He promised a “total and complete ban on Muslims”, and his fearful base lapped it up. Now he’s trying to deliver something.
I wonder if it’s just CYA?
Imagine someone from one of the countries on the list comes in and yells something about Allah while killing schoolchildren at a bus stop or whatever. Imagine, too, that Trump then stands up and says “Hey, I declared a ban on all of those people getting in, but the damned left-wing activists interfered – remember that? – so I signed a second ban, trying for an alternative they’d let me protect America with; and they blocked that one, too. I’m out here every day working on new ways to look out for American interests, and the other side spends every day trying to stop me.”
Mike Huckabee suggests that Trump ignore the judge’s ruling – citing (get this) motherfucking Andrew Jackson, who went ahead with ethnic cleansing (also known as the Trail of Tears) against the rulings of the SCOTUS.
So yes, at least one prominent Republican is now defending ethnic cleansing.
Sounds like an appropriate place for it to me.
It’s a sop to the ignorant part of his base, and if he can’t get it enacted, he will blame the ‘disgraceful’ courts that had the audacity to disagree with him on those damned inconvenient constitutional grounds. And it’s an attempted distraction from Russia and false wiretap allegations and the health care fiasco and budgetary strangulation and dot dot dot. I also personally think that he can’t possibly ever back down on anything he’s proposed, basically because he’s a narcissistic egomaniac.
That’s before we even get into the rights guaranteed to be trampled by his unshackling of ICE.
Reasonable is kind of a grey area. Most Republicans seem to think it’s necessary, in the face of facts that show that this is mental masturbation as far as stopping potential terrorists from entering the country. But then, they’re well-practiced at denying facts.
And he pretends to preach the Gospel.
A judge from Maryland also struck down the travel ban, FWIW.
And he issued a preliminary injunction, which potentially has a longer term than a TRO.
And the Muslim ban is STILL up on his campaign site as one of his #1 promises.
Assistant US Attorneys are not appointed by the president. They’re not even appointed by the Attorney General. They are hired in a competitive decentralized hiring process by the local US Attorney. I have no knowledge or opinion of Judge Watson, but that fact that Bush was president when he was hired at the US Attorney’s office in Hawaii is no more relevant than the fact that Clinton was president when he was hired at the US Attorney’s office in California. Or that a Republican was governor of California when he was admitted to the bar there.
Once the courts believe that something has an impermissible discriminatory animus behind it, it might be extremely difficult ever to get such a ban through. It’s clear that at least some courts buy the animus argument.
Legal question:
Obviously, Trump has a major problem with the 9th. So which circuit court does the WH file the appeal, the 9th or the 4th? Both?
Thanks for clearing this up for me, I was misinformed.
Trump said in his interview with Tucker Carlson yesterday, that he would be taking the original executive order to the Supreme Court, not the second one.
That’s an extraordinary claim. Do you have cite in the Constitution or other laws for that assertion?
ckalli1998 wrote: “This was a totally activist decision that didn’t even focus its attention on the words of the travel ban statute; it instead decided to focus on what Rudy Giuliani said during the campaign about it, which of course is not the same as the final executive version that Trump signed, but I guess the Hawaiian judge was too dense to realize it.”
I’m confused. Aren’t conservatives the ones that are always saying that we should look at “original intent”?
That’s not what “original intent” means.
The term has nothing to do with what somebody said on the campaign trail.
His orders are discriminatory on their face. Constitutional protections exist to prevent such discrimination – even extending to immigrants and non-citizens. I cited you to two of those protections in my original post.
As for the ‘actual problem’ issue, U. S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii made specific reference to the “questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations,” (bolding mine) in his ruling, as pointed out by Battle Pope. It was also referenced by the 9th Circuit in their ruling: Ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Trump cannot issue executive orders that satisfy only his own bigotry, and nothing else. If you think a president can issue executive orders but can’t support his/her assertions for the basis of those orders, then I think you need to brush up on how the law actually works. He doesn’t just get to say, “Because terrorism.” He has to show how his orders will actually prevent it from happening. They don’t.
Fair enough. My mistake. I didn’t actually know that the AUSA is formally appointment by the AG. (Although, the manual goes on to explain that appointment authority has been delegated to the Director of the Office of Attorney Personnel Management.). My experience has been that the hiring is done on the office level (see also USAJOBS - Job Announcement (“Experienced attorney hiring is decentralized and each office, including the United States Attorneys’ Offices, conducts its own recruitment for experienced attorneys”).
That ruling may very well be limited or overturned on appeal. It’s not settled law.
In any case, it does not support your claim that “his orders must address an actual problem.”