President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Northwestcoug]

Embedded Tweet

LOL. It is soooo perfect that he tweeted that in all caps.

[Commando]

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

I bet Trump's super mad now-- probably trying to reason that all that chatter about a Muslim Ban on the campaign trail was just 'locker room talk.'

[Flystripper]

His reaction is incredible but none of us should be surprised. I think he just learned that the federal court is not one of his business vendors. Crazy he just learned this as its something that even a bad high school student would know.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Thank you, founding fathers.

[Commando]

His reaction is incredible but none of us should be surprised. I think he just learned that the federal court is not one of his business vendors. Crazy he just learned this as its something that even a bad high school student would know.

[BlueK]

As much as it could be, this was a warning shot from the court that Trump isn't going to be allowed to do whatever the heck he wants just because he thinks he's above everyone else and above rule of law. He must stay within the Constitution. If he doesn't figure that out pretty soon it eventually ends with him being dragged kicking and screaming out of the White House.

[Flystripper]

I didn't see this posted here and not directly related to his most recent antics but still hilarious (warning lots of Scottish swearing)

[falafel]

Embedded Tweet

That's my favorite one.

[PaloAltoCougar]

It'd be interesting to know what went on during their deliberations before writing up the opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some differing opinions (I like the decision, but still think there are good arguments to be made in favor of executive powers here), but that the judges determined it would be in the best interests to go per curiam with the decision, much like the Supremes did when they ruled against Nixon long ago, rather than issue concurring, much less dissenting, opinions.

Different subject, any new Trump products or services being touted today by the White House?

[Topper]

It'd be interesting to know what went on during their deliberations before writing up the opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some differing opinions (I like the decision, but still think there are good arguments to be made in favor of executive powers here), but that the judges determined it would be in the best interests to go per curiam with the decision, much like the Supremes did when they ruled against Nixon long ago, rather than issue concurring, much less dissenting, opinions.

Different subject, any new Trump products or services being touted today by the White House?

The best would be for a 4-4 Supreme Court decision without a written opinion.

[BlueK]

The best would be for a 4-4 Supreme Court decision without a written opinion.

They're not going to take it, IMO. This was only about ruling on the restraining order. I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court wants to get involved at this point. They'll now just let the district court hear the full case. Letting the lower courts do their job is a hallmark of the Roberts Court anyway. The circuit court essentially explained exactly what they thought was wrong with the EO. A reasonable President would take that and re-write it to take care of those concerns while still protecting whoever he thought he needed to protect in a Constitutional and airtight legal way. A reasonable president would know that while he has enormous influence and authority, he still has to work within the constraints of the Constitution, and along with the other branches of the government. But I'd be shocked if Trump actually took the reasonable approach. We already know enough about him from his campaign and in his first few weeks as President that he's just not a reasonable guy, and he never became President with the thought of doing his job within legal and Constitutional restraints.

[BlueK]

This article is a pretty good, quick summary of what the court decision says.

"Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated."

So in other words, they would have been happy to look at specific evidence the President has to justify going beyond the processes that already exist for these countries that were instituted in 2015 and 2016. The President didn't provide any.

About the President's contention that he's "unreviewable" in this matter:

"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."

I know they went on to give even stronger language about this, but it's not quoted in this article.

Next, the court basically schools the President and his lawyers about the sloppiness of how it was written and how they tried to enforce or not enforce it. The EO is written in such a way that even those with green cards and other legitimate visas who were temporarily out of the country and planning to return to where they live in the US were not allowed. Then it was a lawyer working for the President who then tried to tell homeland security to lift the ban on green card holders when that was creating chaos and getting a lot of backlash. They tried to make that argument to the judges that they shouldn't consider it to ban those who had a legal right to be here because they suddenly decided not to enforce it on those folks. The court correctly blasts that by saying that someone merely working for the President has no authority to strike out part of the EO. Only the President can change it by issuing a new EO. And also, because the President's office has been inconsistent, there isn't enough reason to trust they wouldn't change again later. Again, if you read the actual decision, they go into even stronger language on this than the quote below:

"The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command of any of the Executive Departments. ... We cannot rely upon the Government's contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents."

Also, a huge issue not cited in this article is the First Amendment problem the court had with the EO's exception for those from religious minorities, which it's hard to dispute, IMO, legally constitutes favoring one religion over another. That sounds like a great idea to the Pat Robertsons of the world, but it's blatantly against the First Amendment.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politi...nes/index.html

[byu71]

Alan Dershowitz comments

"This is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it's based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many many flaws".

He agrees with BlueK. The executive order should be redone.