Courts likely to probe Trump's intent in issuing travel ban

[webfact]

Courts likely to probe Trump's intent in issuing travel ban

By Andrew Chung and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

A man participating in a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's immigration policy at the Jewish Rally for Refugees stands in front of a Trump supporter in New York City, U.S. February 12, 2017. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Washington state’s attorney general has promised to uncover "what truly motivated" President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration, an approach that could prompt a rare public examination of how a U.S. president makes national security decisions.

 

The presidential order imposed a temporary ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, but a federal judge has barred enforcement of the order while the court considers a challenge brought by Washington state.

 

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit left the judge’s ruling in place without deciding the ultimate merits of either side’s arguments. In its decision, the 9th Circuit cited a previous case establishing that “circumstantial evidence of intent, including … statements by decision makers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.”

 

The Trump administration has argued that the ban is necessary to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country and is not discriminatory because the text of the order does not mention any particular religion.

 

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson signalled on Sunday that he will move aggressively to obtain written documents and emails authored by administration officials that might contain evidence the order was unconstitutionally biased against Muslims or Islam. He also said he would also move to depose administration officials.

 

Legal scholars say this could move the court into uncharted waters.

 

"The idea of looking at motive has never really been applied to the president," said John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration.     

 

"It would represent a serious expansion of judicial oversight of what the president and the entire executive branch does," said Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law.

    

SCRUTINIZING CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS

 

Trump has harshly criticized the federal judge in Washington for his decision and a top White House aide on Sunday accused the 9th Circuit of a "judicial usurpation of power."

 

"The president's powers here are beyond question," senior policy adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News Sunday.

 

U.S. courts have historically been careful about probing the motives behind laws, in part out of respect for the separation of powers between branches of government. But on questions of racial or religious discrimination, they have sometimes allowed intent to be examined.

 

In 1993, for instance, the Supreme Court found that an ordinance banning animal sacrifice in Hialeah, Florida, though neutral on its face, was actually intended to discriminate against a Santeria church, which holds sacrifice as a sacred rite.

 

Stephen Griffin, a professor of constitutional law at Tulane University, said cases like this make it clear that the court can look beyond the words of Trump's executive order. "Motive is relevant," he said.

 

One question in the current case is likely to be which, if any, of Trump’s statements should be admissible in examining the administration’s motives in issuing the order.

 

"If you're allowed to use evidence from the campaign, the state's case is very strong," said Griffin.

 

In December, 2015, days after a mass attack by an Islamic State sympathizers in San Bernardino, California, Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what is going on." He later said he supported only suspending immigration from areas with a history of terrorism.

 

Stanford University Law School professor Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals judge, said the court should not consider campaign statements, because Trump only swore an oath to uphold the Constitution after he became president.

 

In its complaint, Washington cited an interview the president did on the day the order was signed with the Christian Broadcasting Network, saying he would prioritise Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees. 

 

WHO CAN BE QUESTIONED?

 

Legal experts are divided on whether the state's lawyers should be allowed to question the president's advisers – and possibly even the president – in depositions. The White House could potentially claim executive privilege, which protects the president and other officials from subpoena, said Thomas Lee, an expert in constitutional law at Fordham University.

 

Anna-Rose Mathieson a partner with the California Appellate Law Group said that one person who might be more easily deposed would be presidential adviser and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who told Fox News the president had asked him to put a commission together to figure out how to make a Muslim ban legal.

 

David Pressman, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner and former assistant secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, said there are important protections in place so that the executive branch can receive national security advice.

 

"You don't want a situation in which courts are adjudicating intelligence that is coming to the executive when trying to formulate policy," said Pressman. Though in this case, Pressman said he did not believe the national security argument for the order was clear, opening the door to further questioning.

 

The next steps in the case are not certain.

The Trump administration has said it is considering appealing the 9th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court, and the 9th Circuit itself might decide to rehear the case with a larger panel of judges. The president has also said he might replace the order with “a brand new” one, which could end the current legal action.

 

(Additional reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-14

[stevenl]

His only wise option is to replace the current EO with a new, well thought through one. The can of worms he opens otherwise will be bigger than he can swallow.

[craigt3365]

The courts have said previous comments by the president may be used to determine his intent.  During elections, he did say he wanted a Muslim Ban.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Trump and his team are getting into more and more trouble, including the disaster just revealed here:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/mar-a-lago-north-korea-trump.html?emc=edit_ae_20170213&nl=todaysheadlines-asia&nlid=58582962

 

One of these events is going to get him.  How hard is the question.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The courts have said previous comments by the president may be used to determine his intent.  During elections, he did say he wanted a Muslim Ban.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Trump and his team are getting into more and more trouble, including the disaster just revealed here:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/mar-a-lago-north-korea-trump.html?emc=edit_ae_20170213&nl=todaysheadlines-asia&nlid=58582962

 

One of these events is going to get him.  How hard is the question.

Do you have a link to him saying he wanted to ban Muslims per se, and not saying that he wanted to ban immigration, TEMPORARILY, from nations that were likely to have terrorists that want to kill infidels? It is a fact that the nations that are most likely to harbour people that want to kill me because I am an infidel are Muslim.

I do not recall him saying that he wanted to ban Muslims just because of their religion, and in any event it was only till extreme vetting could be brought in, so that negates any attempt to say he doesn't want Muslims per se.

Perhaps Trump is getting into strife because Obama didn't do what needed to be done, and it needs to be sorted now. In any event, IMO none of the people attacking the travel ban care about it because they just want to destroy Trump and will use any reason they can.

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The courts have said previous comments by the president may be used to determine his intent.  During elections, he did say he wanted a Muslim Ban.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Trump and his team are getting into more and more trouble, including the disaster just revealed here:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/mar-a-lago-north-korea-trump.html?emc=edit_ae_20170213&nl=todaysheadlines-asia&nlid=58582962

 

One of these events is going to get him.  How hard is the question.

I just read your linked news item and it's pathetic how far some people will go to try and smear Trump for any reason, no matter how ridiculous.

The Dems are once again proving why they deserved to lose.

Edited February 14, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Langsuan Man]

Here:

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you have a link to him saying he wanted to ban Muslims per se,

Here:

Quote

The Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump reads a statement issued by his campaign office on Monday calling for a ‘total and complete shutdown’ on Muslims entering the US. Stating that ‘we have no choice’, Trump goes on to say that the authorities should be looking at mosques as there is ‘anger’ within them, and calls on the audience to report ‘violations’ without regard for being accused of ‘profiling’

source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Here:

Here:

source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

It continues

"until the country's representatives can figure out what the h__l is going on"

He is NOT calling for a permanent ban, and by only reporting the bit you did you propagate the vile media's  propaganda on Trump wanting to ban Muslims for being Muslim.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you have a link to him saying he wanted to ban Muslims per se, and not saying that he wanted to ban immigration, TEMPORARILY, from nations that were likely to have terrorists that want to kill infidels? It is a fact that the nations that are most likely to harbour people that want to kill me because I am an infidel are Muslim.

I do not recall him saying that he wanted to ban Muslims just because of their religion, and in any event it was only till extreme vetting could be brought in, so that negates any attempt to say he doesn't want Muslims per se.

Perhaps Trump is getting into strife because Obama didn't do what needed to be done, and it needs to be sorted now. In any event, IMO none of the people attacking the travel ban care about it because they just want to destroy Trump and will use any reason they can.

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

Quote

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.”

 

There are more sources for this if you do a search.  Here's his saying it specifically.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

 

 

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just read your linked news item and it's pathetic how far some people will go to try and smear Trump for any reason, no matter how ridiculous.

The Dems are once again proving why they deserved to lose.

So the "Dems" are running media outlets now?  Really?  So are "Dems" in the UK also? LOL

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/13/mar-a-lago-north-korea-missile-crisis-trump-national-security

 

Quote

 

Missile crisis by candlelight: Donald Trump's use of Mar-a-Lago raises security questions

Trump handled news of North Korea’s missile launch at his private club, rather than the situation room, raising an array of ethical and national security issues

 

Sad that the media is questioned rather than the ethics of the POTUS.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It continues

"until the country's representatives can figure out what the h__l is going on"

He is NOT calling for a permanent ban, and by only reporting the bit you did you propagate the vile media's  propaganda on Trump wanting to ban Muslims for being Muslim.

But he did say Ban Muslims.  In your previous post, you said you didn't remember his saying that.  We're just showing you proof he did.  Permanent or not, it was said.

[Aachen]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It is a fact that the nations that are most likely to harbour people that want to kill me because I am an infidel are Muslim.

This is  YOUR fact. Only terrorist countries without business connections to the Trump's are banned.

 

"Ein Schelm, der Böses dabei denkt." Honi soit qui mal y pense

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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

 

There are more sources for this if you do a search.  Here's his saying it specifically.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

 

 

Once again you attempt to prove that Trump is calling for a permanent ban on Muslims when the links YOU provide state in his own words that it is a TEMPORARY ban till the problem can be sorted out. He even says that he has Muslim friends that are happy that he is calling for a way to prevent radical Islamic terrorists from entering the US.

If you want to prove that Trump is calling for a permanent ban on Muslims or that Trump hates Muslims, you will have to provide better proof than that you gave given so far.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, Aachen said:

This is  YOUR fact. Only terrorist countries without business connections to the Trump's are banned.

 

"Ein Schelm, der Böses dabei denkt." Honi soit qui mal y pense

This is an English language forum.

Please provide a list of countries with radical Islamic terrorists likely to want to immigrate to the US that are not on the list.

[thaibeachlovers]

26 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

But he did say Ban Muslims.  In your previous post, you said you didn't remember his saying that.  We're just showing you proof he did.  Permanent or not, it was said.

OH COME ON. Yes he said "ban Muslims", but the context in which he said it is the important thing. As you are just beating a dead horse, I see no point in continuing a conversation with you on this subject. Bye.

[mtls2005]

Maybe probe Bannon's intent?

 

Seems like Trump didn't really know what he was signing, and this "order" seems to have been a surprise to pretty much everyone, other than Stevie B.?

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Once again you attempt to prove that Trump is calling for a permanent ban on Muslims when the links YOU provide state in his own words that it is a TEMPORARY ban till the problem can be sorted out. He even says that he has Muslim friends that are happy that he is calling for a way to prevent radical Islamic terrorists from entering the US.

If you want to prove that Trump is calling for a permanent ban on Muslims or that Trump hates Muslims, you will have to provide better proof than that you gave given so far.

Stop.  I never said permanent or temporary.  Just that he did use the words "Muslim ban".  Got it?

[Aachen]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

This is an English language forum.

Please provide a list of countries with radical Islamic terrorists likely to want to immigrate to the US that are not on the list.

Yes, English only. It should be too difficult to look up internationally well know phrases on Google.

 

The list of countries is discussed often enough and I think you are "postfaktisch" ignoring it.

 

For unknown word, facts etc. just use: https://www.google.com or Wikipedia.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Aachen said:

Yes, English only. It should be too difficult to look up internationally well know phrases on Google.

 

The list of countries is discussed often enough and I think you are "postfaktisch" ignoring it.

 

For unknown word, facts etc. just use: https://www.google.com or Wikipedia.

It's not for me to go look up stuff. If you can't be bothered to provide a link I can't be bothered to spend time researching stuff for you.

As for English, it is a forum rule to use that.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you have a link to him saying he wanted to ban Muslims per se, and not saying that he wanted to ban immigration, TEMPORARILY, from nations that were likely to have terrorists that want to kill infidels? It is a fact that the nations that are most likely to harbour people that want to kill me because I am an infidel are Muslim.   I do not recall him saying that he wanted to ban Muslims just because of their religion, and in any event it was only till extreme vetting could be brought in, so that negates any attempt to say he doesn't want Muslims per se.   Perhaps Trump is getting into strife because Obama didn't do what needed to be done, and it needs to be sorted now. In any event, IMO none of the people attacking the travel ban care about it because they just want to destroy Trump and will use any reason they can.

 

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It continues "until the country's representatives can figure out what the h__l is going on"

He is NOT calling for a permanent ban, and by only reporting the bit you did you propagate the vile media's  propaganda on Trump wanting to ban Muslims for being Muslim.

           So, now we're arguing about whether Trump used the word 'Temporary' or 'Permanent' ?! That's not the crux of the issue.  Guiliani called it a Muslim ban, as did Sean Spicer and other Trump insiders.  Bannon has given speeches mentioning bans (and worse) re; Muslims.  

 

       To me, the issue is; who is causing most harm to American citizens.  The answer; white and black criminals in the US. White extremists / gun-huggers are at the top of the list. It's prescient to note that, when Trump and Bannon put out a list of terrorist attacks which (they say) were un- or under-reported, all the incidents were by Muslims.  Of course Trump and Bannon wrong (about the incidents not being reported), as usual, but most telling; the list didn't contain terrorist attacks by whites - of which there have been several heinous examples, in recent months.  It's as though Bannon and Trump only see Muslims causing grievous harm, but can't see the more numerous incidents caused by right-wing white gun-huggers.  

 

        Trump and Bannon could re-write Shakespeare:  "How do I sow hate, let me count the ways....."

or "How do I fan fear, let me count the ways......."

 

        Trump fans can't see (or refuse to see) it, but clear-minded people can see the lie-machine entrenched in the Oval Office.  To say it's hypocritical is waaaay too nice.  It's mean-spirited and harmful to the USA.

[kaleevala]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

but clear-minded people can see the lie-machine

Yes, they can. It is called the Liberal Media. That is why their credibility rating is lower than Trump's

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, kaleevala said:

Yes, they can. It is called the Liberal Media. That is why their credibility rating is lower than Trump's

Perhaps a bit lower, but not by much.  Trump's credibility is very low also.

[Langsuan Man]

Just now, kaleevala said:

Yes, they can. It is called the Liberal Media. That is why their credibility rating is lower than Trump's

As opposed to Facebook or Twitter I guess 

[thaibeachlovers]

36 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

           So, now we're arguing about whether Trump used the word 'Temporary' or 'Permanent' ?! That's not the crux of the issue.  Guiliani called it a Muslim ban, as did Sean Spicer and other Trump insiders.  Bannon has given speeches mentioning bans (and worse) re; Muslims.  

 

       To me, the issue is; who is causing most harm to American citizens.  The answer; white and black criminals in the US. White extremists / gun-huggers are at the top of the list. It's prescient to note that, when Trump and Bannon put out a list of terrorist attacks which (they say) were un- or under-reported, all the incidents were by Muslims.  Of course Trump and Bannon wrong (about the incidents not being reported), as usual, but most telling; the list didn't contain terrorist attacks by whites - of which there have been several heinous examples, in recent months.  It's as though Bannon and Trump only see Muslims causing grievous harm, but can't see the more numerous incidents caused by right-wing white gun-huggers.  

 

        Trump and Bannon could re-write Shakespeare:  "How do I sow hate, let me count the ways....."

or "How do I fan fear, let me count the ways......."

 

        Trump fans can't see (or refuse to see) it, but clear-minded people can see the lie-machine entrenched in the Oval Office.  To say it's hypocritical is waaaay too nice.  It's mean-spirited and harmful to the USA.

Even Trump can't ban American terrorists from entering the US, as they are already there,  but he can ban potential terrorists from countries that are likely to have them.

If Iceland was a hive of terrorist militants, he would include Iceland on the list. It's just being PC to pretend that Muslim terrorists might come from a non Muslim country, and currently they are the only threat from outside the US.

[Traveler19491]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

This is an English language forum.

Please provide a list of countries with radical Islamic terrorists likely to want to immigrate to the US that are not on the list.

 

 

Saudi Arabia is not on the list...home to 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. I'd say that meets your requirements. And, yes, they're all dead so most likely won't want to immigrate to the US again, but the folks who indoctrinated, trained, and funded them are still alive and kicking and wanting to send more just like them, yet, curiously, Saudi Arabia, home to tens of millions in Trump's business investments, managed to avoid the ban. Trump has placed seven countries on the ban... Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, none of which are home to a single terrorist who has killed anyone on American soil. Yet, oddly, as you can see from the chart in the article here (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon, home to terrorists who have successfully killed thousands of Americans, were omitted. I'm sure Trump's business ties with those countries is purely coincidental.

" If Iceland was a hive of terrorist militants, he would include Iceland on the list ". Not so. For Dog's sake, Trinidad and Tobago have sent more successful terrorists to the US than any of those majority Muslim countries have, and yet they're not on his list. It's on the chart.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

OH COME ON. Yes he said "ban Muslims", but the context in which he said it is the important thing. As you are just beating a dead horse, I see no point in continuing a conversation with you on this subject. Bye.

 

 

You just conceded the argument. The fact is that he said "ban Muslims", which is the root point of the issue. Whether he did or didn't use the word "permanent" is irrelevant, as I will explain. And the context, throughout his campaign, was to eliminate ALL Muslim immigration along with banning Muslims from entering the country for any reason whatsoever. You are picking at nits here. You set up conditions that, in your mind, will be impossible to meet, then protest vehemently when they aren't met. No, Trump has not called for a permanent ban for the simple reason that he knows that something like that would never stand Constitutional muster. However, what he has called for is an ongoing, indefinite "temporary" ban..."until we know what's going on"...which could, theoretically, take forever, and given the racist, white nationalist nature of his senior advisor, Bannon, most likely would. THAT is the issue, the fact that he, on numerous occasions, stipulated Muslims, even stating that Christian refugees would be given preferential treatment coupled with the overwhelming likelihood that this so-called administration would never "find out what's going on". That constitutes discrimination and is what will likely be the downfall of this ban. Should the courts decide to admit prior statements by him and his advisors as evidence, then stick a fork in it, it's done.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Traveler19491

[mike324]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even Trump can't ban American terrorists from entering the US, as they are already there,  but he can ban potential terrorists from countries that are likely to have them.

If Iceland was a hive of terrorist militants, he would include Iceland on the list. It's just being PC to pretend that Muslim terrorists might come from a non Muslim country, and currently they are the only threat from outside the US.

It would make more sense if Trump includes countries such as Saudi Arabia and others for more vetting where more terrorist have killed US citizens. That is the question you should be asking.

 

Trump and his cabinets next stop on the immigration reform is reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in the US too because they think legal immigrants are stealing jobs from American citizens as well. So be prepare to defend that.

[Traveler19491]

1 minute ago, mike324 said:

Trump and his cabinets next stop on the immigration reform is reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in the US too because they think legal immigrants are stealing jobs from American citizens as well. So be prepare to defend that.

 

Schroedinger's immigrant...simultaneously stealing American jobs while at the same time getting tons of "free stuff" because they refuse to work.

[mtls2005]

5 minutes ago, mike324 said:

It would make more sense if Trump includes countries such as Saudi Arabia and others for more vetting where more terrorist have killed US citizens. That is the question you should be asking.

 

Trump and his cabinets next stop on the immigration reform is reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in the US too because they think legal immigrants are stealing jobs from American citizens as well. So be prepare to defend that.

 

Not sure about this. Visa programs like H2-B allow employers (like Trump) to bring in foreign workers legally, who are obviously non-union, work for minimal pay (and no OT; no health coverage) and are essentially exploited. 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, mike324 said:

It would make more sense if Trump includes countries such as Saudi Arabia and others for more vetting where more terrorist have killed US citizens. That is the question you should be asking.

 

Trump and his cabinets next stop on the immigration reform is reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in the US too because they think legal immigrants are stealing jobs from American citizens as well. So be prepare to defend that.

I would like to agree with you on Saudi. Unfortunately, while they have all that oil it's not going to happen.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, mike324 said:

It would make more sense if Trump includes countries such as Saudi Arabia and others for more vetting where more terrorist have killed US citizens. That is the question you should be asking.

 

Trump and his cabinets next stop on the immigration reform is reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in the US too because they think legal immigrants are stealing jobs from American citizens as well. So be prepare to defend that.

Hmmmmm. I'd quite like to see all the liberal tree huggers having to pick veges in the hot sun because all the cheap foreign labour was stopped. Unfortunately that's probably never going to happen.

Edited February 14, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Traveler19491]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would like to agree with you on Saudi. Unfortunately, while they have all that oil it's not going to happen.

 

 

Which negates any argument from the Trump administration about "national security". Being that SA is still a hotbed of terrorist activity, then Trump can't argue that his ban is purely about "keeping Americans safe", otherwise Saudi Arabia would be at or near the top of the list.