Yesterday, JW President Tom Fitton was interviewed by Graham Ledger on “The Daily Ledger” (OAN) about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Trump administration’s travel ban.
Yesterday, JW President Tom Fitton was interviewed by Graham Ledger on “The Daily Ledger” (OAN) about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Trump administration’s travel ban.
16 1436 TRUMP PRESIDENT OF US ET AL V INT’L REFUGEE ASSISTANCE ET AL, 16 1436 Trump v. Int27l Refugee Assistance, extreme vetting executive order, National Security, Supreme Court of the United States, Travel Ban
On Friday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in on the travel ban and to stay lower court rulings.
SCOTUS has asked lower courts to file their responses to TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. INT’L REFUGEE ASSISTANCE, ET AL. no later than 3 p.m. on Monday, June 12, 2017.
SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe (Friday, June 2, 2017)
Arguing that lower courts “openly second-guessed” President Donald Trump’s determination that national security concerns require a freeze on new visas for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen), last night the federal government asked the Supreme Court to step into the legal dispute over the constitutionality of the executive order that the president signed on March 6. The government also asked the court to put on hold two lower-court rulings blocking the implementation of the executive order, telling the justices that those rulings undermine “the President’s constitutional and statutory power to protect” the United States.
Last night’s filings came in two separate challenges to the March 6 order, popularly known as the “travel ban.” One challenge originated in Maryland, where a federal district judge blocked the implementation of the order on March 16; last week the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit largely upheld the Maryland judge’s order. Another challenge came from Hawaii: A district judge there also ruled for the challengers, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral argument in the government’s appeal on May 15, but the appeals court has not yet issued its decision. Yesterday the government urged the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit’s ruling on the merits and to freeze the district court’s order barring the implementation of the travel ban. The government also asked the justices to freeze the Hawaii court’s ruling blocking the travel ban until the 9th Circuit appeal is resolved – and, if necessary, while the government seeks review of that decision in the Supreme Court.
The government characterized the 4th Circuit’s ruling as “remarkable.” The president, it emphasized, has “broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation’s interest.” Moreover, it added, the challengers conceded in the lower courts that the provision of the executive order putting a temporary hold on visas for travelers from the six countries listed in the order “could be constitutional if issued by some other President.” But, the government stressed, the 4th Circuit nonetheless ruled that the travel ban likely violated the Constitution because the president intended to discriminate against Muslims, even if the order does not actually say so. That conclusion simply has no basis in the law, the government argues: The Supreme Court “has never invalidated religion-neutral government action based on speculation about officials’ subjective motivations drawn from campaign-trail statements by a political candidate.”
Contending that the “stakes are indisputably high” and that the lower court’s ruling “creates uncertainty about the President’s authority to meet” national security threats, the government asked the justices to act quickly and announce before their summer recess at the end of June whether they will review the 4th Circuit’s ruling on the merits. That schedule, the government explains, would allow the two sides to file their briefs over the summer, so that the Supreme Court could hear oral argument in the case soon after the court’s new term begins in October.
The government’s request for review of the 4th Circuit’s ruling on the merits requires four votes, but the government needs five votes to prevail on its requests to freeze the orders blocking implementation of the travel ban, so the court’s disposition of those two requests could provide an early glimpse into the justices’ views on the challenges. The court is likely to ask the challengers to weigh in on the government’s efforts to obtain temporary relief; an order asking for their views could come at any time, perhaps even as soon as today.
You can read the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari below or in pdf format here.
Unified Patriots by Bob Montgomery
Well, I don’t know if ‘miscarriage’ is the proper metaphor for this subject, but a lot of people use it when they are miffed at a judicial outcome, so I’ll let it ride. It is about the decision just issued by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in re President Trump’s infamous ‘travel ban’issued shortly after he took office, which barred entry, temporarily, to the US from certain foreign origins.
The original order was enjoined by a lower court judge and an appeals panel, then revised and reissued, stopped again by another judge and re-appealed to this 4th Circuit.
The text of the decision is obtained from CNN and it runs to 205 pages. For our purposes here, only the first dozen are used, because the arguments and decisions and summaries are lengthy and wordy and, if you have been paying attention to this topic all winter and spring, pretty much superfluous to the rhetoric already out there.
The first thing that grabbed my attention in this court decree was the list of appellants and the list of appellees. I thought it passing strange that an entire staff, entire departments and their named heads, were being sued, apparently in an attempt to get them to refuse to carry out an executive order of the President. So I guess besides Trump, the losers in this case are John Kelly, Rex Tillerson and Dan Coats, all prohibited by virtue of being sued pertaining to their “official capacities” as appointed officials from carrying out the President’s order. And that leads me to remark that should the next terrorist attack in the US occur by the hand of an entrant or entrants from one of the named countries, not only Trump, but all three of the other gentlemen and all of their staffs and the entire named departments and agencies are thus absolved of dereliction of duty or violation of oath of office or any other blame for the consequences of such an attack. Is this what lawyers mean when they talk about “precedent”? Heh. Oh, I guess they have to make sure they cover all their bases to insure the free flow of Muslims and stuff, but the Director of National Intelligence? What’s he got to do with it? He doesn’t enforce immigration orders. Oh, well. *(see below)
Then I looked at the list of appellees, or plaintiffs, which contained a lot of people named Mohammed and Achmed, but also very interestingly includes “John Does #1 and 3” and “Jane Doe#2”. Seriously? Litigants are allowed to anonymously appeal to the 4th Circuit and we can’t know who they are? Why are they allowed to maintain their anonymity? For reasons of …..national security? Heh. When we get to the point where John and Jane Doe have standing in federal court to sue for the denial of protective measures designed to keep Americans safe in their own country, we’re on the verge of something and it’s not equal protection under the law.
Next came the listing of those who had filed amicus briefs in support of the appellants and the appellees. The listing for the appellees went on and on and on and would have populated a small city. You have to laugh at some of the organizations,like the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the National Center for Lesbian Rights – what??? But besides the named groups, there is the generic “Civil Rights Organizations” and “Members of Congress” and “Former DHS Officials”- no need to name them; the point, apparently, is any and all are welcome, we’re having this social justice party over here and if you breathe and have a pet cause, we want to hear from you[…]
Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Will Happen With Trump’s Travel Ban And Immigration EO?
Don Surber: One thing I have not done since he entered the race in 2015 is give Donald Trump any advice on what to do. I reserve my bad advice for others politicians. His track record is too good. He has me scratch my head from time to time, but eventually I see his point.
He can either press ahead with the case and make Democrats remain on the side of terrorists, or he can rewrite the executive order (which I gave read and see nothing to rewrite) and close off those seven nations. I thin the former course is the correct course to take because this is a fight worth winning. The cost is minimal. Bad headlines? He thrives off them. I really don’t see a downside.
The 9th circuit over the weekend decided to rehear the case en banc — essentially appeal the case itself. The lawyer blogs I read say this is unusual and means the judges are embarrassed and do not want to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Republicans have long wanted to break up the 9th. There you go.]
JoshuaPundit: Before I get to main course, an aperitif of truth to wash away the foul taste of some common disinformation. First, the implementation of the travel order was not ‘sloppy’ or rushed. Before signing and implementing the EO, the president sent it to the White House Office of Legal Counsel. That office exists for one purpose, to carefully vet any proposed action and advise the president as to its legality and/or any possible legal pitfalls. The president’s executive order was carefully vetted and passed with flying colors before the president signed and released it.
Second, a number of the usual suspects have said with a straight face that no terrorist attacks on Americans have ever originated from natives of the 7 countries in question. That is a deliberate, bald faced lie. And there’s a lot more where that came from. Apparently these creeps think the American people are as stupid as they think we are.
Trump’s only mistake was in thinking that his legal authority was so obvious in this matter and the national security considerations so obvious that it would be implemented forthwith, even if a flood of demonstrations ensued. He didn’t count on the judge shopping and subsequent legal challenge that were so obviously planned in advance.
It’s no accident this went down in Washington State, and that has little to do with any moral implications, all the signs and chants aside.Always follow the money. The People’s Republic of Seattle and environs has a great many corporations that depend on a continued supply of comparatively low wage H1B visa holders for companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks. Heaven forbid they should employ Americans and pay a decent wage! So much for these companies’ egalitarian,’liberal’ principles, hmmm? According to the language of the lawsuit that was filed, “Many of those immigrant workers are from Muslim-majority countries.”
Other institutions mentioned in the lawsuit are universities in the area who claimed that the order”caused immediate harm to Washington’s public universities, which are state agencies.”
When you do some checking, you find that foreign students are a major cash cow for Washington’s universities, because they pay full tuition. Only Washington DC, Massachusetts, New York and Delaware have a higher percentage of foreign students. Hey, who cares if Mahmoud from Iran is actually a spy, or wants to plant a bomb in an airport terminal at Sea-Tac? Gotta make a buck, especially if we can look virtuous and thwart Trump-Hitler while we’re doing it. Another source of income comes from the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to various organizations via the Refugee Resettlement program for resettling ‘refugees’ in unsuspecting communities across the heartland. There have already been a number of crimes and incidents stemming from this practice in parts of the country where this sort of thing used to be virtually unknown.
So a lot of the uproar is simply about money.
Will the Travel Ban and Immigration EO be implemented? Well, eventually, but it will probably take the Supreme Court to do it, the fact that there’s absolutely no legal basis not to. The 9th circuit has been reversed more times than any other district court, so what’s one more?
A lesson I hope The Donald takes from this is that these swine will do anything they can to slow walk and impede whatever he does, no matter what it is or how beneficial and necessary for the country it is.Those are unimportant details for the Left.
Stately McDaniel Manor:
I’ve been amused to watch the media, assorted pundits, and virtually all leftists screaming in hysterical agony over everything President Trump does, or is said–falsely–to have done, or is said–falsely–to be planning to do. I am particularly amused, however, at the talking heads that solemnly intone Mr. Trump’s immigration order, which has been abused by the 9th Circuit, commonly known as the 9th Circus for its propensity to make up the law as it goes along, is “sucking all the air out of the room.” Old Washington hands may be breathless over this single issue, but Mr. Trump–and the American people–are not.
As I’ve recently written, https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/split-the-ninth/ and apparently can’t write often enough, Mr. Trump is actually used to work. He works hard, each and every day, just like working Americans that pay taxes and keep our economy afloat. He works long hours, just like the aforementioned Americans, and he can work on more than one thing at a time. Look in the dictionary under “multitasker,” and one will find a photo of Mr. Trump, and millions upon millions of other competent, non-politician and pundit Americans.
President Trump and those that work for him are more than capable of dealing with the 9th Circus, and of simultaneously handling innumerable other tasks. This is why the federal government employees some 3 million people, so they can handle a great many tasks at once. I know they’re out of practice, and this will take some adjustment after eight years of a President who only occasionally did a bit of work, and that, grudgingly, but it’s the new normal. The new Sheriff has already arrived, shot most of the bad guys, and kissed the pretty saloon owner.
Now, after that little bit of a multitasking example, let’s continue to this week’s topic.
I have, upon occasion, found myself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz. We have agreed on the Trayvon Martin case, the Freddie Gray case, and a variety of other legal issues, and we agree on what Mr. Trump should do with this immigration executive order: simply write a new, leaner and meaner executive order addressing every issue raised by the lunatics of the 9th Circuit. Clean it up, make it absolutely unassailable by any sane jurist. Simultaneously, pursue the other executive order in the courts, or perhaps, just long enough to make it moot.
Various leftist attorney’s general will file suit against the new order, but the ultimate goal will be the Supreme Court, and the proper record must be built for that Court. It is even possible the four progressives might vote to uphold the Constitution in this case–the Constitution and federal law are that clear–though one should never count on that sort of rationality.
We must now expect unrelenting lawfare. Virtually everything Mr. Trump does will be met with lawsuits by progressives. In this case, the Constitution is crystal clear, as is federal law: the President of the United States has exclusive power–government has powers, people have rights–to regulate immigration. He can do what he did: stop immigration from any country dead in its tracks. Foreign nationals have no rights under the Constitution, and under federal law, states have no standing to sue in this matter. Federal courts have no legitimate role.
So the 9th Circuit did what it always does: it ignored the Constitution and the law and made it up.
This is a crisis foreseen by those Americans that voted for Donald Trump. The inevitability that federal courts, packed with progressives rather than honest men and women willing to honor their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution and uphold the law, would ignore their oaths, and blatantly establish rule by federal judge, daring us to do something about it. With a progressive majority on the Supreme Court, eventually, the only means of restoring the Constitution would be violence, and no sane person wants it to come to that.
It’s time for Congress, working with Mr. Trump, to write new laws, carefully and narrowly written laws, that remove–leaving no wiggle room–the ability of the states, private parties, and others to claim standing to sue the President in matters of national security and immigration. To do otherwise is to join Democrats in national suicide.
It’s also time for Attorney General Sessions to drain the swamp that is the Department of Justice. Actually demanding its employees work on the side of America and the rule of law for a change would be novel indeed. Putting in the A-Team, or bringing in outside pros not twisted by progressive ideology, to argue the government’s cases would help too.
What’s that you say? Even if the weasels in Congress do that, the courts will just ignore the law, just as they ignore any law they don’t like now? Perhaps, but we have to start somewhere, and in the meantime, Mr. Trump will be continuing to work, each and every day, on a multitude of important issues. That’s why Democrats are slow-walking his cabinet secretaries. When they’re in office, Mr. Trump will pick up a pace that’s already leaving progressives breathless.
It can’t come soon enough, and it’s about time.
The Glittering Eye :One way or another President Trump’s executive order suspending travel from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa will be upheld. Either the Ninth Circuit en banc will uphold it (30% confidence) or the Supreme Court will uphold it (75% confidence).
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : Perhaps the 9th circuit’s decision will be a lesson learned and cause the Trump Administration not to be so quick to issue executive orders until every detail, legality, and consequence of such order is explored. It looked and was sloppy in its crafting and execution. President Trump should understand how everything he does is going to be scrutinized by the political left and the progressive media. He cannot make amateurish mistakes. President Trump should let this go and issue a new executive order. He also needs to push the Senate for the speedy confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court justice. We need a conservative constitutionalist to replace Justice Scalia in order to advance our conservative agenda.
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.
“They can tell you what they want you to hear and they can keep that up for many, many years…And then, eventually when it’s time, they’ll do what they believe is right…If that is to hurt an American – or hurt many of us at one time – they’re going to do it.”
Former U.S. Marine, Steven Gern returned to the United States last week after a video the private security contractor posted to his Facebook page while in Iraq went viral.
Days after President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), Gern made a short video sharing the discussions he had with Iraqis incensed by the EO.
The video went viral racking up 44 million views after which Gern was informed by his private security contractor that his life was in danger and for his safety, he had to return to America.
Gern discussed the video and the discussion with local Iraqis on Fox News, Sean Hannity Friday night.
Steven Gern’s video, which was posted from Iraq and has been viewed more than 44 million times, came just a few days after President Trump’s executive order triggered massive protests at U.S. airports.
The order temporarily banned travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Gern relayed a short message about conversations he had about the controversial order with Iraqis. He said he asked them what would happen if he, an American, “went out in town.”
“[I asked] would I be welcome? And they instantly said, ‘Absolutely not. You would not be welcome,'” Gern recalled[…]
Below is Gern’s video originally posted to his Facebook page which pretty much vindicates our President.
Cross-posted on Grumpy Opinions.
Grumpy Opinions by Tabitha Korol
Adam Ghahramani, a digital product and marketing director in New York, is an Iranian-American who penned his concerns on VentureBeat, that President Trump will prevent all Muslims from seeking asylum in these United States. He maintains that Iranians have the talent and potential to become successful, productive, good citizens, and he joined mainstream media, sundry entertainers and city officials in expressing his unfounded fears of this new administration.
An asylum of sorts may indeed be needed by the rioters who appear to be in perpetual meltdown. They articulate their doubts even when President Trump clearly iterated that he is following through on his campaign promise of security for all citizens – Christian, Jewish, and Muslim alike. In fact, based on reports by the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) for the previous administration, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia were identified by President Obama as the source of increasing terrorism. This is clearly a terror-prone region, home to only 8% of Muslims worldwide. Since January, 2009, we have had 32 terrorist attacks, with 83 fatalities and 402 injuries in the US, attributed by President Obama to these nine countries.
Iran: The US government classified the Islamic Republic of Iran as the “most active state sponsor of terrorism since 1948, both by direct attacks and by proxy through providing weapons, funds, training, and sanctuary to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and militias in Iraq. The year 2012 showed a marked resurgence of state-sponsored terrorism not seen since the 1990s[…]