N. Korea, where "executive decisions" go unchallenged.  Doesn't work that way in a true democracy, i.e., USA. 

[Andaman Al]

Look at Sessions' face in the photo, now that is a caption competition    . "<deleted> is he saying? And I have got to be Attorney General for this clown. Hey hasn't his hair gone from orange yellow to white in 3 days?"

[LannaGuy]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

 

Perhaps you'd prefer Russia or N. Korea, where "executive decisions" go unchallenged.  Doesn't work that way in a true democracy, i.e., USA. 

oh sorry i forgot USA is a 'true' democracy where someone who gets 3m votes less wins... Democrats would love that in Thailand they might stand a chance of winning   lol

[LannaGuy]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Yes.  Do some research.  And it's not political, the courts are upholding the law.  Luckily.  This shows our democratic system of checks and balances works.  Keeps the president from becoming a dictator.

nonsense the unelected courts have no place challenging an incoming POTUS UNLESS what he did was unlawful and I'm not even a Trump supporter but I can see the bias

[DM07]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

nonsense the unelected courts have no place challenging an incoming POTUS UNLESS what he did was unlawful and I'm not even a Trump supporter but I can see the bias

Well...obviously it was kind of "unlawful"...hence the COURT ruling against it!

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

nonsense the unelected courts have no place challenging an incoming POTUS UNLESS what he did was unlawful and I'm not even a Trump supporter but I can see the bias

He has every right to challenge the POTUS if an illegal EO has been issued.  Which seems to be the case here. It's happened before. 

[yardrunner]

6 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

of course it was 'political'  why are courts interfering with executive and elected decisions?  did they do that before?  NO

Yes they did, unfortunately The Donald thinks that everyone should do what he says rather than what the law sys

 

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

nonsense the unelected courts have no place challenging an incoming POTUS UNLESS what he did was unlawful and I'm not even a Trump supporter but I can see the bias

but the courts have decided that it may be unlawful and until the decision is made as to lawful or unlawful the legislation is on hold

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

oh sorry i forgot USA is a 'true' democracy where someone who gets 3m votes less wins... Democrats would love that in Thailand they might stand a chance of winning   lol

What does that have to do with this topic?

[Emster23]

Would some of those expressing such outrage please get some refresher course (and study) the US political system. Yes political. Yes courts are one of the three branches of political system.

" did they do that before?  NO " Um might want to look at Andrew Jackson being told by Marshall Supreme Court his eviction of Indians, the "trail of tears" was illegal. Jackson said "Let him enforce it". He should have been impeached for that, but guess House of Reps had other fish to fry.

[LannaGuy]

25 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What does that have to do with this topic?

everything as I was replying to a poster who brought up US democracy

[WaywardWind]

30 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

nonsense the unelected courts have no place challenging an incoming POTUS UNLESS what he did was unlawful and I'm not even a Trump supporter but I can see the bias

Federal judges at all levels are investigated and vetted in incredible detail, and then mus be approved by the US Senate.

Even the current Attorney General couldn't make it through the process, and was turned back by the Senate for his racist views and activities.

 

Trump, on the other hand, got his position by making false promises to various groups of Americans...where is the vetting in that?

 

I would trust the process for federal judges far more...

 

And incidentally, what he did WAS illegal...the law is clear that issuance of visas to immigrants cannot discriminate on the basis of place of birth, nationality, and several other criteria.  Look it up: 8 USC 1152.

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

Federal judges at all levels are investigated and vetted in incredible detail, and then mus be approved by the US Senate.

Even the current Attorney General couldn't make it through the process, and was turned back by the Senate for his racist views and activities.

 

Trump, on the other hand, got his position by making false promises to various groups of Americans...where is the vetting in that?

 

I would trust the process for federal judges far more...

 

And incidentally, what he did WAS illegal...the law is clear that issuance of visas to immigrants cannot discriminate on the basis of place of birth, nationality, and several other criteria.  Look it up: 8 USC 1152.

the vetting in that is supposed to be the electorate and he lost by 3m votes - I'm totally for changing this stupid system and BTW I supported Berni

[attrayant]

7 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

why are courts interfering with executive and elected decisions?  did they do that before?  NO

 

I remember the good old days when people used to be hesitant to speak up if they didn't know what they were talking about, or had no proof to back them up.  

 

Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

I remember the good old days when people used to be hesitant to speak up if they didn't know what they were talking about, or had no proof to back them up.  

 

Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan

well i do get that if it goes to the SC then that's it they set the powers and i am totally against stopping people who have valid visa/ green cards etc.  not well thought through 

[lifeincnx]

56 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

oh sorry i forgot USA is a 'true' democracy where someone who gets 3m votes less wins... Democrats would love that in Thailand they might stand a chance of winning   lol

Actually we are  a Republic. That said, the the EC does need updating... bigly.

 

[Chip Allen]

Trump is simply not used to being told "NO". He will have to learn the hard way that, as President, he can no longer get his way by threatening or filing lawsuits and complaining loudly. Decision of the judges is final. 

[Seismic]

3 hours ago, Berkshire said:

 

Perhaps you'd prefer Russia or N. Korea, where "executive decisions" go unchallenged.  Doesn't work that way in a true democracy, i.e., USA. 

The US is not a 'true democracy', it is a constitutional republic.

[maewang99]

notice he is a genuine Job Creator.

he knows. this is his thing. big lawsuits, big bankruptcies plus prenups and divorces.... all create lots and lots of jobs, and not just for lawyers but for CPA's too. now it's even easier.... he can just issue executive orders.... all the live long day... and create jobs.

he's a Great Job Creator! 







 

Edited February 10, 2017 by maewang99

[Gecko123]

His lack of respect for and attacks on the judiciary are as alarming and despicable as his attacks on the press. At the first hint of a recession, the Federal Reserve will surly receive the same treatment. This man is unfit to hold the office of the presidency.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Gecko123

[Dagnabbit]

3 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

Federal judges at all levels are investigated and vetted in incredible detail, and then mus be approved by the US Senate.

Even the current Attorney General couldn't make it through the process, and was turned back by the Senate for his racist views and activities.

 

Trump, on the other hand, got his position by making false promises to various groups of Americans...where is the vetting in that?

 

I would trust the process for federal judges far more...

 

And incidentally, what he did WAS illegal...the law is clear that issuance of visas to immigrants cannot discriminate on the basis of place of birth, nationality, and several other criteria.  Look it up: 8 USC 1152.

Immigration law in the US already VERY clearly has different rules based on nationality.

 

Or maybe you can explain why someone holding a British passport can fly to and enter the US, when a Thai citizen can't without going through a lengthy visa application process.

 

So OF COURSE they can have different rules for different countries. That is the norm.

[smotherb]

12 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

of course it was 'political'  why are courts interfering with executive and elected decisions?  did they do that before?  NO

Did you never hear of a system of checks and balances?

[ELVIS123456]

I am astonished by how unaware so many posters are in regards to this issue. But it is very clear that the majority of American people are well aware of two obvious points:

1. Nothing was done about this same thing when Obama did it (and several others); and

2. There is ample evidence (eg. see today's news from Sweden just for one) that refugees from certain countries are causing problems in the western world and there have been many refugees arrested and convicted of felonies in USA.

 

The Dems/Libs are playing politics against Trump and at all turns are refusing to accept the election outcome. It is becoming ridiculous and this is just another political move opposing Trump. What they are not realising however, is that these tactics of violent protests and political interferences, are in fact guaranteeing that Trump will be re-elected in 2020 with a big increase in his margin (both votes and colleges). It is time for the Dems/Libs to move on and let Trump do what he was elected to do - but they cant and wont (not accepting defeat is undemocratic and a threat to the country - Hillary?). Doing what the Dems and Libs are doing just guarantees Trump 8 years and will further increase the Rep majorities in both the Senate and House - and Trump will win most fights in the end anyway. 

 

PS - for those unaware Hillary was the 5th (fifth) POTUS nominee to get more votes but lose the election.  Just like in Aust where any referendum requires the majority of votes in each State AND the majority of States (otherwise NSW and VIC would decide all votes), the electoral system in USA was specifically set up to protect the smaller States against the more populist ones doing whatever they wanted at the expense of the smaller ones. America is a Republic of UNITED STATES !!

 

[Srikcir]

12 hours ago, smedly said:

whether the Trump Administration had the constitutional legal right to exercise the executive order 

That wasn't the issue before the Court of Appeals.

 

One of the issues was whether the courts had the right to review Presidential Orders for constitutionality. The government argued that by the very nature of Presidential power, the President's Orders are "unreviewable" by the Courts. The court disagreed based on the checks and balances of the three branches specified in the Constitution. So the Court's decision was legally-based and not politically-based. The case needs to go back to the District Court for a full trial and court decision on the issues such as constitutionality of the travel ban based on the FACTS of the case.

 

Paradoxically, Trump said, "We'll see them in court" - an admission that the PO is reviewable by the court. Otherwise, he should simply respond that he'll ignore the court's decision as the court has no authority over the President and reinstate the ban by his own edict. 

[elgordo38]

15 hours ago, smedly said:

Yes indeed

 

What I see here as the problem is the fact that the court (unlike recently in the UK) is entering politics by actually making a political decision as opposed to ruling whether the Trump Administration had the constitutional legal right to exercise the executive order  (in Thailand known as Art44), two entirely different things  

In the future the line will be just one big blur between politics, the courts (after Trumps nominee casts the deciding vote its a game folks!!) and the pastor in the pulpit saying for "Gods sake" (no more no less on this statement) vote for a particular politician. Religion can now enter politics in a big way according to an executive order. Yes the pen is mightier than the sword.