Althouse: "A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the ban was set to go into effect."

March 15, 2017

"A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the ban was set to go into effect."

CNN reports.

273 comments:

1 – 200 of 273 Newer› Newest»

rcocean said...: How surprising. Yawn.

With 600 district judges did anyone expect it not to be found "unconstitutional"?

Does anyone with a brain expect the 9th circuit to overrule it?

Does anyone with a brain expect the 4 left-wing SCOTUS judges to overrule it?

Assuming trump's pick gets confirmed, whether the US president can set immigration policy will be decided by philosopher King Anthony Kennedy. And that depends on how he feels that day.

What a way to run a fucking country!; 3/15/17, 6:22 PM
Achilles said...: This is unbelievable. These people are so stupid.

What are these judges going to do when the next terror attack hits? The presidents absolutely has this power and he is trying to do his job. The vast majority of americans agree with him.

2018 elections are going to be a wipeout.; 3/15/17, 6:24 PM
Mark said...: The utter farce of the judiciary continues apace.

Why the hell they bother to teach Con Law anymore is beyond me. It's all meaningless now.; 3/15/17, 6:24 PM
eddie willers said...: What are these judges going to do when the next terror attack hits?

Lock the doors against the pitchfork and lanterns.; 3/15/17, 6:26 PM
FullMoon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/17, 6:26 PM
Etienne said...: The Trump Administration reminds me of a garage band sans tattoo's.; 3/15/17, 6:27 PM
Luke Lea said...: So is it the rule of law or of judicial preference? Could it backfire?; 3/15/17, 6:29 PM
n.n said...: Hawaii has a compelling interest in cheap labor and loose tourists.; 3/15/17, 6:30 PM
n.n said...: The [class] diversitists judge people by the "color of their skin", not the "content of their character" (e.g. principles). It's a central tenet of the Pro-Chocie quasi-religious/moral philosophy. That and cheap capital and labor.; 3/15/17, 6:32 PM
chickelit said...: Achilles said...What are these judges going to do when the next terror attack hits?

They are going to be held accountable.; 3/15/17, 6:35 PM
MikeD said...: I, personally, am quite interested in a retired con-law professor to opine here.; 3/15/17, 6:36 PM
buwaya said...: "Why the hell they bother to teach Con Law anymore is beyond me. It's all meaningless now."

Why did they ever bother. Its always been meaningless ritual.
Its always ever been about the votes.
The "law" part, reasoning and precedent and principles, was fluff and husk and pulp around the nut of the thing.; 3/15/17, 6:36 PM
David Begley said...: File that same lawsuit in about 35 different states and it is a different result.; 3/15/17, 6:42 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: The Democrats really don't see how this will be used against them when they're in the White House?; 3/15/17, 6:50 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: This is pathetic.
The state of Hawaii enforces strict race based laws. One set of political rights for native Hawaiians, one set of political rights for everyone else.
Obama went to Punahou, the "haole" private school. The school for Hawaiians is King Kamehameha schools, and you have to be Hawaiian to get in. It's board is appointed by the Hawaii Supreme court.
Hawaiian homelands commission awards land to people with at least 50% Hawaiian blood:
HHC – HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION
Pursuant to section 202, Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the Department is headed by an executive board, the Hawaiian Homes Commission, whose nine members are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Three of the members are residents of the City and County of Honolulu; two are residents of the County of Maui, with one being a resident of the island of Moloka‘i; two are residents of the County of Hawai‘i, one being a resident of East Hawai‘i and the other a resident of West Hawai‘i; one is a resident of the County of Kaua‘i; and the ninth member is the Chairman, who is appointed by the Governor from among the members of the Commission. Members must be residents of the State at least three years prior to their appointment. At least four of the members must have not less than one-fourth Hawaiian blood. The Chairman of the Commission serves as the full-time administrator of the Department; other members of the Commission serve without pay.
http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/hhc/; 3/15/17, 6:51 PM
David Begley said...: Hawaii federal judge finds that Trump's campaign statements to be relevant and admissible evidence despite the plain text of the EO. I guess all hearsay is admissible now. Remarkable.; 3/15/17, 6:52 PM
David Begley said...: And how did foreigners residing in foreign countries acquire US constitutional rights?; 3/15/17, 6:54 PM
madAsHell said...: There are a lot of favors being called-in.
"That campaign donation that helped put your butt on a federal bench was nice, but what have you done for me lately?"; 3/15/17, 6:58 PM
David Begley said...: And whites can't vote in certain Hawaiian elections. Whites and blacks who live in Pender, Nebraska (recently held to be on the Rez) can't vote in Tribal elections even though the Tribe now has the authority to tax Pender.; 3/15/17, 6:58 PM
Unknown said...: So the judge said that Hawaii's interests in tourism are constitutionally enough to overthrow the President's duty to defend the country.

Amazing, isn't it? The left really wants to go down this path?

--Vance; 3/15/17, 7:00 PM
PB said...: I suspect we'll see a lot of this. Shop a district judge in the 9th Appellate district and force things to the Supreme Court.

This judge's reasoning seems almost without foundation.; 3/15/17, 7:00 PM
eric said...: This is terrible for the judicial branch.

Like journalism before this, jurisprudence is now dead. Trump, or one of his predecessors is going to have the balls to tell the judiciary to pound sand. And the people are going to cheer.

That's bad for democracy.

But it's going to happen. Because the people are sick and tired of these judicial tyrants.; 3/15/17, 7:07 PM
gspencer said...: "The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821.; 3/15/17, 7:14 PM
David said...: I give the judge one point for honesty. He says it is "undisputed" that facially the order does not discriminate against anyone based on their religion. He bases his decision on a interpretation of motivation, as evidenced by Trump campaign press releases and other public statements. Not clear to me if any of these statements are made directly by the president, or are press reports and statements made on Trump's behalf.

This sets up the legal issue quite nicely. It should be interesting.

Who runs foreign policy?; 3/15/17, 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: This proves that the Executive cannot make unConstitutional laws, good for the Judicial branch for doing it's job.; 3/15/17, 7:15 PM
David said...: Judge:

Harvard undergraduate.
Harvard Law.; 3/15/17, 7:16 PM
ndspinelli said...: It's not a law, ass hat. It's an EO!; 3/15/17, 7:16 PM
Heywood Rice said...: Lock them up. Lock them up. Lock them I'm Andrew Jackson.; 3/15/17, 7:16 PM
Michael K said...: Judge shopping is popular now.

I don't know if Democrats will pay a price for this. They are very good at lying. And I would not wish a terrorist attack on Hawaii.

In a way, Trump making a fuss about it might accomplish almost as much and the rest will be done by ICE, quietly.; 3/15/17, 7:16 PM
Michael K said...: I wonder if Trump can direct sketchy aliens form sketchy countries to be place in Hawaii ?

Obama did it to hide them. And to punish "red" voters.

Maybe a thousand or two Iraqi and Syrians to Honolulu.; 3/15/17, 7:18 PM
David said...: "This proves that the Executive cannot make unConstitutional laws, good for the Judicial branch for doing it's job."

Good if you think the judiciary's job is to issue unconstitutional decisions.

We will see. I think you will be surprised by the result, and that in the end it will not just be "liberal" judges who overturn this district judge.; 3/15/17, 7:18 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: That's bad for democracy.

But it's going to happen. Because the people are sick and tired of these judicial tyrants.

The judiciary was specifically set up to keep a lid on democracy. But they're not even trying any more. This guy couldn't find any constitutional problems here, so he made a ruling based on what he thinks the president's motives are, implying the next president could implement the same policy and it would be constitutional.

You can't run a country like this. If we need to make changes to the system to keep this from happening, we should make changes.; 3/15/17, 7:22 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Separation of powers is for pussies.

Burn this bitch down.; 3/15/17, 7:23 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/17, 7:24 PM
glenn said...: The Mookies are going to take turns blocking his orders until there is an attack. Then they will try to blame it on him. You want transparency, you can see right through them.; 3/15/17, 7:33 PM
Grant said...: A 43-page decision released two hours after the hearing. Those are some magically empowered law clerks right there.; 3/15/17, 7:36 PM
Che Dolf said...: Luke Lea said... So is it the rule of law or of judicial preference?

This was answered decades ago. The professor underscored the answer a couple posts down when she asserted there's a "constitutional right" to abortion. Conservatives who think they're a couple justices away from reestablishing the rule of law are pathologically optimistic.; 3/15/17, 7:38 PM
Hagar said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/17, 7:40 PM
Hagar said...: his needs to go to the Supreme Court, and the court needs to tell these judges to sit down and STFU!

The issue is bigger than the brouhaha de jour; the President - and also Congress - must be able to set and conduct national foreign policy without first seeking the unanimous approval of the individual district judges around the country.; 3/15/17, 7:42 PM
rhhardin said...: Time to pack the 9th circuit.; 3/15/17, 7:43 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: If judges do not follow the law, there is no limit to their ability to take Constitutional powers away from the Executive and Legislative branches other than impeachment and removal.; 3/15/17, 7:45 PM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: This is the reason the Democrats went nuclear and eliminated the filibuster; to allow Obama to successfully appoint radical political judges.; 3/15/17, 7:51 PM
Chuck said...: Achilles said...
...
What are these judges going to do when the next terror attack hits?

Based on recent history, the chances of a terror attack originating with a refugee, or a new immigrant from the listed countries is virtually zero.

I am not saying it can't, or won't, happen; but the whole order is so transparently based on fulfilling a campaign slogan, rather than an urgently-reported need out of our national security services. It's nothing but Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller trying to make something legal out of whatever can be salvaged from "...a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..."

But for those words (and a few other similar lines), Trump would have an easier time sustaining his EO in front of a federal judge. In tennis, they call it an "unforced error," don't they?

I do think that federal judges who fight Trump on this reconstituted order may do a lot more harm (to the constitution) than good (to vulnerable immigrants). I don't think I'd be inclined to rule against it; no matter how much I hate Trump personally or how idiotic I thought the "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" statement.

I do confess to taking pleasure, in yet another episode of Trump's fantastically sloppy and intemperate language hurting his own cause.; 3/15/17, 8:07 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Extraordinarily badly reasoned. The state is given standing because it might recruit from the 6 countries, and the academic is given standing because his mother (mother-in-law?) can't come here. Both are bootstrapping standing to an extent far beyond that allowed by Supreme Court precedent. Since when do we have a Constitutional right to have our relatives come to this country? (Since the EO was specifically written to only exclude those who don't have any Due Process and Equal Protection rights on their own). And, the university getting standing based solely on it recruiting from those countries is equally ludicrous - the natural result of this is that we can't deny entry to anyone from any country based on country of origin because colleges might recruit from those countries. Both are extremely vulnerable to slippery slope problems.

And, then you know that the analysis is flawed because the judge never gets into Chevron deference or Youngstown Steel Separation of Power issues. The President, above anyone else in the govt., is tasked, as one of his most important, if not most important, duties to protect the U.S. It is the height of judicial arrogance to deny the President the ability to execute his primary duty on the grounds that he might be offending members of some religion.

I should also note, as others have, that incorporation of campaign rhetoric into the decision is extremely bad precedent. Again, a slippery slope. Where does it end? The judge admitted that the EO was facially non-discriminatory. His analysis should have ended there, without the imputation of religious animus that may have little relationship to reality. Trump didn't name these countries as posing terrorist threats - that was done by either Congress or his predecessors. And, yet, the judge has taken it upon himself to override all of them.; 3/15/17, 8:13 PM
steve uhr said...: I think the focus on Trump's "intent" is misplaced. Trump should have the same powers as any other president. If the "ban" is okay for one of them then it should be for all of them.

I think the Ninth Circuit will overturn the decision.; 3/15/17, 8:15 PM
Chuck said...: Here's a link to the .pdf order from Judge Watson:

http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/files/announcement142/CV17-50%20219%20doc.pdf

And Bruce, I completely agree with you; the incorporation of campaign rhetoric into the decision is so bad. Can we also agree that it wouldn't have happened that way, if Donald Trump had never suggested "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims [etc., etc]" in the first place?; 3/15/17, 8:17 PM
James Pawlak said...: President Trump likes President Jackson. Does the following guide us today:"They have made their ruling, not let them enforce it!"?; 3/15/17, 8:20 PM
Achilles said...: Chuck said...

Based on recent history, the chances of a terror attack originating with a refugee, or a new immigrant from the listed countries is virtually zero.

Nobody cares about that stupid argument Chuck. At least not people out here where we have to deal with the consequences of this judges actions.

We want fewer people from terrorist countries. We don't want people here who believe in sharia law. We don't want people who think it is ok to kill infidels and apostates and gay people and adulterers. We don't want more of a culture that believes in holding it's females down on a table and cutting off their clitoris's.

I do confess to taking pleasure, in yet another episode of Trump's fantastically sloppy and intemperate language hurting his own cause.

That is because you are a disingenuous piece of shit who doesn't care about this country or the people in it. All of that is overruled by your hatred of Trump.; 3/15/17, 8:24 PM
Chuck said...: Bruce Hayden; I am taking a closer look at the Opinion and Order. Judge Watson looks like he tried to separate out paragraphs 48–51, and 58–60 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Those are the paragraphs detailing alleged statements by Trump, Giuliani and Miller AFTER the election, and even AFTER the inauguration. Most of them AFTER the first EO controversy.

It looks like Judge Watson may have been trying to get around the "it was just campaign rhetoric" argument.

What do you think?; 3/15/17, 8:26 PM
Achilles said...: Chuck said...

And Bruce, I completely agree with you; the incorporation of campaign rhetoric into the decision is so bad. Can we also agree that it wouldn't have happened that way, if Donald Trump had never suggested "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims [etc., etc]" in the first place?

No. What we can agree on is that these judges are pieces of shit who are entirely political and whose goal is to tear this country apart while abusing their power.; 3/15/17, 8:26 PM
Chuck said...: Achilles said...
...
We want fewer people from terrorist countries. We don't want people here who believe in sharia law. We don't want people who think it is ok to kill infidels and apostates and gay people and adulterers. We don't want more of a culture that believes in holding it's females down on a table and cutting off their clitoris's.

I can help you out here, with your wording. What you want -- and what the federal courts of the United States of America will never tolerate is a supreme leader who would act on something like this: "As your supreme leader, I am calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

I rest my case. Donald J. Trump was speaking to you. You and your deepest secret fears. Donald J. Trump was speaking for you. You and the other 20 or 30 percent of the American public who think like you.

And the lawyers are laughing at you.

But someday, somehow, Trump and Bannon and Miller are going to get a ban. It will be a meaningless, perfunctory, limited, temporary ban. But it will give y'all something to talk about. Keep y'all outta truble fer a few days.; 3/15/17, 8:35 PM
damikesc said...: THe judge's decision boils down to "it's illegal because I do not like him".

Perhaps it's time for the Congress to introduce legislation to allow Congress to override judges.; 3/15/17, 8:36 PM
damikesc said...: Trump can always direct his State Dept to just not give out visas or anything. Courts cannot force that to occur.

If we lose international tourism, it'll hurt blue states anyway, so no loss.; 3/15/17, 8:37 PM
Qwinn said...: "Can we agree that it wouldn't have happened that way...?"

Of course it would have happened "that way", if by "that way" we mean that a leftist judge would overturn the order by calling Trump a racist. It's all they have. It's all the Left has had for 50 years, which is all the more appalling in that it is 100% projection.; 3/15/17, 8:37 PM
damikesc said...: Hmm, why weren't Obama's anti-coal regs killed off by judges? He campaigned on killing the coal industry, after all.

It's also time to turn the spotlights on blue states who have a nasty habit of not enforcing laws equally. Conservatives in CA need federal oversight because we've watched liberal mayors order their cops to not protect them in case of riots.; 3/15/17, 8:40 PM
traditionalguy said...: This is the Basic War on Christianity. The Federal District Court bragged defying the Presidential power set forth in the Constitution to protect the invasion force coming to kill the deplorables for clinging to Christianity. There is no doubt about it.; 3/15/17, 8:45 PM
Big Mike said...: Federal judges can be removed through impeachment. Just sayin'; 3/15/17, 8:46 PM
Mr. Majestyk said...: Quinn has it right. Even without the campaign rhetoric, leftist judges would have found some reason to invalidate the EO.; 3/15/17, 8:50 PM
Mr. Majestyk said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/17, 8:51 PM
bgates said...: @chuck said,
I do confess to taking pleasure, and
that federal judges who fight Trump on this reconstituted order may do a lot more harm (to the constitution).

Is it fair to ascribe meaning to one of those phrases based on something he had written earlier? The judicial decision he's happy about would suggest so.

Anyway, we can agree that my comment wouldn't have happened this way, if chuck wasn't so prone to poorly thought out emotional outbursts that could lead a dispassionate observer to conclude that he doesn't care what happens to the Constitution so long as Donald Trump is harmed?; 3/15/17, 8:54 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "Based on recent history, the chances of a terror attack originating with a refugee, or a new immigrant from the listed countries is virtually zero."

Hilarious. When the next, absolutely inevitable, terrorist attack happens in this country do you think the broad masses are going to care which Muslim shithole the jihadi du jour sprung from? The DNC/Media can spin as furiously as they like, but it won't obviate the fact that Trump repeatedly tried to block sketchy Muslims from entering and the Democrats blindly enabled them. Trump is building a narrative and a trap, and Democrats are so enbubbled they think their self-regarding virtue will allow them to excuse themselves when the next horror occurs. Everything I know about history, politics, and human nature, suggests that they're sadly mistaken.; 3/15/17, 8:54 PM
Achilles said...: Chuck said...

I rest my case. Donald J. Trump was speaking to you. You and your deepest secret fears. Donald J. Trump was speaking for you. You and the other 20 or 30 percent of the American public who think like you.

And the lawyers are laughing at you.

We note your approval of sharia law Chuck. We note your approval of non-citizens "constitutional rights" to come to this country. We note your giddiness at the judges absurd and clearly unconstitutional intervention in this case. We note your blase attitude towards terrorism and violence.

Unlike you Chuck I have been to several Muslim countries. I see how they treat each other. I see how they treat their women. I see how they treat minorities. I see that they are still involved in slavery.

You say 20-30%? That is a joke and it is just another obvious tell that you are not a republican nor a conservative. Strong majorities of Americans support Trump's efforts on immigration.; 3/15/17, 8:55 PM
David Begley said...: US Attorney should have flat out told the judge that it is REVERSIBLE ERROR to rely on campaign statements.; 3/15/17, 8:56 PM
The Godfather said...: I bet Trump is a happy man tonight. If he were a drinking man, he'd open the champagne.

He promised the American people -- specifically those who fear that terrorists may be able to get into the US among hordes of Muslim immigrants from Syria and the other failed states in the ME/NA -- that he would put a stop to such immigration. So he HAD to issue an executive order that purported to do that. In fact, the EO couldn't have prevented at least a few terrorists from getting through from other countries, and that's all it takes to cause terror in the homeland. So if the courts left this issue alone, Trump would "own" the next terrorist attack by a Muslim immigrant, because his EO failed to prevent it.

But now, the people will hold the federal judiciary responsible, not Trump, if a recent immigrant commits an act of terror here.

Win-win Trump.; 3/15/17, 8:57 PM
John said...: It's nice to know a judge in Hawaii of all places is making our country more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.; 3/15/17, 8:59 PM
Michael K said...: Chuck, I avoid your comments almost as assiduously as Ritmo's but I would appreciate your quoting and/or linking to Trump "complete ban on Muslim immigration."

My recollection was that he said to stop it "until we figure out how to vet these people."

The countries listed, and now Iraq has been dropped, have no functioning government to "vet" any emigrants.

The success against ISIS is going to result in lots of "squirters" in Richard Fernandez' term who will be looking to come here if they can.

Maybe from Mexico.; 3/15/17, 9:00 PM
Chuck said...: Big Mike said...
Federal judges can be removed through impeachment. Just sayin'

But then they just get elected to Congress as Democrats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings; 3/15/17, 9:02 PM
chickelit said...: The Godfather reasoned: But now, the people will hold the federal judiciary responsible, not Trump, if a recent immigrant commits an act of terror here.

They will also hold one particular political party responsible.; 3/15/17, 9:02 PM
Michael K said...: "Hawaii of all places"

Hawaii looks to me like a good place to send the next thousand Syrians.

The Hawaiians seem to want them if their judge is any indication.

And they are far enough from the rest of us that they will be pretty isolated,

They could even be flown there from the Asia are without passing over or stopping in our country.; 3/15/17, 9:03 PM
Chuck said...: Michael K said...
Chuck, I avoid your comments almost as assiduously as Ritmo's but I would appreciate your quoting and/or linking to Trump "complete ban on Muslim immigration."

My recollection was that he said to stop it "until we figure out how to vet these people.

Doc, my post at 8:35 contains, in bold type, the near-complete first paragraph of the official Donald J. Trump statement on the topic.

He didn't put quite the polish on it that you did. Interestingly, it was another one of Trump's ad-libs. He wanted the Muslim ban "until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." Trump's spoken ad-lib was not in the statement.

And of course, it doesn't help. Not legally, anyway. We don't tolerate religious-based discrimination "until we can figure out what the hell is going on."; 3/15/17, 9:10 PM
Achilles said...: The Godfather said...

But now, the people will hold the federal judiciary responsible, not Trump, if a recent immigrant commits an act of terror here.

Win-win Trump.

It doesn't need to be limited to recent immigrants. The problem is wider spread than recent immigrants. Many attacks are second generation offspring, but why would we want more parents that raise kids like that?

I am glad Chuck and the democrats have "more sharia law" as a platform plank for their party.; 3/15/17, 9:11 PM
Mark O said...: The Hawaii opinion is a screed against the "bigotry" of Trump. It is a political document, devoid of a discussion of the clear contrary law, including the absence of "religion" from the 1965 INA non-discrimination statute. In historical fact, religious discrimination has been common in immigration law.

The law has been that once an EO is facially appropriate (as this one has been described) if there is a single legitimate basis on which to uphold the EO, the Courts do not look behind the EO for nefarious reasons.

This sort of preening self righteousness from the bench is why we have Trump.

The soft corruption of the judicial system now presents itself for all to see. There is nothing magic about a Federal Judge and this sort of silliness drives one to see the point in "so called" judges.; 3/15/17, 9:12 PM
Mark O said...: From the dissent in the 9th Circuit. Herewith the citations and argument missing from the Hawaii opinion.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_3015_9th_dissent.pdf; 3/15/17, 9:15 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Obama is currently in Hawaii. Coincidence? I think not.; 3/15/17, 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "Obama is currently in Hawaii. Coincidence? I think not."

Ohhhhh now ARM, don't get them started!; 3/15/17, 9:22 PM
Chuck said...: Achilles said...
...
It doesn't need to be limited to recent immigrants. The problem is wider spread than recent immigrants. Many attacks are second generation offspring, but why would we want more parents that raise kids like that?

Again, you are proving my point to an extent I couldn't have ever imagined on my own. You really, really do not want any more Muslims in the U.S.A. A pure, straightforward Muslim ban is what would suit you. It isn't even so much a "vetting" problem, or an international security problem. It isn't a problem of people from seven, or six, or five particular nations, or people from nations who got left off any list. It's anybody, who comes from any place, where they have anything like "sharia law."

This is a free country and you have a Constitutional right to express your viewpoints and opinions.

By the same token, your views wouldn't last a moment, in a United States federal court.; 3/15/17, 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/17, 9:32 PM
damikesc said...: Chuck, if somebody passes a law that is constitutionally valid, the "Why" is utterly immaterial. It's ASSUMING that nothing changed in months. And judges are God awful psychics.

The only good judge is a dead one.; 3/15/17, 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...: "This is a free country and you have a Constitutional right to express your viewpoints and opinions.

By the same token, your views wouldn't last a moment, in a United States federal court."

It's a good thing he's no longer serving in the military. His comments would've gotten him drummed out in a hurry. I wonder if he ever served with US Muslim military members, I sure hope not. He a bigot and an extremist.; 3/15/17, 9:34 PM
damikesc said...: It's just baffling that judges can "legalize" things based on these things.

Obama swears, UP AND DOWN, that there are no taxes in Obamacare. It is legal, precisely, for what reason?; 3/15/17, 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: "The only good judge is a dead one."

Sure hope some agency is wiretapping this blog' comments sections. Da Mike in South Carolina.; 3/15/17, 9:36 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Chuck seems to believe that the people of the United States are not sovereign. Instead sovereign power springs from the halls of Harvard and Yale law schools.; 3/15/17, 9:37 PM
CWJ said...: Michael K @ 7:18,

Why not? The uighurs are still on Bermuda.; 3/15/17, 9:38 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Chuck,

You really, really do not want any more Muslims in the U.S.A. A pure, straightforward Muslim ban is what would suit you.......your views wouldn't last a moment, in a United States federal court.

No, actually, I bet they would. Would-be immigrants have no Constitutional rights until their feet are on American soil. The question of what immigrants get let in, short of direct legislation to the contrary, are in the hands of the Executive Branch. Add in concerns of national security, & I think that constitutionally the deck is stacked in Trump's favor. That's why all these rulings never, ever mention statutes or constitutional issues. There aren't any, & the ones that are, favor the Executive. To put it bluntly, if the Executive Branch wishes to block the entry of anyone who has an "R" in their name, it's on them.

This is like discussing Korematsu with liberals. Korematsu is settled law. It's still on the books. The next time the Executive branch thinks there's a real need to start herding up Whatever Group, & locking them up in camps for the good of national security, Korematsu will be there as precedent. "Oh, that's not right. We apologized & gave the Japanese-Americans reparations!" So what? Congress didn't change the law. It's like having a cop say he's sorry after he beats the shit out of you for resisting arrest. He may be sorry, but him & his co-workers still have the legal right to pummel the crap out of you if you resist arrest.; 3/15/17, 9:41 PM
David Baker said...: Trump needs a bigger pair of balls; from this point on, let the judges enforce their bans. While Trump & Company proceed full speed ahead - and for good measure - declaring the courts enemies of the people. Which now they clearly are.; 3/15/17, 9:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Our democracy has there equal branches. We normal Americans don't want a dictatorship with a lame Congress. We need the Judiciary now more than ever. The views by Trumpists are becoming more extreme and bizzare daily.; 3/15/17, 9:46 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/17, 9:46 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Obama is currently in Hawaii. Coincidence? I think not.
Obama has very small political footprint in Hawaii. After high school, his education and later his political career were all West Coast, Chicago, and East Coast.
Obama doesn't own a home here. He never built any bridges to local politicians, or judges that I know of.; 3/15/17, 9:48 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: My best tweet ever...

Hawaii judge cites the "palpable" feeling on the pit of his stomach clause of the constitution.

Link: https://twitter.com/lemang01/status/842200275490377728; 3/15/17, 9:50 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: If the American people cannot control who is and who is not allowed in their country, they are not a sovereign people and we do not have a republic.; 3/15/17, 9:50 PM
Chuck said...: damikesc said...
Chuck, if somebody passes a law that is constitutionally valid, the "Why" is utterly immaterial. It's ASSUMING that nothing changed in months. And judges are God awful psychics.

The only good judge is a dead one.

Wow. "The only good judge is a dead one."

You won't see a line like that on the comments pages of most other law prof blogs.

I'm taking the rest of the night off.; 3/15/17, 9:52 PM
Jupiter said...: Kind of interesting, really. If Trump wanted to send, say two million American soldiers, with a carrier escort group and a few wings of aircraft, to Syria, there isn't a judge in America who could stop him. But if he wants to prevent a few Muslim troops selected by the UN from invading the US ...; 3/15/17, 9:54 PM
Anonymous said...: I was a bit puzzled by this: "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), the Court intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether this Temporary Restraining Order should be extended." I didn't see an expiration date anywhere in the order; how do you extend something that has no end?; 3/15/17, 9:55 PM
Jupiter said...: Chuck said...

"Wow. "The only good judge is a dead one."

You won't see a line like that on the comments pages of most other law prof blogs."

So it's a rather original analysis. Can you cite a counterexample?; 3/15/17, 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: "Enforcement

When the FBI receives threats over the Internet, it can use National Security Letters to obtain the real name, street address and Internet logs of the sender, and those who provide the information were forbidden by the PATRIOT Act from revealing the request to anyone, until the Doe v. Ashcroft case overturned that gag rule.[62] According to the federal investigators, political protesters who threaten elected officials or turn violent are easier for law enforcement officials to track due to their vocal and high-profile statements on the internet. For instance, Nigel Coleman posted the address of Rep. Tom Perriello online and invited people to "visit" the official at his home. The address was actually Perriello's brother Bo. A severed gas line at the home was discovered one day after the address was made public.[63][64]"

Wiki; 3/15/17, 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_government_officials_of_the_United_States; 3/15/17, 10:03 PM
David Baker said...: "how do you extend something that has no end?"

By simple declaration. That is, by whatever means necessary.

Also be aware that we have a very magical Constitution. Not only is it "living," but it screams out for asinine justice in every judge's pot-addled mind.; 3/15/17, 10:05 PM
Static Ping said...: They are going to miss Rule of Law when it's gone.; 3/15/17, 10:11 PM
Drago said...: Can't wait to see how the federal judges decide to reorganize the military and conduct national security oversight.

Since they apparently are in the know on what security measures are required to secure the nation.

God help them if a terrorist act is conducted by an immigrant.; 3/15/17, 10:12 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/15/17, 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Trump doesn't know jack shit about National Security. Look at who he named NSA director. Flynn, who they knew was an agent of a foereign nation. We have the Keystone Cops running this administration..; 3/15/17, 10:17 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Unknown,

We need the Judiciary now more than ever. The views by Trumpists are becoming more extreme and bizzare daily.

Oh, you fucking hypocrite, wailing about abuses of Executive Privilege! Where were you & all your concern when The Magic Negro was shooting Hellfire missiles at American citizens, thus acting as their judge, jury & executioner?

The Executive power abuse genii is out of the bottle, Unknown. The simpering moral pieties of your side had much to do with wedging out the cork out of that bottle.; 3/15/17, 10:19 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: I'm taking the rest of the night off.

3/15/17, 9:52 PM

Is that all it took? To quote a soi-disant Michigan election lawyer, Wow.; 3/15/17, 10:20 PM
Drago said...: I see Unknown and Chuck are still reeling from last night.

Yikes.

I wonder how long it will take to reset?

Now, back to the thread: obviously Trump is slow walking the court cases until Gorsuch is approved. Once Gorsuch is on the court we can return to regular order with the Supreme Court reverting back to their full-time job of overturning the lefty loonies on the 9th circuit.; 3/15/17, 10:21 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Blogger Unknown said...
"Enforcement

When the FBI receives threats over the Internet, it can use National Security Letters to obtain the real name, street address and Internet logs of the sender,

So in other words, Inga, you are Unknown for exactly as long as Trump doesn't take an interest in you.; 3/15/17, 10:22 PM
Anonymous said...: "Where were you & all your concern when The Magic Negro was shooting Hellfire missiles at American citizens, thus acting as their judge, jury & executioner?"

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-03-14/report-trump-gives-cia-authority-for-drone-strikes

"President Donald Trump has granted the CIA authority to conduct lethal drone strikes once again, according to a news report, rolling back the limits his predecessor Barack Obama imposed on the spy agency's paramilitary operations.

The Wall Street Journal on Monday reported Trump decided to return the authority to the CIA after meeting with top agency officials on Jan. 21, a day after taking office. Trump had made accelerating the fight against the Islamic State group and other terrorist organizations a key component of his campaign."; 3/15/17, 10:22 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: Everything is Penumbra now.

I am Laslo.; 3/15/17, 10:24 PM
Static Ping said...: You know, if one really thinks Trump is a fascist, this would be the sort of ruling a supporter would provide to justify Trump's takeover. If the courts are not even going to try to apply the law and just go with naked power grabbing and partisan politics, it becomes very difficult to argue that judges should be heeded at all. If an appointed official with lifetime tenure can make a mockery of the law and usurp powers from the other branches, then why not the President?

Do remember that conservatives exist to conserve something. When conservative feels it is already lost, all bets are off.; 3/15/17, 10:24 PM
Drago said...: Apparently now Unknown is upset that Trump will be doing what Obama was doing except she still isn't upset about obama doing it.

In fact, Obama bragged about being really good at "killing people".

And the Left cheered.

Oh those heady days of old!; 3/15/17, 10:26 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Unknown,

President Donald Trump has granted the CIA authority to conduct lethal drone strikes once again, according to a news report, rolling back the limits his predecessor Barack Obama imposed on the spy agency's paramilitary operations.

"Drone strikes" isn't the operative term here, Unknown. "American citizens" is the operative term.

You really just don't get it, do you?; 3/15/17, 10:28 PM
Drago said...: Once again, once Gorsuch is on the SC the 9th circuit will get bitch-slapped based on the plain meaning of the law.

Ho hum.

We must make allowances for the time being for our pro-terro; 3/15/17, 10:29 PM
Drago said...: ... rist lefties; 3/15/17, 10:29 PM
chickelit said...: Apparently now Unknown is upset that Trump will be doing what Obama was doing except she still isn't upset about obama doing it.

Could that be because Inga -- like Lena Dunham -- found Obama to be "dreamy?"

Just trying to cut to the chase.; 3/15/17, 10:31 PM
Drago said...: Basically these leftist judges are purposely stepping way over the line and trying to create a constitutional crisis that the lefties will use to say Trump is becoming authoritarian, etc.

Very transparent.

Trump is wise to wait for Gorsuch.; 3/15/17, 10:32 PM
chickelit said...: I think even Althouse would admit to finding Obama "dreamy" -- even though Trump was the one who showed up in her dreams.; 3/15/17, 10:35 PM
Michael K said...: You really, really do not want any more Muslims in the U.S.A. A pure, straightforward Muslim ban is what would suit you.

I think there are probably Muslims that would make useful immigrants.

That said, I don't think now is the time. The middle east is in chaos, at least in prat due to Obama and Hillary

I would be good with a Muslim pause of a few years. Let's help them with refugee camps in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Aside from the ones Inga is taking into her home, I still Hawaii would be a good spot. Those in transit could just stay on the plane to Honolulu. I'll bet they would love it. Maybe more humid than they are used to but lots of friendly Democrats.; 3/15/17, 10:37 PM
Achilles said...: Chuck said...

This is a free country and you have a Constitutional right to express your viewpoints and opinions.

By the same token, your views wouldn't last a moment, in a United States federal court.

Someone creates their own religion. In this religion believers are free to kill non-believers, women are property, and gay people are to be thrown off of roofs. If you leave this religion they can kill you.

Now show me in the constitution where it says we must accept people from this religion in our country.

You can't.

You can spout all this sanctimonious garbage about this being a free country in order to let a bunch of people in who expressly oppose freedom. It is garbage.; 3/15/17, 10:40 PM
David Begley said...: I read the 43 page decision that was published with hours of the hearing. That Harvard guy is a fast worker! No citation to the federal rules of evidence or the principles of construing a legal document like an EO. He goes on at length that because the six countries are 90% Muslim, it is a de facto Muslim ban and the new EO is essentially a gimmick to fulfill a campaign promise. No explanation of how federal constitutional rights apply to the Syrian mother-in-law of the Hawaiian Iman. Also a discussion about general Muslim discrimination and how they feel bad that this happened to them and their co-religionists.

A complete sham. This guy decided this case well before it was even filed. That's the story.; 3/15/17, 10:41 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: It occurs to me too that the more often Leftist judges can be baited into pulling absurd rulings out of their asses, the more support (and the greater likelihood of the nuclear option) Trump gets from the GOPe for when he nominates hard-line originalists to the Supreme Court. Given the aptitude Trump has shown for trolling the Left, it's not improbable that this is their long game.; 3/15/17, 10:41 PM
Achilles said...: AReasonableMan said...
Obama is currently in Hawaii. Coincidence? I think not.

Is he letting Putin know he will have more flexibility after the election?

Is he making jokes about the 80's wanting their foreign policy back? Remember how funny you idiots thought that joke was? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It is still funny.; 3/15/17, 10:42 PM
bagoh20 said...: It would be great to have various state's politicians bid for the right to import these particular immigrants into their populations. You know, fight over the privilege. Then, give the winners their prizes. That should make everyone more happy with the whole idea, right?; 3/15/17, 10:45 PM
chickelit said...: No explanation of how federal constitutional rights apply to the Syrian mother-in-law of the Hawaiian Iman.

That is a key point worthy of SCOTUS clarification.

I recall a discuss in these pages years ago regarding Utah's pending admission to the US and how the issue of polygamy was dealt with. In effect, citizens of the Utah territory were not granted the same rights and privileges as had they already been part of the Union. Perhaps this was overturned.; 3/15/17, 10:49 PM
Drago said...: Michael K: "Maybe more humid than they are used to but lots of friendly Democrats."

I gotta tell you the Middle East/Persian Gulf can be absolutely sweltering so Hawaii would not be a problem.

Again, except for the Islamists that Unknown will be hosting.

Of course, Unknown will have to wear a hijab and shut the f*** up when the men are around but that's a small price to pay to be able to feel superior.

Not that she will be speaking much as I understand it takes quite awhile to recover from a clitorectomy.; 3/15/17, 10:49 PM
DKWalser said...: Do these judges have any idea what happens when they've finished destroying the credibility of our courts? Like it or not, Trump won promising that he would restrict immigration. A majority will tolerate its will being subverted by the courts if and only if the courts are seen as legitimate. Once the courts' credibility is destroyed, the courts will not be able to restrain the will of the majority.

The question of the the legality of the EO -- in particular the second EO -- is not a close question. It's a slam dunk that Trump has the lawful power to do what he did. The Hawaii court, in issuing the its restraining order, had to determine that Trump was likely to lose on the merits. That's simply not the case. The 9th Circuit, in refusing to correct the obvious error of the Washington court, compounded the error. A few more decisions like this -- where judges obviously rule based on their personal preferences and not based on the law -- and far too many people will view judges as nothing more than politicians in robes. That won't be good for our country or for the courts.; 3/15/17, 10:50 PM
eric said...: When I was a kid, there was a joke....

"What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean."

"A good start."

I never laughed because I never understood it.

Now I do.; 3/15/17, 10:51 PM
Achilles said...: Unknown said...
"This is a free country and you have a Constitutional right to express your viewpoints and opinions.

By the same token, your views wouldn't last a moment, in a United States federal court."

It's a good thing he's no longer serving in the military. His comments would've gotten him drummed out in a hurry. I wonder if he ever served with US Muslim military members, I sure hope not. He a bigot and an extremist.

Talk to the veterans who served over there. The stories are legion. That culture is fundamentally incompatible with freedom.

I think you should move to any country dominated by the religion of Islam. Then you might have an informed opinion. See how they treat women. Children. Minorities. See the slavery that persists to this day. Right now you are just spouting off like an idiot. But that is what idiots do.; 3/15/17, 10:53 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: Lamar Gonna Set You Straight....

Remember back when you White People could read the Constitution and find all kinds of reasons to deny the Black Man his rights -- his very Humanity? Whatever you needed to keep the Black Man down you just happened to find in that Piece of Paper, didn't you...?

Now you all upset that the Judges are still finding shit that don't exist to get the outcome they want: why don't you suck hard on that one for a minute, I'll wait...

The Law will always be used to make SOMEBODY a Nigger: ain't no other reason for it that I ever seen. You're just all mad that now it's YOUR turn to be the Nigger. The Law don't serve you, you serve the Law: how does it feel, being Property...?

I feel your Pain: I really do. And man, does it make my Monster Black Cock hard...

You think you got Problems? Fuck You.

I am Laslo.; 3/15/17, 10:54 PM
Josephbleau said...: Dateline Dec. 8 1941. A Federal Judge in Hawaii has suspended Franklin Roosevelt's and Congresses declaration of War against Japan citing the loss of tourism dollars that the state will suffer when passenger ships are requisitioned for troop transport. The Jude found that there was a high probability that the Federal Government would be adjudicated to be found in violation of 13th amendment rights of our new Japanese overlords.; 3/15/17, 10:55 PM
Josephbleau said...: In the above comment Judge please, not Jude.; 3/15/17, 10:58 PM
David said...: "Does anyone with a brain expect the 9th circuit to overrule it?"

I would not rule it out.; 3/15/17, 11:03 PM
David said...: "Does anyone with a brain expect the 4 left-wing SCOTUS judges to overrule it?"

It does not take 4. Only 1 is needed. I consider it more likely than not that at least one of the liberals will side with the Administration.; 3/15/17, 11:07 PM
jaed said...: If Trump wanted to send, say two million American soldiers, with a carrier escort group and a few wings of aircraft, to Syria, there isn't a judge in America who could stop him.

Are you sure about that? Because I expect that to be the next extension: restraining orders against military deployments, because Trump.

If you doubt me, consider that this moratorium is
a) temporary
b) applicable only to people who aren't citizens or permanent residents
c) squarely within the president's Article II powers
d) something that the president has longstanding, explicit, specific statutory authorization to do

and yet a judge can still stop him from doing it. Is it really a long step from here to preventing a military deployment?; 3/15/17, 11:07 PM
David Begley said...: Yeah, War Powers Act. Congress has never declared war on ISIS. Hawaii federal judge can block that. Same with that Seal raid in Yemen. Civilians might be killed and maybe they have Muslim relatives in the US.; 3/15/17, 11:16 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: One of the things that I found interesting is that standing was found in the previous case because some of the people affected by the order had acquired Constitutional rights in this country through having been admitted legally here. So, the new order specifically excluded those people from the ban, leaving only those who did not have any rights under our Constitution. None. Didn't matter - the judge went with the Iman's desire to bring his mother-in-law into the country as actual harm (and justification for irreparable harm). I think that we can all see how this would have played out in WW II (if the Japanese-Americans had not been in internment camps) - the govt. couldn't refuse admission to relatives of those already here, because of their family ties. Even if they were members of the Imperial military. The judge essentially invented a new right - the right to have your family members come visit here, regardless of their propensity for terrorism (not saying that the MIL is a terrorist, but, rather, that the judge's ruling doesn't distinguish - family is family, and if you want them to visit, then, regardless of national security reasons, the federal govt. cannot deny them admission).; 3/15/17, 11:31 PM
Jupiter said...: Michael K said...
"I think there are probably Muslims that would make useful immigrants."

Compared to what?; 3/15/17, 11:40 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: Trump can always direct his State Dept to just not give out visas or anything. Courts cannot force that to occur.

That would be a temporary victory. Eventually they'd be able to get a judge to issue a Writ of Mandamus.; 3/16/17, 12:03 AM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/16/17, 1:11 AM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/16/17, 1:12 AM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/16/17, 1:14 AM
Etienne said...: Trump doesn't even have an official portrait yet. Millions of federal building have a blank frame. Then he's worried about terrorists.

Here's the deal - millions of people from the African continent are migrating to Europe. They are leaving their homes, and they are climbing ashore in Europe.

They are unarmed.

Does this matter that they are not armed?

No, the mere act of millions of people populating Europe will kill it. Everything they have will be turned to shit, because Africans consume. There is no Africans who produce. There was once in Rhodesia, and South Africa, but those people are dead and gone.

The migrants want to do the same thing to North America.

Here's the deal. We can kill them, or we can solve the problem. The problem is, we need to go into Africa and give the political leadership a choice. We will either kill their tribe, or they will change their methods to those proven to work in developed societies.

It would take $500 to wipe out the political leadership in Syria. Then we should force those migrants to go back home. To top it off, we should require them to create a Monarchy. The only stable countries in Africa and the middle east are Monarchies.

Monarchies work, because a King is a benevolent dictator. A President is the worst thing a country can have.; 3/16/17, 1:16 AM
Oso Negro said...: Etienne, you seem to me to a Moby-class poseur.; 3/16/17, 2:31 AM
Unknown said...: Poor Trumpies can't catch a break.

The first 50 days of Trump's Presidency are pretty close to total failure.

Muslim Ban? Nope.
TrumpCare? Nope.; 3/16/17, 2:54 AM
Unknown said...: From Judge Derrick Watson's ruling:

"The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the ‘veiled psyche’ and ‘secret motives’ of government decision-makers and may not undertake a ‘judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts’.

The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.

For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.’

Nor is there anything ‘secret’ about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order:

Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”

Poor Trumpies. You picked a real "winner" in Trump.; 3/16/17, 3:14 AM
Unknown said...: So-called President Trump yesterday at Nashville 2020 campaign rally (from NYT): 'Mr. Trump even said he might reissue the initial version of the order, rather than the one blocked on Wednesday, which he described as “a watered-down version of the first one.”'

It is obvious to everyone except Trumpies that Trump hasn't a clue about constitutional law. Trump has never governed. Trump spouted whatever nonsense to rile up his campaign crowds and believed as President he could make them all true. Welcome to the real USA which is governed by law.

Good luck Trumpies. Maybe its time to emigrate to a country of your beliefs such as Russia, Turkey, Zimbabwe and a few others.; 3/16/17, 3:18 AM
Unknown said...: Four months after election, Trump riles up supporters with chants of "Lock her up".

From NBC: '"The law and Constitution give the president the power to suspend immigration when he deems - or she, or she. Fortunately, it will not be Hillary," Trump said. Chants of "Lock her up!" reverberated through the auditorium at the mention of Clinton. Trump walked from the podium and surveyed the crowd as they continued to chant — something that became a hallmark of his campaign.'

Trumpies played like a fiddle.

Fortunately, it will be the progressives that will stop Trump from burning down the Republic.; 3/16/17, 5:22 AM
Unknown said...: Michael Bloomberg (2 times NYC Mayor) at the DNC convention:

"Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us. I'm a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one."; 3/16/17, 5:23 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Who carex what Nanny Bloomberg says about anything?; 3/16/17, 5:50 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: "I think you should move to any country dominated by the religion of Islam. Then you might have an informed opinion. See how they treat women. Children. Minorities. See the slavery that persists to this day. Right now you are just spouting off like an idiot. But that is what idiots do"

Wearing a hefty bag would undoubtably improve Inga's appearance.; 3/16/17, 5:53 AM
damikesc said...: Wow. "The only good judge is a dead one."

You won't see a line like that on the comments pages of most other law prof blogs.

I'm taking the rest of the night off.

Partisan little fascists in pretty robes. There is zero benefit in their existence. If that's all it takes to silence you, you will REALLY not like the world when this nonsense continues. THe judiciary has had the benefit of the basic kindness of the populace for years based on a misplaced respect for them as being, basically, neutral.

It is more and more clear that they are not.

So the source of their respectability is gone as well.

That is all their fault.

Sure hope some agency is wiretapping this blog' comments sections. Da Mike in South Carolina.

Don't care. Not targeting one specific judge. Not even saying I will do anything. Just that their existence is not in the best interests of society. Which it is not.

"The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the ‘veiled psyche’ and ‘secret motives’ of government decision-makers and may not undertake a ‘judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts’.

Which is basic factual reality. You don't lose Constitutional powers based on your opinion, fascist.; 3/16/17, 6:01 AM
Jaq said...: File this under the "love wins" penumbra.; 3/16/17, 6:09 AM
james conrad said...: PowerLine's John Hinderacker suggests this is a "coup" by liberal federal judges. I have been thinking for awhile now that the federal bench needs some reforms to discipline judges who step over the line other than impeach, a cumbersome process that is rarely used. How many federal judges have been impeached in the last 100 years? I bet not many.; 3/16/17, 6:11 AM
Rusty said...: Unknown opined,
"Fortunately, it will be the progressives that will stop Trump from burning down the Republic."

And yet is has been the progressives that have been actively working to destroy our constitutional republic and replacing it with a statist democracy. I'm having a difficult time in determining if your simply ignorant or molar grindingly stupid.; 3/16/17, 6:59 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: The Lilliputians are attempting to tie down Gulliver.

Trump cannot lie down, even for a moment.

Tweets in the middle of the night are saying I'm Still Standing, Bastards.

I wish more Judges were into autoerotic asphyxiation.

I am Laslo.; 3/16/17, 7:06 AM
Bob Ellison said...: james conrad, that's an interesting question.

Judges in America are considered morally infallible, except by judges higher up. So censuring them seems impossible-- except by judges higher up.

Maybe the solution could be to encourage the SCOTUS to crap on lower judges more vigorously. That decision was so stupid, you shouldn't even be on the bench. But the SCOTUS probably doesn't have time for that. Maybe if we pack the SCOTUS with a bunch more people (which in this age of 300m+ Americans seems judicious), it could happen.; 3/16/17, 7:09 AM
Kurt Bermuda said...: .
.
.

Rule of law, not judicial preference.

These judges should be impeached.

.
.
.; 3/16/17, 7:12 AM
Chuck said...: Good morning.

Having slept on this issue, and having paused to reflect on the anti-Muslim comments of damikesc and others, I think I have come up with the correct framing. In the form of a question.

Do all of the Trump supporters on this issue understand that the Trump DoJ lawyers will be arguing that this second EO is NOT any sort of "Muslim ban"? They will argue that most Muslims in the world are not touched by the revised EO. They will do everything they possibly can, to assure the court(s) that Trump's statements about Muslims emigrating to the U.S. are NOT actually expressed in his EO.

All of your considered opinions, to the effect that Muslim immigration is harmful to American safety, security and culture, will be disowned by the Trump DoJ in defending the EO. If your blog-opinions were put in the form of affidavits and filed in the District Court, the DoJ lawyers working under Jeff Sessions would be saying (they would HAVE TO SAY), "No, no, no, your honor! That is not our goal, nor our objective, not our motivation! We do not share those views!"

Again, I say; I don't like the Hawaii judge's order. There are some ugly aspects to this opinion and order, on things like standing, and the interpretation of the controlling statutes on immigration, where the President needs power and discretion to do a big and difficult job.

But the big problems now, are mostly problems that were directly generated by Donald Trump's many reckless statements during the campaign, during his transition, and during his presidency. There is a good reason why presidents -- presidents who simultaneously serve as Commander-in-Chief, as the nation's (and world's) leading diplomat, and as the Chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. -- don't go around saying weird, unhinged, unvarnished, unedited, reckless things. This is why.; 3/16/17, 7:24 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: These so-called "judges" go around saying weird, unhinged, unvarnished, unedited, reckless things.

So, I suppose everything is even.; 3/16/17, 7:31 AM
Bob Ellison said...: How about we amend the Constitution so as to give federal judges the power to fire their underlings? The way it works now, the President appoints (and the Senate nods), and the judges just sit there, and impeachment never happens, so that's that.

A good manager would look at the situation and declare accountability must be restored.; 3/16/17, 7:32 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Chuck is actually being the voice of reason here.; 3/16/17, 7:39 AM
iowan2 said...: The Cracker Emcee said...
The Democrats really don't see how this will be used against them when they're in the White House?

3/15/17, 6:50 PMf

My first response, until I think of how I might carry that out, and it all crumbles, because I cant bring myself to act like Democrats; 3/16/17, 7:40 AM
rhhardin said...: Congress can say what matters do not fall before the court, if they want.; 3/16/17, 7:44 AM
David Baker said...: Bottom line: Trump has rolled over, again.; 3/16/17, 7:48 AM
roesch/voltaire said...: This is an example of how the Tweeter-In-Chief's" campaign braggadocio about the Muslim ban has come back to haunt him.He has been "Hoist with one's own petard." The legal question will come down to the actual words of the EO vs the intent of its authors.; 3/16/17, 7:53 AM
Achilles said...: Chuck said...

Do all of the Trump supporters on this issue understand that the Trump DoJ lawyers will be arguing that this second EO is NOT any sort of "Muslim ban"? They will argue that most Muslims in the world are not touched by the revised EO. They will do everything they possibly can, to assure the court(s) that Trump's statements about Muslims emigrating to the U.S. are NOT actually expressed in his EO.

They are doing what they have to do to save this country from people who want to destroy it. People like you.

But the big problems now, are mostly problems that were directly generated by Donald Trump's many reckless statements during the campaign, during his transition, and during his presidency. There is a good reason why presidents -- presidents who simultaneously serve as Commander-in-Chief, as the nation's (and world's) leading diplomat, and as the Chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. -- don't go around saying weird, unhinged, unvarnished, unedited, reckless things. This is why.

I have 4 deployments to mulsim dominated countries. I have seen how they order their society and had muslim troops embedded with us "on our side" explain to us exactly what they think and why they think it. We had one of them tell us that "pocket boys" were accepted by islam. I have so many stories of just how morally deranged their society is and what sharia law means.

It is weird, unhinged, unvarnished, unedited, reckless to speak the truth about what Islam and sharia law are? No. What you are doing is pathetic moral preening. You pretend you are better than everyone else because you ignore the plain truth of what sharia law is and what the majority of muslims do everywhere around the world when they are in control.

The constitution does not give people the right to start and practice a death cult that enslaves women and murders minorities. Super majorities of Palestinians cheered on 9/11 and there were parties in this country as well. We have no moral imperative to allow these people into our country.; 3/16/17, 7:54 AM
Achilles said...: roesch/voltaire said...
This is an example of how the Tweeter-In-Chief's" campaign braggadocio about the Muslim ban has come back to haunt him.He has been "Hoist with one's own petard." The legal question will come down to the actual words of the EO vs the intent of its authors.

I love how the democrat party is defending sharia law and the adherents of a religion that believe it is ok to kill non-believers.

This is surely popular in the ivory tower, but 2018 will show everyone what a strong majority of americans think.; 3/16/17, 7:57 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Let's say that President A and President B both issue an identical executive order.

However, during their presidential campaigns, President A and President B said different things.

Because the campaign statements differed, then so-called "judges" can rule that President A's executive order is legal, but President B's executive order is illegal -- even though both orders are identical?; 3/16/17, 7:59 AM
damikesc said...: Do all of the Trump supporters on this issue understand that the Trump DoJ lawyers will be arguing that this second EO is NOT any sort of "Muslim ban"?

Which it clearly is not.

They will argue that most Muslims in the world are not touched by the revised EO. They will do everything they possibly can, to assure the court(s) that Trump's statements about Muslims emigrating to the U.S. are NOT actually expressed in his EO.

Which is factually accurate.

All of your considered opinions, to the effect that Muslim immigration is harmful to American safety, security and culture, will be disowned by the Trump DoJ in defending the EO. If your blog-opinions were put in the form of affidavits and filed in the District Court, the DoJ lawyers working under Jeff Sessions would be saying (they would HAVE TO SAY), "No, no, no, your honor! That is not our goal, nor our objective, not our motivation! We do not share those views!"

Feel free to find me saying "Ban all Muslims". There are places that seem more risky. Ban them from there until vetting is improved.

But the big problems now, are mostly problems that were directly generated by Donald Trump's many reckless statements during the campaign, during his transition, and during his presidency. There is a good reason why presidents -- presidents who simultaneously serve as Commander-in-Chief, as the nation's (and world's) leading diplomat, and as the Chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. -- don't go around saying weird, unhinged, unvarnished, unedited, reckless things. This is why.

Obama campaigned on BANKRUPTING the coal industry.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

How many of his regulations impacting coal were overturned by judges based on his comments?; 3/16/17, 8:01 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Obama campaigned on BANKRUPTING the coal industry. .... How many of his regulations impacting coal were overturned by judges based on his comments?

Brilliant comment.; 3/16/17, 8:05 AM
Robert Cook said...: "'Based on recent history, the chances of a terror attack originating with a refugee, or a new immigrant from the listed countries is virtually zero.'

"Nobody cares about that stupid argument Chuck. At least not people out here where we have to deal with the consequences of this judges actions."

Oh? So it doesn't matter to you that there is scant chance of a terrorist attack coming from immigrants from the countries on the banned list? Even as this is the basis for the ban, to "protect America"(sic)? So you admit you don't care about reality. And who are these people "out here" who have to "deal with the consequences of the judge's actions?" What are those consequences?

"We want fewer people from terrorist countries. We don't want people here who believe in sharia law. We don't want people who think it is ok to kill infidels and apostates and gay people and adulterers. We don't want more of a culture that believes in holding it's females down on a table and cutting off their clitoris's."

Xenophobia much?

Are these countries "terrorist countries"? What makes them so? Why do you assume people seeking to visit or immigrate from there are terrorists? How do you know they all believe in Sharia law? Why does that matter? If they're just visitors here, it has nothing to do with anything. If they're seeking to immigrate, it is no different than the many other residents and citizens of America who are free to worship as they choose. The first amendment will always block Sharia law from becoming enshrined in U.S. jurisprudence, (even assuming there were ever enough people living here who observe Sharia law that it could ever even be minimally a possibility).

Do you believe there is no choice but the binary "let them all in without restriction" and "block them all without exception?"; 3/16/17, 8:11 AM
Achilles said...: AReasonableMan said...
Chuck is actually being the voice of reason here.

A perfect example of confirmation bias. Ignore all information that is contradictory and find whatever you can scrounge up to support your paradigm.

Chuck agrees with me that trump is bad that makes him reasonable!

You are actually kinda cute.; 3/16/17, 8:13 AM
Robert Cook said...: My comment above (@8:11 AM) does not suggest I necessarily approve of the latest judicial block on Trump's EO. Not because I agree with the EO--heck, I don't even think Presidents should be permitted to use EOs to essentially make de facto law--but because I can't speak to the EO or the block of the EO by the judge specifically. I don't have the legal knowledge to appraise the soundness of the EO or the soundness of the judge's decision blocking it.

I think an unsound, overreaching judicial decision is as dangerous and tyrannical as an unsound, overreaching presidential EO.; 3/16/17, 8:18 AM
grackle said...: Based on recent history, the chances of a terror attack originating with a refugee, or a new immigrant from the listed countries is virtually zero.

Readers, if you want to know the latest MSM/Democrat/eGOP talking points look no further than our Chuck.

Chuck covers himself with the inclusion of “listed countries” in his MSM talking point. Chuck’s very good at parsing his words so as to try to keep his tattered credibility in place.

Here’s the false assumption: Trump’s travel ban’s purpose is to limit refugees from nations whose citizens were involved in terrorism in the USA.

Actually, no, the ban is on countries that are more or less “failed states” and that have no idea of the identity of who they are sending over to America. They cannot “vet” these refugees because they have NO vetting system worth the name. They have no idea where their refugees are actually from. These folks could be terrorists and the host nations would not know it yet they are eagerly sending us these refugees who could be from anywhere in the festering terrorist hellhole we call the “Middle East.”

Why put up with troublesome foreign refugees who no doubt have many terrorists among their ranks when you can offload your problem by sending them to America? Problem solved, with the eager cooperation of all the Chucks across the Leftwing spectrum.

Readers, any nation with a Muslim majority is a human rights hellhole. The more Muslims you have, the more terror, misogyny, homophobia and sharia you are going to get, as Europe is learning the hard way right now. Though at first few in number in Western nations they quickly form “no go” enclaves where even the police are afraid to venture. Islam is a political system, always has been, even though it has from its beginning wrapped itself behind the cloak of religion. I say a “complete” Muslim ban is justified.; 3/16/17, 8:19 AM
bagoh20 said...: According to this judge, Trump can never issue an EO on immigration if it includes Muslims or Mexicans. The campaign rhetoric precludes him forever from that. All those years of legal study to create this genius judge. You just can't educate bias and emotional reasoning out of a man. Rulings during the Trump era will destroy respect for the judiciary, just as the same kind of dishonesty has already destroyed respect for the media. Hatred for Trump is crippling people from doing their jobs honestly. It's no different than a bus driver who suddenly develops blindness. It should be considered a similar disability.; 3/16/17, 8:19 AM
bagoh20 said...: I assume that by the same logic, if Trump were to pardon Hillary or preserve Obamacare it would be considered unconstitutional because of campaign rhetoric he used.; 3/16/17, 8:24 AM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...

Oh? So it doesn't matter to you that there is scant chance of a terrorist attack coming from immigrants from the countries on the banned list? Even as this is the basis for the ban, to "protect America"(sic)? So you admit you don't care about reality. And who are these people "out here" who have to "deal with the consequences of the judge's actions?" What are those consequences?

The consequences of having more people who think it is ok to kill infidels and that women are property? Have fun defending sharia law Robert.

Xenophobia much?

Ignorant much?

Are these countries "terrorist countries"? What makes them so?

Obama said they were. Everyone is pretty much unanimous on that count.

Why do you assume people seeking to visit or immigrate from there are terrorists? How do you know they all believe in Sharia law?

Who cares. Everywhere they go in numbers they make the place worse. Europe, here, Southeast asia. Everywhere they go they take their illiberal beliefs with them and push to have them imposed. Look at what is happening to Europe right now. How many countries have stopped counting the racial statistics of rapists to hide what is happening?

Why does that matter? If they're just visitors here, it has nothing to do with anything. If they're seeking to immigrate, it is no different than the many other residents and citizens of America who are free to worship as they choose.

It is not ok to worship a religion that tells you to go out and kill all the other religions and has giant parties after events like 9/11.

The first amendment will always block Sharia law from becoming enshrined in U.S. jurisprudence, (even assuming there were ever enough people living here who observe Sharia law that it could ever even be minimally a possibility).

So you agree we should limit immigration from these countries.

Do you believe there is no choice but the binary "let them all in without restriction" and "block them all without exception?"

No. I believe that apostates in muslim countries face death and should be allowed to escape. I believe that minorities in muslim countries face death and should be allowed to escape. Particularly Christians and Yazidis although it is probably too late for them in the ME. I believe women face defacto slavery and should be allowed to escape provided they renounce sharia law.; 3/16/17, 8:26 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Terrorists are to Middle-Eastern Immigrants like Transsexuals are to Americans.

Very small percentages.

But transsexuals don't go on killing rampages.

Sure, they sometimes convince you they are a girl, and then they're sucking your cock when you realize "Hey! You're a dude!", but that's small potatoes compared to, say, shooting up a Gay Nightclub.

It would be a far stretch to call that Sexual Terrorism, when basically it's just your cock getting sucked.

But for every Transexual that actually tricks a man into having his cock sucked, there are plenty of transsexuals that would not do such a thing.

Ha,

ALL transsexuals want to suck the cocks of straight men, it is just a matter of whether they act on it.

And whether they support the Transsexuals that DO trick men into having their cocks sucked,

Still, it is better than being blown up.

I think you get my point.

I am Laslo.; 3/16/17, 8:26 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Figures. I put a thought-provoking comment, and Althouse immediately puts up a new post, leaving my comment to languish.

Damn.

I am Laslo.; 3/16/17, 8:29 AM
rhhardin said...: With 600 federal judges, somebody said; what, on the bell curve, would be the IQ of the two dumbest judges.; 3/16/17, 8:29 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Achilles said...
You are actually kinda cute.

I am. Both men and women have commented on this over the years. Unfortunately for you Achilles, I only swing one way, but I am sure that there is someone out there for you too.; 3/16/17, 8:33 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Do you believe there is no choice but the binary "let them all in without restriction" and "block them all without exception?"

Trump's EO certainly doesn't see it as binary. That's why the vast majority of Muslims are not banned by the it. That's clear proof that it's not religiously exclusionary. It excludes anyone from these countries because there is no vetting or control on their other side of the the tunnel.

If you have a gated venue which you are charged with protecting, and some of the gates have nobody checking ID, which gates do you close until you can fix that? All of them, or just the ones with no security?; 3/16/17, 8:34 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Aside from the maxim that lawprofs come from the upper third of the bar, lawyers the middle third, and judges the lower third, judges mostly (in addition to being not all that smart) are old, slow, soft and weak, with no particular powers of offense or defense, and (especially the leftist types) typically unarmed and unschooled in arms. They have no statutory personal protection.

Yet they have power all out of proportion to their abilities or deserts. I seems to go to their heads.

But judges are very rarely assassinated here. This is not a lawless country.

That is because traditionally they have known their place. They are in charge - of what they are in charge of. And nothing else.

Now they want to run the country.

This is not going to work out like they think. They have a very great interest in preserving the rule of law, like fishermen have in preserving the ocean and the stocks of fish.

Judicial trawling will empty the seas of law and poison what remains.

When all they can net is radioactive hagfish they will find little market for it.; 3/16/17, 8:34 AM
Fernandinande said...: According the Roe-Wade government lawyers, people other than "persons born or naturalized in the United States" are not "persons" under the Constitution and don't have constitutional rights at all, not even a right stay alive.

David Begley said...
Hawaii federal judge finds that Trump's campaign statements to be relevant and admissible evidence despite the plain text of the EO. I guess all hearsay is admissible now.

By the same logic, if the gov't lawyer has expressed any opinions on immigration, those opinions render all his decisions on the subject invalid.; 3/16/17, 8:37 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "But for those words (and a few other similar lines), Trump would have an easier time sustaining his EO in front of a federal judge."

-- The things Trump said that aren't in the EO have no place in a decision about the EO. I agree: Trump says stupid things.

We can't make rulings because "Trump may have said something stupid" though. After all, we didn't have judges throw out Bush 1's new taxes because he said to read his lips, so, clearly, he didn't mean to do that. No one threw out the ACA because it was not a tax, because we were told it wasn't a tax.; 3/16/17, 8:37 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Obama said they were. Everyone is pretty much unanimous on that count."

Hahaha! Obama having said they were does not make them so. There are many beliefs that "everyone" has been "pretty much unanimous on" throughout history that have been untrue, resulting only from ignorance.

The rest of your response simply confirms your xenophobia and religious bias.; 3/16/17, 8:38 AM
Fernandinande said...: Bad Lieutenant said...
judges the lower third

They always bring to mind people who were picked on as kids - cuz they were dorky and deserved it - and now they're getting even.; 3/16/17, 8:40 AM
Static Ping said...: Chuck, the problem here is the President clearly has the power he is exercising here, and for that matter his motivations are irrelevant. You keep bringing up how unrestrained Trump is. It does not matter. He could go out today, do a news conference, and say this executive order is a Muslim ban and he hates Muslims. He can do this while having a company of prostitutes urinate on mattresses in the background. It makes no difference. He can still do it. The courts have no say. This is beyond their branch's authority.

The courts, or at least several courts, have decided they have power over national security and foreign diplomacy. This is intolerable. This is the great violation. If it stands, the Constitution and the Republic it created is FINISHED. We will be ruled by the courts, at least until judges start hanging from lampposts.

If you make me choose between a boor like Trump and fascists in robes, I'll go with the boor.; 3/16/17, 8:50 AM
Fernandinande said...: Gov't Lawyer Judge Derrick K. Watson's Criminal Jury Instructions; All his statements are false except the first sentence.

"You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts.

But in determining what happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law I am now defining for you.

You must follow all of my instructions as a whole.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I state to you.

That is, you must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be.

It is your duty to apply the law as I give it to you, regardless of the consequences. "; 3/16/17, 8:50 AM
Night Owl said...: When the leftist position of being advocates for Muslims is held up for comparison to their positions regarding women and gay rights, there seems to be a conflict, which is confusing to many people.

We've seen progressives/leftists vilify Christians merely because some do not embrace gay marriage. But the left appeals to the gods of cultural diversity regarding the fact that the following are currently practiced in varying degrees in Muslim cultures worldwide today-- murder/stoning of gays and adulteresses, honor killings of young women, removing a young girl's clitoris and sewing her vagina shut, child marriages and pederasty. Is this really the sort of "cultural diversity" they want in this country? Of course not.

We all know that these acts against women, gays and children would be condemned by leftists if Christians or Jews or Mormons or any other religious group did them. We are therefore led to conclude that leftists are playing the game of virtue signaling, where they assume the role of "protector" of the newest defined victim group of the "racist-misogynistic-homophobic patriarchy" in America. The irony that many of those in the latest victim group practice racism, misogyny, homophobia and patriarchy, is apparently lost on the left. But it's not lost on many other Americans.

But aside from that, Dems and the left are indeed positioning themselves to take the blame for the next Muslim related terrorist attack that occurs on American soil--and have handed Trump a "get out of jail free" card-- whether it's deserved or not. If they would learn to practice some humility and the art of compromise, maybe they wouldn't always be left holding the bag, and having it blow up in their faces.; 3/16/17, 9:00 AM
Fernandinande said...: The Establishment Clause and Immigration Law

"Two decades ago, immigration scholar Enid F. Trucios-Haynes observed in the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal that applying the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence to long-standing immigration laws “is particularly awkward.”

Under either the Lemon test or the related “endorsement” test, a facially neutral law with a non-secular purpose is constitutionally suspect. A law that prefers religion over non-religion is very likely unconstitutional. A law that overtly prefers certain religious sects over others is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Yet, immigration law routinely does all of the above, and neither Congress nor the courts have expressed even the slightest concern for the Establishment Clause—that is, until President Trump’s executive order."; 3/16/17, 9:03 AM
Chuck said...: grackle said...
...
...
Actually, no, the ban is on countries that are more or less “failed states” and that have no idea of the identity of who they are sending over to America. They cannot “vet” these refugees because they have NO vetting system worth the name. They have no idea where their refugees are actually from. These folks could be terrorists and the host nations would not know it yet they are eagerly sending us these refugees who could be from anywhere in the festering terrorist hellhole we call the “Middle East.”

Okay; so that is the rational argument: "IT IS NOT A MUSLIM BAN AT ALL..." If it were an important and realistic argument (I don't think it is, honestly), it is one that would have been sadly undermined by Donald Trump having made it all about "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims," when he began his campaign.

Again, for about the fourth time, I say that IF there were a genuine non-religious angle to this EO, it has been undermined, and made more difficult to defend, by Trump's own wild and reckless pronouncements.

The point made by Grackle would actually be easier to defend, if Donald Trump had long ago said, "I am truly sorry for my statement about "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims... I regret it, and I wish to retract and disown the statement. We will never use American immigration policy to discriminate on the basis of religion."

But Trump never backs down, he never apologizes, he never retracts; so he has to live with the consequences.; 3/16/17, 9:03 AM
Chuck said...: Static Ping said...
Chuck, the problem here is the President clearly has the power he is exercising here, and for that matter his motivations are irrelevant. You keep bringing up how unrestrained Trump is. It does not matter. He could go out today, do a news conference, and say this executive order is a Muslim ban and he hates Muslims. He can do this while having a company of prostitutes urinate on mattresses in the background. It makes no difference. He can still do it. The courts have no say. This is beyond their branch's authority.

See you in court.

I am not predicting any particular result with the Hawaii or Maryland cases, or others as them my be filed and litigated.

What I am saying is beyond argument; I am saying that whatever anybody thinks about the law or the outcome, Trump made it harder for his DoJ lawyers to defend the EO's with his reckless comments. We all know that I am right about that, because that is how many of the District Courts, including Hawaii, have already ruled. It is just a fact. You can say that the District Judge(s) is/are wrong; but it is a fact that they have ruled, and made the legal path a lot harder, by observing what Trump and his surrogates have said.; 3/16/17, 9:11 AM
Chuck said...: ...or others as they may be filed and litigated...

auto-uncorrect; 3/16/17, 9:13 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: But Trump never backs down, he never apologizes, he never retracts; so he has to live with the consequences.

You just have this fetish for Trump apologizing. It's astounding. Really hard to believe you are a grown man.

It's really not about him, it's about who stands against him.; 3/16/17, 9:13 AM
Anne in Rockwall, TX said...: Bad Lieutenant said...

"You just have this fetish for Trump apologizing. It's astounding. Really hard to believe you are a grown man."

You nailed Chuck perfectly.; 3/16/17, 9:18 AM
Goldenpause said...: Looks like a judicial usurpation of power bordering on an attempted coup d'etat. The problem is that the federal judiciary has become so full of itself that I doubt it still has the discipline to acknowledge the constitutional limits on its authority and role in the conduct of foreign affairs. I am not hopeful that even the Supreme Court will be willing to place limits on the power of the judiciary to conduct foreign affairs when it doesn't like what the president is doing. Humility is not something that federal judges are known for these days, alas.; 3/16/17, 9:18 AM
Chuck said...: Bad Lieutenant said...
...
You just have this fetish for Trump apologizing.

I may have to plead guilty, sir. It seems like a kind of righteous fetish to me. There are many worse fetishes, yes? I don't know much about fetishes.; 3/16/17, 9:19 AM
Michael K said...: It's interesting to have slept in this morning and then scroll through a bunch of comments and see how crazy this whole thing is concerning Muslim immigration.

It is all about Trump.

The facts about what is happening in Europe and the Middle East are irrelevant.

If you hate Trump, let all the Muslims in and ignore the terrorist events that have already happened.

Chuck, Cookie, R/V are all certain that there is no risk.; 3/16/17, 9:19 AM
JAORE said...: Serious question:

I understand the 9th circuit is overturned a LOT. Undoubtedly there are individual judges that have an abysmal record of being overturned.

Is there some threshold, say 80% overturned on appeal, where a judge can be impeached for incompetency?; 3/16/17, 9:21 AM
Static Ping said...: Chuck: See you in court.

If the courts are going to rely on irrelevancies to usurp authority they do not have in blatant partisanship, there will not be courts for very much longer.

You do not grasp the stakes here.; 3/16/17, 9:25 AM
Birkel said...: @ JAORE

No.; 3/16/17, 9:32 AM